Is this the face of a crazy man? If so, then what of the men, both Republican and Democrat, who want to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial?

Ron Paul promotes “crazy” conspiracy theories, according to writers such as Leon H. Wolf on RedState. What frequently goes unasked is, in comparison to what?

Some of Paul’s beliefs are odd, but they’re not nearly as insane or dangerous as the war on drugs or the war on terror. One really can’t say with a straight face anything Ron Paul believes, in concert with his libertarian outlook, would result in the mass incarceration or murder of thousands of innocent people. That distinguishes Paul from his opponents.

In any case, let’s not forget: Conspiracies do happen, sometimes with the participation of thousands of people in government. One of the worst in contemporary history was the Vietnam War, about which the government lied wholesale to the American public for more than two decades (read Daniel Ellsberg’s book Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers or watch the documentary featuring Ellsberg, The Most Dangerous Man in America). And let’s not forget the Tuskegee experiments. Let’s also not forget the racist origins of the drug war or the CIA’s using drugs to fund covert operations, some conspiracies about which Ron Paul was right. And this is a doozy: The US government murdered thousands of people during Prohibition by poisoning alcohol supplies.

Given the breadth and horror of US government conspiracies that have become public knowledge, some additional conspiracy theorizing shouldn’t seem “insane” at all.

I break with Ron Paul in that I am more firmly grounded in rational skepticism, and I require more than folk tales and ambiguous circumstantial evidence interpretable in multiple ways before I accept a proposition, such as a conspiracy theory. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it happened.

But, because it’s possible—because it’s the kind of thing the government is widely acknowledged to have done before—running with it isn’t really “crazy” or, as far as I’m concerned, a disqualifier for public office. Indeed, after the past decade of politicians and their media lapdogs preaching faith in the government, I’d rather a candidate have an abundance of suspicion of the government than a dearth of it. We could’ve used more suspicion when government foreign policy “experts” were telling us Saddam had WMD’s and supported terrorists.

I feel like some Americans haven’t absorbed what’s happened to this country. Our economy has been trashed. Our prisons are full of Americans rotting away even though they’ve done nothing wrong. Our police act like gangs, beating people without cause and stealing property via asset forfeiture. Our Congress is deliberating on whether to censor the Internet and allow the indefinite detainment of American citizens without trial. Our president, Barack Obama, thinks he can start wars by himself and kill American citizens without accountability.

The people who let all this happen and want it to continue? They’re the serious ones. The people, like Ron Paul, who might perhaps be too suspicious of the establishment and want to reverse the assaults on our honor and our liberty? They’re nuts.

Which I find crazy! To me, authoritarianism and murder, and the prejudice and avarice that lead to them, are so completely beyond the limits of moral behavior that nothing else—especially a few off-the-wall conspiracy theories that aren’t so much more outlandish than anything we know the government’s done—can possibly compare.

Maybe Americans have become so used to their country’s brutality it doesn’t even register for them anymore as the ghastly moral crime it is.

See also

The sharp-as-usual Conor Friedersdorf wrote a smart post about Ron Paul and conspiracy theories.

Now let’s get crazy

Think Ron Paul is crazy? Check out his opponents. is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Can the United Nations and the president send American troops to war without asking Congress?

In a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Barack Obama cited UN Security Council authorization to justify war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The Washington Times editorial on the subject adeptly explains why Security Council Resolution 1973 is illegal under the UN’s own charter, which prohibits military intervention in the internal affairs of a state. The purpose of the UN is to help prevent wars between states, not to meddle within states.

Under United States law, the Security Council resolution also constitutes insufficient authorization for military action. Some defenders of Obama’s stance on the resolution cite the 1945 United Nations Participation Act as purportedly allowing the president to wage war based on UN authorization alone. But the Act really prohibits such unilateral military action on the president’s part.

I’ll quote the relevant section of the Act, Section 6:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

The language of the section can be somewhat confusing, so I’ll break it down into more easily digestible parts.

• “The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.” This means the President of the United States can arrange a deal with the Security Council whereby the American military would be “on call” for the Security Council. Any such deal would be subject to congressional approval. (No such deal has ever been negotiated.)
• “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein…” If the US has a deal with the Security Council for American troops to be “on call,” then the president doesn’t need congressional authorization to use military force under the auspices of the UN mission. This is what Obama defenders point to as legal permission for the president to ignore Congress when going to war in Libya. But remember, the US has no “on call” deal with the UN.
• “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.” Outside any congressionally approved “on call” arrangement, the president must seek congressional authorization before waging war on behalf of the UN. As I’ve written, the US has no forces “on call” to the UN, so this final sentence applies to the Libya operation.

Therefore, as per the United Nations Participation Act, Obama’s war in Libya is illegal. This makes three ways in which the war is illegal: Firstly, the Constitution forbids it. Secondly, the UN charter forbids it. And now, thirdly, the Act under discussion forbids it.

I shall add a fourth criterion by which the Libya war is illegal: the 1973 War Powers Resolution. According to the resolution, the president can only wage war under these three scenarios:

1. Declaration of war.
2. Specific statutory authorization.
3. American territory or soldiers are under attack.

Congress has not declared war against Libya. No law otherwise authorizes war against Libya. And Libya did not attack the United States or its military. These conditions forbid Obama’s Libya intervention under the War Powers Act, in addition to the other reasons I’ve described that the war is illegal.

Watch this

In this video from the Cato Institute, Rep. Tom McClintock explains why Obama’s war in Libya violates the Constitution.

Can the UN allow Obama to wage war? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Thousands protested against war in Iraq. Where are they as we bomb Libya?

President Barack Obama has committed the United States to military action against Libya, despite lacking any plan for victory or extrication, any compelling US interest in the area, or any authorization from Congress (as the pesky Constitution demands).

Does the left agitate about what an outrage this is? By and large, with some praiseworthy exceptions, no. Here’s an article from the left-leaning website Crooks and Liars: “Bombing Libya: Airstrikes open a coalition war against a mad dictator“. Replacing “Libya” with “Iraq,” that could’ve been the hed of any 2003 neocon article about the Iraq war.

The politically active left doesn’t care about stopping presidential military adventurism or constraining American empire, after all. These were mere talking points against a Republican president, abandoned as soon as the Democrats took power.

I hate politics.

Libya war demonstrates why I hate politics is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

President Barack Obama, without congressional approval, has announced US military intervention in Libya.

I wrote the following letter to President Barack Obama regarding military action in Libya:

Mr. President, in 2007, you said the president could not legally attack another country without congressional approval. Yet that’s exactly what you’ve pledged to do regarding Libya.

The Constitution clearly says Congress, not the president, can authorize war. Alexander Hamilton supports this interpretation in Federalist 69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Why are you reneging on what you said in 2007, thereby breaking the Constitution you swore to uphold?

Update: Vice President Gene Healy of the Cato Institute speaks in a good podcast on this topic: “Obama Makes War in Libya, Tells Congress Later“.

A letter to the president regarding Libya is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Voters have tired of Republican President George W. Bush for his ignorance of reality in Iraq and abuses of power at home. And Americans have soured on Republican custodians of Congress for lining their pockets with lobbyists’ bribes and concealing the depredations of individual congressmen. Because of these failings of national Republicans, the incumbent Republican Senator for Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, must win re-election this year against the Democratic challenger, former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.

