Mitt Romney Announces His Advisors – Definately A “Lets Stay In Iraq” Group

Mitt Romney recently announced who is foreign policy/national security advisors would be if he were elected.

While there is some variation, his list has a lot of overlap with the signatories of the various open letters advocating war with Iraq.

For instance, the likes of Norm Coleman, Dan Senor, Paula Dobriansky, Vin Weber,  and Robert Kagan.

Examples:

  • The  people who petitioned Bill Clinton to Attack Iraq. They said “We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.”
  • The people who petitioned Obama to sustain and/or increase troop presence in Iraq.  “We therefore urge you to ensure that an adequate number of U.S. troops in Iraq remain after 2011.  We were encouraged by your pragmatism in 2009 as you showed flexibility in the pace of America’s drawdown.  We believe that the same pragmatism would counsel a significantly larger force than 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of this year.”

They Don’t Hate Our Freedoms

The Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication (2004) says:

  • “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.”
  • “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.”
  • “Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.”

This report is a product of the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense. Statements, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense.

Has NATO helped create another monster?

A recent article in the New York times makes one wonder whether meddling by NATO in Libya has created another “monster” that we will then told “needs to be slayed” in the coming years (along the lines of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.)

There are faint and not so faint echoes of it:

  • “The growing influence of Islamists in Libya raises hard questions about the ultimate character of the government and society that will rise in place of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s autocracy….”
  • “The growing influence of the Islamists is reflected in their increased willingness to play a political role..”
  • “Until recently the Islamists have kept a low profile..”
  • “Most Libyans are quick to bristle at suggestions that their own Islamists might one day go the way of Iran…”
  • “Some are concerned that the Islamists are already wielding too much power, particularly in relation to their support in Libyan society…”
  • “Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors…”

Wodehouse on Decent Sorts of Chaps

“I never was interested in politics. I’m quite unable to work up any kind of belligerent feeling. Just as I’m about to feel belligerent about some country I meet a decent sort of chap. We go out together and lose any fighting thoughts or feelings.” – P.G. Wodehouse

France’s Military Actions

To some, French doesn’t seem like a very militarized society. Especially in North America, the common perception is that France is (depending on one’s perspective) either a voice of restraint and reason and peace (for those opposing the current actions by North American powers) or a voice of cowardly hesitancy or incompetency or isolationism (for those supporting the actions).

However, journalist and author Eric Margolis shows otherwise in his article France’s Day of Glory.  Margolis is a foreign policy expert, who for years has contributed to Huffington Post, the Toronto Sun, and CNN. Interestingly enough, he is also the owner of the Canadian vitamin manufacturer Jamieson Laboratories.

Eric states that “France has been almost constantly at war since September, 1939″.  He continues “Today, French military units are fighting in Libya, Afghanistan, and Ivory Coast. French troops and air units are stationed in Djibouti, monitoring the Red Sea; in a new base in Abu Dhabi, giving France a say in the affairs of Arabia; parts of West Africa, the French Pacific, Chad and, of course, units assigned to NATO.”

He goes on to say that “Like the United States, France’s foreign policy has become increasingly militarized at a time when its armed forces are strained to the limit and severe budget cuts impend.”  And “France is also in close consultation with Washington over the seething uprising in Syria and turbulence in Lebanon. Both used to be French colonies and are regarded by Paris as within its sphere of influence. Both Washington and Paris are bent on overthrowing Syria’s Assad regime, but they are uncertain as to which group to install in power once their plans for regime change succeeds.”

He also shows how France is working hard in the Libyan attack, “launching constant air strikes against Col. Gaddafi’s beleaguered forces”. Margolis also has sources that claim that “French special forces and the Legion are covertly operating in Libya from bases in neighboring Chad”.

Lest my views on foreign policy should be ever perceived to be merely “blame the USA”, it should be noted that much of what can be said about U.S. policy could also be directed towards the policies of France. Although they tend participate in less conflicts and are critical of ventures such as Iraq, they are just as willing to meddle in other nations affairs and pursue questionable war strategies when it aligns with their interests.

