Glenn Greenwald hit the ball out of the park with his recent article at The Guardian. I have never seen a political article in a long time that has so hit the nail right on its head as this one has.

In essence, Glenn argues that Obama has governed so much from the mainstream Republican perspective in areas of foreign policy, wall street, corporatism, etc., that he has essentially taken much of the steam out of the Republican momentum. He says that the Republicans current dilemma is “how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of their party’s defining beliefs”.  On the issue of corporatism, he asks “How do you scorn a president as a far-left socialist when he has stuffed his administration with Wall Street executives, had his last campaign funded by them…?”

Like it or not, Glenn is basically right. For instance, on the matters of foreign policy, for all their yaking about being different than Obama, the GOP front runners (except for Ron Paul) basically offer a hearty “Amen! And do more of that!” to Obama’s foreign policy. When the question becomes, for instance, Obama’s habits on assassination, the majority of GOP contenders in the debates instantly become staunch defenders of Obama.

Here is a gem of a quote from the article:

• “It is in the realm of foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties where Republicans encounter an insurmountable roadblock. A staple of GOP politics has long been to accuse Democratic presidents of coddling America’s enemies…being afraid to use violence, and subordinating US security to international bodies and leftwing conceptions of civil liberties. But how can a GOP candidate invoke this…when Obama has embraced the vast bulk of George Bush’s terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even claimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield and without due process? Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor’s once-controversial terrorism polices. In the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentious foreign policy question (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults…..The core problem for GOP challengers is that they cannot be respectable Republicans because, as Krugman pointed out, Obama has that position occupied. They are forced to move so far to the right that they render themselves inherently absurd.”

In the disputes over the indefinite detention without trial which goes on for prisoners of the War on Terror, one aspect that is often not accounted for is cost.  Besides the questions of ethics and the rule of law, the costs are incredible. The Miami Herald has a fascinating article on this.

Here are some of the details:

• “Guards get combat pay, just like troops in Afghanistan, without the risk of being blown up.”
• “Each captive gets $38.45 worth of food a day”
• “[It] is today arguably the most expensive prison on earth, costing taxpayers $800,000 annually for each of the 171 captives….That’s more than 30 times the cost of keeping a captive on U.S. soil”)

Here is an interesting chart to show comparisons with other prisons:

I recommend checking out Foreign Policy’s recent piece, Who’s Sanctioning Whom? regarding U.S. foreign policy toward Iran, especially the sanctions.

I think that the comment that an understanding of Iran’s politics is “notably absent” pretty much sums up a lot of what is said by people who are pushing sanctions, war, and covert actions against Iran.

With risk of harping on this like a broken record, most GOP candidates (it is widespread–but Rick Santorum in particular) have clearly shown in the debates that they are vastly ignorant of (or intentionally ignoring) the pre-1979 roots of the current situation in Iran.

While it still may not be “going far back enough”, the 1953 CIA-led coup in Iran would be a much earlier and more illuminating place to look back to, the one that set the tone for the 1979 revolution.

In a 1954 document (now declassified) recounting lessons learned from the 1953 coup, CIA officer Donald Wilber astutely said that “Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation. Few, if any operations are as explosive as this type.”

Now, let’s go back and review a very rudementary, dumbed-down, simplified timeline of this for an illustration…

• 1953 – You back covert operation–a coup–against a nation to remove their democratically-elected leader and install a leader of your choice

• 1979 – There is a revolution to oust the leader you backed.

• 2011 – The leaders of the revolution of 1979 are still in power and you wonder why they are still giving you problems. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney openly want to go through the regime change thing again. Lest you think I’m picking on the GOP, Hillary is hawkish toward Iran and Obama says no options are off the table.

I will say that the biggest blind spot evident here is the persistent inability to see how 2011 policy toward Iran is essentially continuing 1953 policy toward Iran, which has previously resulted in hastening the transition from pre-1953 Iran to 2011 Iran.

I believe it’s basically all rooted in an inability (or refusal?) to understand that the way countries interact with the U.S on the international stage is a complex long-term interplay between both the policies of the U.S. and those countries own policies and situation. “Country X” may very well be culpable and blame-worthy for where it is right now, but when you evaluate why things are the way they are–you must also look at the ways in which U.S. policy has contributed to the current situation. And if proposals to resolve the situation include the continuance of policies that have contributed to the creation of situation itself, well, then the path is a very dangerous and perilous one.

Blowback is a word being thrown around a lot, especially with the Ron Paul campaign taking off as it has. It’s really a quite simple concept–you reap what you sow. Sometimes it happens the same day. Sometimes it happens 50 years down the road. But it will happen. If you sow assassinations or coups (as Romney and Gingerich propose) and support questionable elements within a country (as Bachmann proposes) and covert actions (as Romney and Gingerich propose) bent on destabilizing a nation–you get just that–destabilized nations that hate you.

And it becomes a self-perpetuating system. Operation A causes Blowback A, and then Blowback A becomes the basis for Operation B. And then Blowback B becomes the basis for Operation C.  And on, and on.

(Have I oversimplified things? Yes, I have. I haven’t mentioned how the current situation is also influenced by blowback caused by U.S. support of Iran’s mortal enemy–Iraq–and how supporting Iran’s nuclear program also had unintended consequences.)

The Egyptian Army it currently beating its citizens down.

If you can stomach it (warning, it is brutal), watch this video:

I think $1.3 Billion is going to this government from the U.S. treasury in 2012. Likely without any question. I wonder if any of this yearly aid is used to accomplish this?