The son of long-time Rhode Island Senator John Chafee, Lincoln Chafee has demonstrated stoutness of heart and independence of vision in the United States Senate. Whereas every other Republican—alongside many Democrats—voted for the war in Iraq, Chafee opposed it. Whereas many GOP lawmakers retreat from environmental protection, Chafee embraces it. In recognition of Chafee’s efforts for the environment, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters have endorsed Chafee in this election. Also, whereas the Religious Right scorns the legality of abortion, Chafee respects the right of women to choose it. Consequently, the National Abortion Rights Action League has endorsed Chafee as well.

Using roll call votes for 2005, National Journal calls Lincoln Chafee the most liberal Republican in the Senate. According to the Journal, Chafee is more liberal than 57 percent of other senators in economic matters, more liberal than 60 percent on social issues, and more liberal than 58 percent on foreign affairs. Overall, Chafee ranks as more liberal than 59.2 percent of his fellow senators.

Linkages of Chafee to Bush from the Whitehouse campaign are patently hyperbolic. While the White House (pun unintended) and the Republican National Committee indeed back Chafee, such is because he is the only Republican with a hope of winning in Rhode Island. In this narrow circumstance, then, necessities of politics and not bonds of affection have brought Chafee and his more right-wing brethren together. And Chafee will owe them nothing in return.

At this point, one could reasonably ask, why not support Whitehouse instead, if Rhode Island wants a senator who won’t follow Bush’s lead? As much a maverick as Chafee might be, after all, his Democratic opponent could distance himself from Bush further still.

The answer is, these troubling times have shown the need for people of valor and conviction in Washington. America requires statesmen who will resist political temptations and say “no” when their own party errs. Senator Lincoln Chafee has shown himself to be such a leader. Nothing indicates Whitehouse would act similarly.

Furthermore, Republican moderates like Chafee would have to rescue their party from the clutches of evangelicals and neoconservatives who have badly led the GOP. In the process, the Republican Party would look more and more like the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower. The resurgence of that grand old party would greatly benefit American politics.

Chafee for Senate is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Also, of course, the President believed a failed horse breeder with no disaster response ability, Michael Brown, a fine selection to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency. New Orleanders know what a swell job Brown did.

The article “Welcome to the Hackocracy” in the October 17, 2005, issue of The New Republic details more instances when, while filling government positions, the right politics mattered more than the right resumes. A suitable motto for the Bush White House would be, “Who needs knowledgeable experts when we have loyal sycophants?”

Bush has not contented himself with cronyism at home. As a headline from the front page of today’s Washington Post reads, “Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq.” This excerpt from the article reveals how the Bush administration decided who would lead Iraq’s reconstruction:

To pass muster with O’Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn’t need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O’Beirne’s staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

What was the attitude of many of the Bush lackeys in Iraq?

“I’m not here for the Iraqis,” one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. “I’m here for George Bush.”

The President’s staffing decisions for the Coalition Provisional Authority crippled it when intelligent rebuilding of Iraq could have dampened or prevented the insurgency. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis might still be alive today if the executive branch had sent professionals rather than ideologues to Iraq.

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush has failed his soldiers. As Head of Government, Bush has failed the American people. As leader of Iraq’s democratization, Bush has failed the masses of Iraq. Never in history has an American president failed on this many levels with such profound consequences. This writer used to think denouncing Bush as the worst president ever was hyperbole. But, now, he’s starting to believe the label is accurate.

In concert with illegal wiretapping, torture of detainees, and interpreting away provisions of laws he’s signed, this shouts the need to impeach and remove Bush from office. His behavior cannot stand before history as proper in a chief executive.

Bush’s cronyism has gone too far is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

So, what can the United States do about the situation? To answer that question, knowledge of Iran’s historical circumstances, as well as of the history of its nuclear program, is essential.

I. Historical Background

To predict how Iran will react to an American or UN stratagem, one must consider the history that will inform Iranian actions. This history is one of both foreign exploitation and increasing clerical power. The 19th century would be a good point at which to begin telling the tale.

Fath ‘Ali Shah, the first sovereign of the Qajar dynasty, ruled from 1797 to 1834. His realm had suffered through decades of warfare, leaving his government’s coffers unable to pay operational costs. Therefore, Fath turned to the British to help fund government activities, which gave the British Empire influence in the country. Meanwhile, after more wars that resulted in the Treaty of Golestat in 1813 and the Treaty of Turkmanchay in 1828, Iran had to cede the Caucuses to Russia. The Turkmanchay treaty also opened Iran to Russian merchants and diplomats. This development sparked nearly a century of diplomatic feuding between Britain and Russia, with the two nations vying for dominance in Iran, that would have dire consequences for Iran in the 20th century.

Even before then, though, Iran slipped more and more under the umbrella of the West, and not to Iran’s benefit. As European influence expanded and transportation systems developed, tying Europe and the Middle East more closely together, Iran’s economy shifted in the process. The economy became more susceptible to “global market fluctuations and… periodic famine.” But the shahs of the Qajar dynasty did nothing to slow the pace of European encroachment. Instead, to raise money, they sold land to wealthy capitalists, hindering customary patterns of land usage and harming the economy even more. To raise more money, Naser al–Din Shah, who ruled from 1848 to 1896, granted “excessive concessions” to foreigners over trade issues in exchange for hard cash. This, he did not spent on his people or his country, but on his court and his luxurious vacations to Europe. The shah’s behavior, in collaboration with foreigners, enraged many Iranians.¹

The Tobacco Riots of 1890 constituted the start of backlash against the shahs. Naser al–Sin had given the British massive concessions on tobacco trading in Iran. Angry protests and a boycott of tobacco forced Naser to rescind the concession. The events of 1890 showed:

1. Iranian merchants could organize and whip up public support.
2. The Iranian people could curtail the power of the shah.
3. The Shi’a clergy, men to whom Iranians traditionally turned for guidance for hundreds of years, who had helped agitate the people against the tobacco concession, were increasing in power.²

With these factors at work, the Tobacco Riots would serve as a preview of future events, including the Islamic Revolution nearly a century later, as well as something much sooner…

Concurrently with Iran’s increasing interaction with the West, newly arisen Iranian intellectual circles interested themselves in democratic procedures. These intellectuals found solace in the 1905 Russian Revolution³ during which popular uprisings convinced Tsar Nicholas II to substitute Russia’s absolutist state with a constitutional monarchy.⁴ After the shah’s government beat some Iranian merchants, the intellectuals united with the merchants and the clergy to stage colossal strikes and protests against the government. Eventually, to appease the Iranian masses, the shah allowed for the writing of a constitution in 1906. (This was the first alignment of all these forces that would prove strong in 1978–1979.)

Foreign intervention would spell the doom of the constitutional government. First, in 1907, the almost century–old squabbles between Britain and Russia culminated in the Anglo–Russian Convention. This Convention carved for the two empires “exclusive spheres of influence in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tibet.” In Iran, as per the treaty, Britain controlled areas “along the Persian Gulf,” and Russia regions “in northern Iran and the Caucuses.” As a result of the agreement, then, both Russia and Britain had large stakes in the internal politics of Iran.⁵

Four years later, in 1911, Iran’s constitutional regime paid an American consultant, William Morgan Schuster, to advise the government regarding finances. Schuster recommended aggressive means to obtain funds from all over Iran. This upset the British and the Russians, from whose spheres the Iranians would also acquire money under Schuster’s plan. Russia demanded the Iranian government fire Schuster; upon said government’s refusal, the Russians deployed soldiers to march on Tehran. Facing this threat, the shah sent Schuster home and terminated the constitutional regime.