The Costs of the “War On Terror”

Here are the known costs of the “War on Terror” since its inception after September 11. (source):

  • Around 224 000 – 258 000 lives have been lost (125,000 of which were Iraqi civilians and somewhere between 10,000-13,000 were  Afghan civilians)
  • Around 365,000 people have been wounded
  • 7,800,000 people have been displaced (the population of Kentucky + Conn.)
  • Since the beginning of the “war on terror”, the U.S. has spent somewhere between $2,000,000,000,000-3,000,000,000,000

Various Costs Not Factored In:

  • Non-bodily losses (of time, money, energy, stress) of those affected by the war but not counted among the dead or injured.
  • Cost of legitimate buildings and other infrastructure destroyed directly or indirectly by the war
  • Inevitable rebuilding, peacekeeping, and nation building costs.
  • Veteran-related costs (including benefit payments and more intangible costs like the veteran’s quality of life)
  • Damage on the perception of the U.S. and the West in general resulting from these actions.
  • Strains in the U.S. relationship with other nations (both in the West and the East)
  • Damage of stability in these regions for the future.
  • Interest Payments paid out on the trillions of dollars spent on the war

Some further thoughts:

  • If you took the killed, wounded, and displaced from this era of the “war on terror”, you would have the full population of New York City.
  • And if you divided all the money that the U.S.A. has spent on this war on terror and divided it between all the people of New York City each and every individual in New York City would receive $250,000.
  • If you take the number of people who died in 9/11 (2,752 by a figure given by NY two years after the fact) and add it to the “USS Cole” fatalities (17) and add to it the Khobar Towers bombing (19) and add to it the US. Embassy bombings of 1998 (23) and add to it the Riyadh Compound Bombings (9) and add them all together, you find that these deaths (some of which were military men) compose 2% of the civilians killed in Iraq alone since 9/11. These are not all of the times in which American lives have been taken at the hands of terrorists, but they are the major ones and the biggest ones.

What result would need to be accomplished to justify this? Has it been accomplished? Will it ever be accomplished? Will this resolve the problem of terrorism? Will it result in more or less stability? At this cost, is it worth it?

Whatever you think about war. one has to stop and wonder.   This seems like a very sad situation from whatever angle I look at it from:

  • As a person who wants the best for the U.S. , it is concerning to see them involving themselves in the affairs of other nations in this matter when they stand to gain so many enemies. And it is concerning to me to see them spending so much money when they are in such a financial mess.
  • As a Christian, it is concerning to me to see such a little concern for truth, rule of law, and just war theory in the execution of these wars, especially since to much of the world this is a “Christian” war. And it is concerning to see Christians blindly endorsing such things. It’s concerning that we (the royal we, I know) are so slow to pray for the people who are being attacked and so quick to cheer the people are attacking. Though some may believe the “war on terror” will open doors for religious freedom, etc., I tend to see it have more of a negative effect in fomenting extremist reactions, antagonizing populations against anything that smacks of the West to them (ie. Christianity), and generally causing increases in persecution in many cases (as has been the case in this war on terror). I believe in the final balance, war in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have actually in many ways hindered the cause of Christ in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • As a person who agrees that war can be lawfully waged in various cases, it is very concerning to see it executed in such a disproportional (and often undeclared) fashion.
  • As a human being, I hate seeing people, especially non-combatants killed.
  • As a person who loves the great themes found in the history and tradition of the United States of America: freedom, liberty, toleration, and a free economy, it is very concerning to see the freedoms (both of citizens at home and of other people abroad) being curtailed in the name of this war
  • As a person who cares about the perception the rest of the world has about the “West”, I’m concerned that we are gaining an often well deserved charge of elitism, colonial-mentality, arrogance,cold-blooded murder, disproportion and unreasonableness in our aggression, and a general spirit of “might makes right”, “our side right or wrong”, and “we make the rules”.

I hope, for many reasons, that Western powers will make a swift “cease and desist” on their ambitious projects in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I say “Western Powers” because even though I refer to the U.S. a lot in this post, I’m fully aware that Canada and other nations are involved in some of these efforts.

I will always affirm that the U.S (and the rest of the West) has a right to powerfully and swiftly defend itself.  Given the evidence I’ve seen, there is no way that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we’ve seen them unfold, fit within that purpose. And even if they did fit into the purpose of self-defense, they are totally disproportionate responses.

The U.S., I believe, can be a safe, free, and prosperous nation. But, it is quite clear to me and many others, that such a course will not be attained by attacking, controlling, or building Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran.

The Obama Administration’s Verison of “Either You Are With Us Or You Are Against Us”

At the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Montego Bay, Jamaica on June 22,  Hillary Clinton said:

“But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.”

A few observations.

1.  I couldn’t find a better contemporary philosophy textbook example of a “False Dillema”.

2. You find this swagger on both the left and on the right of the political spectrum, except maybe at election time.

3. Besides being a classic example of a “False Dillema”, it’s an example of the highly simplistic, naive, and narrow thinking that goes into much political posturing on foreign policy.

Machen’s Thoughts On War, Imperialism, and Patriotism

J. G. Machen was a great theologically conservative theologian who was a professor at Princeton and went on to found Westminster Theological Seminary, and led to the formation of the OPC.