1. Nobody in their right mind is totally “comfortable” with a country like Iran having nuclear weapons. That said, the question is far more complicated than just liking or not liking the acquisition of nuclear weapons. And when advocates of War on Iran try to equate arguing AGAINST War on Iran with arguing FOR a nuclear armed Iran, they are being ridiculous.
2. Despite recent attempts to paint Iran as a menacing threat to other countries and despite the fact that Iran is indeed a horrible despotism, Iran’s concern right now is primarily defense and not offense. If you think I’m being crazy here, start reading U.S. Department of Defense documents.  You might start here.… Look at the “Goals of Iran’s Strategy” section. Notice the constant theme of Iran defending itself against external threats, their first priority of survival, and deterring an invasion. Notice that the mention of offense is qualified by “limited”.  Iran’s current strategy, regardless  of how hawks are trying to paint it right now, is primarily concerned by not being blown to pieces by the U.S. and Israel.
3. Building on the previous point (#2), it is glaringly obvious that the treatment of Western powers to the nuclear question has given smaller, marginalized, fringe countries incredible incentive to get nuclear weapons. If you don’t have nuclear weapons you get treated like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. If you do have nuclear weapons you get treated like North Korea or Pakistan.  You can infer from the treatment of a country as to whether it is truly believed that they have nuclear arms (which is why it was no surprise to me that no nuclear weapons were found in Iraq). If you want a good case for this point I’m making, look at U.S. political leaders and their statements. You need to look no further than recent GOP debates. Look how Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann are speaking about Pakistan and the nuclear issue. Rick Santorum boldly said (in the context of Pakistan), that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and therefore has to be treated as a friend. So, what’s the easiest way to get different treatment? Bingo. Nuclear weapons.
4. If it is Israel you are concerned about…high and well-placed officials and former officials in Israel have indicated they can handle Iran on their own (Israel has lots of nuclear weapons to defend themselves if needs be). Why not take them at their word?
5. Either Iran is wildly incompetent or they have no plan to build nuclear weapons (Israel and the U.S. have been claiming they are “just this close” for many, many years).
6. It’s pretty funny (and sad) to see how shocked and indignant people are that Iran didn’t return the U.S. drone. What else would you expect? Image China was flying drones nearby…

December 1st – The Senate

Back on December 1st, the U.S. Senate voted on the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867). The vote was 93-7. “An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.”

Democrats were 48 yea to 3 nay, Republicans were 44 yea to 3 nay, and Independents were split between yea and nay with 1 each

December 14th – The Congress

Today, the U.S. Congress voted on the NDAA (H.R. 1540), “To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.”

Congress was much more divided.  The bill was passed 280-136 (with 14 non votes). Republicans supported it 190-43.  Democrats were split between yea and nay 93-93.

A Couple Questions

1. Does anyone know why the Republic and Democratic Senator yea/nay tallies are so close, while in Congress the Republicans are way more on the nay side and the Democrats are split?
2. Would anyone venture to say what % of these voters have read through these massive documents (HR 1540 is 908 pages and 5503 sections!!!!!!!)

Final Thoughts

Richard Hannah, a congressman who voted Yea for this act explained that “The legislation would authorize a total of $554 billion in base funding and $115.5 billion in funding for overseas operations, ensuring our fighting men and women are properly trained and equipped to complete the missions we ask them to do.  This bill also gives our troops a 1.6 percent pay raise.”

Hannah also commented that due to the Budget Control Act, they had to cut back a bit ($19 billion from last year). I don’t by any means want to pretend I can step in and quickly understand the dynamics of the U.S. “defense” budget. However,  I can’t think of any reason–except perhaps an irrational attachment to military hegemony–that would cause a country that is in dire economic straits to be unable to cut more than $19 billion from a budget that is in the $500 billion range!

Also while I can’t pretend to have read the entirety of this massive Leviathan bill (for lack of a better word), the snippets I have read don’t give me warm and fuzzy thoughts about the future U.S. (and consequently world) situation in terms of the rule of law, individual liberty, a cautious foreign policy, and a strong economy.

In an otherwise dull and “status-quo supporting” article on the recent GOP debate in light of foreign policy, James Lindsay has made some astute observations about the mainstream GOP stature on Foreign Policy (observations that I’ve shared for several years). The article, featured in Foreign Affairs, says that “most of the GOP presidential candidates are internationalists intent on pursuing an activist foreign policy”.

For all their attempts to pose as fresh air compared to Obama and portray him as a “softie”, he is fundamentally more like them than they will admit and they are more like him than he will admit.

The most striking statement to me, is this (which speaks of the general GOP consensus, excluding Ron Paul of course):

• “each GOP candidate shares far more of Obama’s worldview than he or she would care to admit. With the exception of climate change — a topic even the White House seldom mentions these days — the president and his critics all see the same dangers and threats: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and the rise of China. The GOP candidates disagree with the president on the tactics of how to advance America’s interests in the world, not what those interests are.”

I would just add that even the tactical differences are rarely differences of fundamental principle. The tactical differences between Obama and his mainstream Republican rivals can be often explained, rather than by principle, but different advisors, or trying to appeal to different demographics, different wording, or just cultural differences.

Though at this time it is the cool thing on the Right to distinguish oneself from Barack Obama, let’s be clear–listen carefully to the front runners, and don’t be fooled by exaggerated attempts to emphasize antithesis. As much as you can ignore the cultural differences, and the differences in wording, and I think you will find that that on core foreign policy values Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. share a lot of common ground with Obama.