Until World War I, the Russians acted as the de facto masters of the Iran outside its official sphere of influence. The Great War, however, forced the withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the country. Unfortunately for Iran, its respite did not last long. The Russians soon came back, along with the British, the Germans, and the Turks, who fought battles amongst themselves in Iranian territory.

In 1917, though, the new Soviet Union ended Russia’s claims in Iran, engendering much Iranian love for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (despite the elites’ dread of Communist ideas spreading to their country). A few years later, in 1921, the British also abandoned their spheres of influence in Iran, after “international pressure.” Britain did not leave Iran without a parting gift: It supported an Iranian military officer, Reza Khan, who in 1920 had been crucial in suppressing a Communist revolt. Reza Khan seized control of the Iranian military and eventually overthrew the last Qajar shah, after which he anointed himself Reza Shah Pahlavi, the first shah of the Pahlavi dynasty.⁶

Reza secularized Iran somewhat through educational and judicial changes. He shifted jurisdiction over many issues from Shi’a religious tribunals to state courts or government agencies. He instituted secular schools. But the new shah was not a liberal dedicated to the welfare of his people. His government censored the media and prohibited unions and political parties. The shah also renewed trade concessions for oil, which would inflame Iranian wrath for decades.⁷

Iran’s shah was not a complete stooge of the West, although he chose an unethical way to show it. In the 1930’s, afraid of the Soviet Union and desperate for more commerce, Reza increased trade and enhanced relations with the Third Reich. When Reza would not renege on his deals with the Nazis, the British and the Russians invaded Iran in 1941 and deposed him. The familiar conquerors elevated Reza’s son to Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Ironically, during World War II, foreign rule increased media freedom, political liberty, and economic prosperity. New political parties and trade unions arose. At the same time, the Shi’a clergy enhanced their strength, with the dissolution of the previous shah’s secularization initiatives. After the war, when the foreign occupiers withdrew, moderate leftists, Iranian nationalists, and some clergymen loosely coalesced into the National Front, under the leadership of Mohammed Mosaddeq. The purpose of the National Front was to limit the shah’s and the clerics’ power (although the latter goal caused tensions in the political alliance). Another objective of the National Front was to achieve Iranian control of Iranian natural resources, ending “foreign exploitation” of them.⁸

Toward that end, after Mosaddeq became prime minister in 1951, he nationalized all of Iran’s oil. Britain, the primary recipient of Iran’s oil largesse, hated Mosaddeq’s action and, ergo, placed trade sanctions on Iran. Subsequently, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and current British Prime Minister Anthony Eden advocated a combined United States–United Kingdom operation to topple Mosaddeq. Nothing quite that grandiose occurred. Despite that, August 1953 saw the end of Mosaddeq’s administration. Mosaddeq’s grip on the state’s helm had been loosening because his social democratic programs had been alienating his clerical supporters. Following the shah’s hasty departure from Iran after a political conflict with Mosaddeq, the Iranian prime minister lost his already tenuous position to a Central Intelligence Agency–sponsored coup. Mohammed Reza resumed his position within a week of his flight.

Thanks to American intervention in Iran—not even to contain the Soviet Union, but to protect business profits—any chance for Iran to become a progressive republic vanished. The resurgent shah, to avoid another Mosaddeq, stifled all further political deviation from his agenda. Israel’s Mossad and the CIA assisted Mohammed Reza in this regard by helping him in 1957 to forge his own Gestapo, the Organization of National Security and Information, also known as Sazman–e Amniyyat va Ettela’at–e Keshvar (SAVAK). This secret police cemented the shah’s ruled for decades, causing Iranians to quake with fright. (As Yoda said, fear leads to anger…)

In 1960–1963, Mohammed Reza introduced the White Revolution. As part of this Revolution, the shah liberalized laws to convey more equality to women and began economic reforms that increased Iranian incomes. These measures angered the Shi’a clergy, whose power the economic reforms eroded and who wanted to continue subjugating women as per Islamic tenets. Soon, ordinary people became discontent as well with the White Revolution, as the economic reforms backfired. Failing farms compelled an Iranian rush to the cities, where Iranians found “high prices, isolation, and poor living conditions.” An ever–decreasing standard of living accompanied rampant inflation. During all this misery, Iranians had no political outlet through which to vent their dissatisfaction. No political freedom existed, with SAVAK arresting and torturing anyone who dissented from the shah’s policies. Only bloody rebellious actions could serve as channels for the people’s rage.⁹

Supporting the shah while this was happening was the United States of America. Ever increasing numbers of American consultants assisted Mohammed Reza with economic planning and military strengthening. With American aid, the Iranian military emerged as the strongest in the region and one of the biggest on Earth. The shah’s reliance on Americans tarnished both him and them in the eyes of the Iranian people.

Finally, in the 1970’s, Iranian intellectuals tired of Mohammed Reza’s tyrannical maladministration. They joined forces with Shi’a clerics loyal to the exiled philosophy professor Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. Khomeini had condemned the White Revolution in 1963, for which government agents stormed Khomeini’s madrasah, “killing several students,” and arrested him. Eventually, the government forced Khomeini into exile. This did not stop Khomeini from constructing doctrines for the maintenance of a Shi’a Muslim state and disseminating them to the Iranian people, thereby fortifying and gaining allegiance.¹⁰

The alliance of intellectuals and clerics fomented a revolution in 1978–1979 that forced the shah to abdicate and allowed Khomeini to return home. Iranians voted for the institution of an Islamic Republic by a large margin. Ayatollah Khomeini (of whom current Ayatollah Khameini is the successor) and his Shi’a clerics and mullahs brutally crafted this Islamic Republic, eliminating whatever Western influence they could along the way. The ayatollah and his cronies have dominated Iran from 1979 until today, exhibiting as much barbarism as the shah ever did. Iran’s democratically–elected president serves as a figurehead. He possesses little authority to thwart the designs of the Shi’a theocrats.¹¹

All this history reveals a Western proclivity for harmful interference in Iranian affairs extending back 200 years. One could defend the intervention in World War II as necessary to constrict German trade and ensure the flow of Lend–Lease materiel to the Soviet Union.¹² Every other intrusion into Iran was an imperialistic endeavor to protect Western business interests. After two centuries of detrimental foreign exploitation, Iranians would have little reason to trust in the good intentions of the United States and Europe. This distrust, in concert with Iranian hostility toward foreign interference in political life and usurpation of natural resources, could make UN attempts to command Iran backfire. Iran could perceive such ultimatums as yet more Western efforts to dominate Iran’s future.

The Shi’a clergy emerges in the history as a force that, after embedding themselves into Iranian culture for centuries, have exercised rising societal influence over the past century, until they took over the country outright in 1979. Shi’a clerics have entrenched themselves in the local ways and traditions. These clerics will not disappear as a concern anytime soon. Domestic rulers in ivory towers could not rid themselves of Shi’a clergy as a potent social influence; foreign soldiers definitely will not be able to accomplish that.

With cognizance of the broad historical context of Iran, description and analysis of the current nuclear crisis with Iran is now proper.