Here are some of his thoughts on war, imperialism, and patriotism.

“I am opposed to all imperial ambitions, wherever they may be cherished and with whatever veneer of benevolent assimilation they may be disguised.”

“Princeton is a hot-bed of patriotic enthusiasm and military ardor, which makes me feel like a man without a country.”

A man without a country. Sometimes, for various reasons, one sure feels like that!

Every 5 Miles

“There was a law that existed at that time that you couldn’t have a drink unless you had traveled five miles and so my case officer, being a true Scotsman, interpreted the law that you had to stop and have a drink every five miles. The last few miles of that journey to Edinburgh was probably the most dangerous time I had in the whole world war.”

– W.W.II double agent Dushko Popov, quoted in Codename Tricycle, p.60

Could Afghanistan Borrow Some Peace from Obama's Peace Prize, Please?

Obama gets a Nobel peace prize…are you kidding me?

The title of a U.S. Libertarian Party article captures the disbelief: Libertarians suggest Nobel announcements should be moved to April Fool’s Day.

Norman Horne of LibertarianChristian.com, also chimes in with his piece A Peace Prize for a War Hawk. He concludes with a good summation of the backwardness of recent Nobel Prize selections: “We live in a bizarro world, folks, when you can get an Economics Prize for supporting the destruction of an economy (Paul Krugman), a Peace Prize for frightening people (Al Gore), and now a Peace Prize for supporting war (Obama)”.

My thoughts are that Obama mainly got this on the basis of (a) not being George Bush, (b) having some ideas that people liked (but never really putting them into practice), (c) being an “inspiring” figure, and (d) not being George Bush.

Maybe I should enter the Mr. America body building contest this year. I’m starting to think I might have a chance.

Sheer Lunacy in the Afghanistan

OK, it’s been a while since I’ve shared a topic which really got my libertarian blood boiling, but here we go..

As an Eric Margolis points out in The Ghosts of Vietnam Haunt Washington (September 22, 2009), mission Afghanistan is continuing to be a disaster for the U.S. He makes a comparisons to the old British imperialist failure in Afghanistan, except with the telling assesment that “[t]he British imperialists did it much, much better and with a lot more style”.

Margolis points out how American general Stanley McChrystal is “warning that the US risks being beaten by lightly armed Taliban tribesmen in spite of his 107,000 western soliders, B1 heavy bombers, F-15′s, F-16′s, F-18′s, Apache and A-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillence.” The U.S. has spent $250 billion (that’s approximately the cost of 10,000 F-15s!) in Afghanistan since 2001. And each wave has caused an increase of resistance and more power for the Taliban.

After 8 years and $250 billion, the Taliban still controls 55% of the country. And get this, the commanders are still asking for 40,000 troops, even after Obama has tripled the presence there. Margolis does a fine job of exposing the sheer lunacy of what is going on over there.

And all of this is not even getting into things he brings up in other columns, such as the illegitimacy of the “elections” that the U.S. has implemented in Afghanistan–stage managed votes with canadidates hand-picked beforehand. All parties were banned, only individuals were allowed to run. It has been said that even the Soviets allowed parties to run in the elections they imposed on Afghanistan in 1986 and 1987. In the U.S.-run election, only candidates who favored continued U.S. and NATO occupation were allowed to stand. Foreign observers reported extensive fraud and vote-rigging. As Margolis has said elsewhere, “Compared to this pre-determined vote, Iran’s recent elections almost look Swiss by comparison”. Is this the democracy being exported?

This is not merely a crazed empire, this is a crazed empire on a self-destruct mission.

May some day God bless the U.S.A. with a leader or leaders that will be capable of ending this non-sense. May God spare the people of Afghanistan and us Westerners from the present and future chaos that this is causing.

Just War Theory

Just War Theory goes something like:

Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war)

  • Just cause
  • Comparative justice
  • Legitimate authority
  • Right intention
  • Probability of success
  • Last resort
  • Proportionality

Jus in bello (conducting war)

  • Distinction
  • Proportionality
  • Military Necessity

Applying this to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and potentially Iran in the future).. Even if we are to grant Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Legitimate Authority, and Right Intention (all of which can certainly be plausibly argued against), there is no way in the world these wars are wars of Last Resort, where all other options have been tried and failed.  In fact, very few options have been tried, and the ones that have been tried were purposely kept on a short leash. Furthermore, there is a marked lack of Proportionality. What the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan is disproportional to what it is allegedly responding to, even if we are to presume Iraq and Afghanistan were actually responsible for all recent terrorism.