In August 2002, an Iranian dissident movement accused the theocratic government of operating in the city of Natanz a uranium enrichment facility and in the city of Arak a heavy water plant. In December 2002, while on its weapons of mass destruction allegations binge, the United States proclaimed Iran’s guilt of “across–the–board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.” Unlike with Iraq, American declarations about Iran turned out to be at least partially true. The IaeA examined Arak and Natanz in February 2003, and it declared a few months later Iran had broken the Non–Proliferation Treaty.¹³

Iran promised the European Union Three—Germany, France, and Britain, who had taken the lead in diplomacy with Iran—in October 2003 it would cease all research into the enrichment of uranium, an essential procedure in constructing both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. That December, Iran pledged it would cooperate with surprise inspections of its nuclear installations. Iran did not keep that oath, though, as the IaeA chastised Iran in June 2004 for insufficient cooperation. To strike back, Iran announced it would start researching and making centrifuges, vital to uranium enrichment, again. But Iran reversed course several months later, in November 2004, assuring the Europeans it would halt “all nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing work.” Iranian President Mohammed Khatami seemed to negate this the next year, in February 2005, when he said no Iranian government would surrender Iran’s right to nuclear technology.¹⁴

The frothing hard–liner Ahmadinejad replaced the moderate Khatami in the middle of 2005.¹⁵ With Ahmadinejad as its spokesman, Iran dropped all pretense of cooperating with the Europeans. On September 15, 2005, Ahmadinejad told the world his country would spread nuclear technology throughout the Muslim world. Nearly four months later, on January 1, 2006, Iran revealed it had discovered how to extract uranium from ore. Ten days later, on January 10, Iran restarted its research on nuclear fuel. This finally compelled the Europeans to give up their efforts to negotiate. They recommended the United Nations Security Council take up the matter.

On January 13, Iran threatened to toss the IaeA out of the country if the Security Council itself involved itself in the situation. Regardless, in a rare occurrence of agreement between the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China, and Russia, all six nations wanted the Security Council to take action.¹⁶ This produced a Security Council resolution on March 29 demanded Iran totally cooperate with the IaeA within 30 days. The Security Council’s declaration was not “legally binding,” however, because Russia and China were reluctant to impose sanctions or start war in the event of Iranian noncompliance.¹⁷

Afterward, on April 11, Ahmadinejad said Iran had learned how to enrich the uranium after they had extracted it. The Iranian Atomic Energy Organization announced the Natanz facility had accomplished the feat. Because of this, on April 28, the IaeA declared Iran in defiance of the March 29 Security Council requests.¹⁸ That is where the nuclear confrontation with Iran stands now.

II. Problem Statement

Iran, a barbaric theocracy whose president has wished for Israel’s destruction and indicated he would disseminate nuclear technology, has been researching such technology. The Iranian government claims it only wants peaceful nuclear energy. (Plenty of oil sits beneath Iran, and lots of desert that could accommodate solar collectors lies across the country. One could wonder why Iran would need nuclear technology for energy production.) The United States and its diplomatic partners worry Iran desires nuclear weapons for its own use and to give to terrorists. Hence, the United States wants Iran to end its nuclear program.

III. A: Policy Options—Diplomatic (Political)

The United States has been seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis with Iran for the past several years. Washington, D.C., has not negotiated directly with Tehran, with which Washington has no diplomatic relations. Instead, the administration of American President George W. Bush stepped back to let Britain, France, and Germany attempt to convince Iran to terminate its nuclear program. This constitutes an exception to normal American foreign policy; the US government, especially under Bush, has preferred to address what it perceives to be security threats by itself or as a leader of an alliance. Relying completely on other countries in this instance means the US government is not in ultimate control of what happens. If the president says jump, the leader of another country will not necessarily say, how high. Still, with the American commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government might not have wanted to stretch itself further by tackling the Iranian problem.

The Europeans did not accomplish their objective. Iran continued its nuclear research while not taking its negotiations with Europe seriously. Iran was always ready to go with another nuclear transgression for any imagined slight. Eventually, the Europeans conceded defeat, so the Security Council has now taken charge of the issue.

The Security Council has not had any more success than the Europeans did alone so far, though. It has only managed a toothless resolution on March 29 that Iran ignored altogether. Furthermore, nearly a month after the Security Council issued its commands, Iranian President Ahmadinejad speechified regarding the Security Council: “The Iranian nation won’t give a damn about such useless resolutions… Today, they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country.”¹⁹ UN diplomacy does not appear to be a winning strategy.

The US could engage with Iran directly, but that would necessitate recognizing Iran’s government and opening diplomatic relations with it. Washington would be averse to doing that, especially with Ahmadinejad occupying the Iranian presidency. Besides which, Iran already knows the might of the United States forms the backbone of every diplomatic maneuver so far, yet Iran does not seem to care. For the US to open direct negotiations with Iran would, therefore, not help. All it would do is give Iran the status of being a nation the US has deemed fit for recognition, in exchange for nothing, which would bolster Iran and humiliate the United States.

III. B: Policy Options—Economic

In an effort to fabricate a compromise whereby Iran could have nuclear energy but the rest of the world could feel safe Iran was not gaining dangerous nuclear know–how, Russia offered to enrich uranium for Iran on Russia’s own soil and then ship the uranium back to Iran. Nothing has come of this Russian initiative, though.²⁰ Iran has apparently decided it wants to enrich uranium itself.

If Iran does not start cooperating with the United Nations, the Security Council could meet again and insist Iran alter course for “international peace and security.” Iranian noncompliance with such a resolution would permit the Security Council to enact economic sanctions against Iran. China and Russia, however, have been squeamish about such a move.²¹ Also, implementing broad economic sanctions against Iran would constrict or prevent the flow of oil out of that country. As the world grapples with high oil prices, across–the–board sanctions could damage everyone’s economy even as Iran hurts. The situation could be like Thomas Jefferson’s embargo of Britain and France all over again.

Perhaps sanctions could leave alone oil trade with Iran; that would have a better chance of sticking. Because oil is already the lifeblood of Iran’s economy, and because oil would become more important with trade in everything else forbidden, Iran could not afford to cut off oil supplies or fiddle with prices too much. So the rest of the world would not hurt for oil, although Iran would still suffer the pain of sanctions. If Iran continues its intransigence, Russia and China might support limited sanctions, as they would not threaten oil supplies, although a lot of skilled diplomacy would be necessary.

III. C: Policy Options—Military

In the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh unveils to the American people secret plans the US government has for war with Iran. The end objective of the war would be the overthrow of the theocracy. To achieve this, the US military would bomb Iran extensively, which planners hope would embarrass the Iranian government, thereby inspiring the Iranian citizenry to revolt and depose the mullahs. Concurrently, the American military would drop bunker–buster tactical nukes on Iranian nuclear facilities, such as the one at Natanz.²²

That is one of the most idiotic plans in the history of military strategy. The American dream of happy Iraqis valiantly rising against their oppressors and eagerly embracing regime change Washington would like turned out to be fantasy. No reason exists to believe the same American dream would come true in Iran. Two hundred years of Western imperialism in Iran has ensured Iranian revulsion of foreign influence. Most Iranians would stick by their own people rather than act as foreigners attacking their home want. The Shi’a clergy, who have centuries–old traditional claims to Iranian hearts, and not bomb–happy Americans, would find the most supporters in Iran. Because of this, not even Iranian opposition groups want American intervention, believing it would damage their cause.²³

Plus, targeted American strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure could likely fail. The Iranians have had the Israeli destruction of Iraq’s French–supplied nuclear reactor at Osirak, as well as hundreds of American and British sorties across Iraq in the 1990’s, from which to learn. They protected against bombing runs by constructing some of their nuclear installations underground. In addition, the US government does not know the locations of a few of Iran’s important nuclear assets. A bombing campaign could miss them.²⁴

After the United States gained nothing from starting a war, Iran could inflict grievous costs in retaliation. The Shi’a Iranians, through shared faith with Shi’a Iraqis, command enormous influence with them. Many more Shi’a Iraqis than who are insurgents now could become such at the urging of their Shi’a brethren in Iran. Iranian troops could start attacking American soldiers in Iraq. Iran could even capture parts of Iraq. One Pentagon affiliate has said, “The Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” Hezbollah could come out of hibernation as well, attacking Israel and American interests in the Middle East.²⁵ And, deciding it has nothing to lose, Iran could use its oil as an economic weapon to harm Western economies.

Sometimes, the benefits of military action can outweigh horrendous consequences. World War II stands as the most powerful demonstration of that truth. Attacking Iran as the military plans in Hersh’s article suggest would not, however, yield sufficient gains to offset the damage to American interests and operations or to justify the enormous loss of life in Iran, Iraq, and Israel (if not more countries).

IV. Policy Recommendation

I have not seen any policy or strategy under consideration of which I approve, so I will devise my own.

The United States and Europe should continue pursuing diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue. I do not think Iran would capitulate to such an approach, though. Iranians, with reason, loathe foreign attempts to influence their politics and control their resources. As a result, I do not believe Iran will voluntarily strike a deal with anyone to limit or eliminate a national program it sees as its right. Meddlesome foreigners can go to hell.

Before I outline my proposal, I must state, I do not believe Iran will use nuclear weapons offensively if it learns how to make them. Any obvious first use of nuclear weapons on Iran’s part would invite nuclear retaliation from Israel and the United States, and possibly from France and Britain. Passing nuclear weapons off to terrorists would not be a viable option for Iran, either, because nuclear forensics could trace a bomb’s fissile material back to its source.²⁶ One might say the so–called “Mad Mullahs” are just that—mad—but Iran’s lack of military aggressiveness over the past 20 years, with trigger–happy Americans and Israelis nearby, argues against that. Iran’s theocrats are evil but not demonstrably insane or suicidal. They would place their own collective survival above global Islamist revolution. If nothing else, a dead revolutionary movement cannot advance its cause.

With Iran’s rationality in mind, I propose what I call neo–containment. In the neo–containment framework, if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the United Nations would place limited sanctions, as I described above, on Iran. Food, water, and medicine for the Iranian people, in addition to oil, would be the only exemptions to the sanctions. Limited sanctions would prevent mass starvation and famine while squeezing the Iranian economy. Militarily, the United States would officially point nuclear missiles at Iran and promise it will suffer the missiles’ fury if it does use nuclear weapons on anyone. If Iran does not want to struggle under sanctions and squirm under nuclear threat, Iran could dismantle its nuclear weapons and relinquish the capability to create more. If that does not happen, then Iran’s economic and technological capabilities can wilt under sanctions, and its psyche can suffer from knowing the world’s sole remaining superpower, with an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons, might use those weapons on Iran, annihilating it. Iran could never build enough nuclear weapons to combat that threat. From these economic and military coercive devices, frustration and fear could build in the Iranian population, undermining cultural health and thereby national cohesion.

To try to ensure the resulting anger flows to the Iranian government and not the United States, the American government should utilize soft power resources. Washington should emphasize its foe is the theocracy of Iran, not its people. The US should publicly appear not to be interfering with Iran internally, but to be sitting back after promising to recognize Iran officially and extend economic and technological assistance to Iran if the Iranians overthrow their government. Covertly, Americans should spread through Muslim networks messages about the benefits of disarmament and democracy and the evils of nuclear–intent mullahs. When Iranians receive these messages, they should see them as coming from Muslim brothers, not American imperialists. To complement this tactic, Iranian expatriates who know the positives of republican government and the negatives of Shi’a theocracy could tell their stories to the world. This could all inspire hope and desire within Iranians for something better than lives of terror under a repressive theocracy.

Containment worked against the Soviet Union. It took 40 years to do its job, but the United States avoided a devastating war that would have left the world a worse place than it is now. I believe the similar strategy I described above would handle Iran just as adeptly. Indeed, neo–containment could perform even better. Iran could never threaten the United States with nuclear extinction, so Americans would not have to live with the dread of that again. Since Iran would be incapable of wiping out either the American people or their nuclear capability, no matter what, the Iranian government would be insane to employ nuclear weapons in anything other than clear self–defense. So Americans need not fear even the loss of a city. The risk of such an attack would not be zero, because Iran’s government could theoretically defy rationality. But the danger would be minimal, and it would not be anything we do not already face from China, Pakistan, or Russia.

Neo–containment would thus be the least perilous idea, while promising the most impressive results. The strategy would not guarantee complete success: American soft power might not overcome the tinge of “American imperialist dog.” Cold War victories argue the US would have a good chance of accomplishing its goals, though.

¹ Encyclopædia Britannica, “Iran.” Available http://www.search.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/eb/article–9106324.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Encyclopædia Britannica, “Russian Revolution of 1905.” Available http://www.search.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/eb/article–9064487.

⁵ Britannica, “Iran.”

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ WashingtonPost.Com, “Timeline: Iran’s Nuclear Development.” Available http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp–dyn/content/custom/2006/01/17/CU2006011701017.html.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Encyclopædia Britannica, “Iran: Year in Review 2006.” Available http://www.search.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/eb/article–9403324.

¹⁶ WashingtonPost.Com.

¹⁷ Paul Kerr, “UN Urges Halt to Nuclear Enrichment,” Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today. Available http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_04/uniranurges.asp.

¹⁸ WashingtonPost.Com.

¹⁹ CNN.com, “IAEA: Iran Defies U.N. Demands.” Available http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/28/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html.

²⁰ Kerr.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Seymour Hersh, “The Iran Plans,” The New Yorker. Available http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact.

²³ Jill Jermano, lectures at The George Washington University, 17 April 2006.

²⁴ Hersh.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Barry L. Rothberg, “Averting Armageddon: Preventing Nuclear Terrorism in the United States.” Available http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djcil/articles/djcil8p79.htm#H2N18. Gabriele Rennie, “Tracing the Steps in Nuclear Material Trafficking,” Science and Technology. Available http://www.llnl.gov/str/March05/Hutcheon.html.

Neo-Containment for a Nuclear Iran is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

What set the Vulcans apart from previous generations of foreign policy gurus, such as the “Wise Men” who devised containment and the “Best and Brightest” who stumbled through the 1960’s, was their emphasis on American military power.  That the generations of foreign policy officials should differ in this regard makes sense, considering their respective backgrounds.  The Wise Men were businessmen, bankers, and lawyers; naturally, to prosecute foreign policy, they would rely on economics and institutions, the tools of business and legal professionals.  Later, the Best and Brightest, who hailed from Ivy League academia, would, through a combination of elitist disrespect for the military and lack of real-world experience, bollocks up the Bay of Pigs invasion and the defense of South Vietnam.  Finally, in the latter stages of the Cold War, the Vulcans experienced foreign policy through the prism of the Defense Department.  At one time or another, Rumsfeld and Cheney served as defense secretaries; Wolfowitz was an undersecretary of defense; Rice worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Powell chaired the JCS; and Armitage worked as an assistant defense secretary.  Also, Powell and Armitage had even served as military officers.  Of course, Powell still was one, as the JCS Chairman.  That the Vulcans would perceive military power as what ought to be the primary tool of American foreign policy should be little surprise, then.  The military was what these people knew.

As advocates of solving America’s problems through military might, some of the people who would later become identified with neoconservatism, early in their careers, opposed détente with the Soviet Union.  They did not share foreign policy virtuoso Henry Kissinger’s belief American power was on the wane, so the United States should seek accommodation with the Soviet Union.  Firstly, the budding neoconservatives did not trust the Soviet Union to honor the terms and spirit of détente.  Secondly, the future Vulcans did not believe American power was ebbing.  They thought the United States was the most powerful country in the world, and as such, need not reach accommodations with anyone else.  To counter the Soviets, the Vulcans advocated buttressing America’s dominant international position with a military buildup, restoring and surpassing the might and prestige the American military had before Vietnam.

For this goal, the Vulcans struggled against Kissinger in the administrations of President Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, slowly eroding Kissinger’s influence as the years passed.  The election of Democratic President Jimmy Carter placed this battle between Republican moderates and hawks into stasis, but the subsequent Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan saw victory for the anti-détente forces.  Kissinger and his policies of accommodation were out.  The future Vulcans, including neoconservatives who had been Democrats but defected to the Republicans because they considered Carter weak on Communism, were in.

The 1980’s saw the neoconservative ideas put into practice:  Reagan massively increased the American military budget.  At first, the Reagan administration displayed no interest in reaching deals with the Soviets.  Indeed, Reagan dismissed the USSR as an “Evil Empire.”  Reagan might have seemed to betray the neoconservatives when he negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, but Reagan did not soften his rhetoric about the Soviet Union.  In addition, Reagan did not proceed from an assumption the United States was weakening and so needed to reach an accord with the Soviets.  Instead, Reagan dealt with Gorbachev from a position of strength, given to him by a preeminent American military.  One could say Reagan followed neoconservatism to a natural end by seeking a just peace with the Soviet Union on American terms, an endeavor partially enabled by America’s colossal military strength.

After the Cold War, the United States found itself the one superpower in the world.  The Vulcans wanted to ensure the permanency of America’s supreme worldwide influence.  They believed the United States should not downsize its military, in order to cash in on a post-Cold War “peace dividend,” but enhance its military strength and expand its military capabilities so much, no other group of nations could hope to match the American military.  Any such enterprise would not be affordable or feasible for foreign nations or alliances.  With its unchallengeable military domination, the United States would always be able to ensure its ideas held sway in the international realm.  And it would not have to cooperate or compromise with anyone.  The United States could unilaterally prosecute its foreign policy objectives.  This neoconservative strategy for Pax America evoked condemnation from the American left when it became public, but the Democratic administration of President William J. Clinton did not substantially deviate from the course the neoconservatives had set for the post-Cold War United States.

With the current Republican administration of President George W. Bush, the Vulcans are back in power (excepting Powell and Armitage, who left office after Bush’s first term).  In the War on Terror, the neoconservatives have profoundly impacted American foreign policy, using the war as a test bed for their Pax Americana stratagem of using the military to solve the nation’s foreign policy difficulties, without recognizing constraints other international actors have sought to place on us.  The United States has refused to negotiate with governments it views as enemies in the War on Terror.  Americans have just issued demands, such as surrender Osama bin Laden or cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors, after which the American military attacked countries that did not comply.  In the process, the United States has eschewed the military aid of its allies, such as NATO.  The United States went so far as to shrug off international opposition to the war in Iraq.

I believe The Rise of the Vulcans superbly explains how the Vulcans wedded themselves to neoconservatism.  Readers get to know much about the Vulcans whom James Mann describes, as well as the neoconservative philosophy of foreign policy.  This allows readers to understand better why the Bush foreign policy advisers behave as they do.  Thankfully, Mann’s swift and cogent prose makes achieving this understanding easy and fun.  If Mann were a historian or political scientist, excess verbiage and ponderous explanation likely would have made reading The Rise of the Vulcans a chore.  But Mann’s writing benefits from his experience as a journalist, I think, which would have taught Mann to craft his writing for maximum readability.

The neoconservative ideology Mann describes scares me, to be honest.  While I agree with the neoconservative strategy against the determined foe that was the Soviet Union, I oppose their vision for a post-Cold War Pax Americana, a.k.a. an American Empire.  To any who would object to that characterize, I ask, how else could one label a country that uses its military to achieve foreign policy results, while concurrently aiming for supremacy over the international system and striving to ignore the preferences of other countries?  That is not the United States of which the Founding Fathers conceived in 1776 and 1789.

Do not misunderstand me: Even today, I support a powerful military.  I am not a dove; I even thought the idea, at least, of invading Iraq and toppling the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was appropriate.  But I must oppose as “imperial” efforts to use the military to impose Pax Americana on the world and to act without consideration of our allies or the international institutions we helped forge after World War II.

Bibliography

Mann, James.  The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet.  New York: Penguin Books, 2004.

The Rise of the Vulcans Paper is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Oh, what a difference a few weeks have made! Now, I say, impeach and remove this dangerous man. Bush’s profane abuses of his office cannot stand before history as acceptable behavior in a president.

Why have I resolved thusly?

Bush approved of a torture technique, waterboarding, used by Spanish inquisitors and punished as a war crime after World War II.

First, indications have accumulated Bush indeed condones torture of detainees, despite his pleas to the contrary. The military has used doctors to exploit detainees’ weaknesses and monitor their health during harsh interrogations, which participants have said leave the subjects injured or, sometimes, dead. A doctor who investigated the abuse reports:

The range of interrogation techniques, or abuse techniques, is pretty much the whole array of usual stuff that happens in countries that torture. It includes beatings, suspension, near-asphyxia, chemical burns—there were instances of burns with lighter fluid—kicks, slamming against the wall. There was at least one thumbscrew I saw. Electrical shocks with, in our case, external electrodes. I did not see any internal electrodes. There were instances of asphyxiation, food and water deprivation, deprivation of access to toilets, deprivation of access to medical care, forcing people to urinate on themselves, forcing people to masturbate, to renounce their religion, to put the urine or feces of other people on themselves, other forms of nudity, forced fondling, verbal abuse, threats against family, mock executions, forcing the victims to watch other family members being abused. They also used what’s called “perceptual monopolization,” which included… loud noise… (Emphases mine. Source: “The American Way of Torture“).

Besides which, the Bush administration has confessed to allowing waterboarding, a technique that entails submerging detainees underwater so they believe they’re drowning. This, as well as the tactics described above, is torture.

Even under the most Machiavellian considerations, interrogators shouldn’t torture captives in their charge. People will tell their tormentors anything, true or not, to make the horrors stop. This floods intelligence services with bad information. (I wonder if that helped the Bush administration conceive a bogus vision of Iraq’s WMD program.) So, practically speaking, condoning torture is stupid policy.

In addition, of course, torture violates the most cherished ideals of the American people. Our country stands to shine benevolent hope into the world, not darken it with the same barbaric cruelty our enemies do. For Bush to lower his administration to the level of thugs and terrorists destroys his moral authority to lead not only our good nation, but the free world. In so doing, he damages the Presidency of the United States.

That alone would warrant Bush’s impeachment. As Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist 65:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

A president need not commit a legal crime for impeachment to commence. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” instead, encompasses violation of trust and harm to society that can fall outside the strict boundaries of law. (If “high crimes and misdemeanors” meant literal crimes, a president would be impeachable for jaywalking. That’s absurd.) Under this criterion from the Federalist Papers, Bush’s abuse of power in authorizing systemic torture qualifies as an impeachable offense.

President George W. Bush and his political adviser, Karl Rove, swagger along.

Still, many people might not see brutal treatment of foreign alleged terrorists outside American borders as important. It’s not happening in the United States, as far as they know, so it?s a foreign policy problem remote from their concern. But, sadly for us, that’s not the extent of Bush’s transgressions.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects American citizens from government searching and snooping without a warrant. When Bush ascended to the Oval Office, he swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And yet he has flouted that very document. Showing his isolation from reality, Bush has matter-of-factly—as if he can’t understand why anyone would be upset—admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens on multiple occasions. No courts issued warrants for these invasions of Americans’ privacy. They transpired at the sole behest of the executive.

So not only has Bush adopted the tactics of an authoritarian regime abroad, but he’s also done it at home, trampling the Bill of Rights with his cowboy boots. Bush loves to pontificate about freedom, warning us of the danger terrorists pose to it. If terrorists are the enemies of freedom, as Bush maintains they are, then he has become their collaborator.

To borrow from the president’s father, President George H. W. Bush, “This will not stand.”

If Americans value their rights and liberties, then they cannot allow a man who defies the Constitution to remain in office. Such would encourage not only Bush, but future commanders-in-chief, to encroach further on American freedoms. To the Congress of the United States, I say, impeach Bush now. And then kick him out of the West Wing.

Impeach Bush now is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Really, how many people did the Michael Jackson trial affect? (I don’t mean, how many haters and fans had feelings about the issue, but how many lives were truly impacted by the trial?) What makes the sad case of Natalee Holloway in Aruba more significant than most of the other instances of missing children each year? Did a comatose woman in Florida merit substantially more attention than everything else happening in the country? Going even farther back, was the O.J. Simpson murder case much more compelling than the other crimes people had committed? Etc., etc.

Certainly, many of these kind of stories are interesting. Some attention to them from the media is due. But, in the coverage of news outlets who purport to tell us about the world, should these stories crowd out everything else?

No.

As someone who is studying journalism, I understand the media’s tendency to focus on these sensationalist topics. They are easy; all journalists have to do is talk to a few cops, lawyers, or celebrities, camp out in front of a courthouse or stay in a hotel, and then they have a story. They don’t have to dig through evasive, hostile, or obscure sources, and they don’t have to risk making anyone angry. Also, news organizations know their audiences will eagerly consume this fluff. It provides viewers or readers doses of excitement without challenging their preconceptions and worldviews much. Not even the Terri Schiavo affair did that, being as it was about a matter that was abstract for most people.

So, this whole cycle enables journalists to relax with unchallenging assignments, while still raking in the money. And it allows consumers to go through life without serious introspection of themselves and their societies.

But this process obscures issues that, even though they are difficult to cover and contemplate, still affect the lives and well-being of many Americans, if not all of them.

I’m talking about subjects such as these:

• Government corruption. I don’t mean just malfeasance, but abuses of power that might be “legal” but still assault the principles our nation holds dear.
• Domestic ramifications of the War on Terror. In the news, the War on Terror appears as mainly a struggle in foreign lands. We know this War on Terror impacts life at home, too, and we need to understand more about it. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not comfortable being ignorant of these things. If the intransigence of the Bush administration prevents the media from covering this more thoroughly, then the media should make an issue of that.
• The histories and motivations of people around the world. As the events of September 11, 2001, showed us, Americans hardly live alone on this Earth. What other countries and societies do can affect us profoundly. Comprehending their thoughts and beliefs is, therefore, important.
• Related to the point above, but American news outlets should tell us more in general about what’s happening about the world. For example, the savagery of the Sudanese government in Darfur and the massacre of protesters in Uzbekistan should receive more attention in the American media. No country is an island, to borrow from an old proverb, and the tragedies of one region can eventually impact us. Besides which… The country from one of those examples, Uzbekistan, is an ally of the United States in our War on Terror! If our partners conduct state-sanctioned murder and other human rights violations, the American people should know that, and be able to pressure their government accordingly.
• The environment. The health of our planet impacts everyone. It merits more than the token quoting of a scientist source every once in a while. How are Americans to know what to do about the environment if the media doesn’t investigate and illuminate the issue?
• Crime and punishment. I don’t refer to telling us Mrs. Wutherford was mugged last night. Already, local newscasters and newspapers focus too much on criminal incidents. But what no media on any level examines is, how effective is our justice system in punishing felons? Do our cops and prisons serve as effective deterrents? Does capital punishment do anything to prevent heinous murders?

This is but a small sampling of the things on which the national media should focus. Will the media ever minimize their sensationalist fluff pieces in favor of these kinds of stories?

That depends on the American people. Above all, news corporations want to make money. Sadly, that is their driving force these days. If Americans tune out substanceless vapidity and demand actual enlightenment, then the media will have to respect that. Can something like this actually happen anytime soon?…

I hope.

Sensationalist media ignores real issues is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

I allow the paper as written in 2003 remain on this site, though, as a reminder of the establishment’s folly back then as well as my own.

After the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sputtered and died, thus ending the Cold War, the bipolar system of world affairs evaporated, leaving a planet unsure of what factors would shape events to come. Harvard University Professor Samuel P. Huntington tries to dispel that uncertainty with his book Clash of Civilizations and Remaking World Order, in which he postulates an Earth on which civilizations, linked by culture and religion, would primarily set the course of international affairs. The civilizations, of which seven or eight exist, will inevitably conflict and compete with each other, as the people of the ever-changing and ever-shrinking world seek assuredness and identity in their own civilization, and disdain and stereotype other civilizations. This conflict and competition might lead to a “clash” between some civilizations, in which the participating civilizations would align against each other in mutual fear and hostility, possibly resulting in horrific warfare and bloodshed that would make no distinction between civilian and soldier. After all, in the epic battle between “us” and “them,” “they” cannot survive, if “we” want to preserve the civilization’s traditions and lifestyles.¹

The Islamist terror attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, followed by America’s war against Muslim terrorists, prompted some thinkers to ask, has a clash of Western and Islamic civilizations begun?² Subsequent events have shown the answer to be, “No.”

Indeed, many Muslim countries have been quite cooperative with the United States in prosecuting the War on Terror. For example, in the latest phase of the War, the invasion and liberation of Iraq, coalition ground forces (Americans, British, and Australians—all Western) launched their assault from Kuwait.³ Turkey, albeit belatedly, extended overflight rights to coalition planes.⁴ Also participating in American President George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” that supported the American operation in Iraq were the Islamic nations Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.⁵ Other Muslim states that helped the coalition, by permitting troop basing, were Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Djibouti, and Saudi Arabia.⁶

Because it is the birthplace and holiest land of Islam, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States merits particular notice. The friendship began in February 1945, when American President Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud after the Yalta Conference, promising to help protect the Saudis in exchange for cheap oil. That arrangement persists today; as well as assisting with domestic security,⁷ the United States acts as Saudi Arabia’s predominant armament and materiel supplier, equipping the Saudi forces with jets, tanks, and airplanes. In addition, the Americans have stationed over 6,000 military personnel in Saudi Arabia, whose purpose was to defend the kingdom from expansionist Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during and after the Gulf War (though with Saddam gone and Iraq on the path to democracy, the troops will soon have little reason for being there).⁸

The Saudi government demonstrates its appreciation for American military aid by exporting oil to the United States, which gets 1/6 of its petroleum from Saudi Arabia.⁹ Even today, despite OPEC fears that newly available Iraqi oil might potentially create a drop in prices, Saudi officials have not reduced oil shipments.¹⁰ If Saudi participation in the early 1970’s OPEC oil boycott is any indicator, such restraint is not necessarily a given, whatever pact the Americans and the Saudis have.¹¹

As heretofore mentioned, the land of Mecca and Medina has assisted with the War on Terror by allowing American troops destined for Iraq to base there. Also, of course, the Saudis authorized the Americans to direct Operation: Iraqi Freedom from the Prince Sultan Air Base in the middle of the Saudi desert,¹² and they let thousands of American Special Forces troops infiltrate Iraq from their territory, eight hours before the attempted decapitation strike of March 19, 2003.¹³ Before the invasion of Iraq, when the United States was focusing on Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia helped the War by severing relations with the Taliban¹⁴ and by, as in the current endeavor, lending the Americans Prince Sultan Air Base as a command center.¹⁵

If a “clash of civilizations” were occurring between the West and the Muslims, the War on Terror would not enjoy the support it does from several Muslim states, including the home of Mohammed, Saudi Arabia. One could try to counter this argument by noting that millions of Muslims vociferously oppose the War on Terror,¹⁶ and that even within Saudi Arabia, an American ally for over 50 years, many citizens revile the hosting of American soldiers and understand Osama bin Laden’s crusade against the United States.¹⁷ But, as realists would argue, since governments are the primary actors on the international stage,¹⁸ not even a conflict between individual countries, much less between whole civilizations, could take place without their support. And even from the liberal perspective, which assumes the importance of non-state forces,¹⁹ the War on Terror is not a civilizational conflict, because most Muslims’ active dislike of the West, through its representative, the United States, has not translated into the masses becoming terrorists and fighters themselves.²⁰

Furthermore, the residents of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Islamic countries, where the United States has toppled brutal regimes over the course of its War on Terror, received Americans warmly and happily. While the Americans conducted their air campaign against the Taliban, some Afghans helped American Special Forces designate targets by providing the soldiers horses from which to operate their equipment. After the Taliban collapsed, the Afghans celebrated their freedom and thanked their “infidel” liberators.²¹ The Iraqis behaved similarly: they cheered the downfall of President Saddam Hussein’s regime, vandalizing his statues and posters, while expressing their gratitude towards the coalition forces who secured their freedom.²² Now, the Iraqis are working with coalition soldiers to restore law and order within the country.²³

Muslims in Kosovo appreciate the Americans as well. NATO, with the Americans at the forefront, halted Serbian ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Kosovo, and today, in a sign of affection, the American stars-and-stripes fly all over Kosovo. A poster of former American President Bill Clinton six stories tall looms above the capital city’s primary street, Bill Clinton Boulevard. One Kosovar doctor, Besnik Bardhi, gave his daughter the name “Madeleine,” after former American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“If there is a God,” Bardhi proclaims, “his missionaries on Earth are Americans.”

Fondness for Americans runs so strong in Kosovo that, two years ago, after an American troop’s firearm accidentally discharged and killed a young boy, the boy’s father absolved the American of guilt and symbolically welcomed the soldier into his family. Just as remarkably, following the September 11 attacks, some Muslims worried so much about a possible American withdrawal from Kosovo that they proposed their own children face combat in Afghanistan, just so the Americans could remain in Kosovo.²⁴

The joyous rapture with which the Afghans and the Iraqis received the Americans, and the intense esteem in which the Kosovars hold them, show that two vital components of a “clash of civilizations,” popular terror of losing the traditional culture and virulent hatred of the opposing side, do not exist with any uniformity amongst Muslims. If they did, the populaces of the Afghans, the Iraqis, and the Kosovars would have greeted the Americans largely with guns and bombs instead of with demonstrations and cheers. Considering that not even the people of the very countries America and its allies targeted, or in Kosovo’s instance, rescued, view the “other civilization” as a dangerous enemy, one could hardly claim a civilizational war is occurring.

With many states, most societies, and all targeted countries in the Muslim world not lining up to fight the West, an explanation other than a “clash of civilizations” is necessary to describe the War on Terror. The Bush administration, in its National Security Strategy, thinks the struggle that has gripped the world’s attention stems from conflict within Islamic civilization, between authoritarian and undemocratic rulers, and frustrated groups who look to terrorism because they cannot express themselves politically.²⁵ Others, such as the Cato Institute, believe American interference in foreign affairs inspires loathing, and therefore, terrorism, against the United States.²⁶ Which viewpoint is correct is a topic for another paper.

(Sorry, these endnotes aren’t as helpful as they could be, because for this paper, we could skimp on notes referring to class texts.)

¹ Huntington.

² Dr. Kimbra L. Fischel, lectures at The George Washington University.

³ Cable News Network, “Forces: U.S. and Coalition” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/index.html>, 13 April 2003, and “Maps/Troop Movement” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/fullpage.troops/>, 13 April 2003.

⁴ Cable News Network, “Turkey Grants Overflight Rights to U.S.” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.turkey.overflights/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁵ Cable News Network, “World Braces for Iraq War” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.int.reaction/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁶ Cable News Network, “US & Coalition Bases in the Persian Gulf” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁷ Michael T. Klare, “The Geopolitics of War” <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=klare>, 13 April 2003.

⁸ World Politics, 174-177.

⁹ Klare.

¹⁰ “The Bigger Threat Still Lurking—Economies After the War,” The Economist (12 April 2003): LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

¹¹ Cable News Network, “Backgrounder: Saudi Arabia is a Key U.S. Ally” <http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/11/09/saudi.arabia/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹² Craig Smith, “Saudis Quietly Play Crucial War Role” <http://www.iht.com/articles/90394.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹³ John M. Broder with Eric Schmitt, “A Nation at War: The Plan,” The New York Times (12 April 2003): B1. LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

¹⁴ CNN, “Backgrounder.”

¹⁵Deborah Amos, “Saudi-U.S. Tension May Affect Iraq Action” <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/saudi_us021110.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹⁶ Ben Wedeman, “Arab Leaders’ Loyalties Torn Over Iraq” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/otsc.wedeman/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹⁷ World Politics, 174-177.

¹⁸ Dr. Fischel.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ As the cable news networks have pounded into viewers’ heads again and again…

²¹ Gaddis, 54.

²²Cable News Network, “Iraqis Attacking Symbols of Saddam” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.baghdad/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

²³ Ellen Knickmeyer, “U.S.-Iraq Joint Patrols Begin in Baghdad” <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030414/D7QDHPHO1.html>, 14 April 2003.

²⁴ William J. Kole, “Reviled in Many Places Around the World, Americans are Adored in Kosovo,” Associated Press (6 February 2003): LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

²⁵ Gaddis, 53-54.

²⁶ Ivan Eland, “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?” <http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf>, 14 April 2003.

Whom are We Fighting: Muslim Civilization or Muslim Terrorists? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos