Archive for the ‘Thom Thursday’ Category

Lela on Why We Aren’t Better than That   1 comment

Last week Thom Stark gave an impassioned defense for restraint in interventinism. This week I agree with him! Sort of …

Lela Markham Davidson Ditch CorrectedYou’re right, Thom, we should be better than that. Unfortunately, we’re not … at least not anymore.This is one of those rare instances where you and I are in total agreement. I want to clean up a couple of points and then come back to the main topic.

A writer can be right on some ideas and wrong on others. Hitchens represented that truth. The art for the reader is to glean the wheat from the chaff. In this case, Hitchens is not the only writer to have noticed our entanglement with England in those years nor will he be the last. I could list about 25 academic articles on the subject, all of them pretty dry and boring. The United States and England have long historical ties to one another, obviously, but we were testy with one another from the Revolution right into the end of the 19th century. For most of our history, the US had a strict policy of neutrality. We were willing to export any product to any country and thus avoid war all around the globe. Winning the Spanish American War gave us delusions of grandeur because we suddenly found ourselves with a nascent global empire. Britain was just about the only European power that supported us in that war, by the way. We returned the favor In 1900-01 by joining England to suppress the Boxer Rebellion.

Still, we were all dressed up with nowhere to go if we didn’t assert our strength into global politics.

So, we did — first by chasing Germany out of the Caribbean (TR even threatened war) and giving preferential treatment to England in the collection of war reparations from Venezuela, and then with World War 1, which was the first time a non-European power interfered in a European war. It didn’t really matter which side the US supported. That hop across the pound served its own ends. It didn’t make Europe any safer for democracy, but it proved to the United States that we had the power to affect world politics. Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt before him believed we should take a substantial role in the world than we had previously claimed. Wilson’s stroke followed by the election of McKinley, quickly followed by Coolidge prevented us from becoming the world policeman in 1920, but that was only an intermission.

Every US president since World War 2 has largely operated on the premise that the US is boss of the world. You can’t blame any particular political party. Democratic presidents got us into World War 2, Korea, Vietnam and the Balkans. Republic presidents got us into Desert Storm and Afghanistan/Iraq. Our current Democratic president has insisted we meddle in Syria and Libya. While neocons are popularly associated with the GOP these days, they were originally Democrats who, frustrated with their historical party’s anti-war stance post-Vietnam, jumped ship to Reagan’s big tent. Neocon warmonging is a trans-partisan issue.

It might be helpful to better explain what that term “neoconservative” means. It predates the current political party platform configurations, but really the media sort of throws the term around in such a loose fashion that it’s difficult to catch a meaning.

“Neocons” believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power through use of vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. America is the world’s top authority, so other nations’ problems invariably become our concern. When people like myself (a fiscal conservative) point out that the US cannot afford to be the world’s policeman, neoconservatives say we have no choice because “Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job” (Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe). This is essentially the Republican equivalent of Woodrow Wilson’s “keeping the world safe for democracy.” Wilson was a Democrat, Bush was a Republican … both danced to the neocon tune. As a non-partisan conservative, it’s been illustrative to watch our Democratic president dropping drone strikes across the globe even as many Republicans (Marco Rubio aside) began to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush’s GOP. It’s not a partisan phenomena. The Democrats just justify their warmongering under humanitarian language while the Republicans point to national security.

“It is a traditional conservative position not to want the United States to be the policeman of the world,” Jimmy Duncan (R) said in 2003, promptly to be shouted down by his party because Republicans at the time didn’t see Iraq as “policing the world”, but as a legitimate matter of national defense. Hindsight being 20-20, they (or really, the “tea party” contingent that has increasingly replaced the old guard in recent years) now recognize we needlessly created another country’s civil war and destabilized an entire region.

That’s always what neocons do, by the way. They see America’s wars as valid simply because we are in them. “As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators” (Max Boot, historian). Boot snidely asked the GOP when they declined war in Syria if they wanted to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party”. Oddly, that is exactly what the Republicans said about Democrats for opposing the Iraq War. John McCain famously declared Republicans who oppose intervention in Syria as “isolationists”, but really there is a difference between supporting a strong national defense and opposing policing the world in the guise of national defense. We can have a strong defense without posting our army in every country of the globe or meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

And we do need a strong national defense because there are many in this world who do not see our national behavior as friendly.The Czechs protested our troops in their country back in April, Russia is protesting our training maneuvers in Ukraine now. Islamists are currently the most active, and while they do not pose a direct threat to the American mainland at the moment, 911 should remind us that they have those aims. I don’t fear a direct military campaign, but we are so weak in so many other areas — economically, socially, ethically — that another 911-type attack will likely be used to justify a further restriction of civil rights by our own government. That is something we should fear, because we’ve seen that our government is not “better than that,” and is quite willing to ignore the Constitution under the guise of “protecting” we the people.

As for the Islamic State, it seems more interested in securing its territorial gains in the Levant currently, but both they and Al Qaeda (which controls substantial landscape as well) still have the long-term goal of a worldwide caliphate. To the extent that they would impose their ideal by regimenting society under a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, bent upon severe economic and social regimentation with forcible suppression of opposition, Islamists show a great deal of similarity to fascists. That it is motivated by religion rather than nationalism won’t really matter in our daily lives if they gain an upper hand. We will be miserable nonetheless. As long as Al Qaeda and ISIL fight among themselves, the US (if not Europe) is probably fine for the time being, but if they return to pooling their resources …. But I think that our fighting them in the Middle East only helps with their recruiting there … and here.

Thom StarkUltimately, though, our real danger comes from ourselves … from our government — both the elected tyrants an ill-informed electorate keeps putting into office and the unelected tyrants who populate the regulatory agencies, prisons, police forces and social work fields. We think our government is ourselves — what we have chosen to do collectively — but on a whole host of issues, the American people hold vastly different views from the elites who rule us, which suggests that we the people are not in control any longer. While people with short vision would like to blame GWB or Obama, the fact is that this has been in the works since at least President Wilson. Our failure to understand that is why 90% of the voters can say they oppose the US playing “policeman” around the world and yet our supposed employees in the US military still are fulfilling that role.

Yes, we should be better than that … but we aren’t, and sadly, I don’t think our government aspires to be better, though people like you and I might.

The question is — if we the people really want to be better than that — how do we make our government do what we want? I don’t think the solution will be found in partisan politics.

 

Thom Stark is the author American Sulla, an apocalyptic thriller series. Lela Markham is the author of Transformation Project, an apocalyptic dystopian series. Both these series look at America following nuclear terrorism.

The Conversation Continues   Leave a comment

Christian AnarchyLast week, Thom responded to my double-post and this week we continue the conversation on interventionism.

 

Thom Stark is the author American Sulla, an apocalyptic thriller series. Lela Markham is the author of Transformation Project, an apocalyptic dystopian series. Both these series look at America following nuclear terrorism.

Thom Responds on Interventionism   2 comments

The last couple of weeks (Here and Here), I played devil’s advocate by putting on the perspective of the countries we meddle with and asking the question “Might the US be the reason the world is such an unstable place?” This week, Thom replies to me.

Thom StarkYou have an … unusual … view of history, to say the least. I’m afraid it’s also more than a little misinformed – again, to say the least. Two weeks worth of your essays have created quite a collection of topics, so, rather than going through them point by point, I’ll try to confine myself to addressing the major ones.

Except your “sympathy for the devil” discourse on Hitler, that is. That one is simply too egregiously wrong for me to duck.

Adoph Hitler was born in 1889. Far from being a 10-year-old boy, in 1918 he was a corporal serving as an artilleryman in the German army. His experiences on the front lines inspired in him a lifelong hatred of Germany’s officer class, based on his resentment about having been repeatedly passed over for promotion, while officers he considered incompetent were awarded medals and promotions of their own. (He talks in considerable detail, and with great heat about those experiences and his contempt and anger towards the military in his autobiographical book, My Battle, btw.)

Nowhere in your imaginative portrait do you account for the future Fuhrer’s deeply irrational antipathy towards Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, and intellectuals, all of whom would be targets of systematic pogroms after he became Reichschancellor. Nor do you seem to in any way acknowledge his galloping megalomania, paranoia, and determination to dominate, control, and modify to his liking every single aspect of German civil life – all of which contributed to Germany becoming a menace to world civilization as the putative Thousand-year Reich. And, again, all of that, along with his blueprint for conquest and subjugation, first of Europe, then of the entire world, I know, not because it was spoon-fed to me by rote, but because, as a teenager, I actually read Mein Kampf. About the same time, I also read Paul L. Shirer’s massive, detailed, and thoroughly-documented The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich – a book I also recommend to you.

Likewise, your portrayal of the liberal/corporate elite meeting to conspire to change the character of America seems equally cockeyed to me. Just as a single example, J. Pierpont Morgan’s U.S. Steel cartel was dismantled by Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busters. When Morgan offered to make any changes the Justice Department required (including substantial divestments) in order to allow his steel monopoly to continue, he was informed that there were no changes he could possibly make in order to satisfy the Feds – and that they were determined to end his monopoly, and make a very public example of him in the process. That he would then conspire with Teddy’s cousin to bring about a novus ordum seculorum is risible, at best.

And T.R. himself was a big fan of interventionism, as well. Spanish-American War, anyone? Moro Rebellion, perhaps?

Your explanation of the roots of WWI is equally flawed. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was merely the final act of a long-building confrontation between the Germanies and the allies of Western Europe. When Austria declared war on Serbia over the assassination, Germany was obligated by treaty to follow suit – which then, in turn, brought France and England into the war because of their treaty obligations to Serbia. By the time of the sinking of the Lusitania – the event that precipitated the U.S. entry into active conflict with Germany – it’s true enough that the English were blockading German ports. It is also true, however, that Germany was doing its best to return the favor. It was just a lot harder for them to cut off access by sea to England than it was for the British navy to shut down German ports, because of their respective geographies (England controlled Gibraltar, so it could exclude trans-Atlantic cargo from access to conquered Mediterranean ports, and the German ones were all Baltic-facing, and conveniently close to one another for blockade purposes).

Churchhill’s after-the-fact rationalization notwithstanding, the sinking of the Lusitania is what forced us into the war. It was a passenger liner, and in no sense a legitimate target for the German navy. Public outrage over its sinking left Franklin Roosevelt and Congress no choice but to formally declare war.

Speaking of which, your father knew exactly why we entered WWII – because the Japanese navy conducted a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, in a bid to foreclose our navy from opposing their planned invasion of the Phillipines. (The fact that the Japanese ambassador had orders to present the President with a declaration of war half an hour before the scheduled attack isn’t well-known – he got caught in traffic on the way to the White House, btw – but it wouldn’t have made any difference, because Japan’s formal declaration of war would have obligated Germany to declare war on us, as well.) It was only in the wake of the allied invasion of the German homeland that the reality of the death camps had any meaningful impact on the American public’s perception of the true horrors of Nazism. Before that, they were just “the bad guys” because they had declared war on us after the Japanese surprise attack.

And I know that, because, as a child, I voraciously read my father’s collection of Yank, the armed forces newspaper, with its many first-person accounts of war in Europe and the Pacific, and its detailed portraits of life on the front lines by reporters such as the great Ernie Pyle.

Yes, our Lend-Lease program infuriated Hitler. But, nonetheless, he was never willing to unilaterally declare war on us, because he knew full well that America would add enormously to Allied power, should it become a combatant. The Japanese bombing attack on Pearl Harbor and Hickam Air Field forced his hand.

Treaty obligations, you know?

But let’s talk about American post-WWII interventionism.

If you expect me to defend the CIA’s policy of covertly destabilizing leftist regimes during the Cold War, I’m going to have to disappoint you. It’s important, though, to realize that the Agency’s geopolitical machinations were a product of the Dulles brothers dominance of foreign policymaking at the time. John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, was a rabid anti-communist, and his brother Alan was Director of the CIA. Between them, they managed to create incredible ill-will toward this country in the name of fighting the global spread of communism – and, more importantly, they did so in the most foolishly short-sighted and counterproductive possible manner. And that same policy of destabilizing left-leaning governments and installing repressive, autocratic, often military governments in their place didn’t end with les frères Dulles, either. It continued throughout the Cold War, everywhere from Peru to Grenada.

Nor was that the worst of the CIA’s sins. The disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion was an Agency operation – and so was the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.” That was a completely manufactured causus belli. It was the pretext on which Congress authorized introducing American combat troops into the Vietnam conflict, and it was a complete fliction. Not even President Johnson knew that the CIA had simply made it up out of whole cloth, manufacturing every bit of evidence, to force us into physical conflict with North Vietnam – whose overtures for American assistance John Foster Dulles had contemptuously rejected when Ho Chi Minh approached the State Department for help in overthrowing the French colonial occupation of the North.

So I think we agree on the issue of CIA culpability for American interventionism during the Cold War.

We’re also in agreement about the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003. About whether we were justified in leading a coalition to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, maybe not as much, though. There, Iraq was, in fact, the unprovoked aggressor, overrunning the country of Kuwait in order to appropriate its oil fields. Our treaty obligations to Kuwait forced us into war with Iraq over that invasion. Yes, it’s true that we had previously supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons and financial support in his wars with Iran. Whether that was a good idea or not is arguable. It certainly kept Iranian expansionism contained at no cost in American lives. What’s inarguable is that our invasion of Iraq to topple his regime was utterly misbegotten. There was no justification for that, Judith Miller’s recent aplogism notwithstanding, because the actual intelligence community assessment was that Saddam’s Iraq posed zero direct threat to the USA. Iinstead, it was the cherry-picked intelligence that the never-to-be-sufficiently-condemned Douglas Feith (the odious Wormtongue to Dick Cheney’s Saruman the Black) dredged up from among the dissenters to the consensus view that was used to justify the invasion to the UN and the American people.

That disastrous adventure was prompted not by the CIA – which opposed it – but by the vision of the neo-con nitwits at the Project for a New American Century. PNAC was a think tank from which emerged most of the staffers for Cheney’s Office of the Vice-President, as well as highly-placed members of the Defense and State departments under the Bush administration. Their thesis was that America should embrace its role as the world’s policeman, and impose regime change on rogue nations by force. One of their central tenents was the the USA needed a permanent military base in the heart of the Middle East from which it could with impunity project power throughout the region. That was music to Cheney’s ears, and, with the lure of all that high-grade Iraqi crude just waiting for Halliburton Corporation to exploit, it constituted the impetus for invasion and conquest of Iraq.

It was the PNAC idiots – Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz among them – who advocated and pushed through that invasion in the wake of 9/11 … which was entirely a pretext, because they’d been plotting the takeover of Iraq since the very outset of the Bush 43 era. Throughout, they remained purposefully blind to the consequences of that entirely-unprovoked aggression: the destabilization of the principal bulwark against Iran, the inevitable disintegration of Iraq as a political entity, and the inflaming of Islamic enmity towards the U.S., despite being repeatedly warned of the probability of those outcomes by CIA and State Department analysts who (unlike the ideologues of PNAC) had made careers out of studying and trying to understand the region. And, likewise, having been repeatedly cautioned that the all-volunteer military’s strength was completely inadequate for the task of occupying a hostile country the size and unruliness of Iraq (cautions that cost a number of highly-capable generals their careers under Rumsfeld, who demoted or reassigned them to dead-end postings, replacing them with bootlickers and yes-men).

So that, too, is an area on which we agree.

However, you’re way, way off base in asserting that the CIA was behind either the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or the toppling of Viktor Yanukovich’s government. Yanukovich was the architect of his own downfall, as documented in the New York Times investigative piece titled Ukraine Leader Was Defeated Even Before He Was Ousted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html

It was Yanukovich’s fateful decision to order his police to fire on peaceful, unarmed protesters that lost him the support of his own allies, including the Ukrainian military. And his ouster was not illegal under Ukrainian law, because Ukraine’s parlaiment voted to remove him from office. In other words, Ukraine’s elected government declared him unfit to be President and removed him from office, not the CIA. Only Putin and his propaganda organs insist the CIA was involved – and Putin, as you well know, has a long history of lying with his bare face hanging out whenever it’s politically convenient for him to do so.

On the other hand, I can’t blame him for taking advantage of the situation to take control of Crimea. It had always been part of Russian until Nikita Khrushchev (who, let’s note, was himself Ukranian) transferred it to Ukraine in 1954. Nor do I disagree that a partition of modern Ukraine into a rump state and a Russian province is unlikely. In fact, that’s probably been Putin’s goal all along.

Lela Markham Davidson Ditch CorrectedNone of which invalidates my central thesis that the current balance of world power, in general, is a product of the Cold War-era global American military empire. I’m not now, and never have been, an advocate of military interventionism, except as required by our treaty obligations. I’m convinced that we shoud go to war only as a last resort, and only against an active aggressor’s actual military invasion of an allied nation’s soil. However, as a lifelong student of history, I well understand that creating a power vacuum inevitably leads to armed conflict among nations that might benefit from attempting to fill that vacuum. That’s why I advocate keeping our military empire, purely as a deterrent to such would-be opportunists. If we should abandon our military presence in Europe, it would unquestionably provoke war between Germany and Russia over the historic buffer state of Poland. Likewise, if we pulled out of Japan, South Korea, and Thailand, that would precipitate a war between Japan and China for control of the Spratly Islands in the North China Sea. In both cases, treaty obligations would force us to intervene. Without the bases necessary to effectively project conventional military power in those regions, nuclear war would result.

And that would be the ultimate – and final – intervention.

Thom Stark is the author American Sulla, an apocalyptic thriller series. Lela Markham is the author ofTransformation Project, an apocalyptic dystopian series. Both these series look at America following nuclear terrorism.

Lela Answers on Interventionism and World Wars   3 comments

Lela Markham Davidson Ditch CorrectedThom Stark and I are continuing our conversation. Last week he upheld the progressive position on interventionism. This week, I’m examining some history on that and then probably coming back for a double dip tomorrow because HUGE subject. Lela

We are in total agreement that the country is in serious trouble, Thom. We experiencing the consequences of a national addiction to spending, but this addiction has been going on so long that it’s hard to remember where it started. We don’t even remember that spending is actually the symptom of a larger issue, not the real issue at all. Maybe some self-awareness and historical perspective would help.

We don’t remember that there was a time when Americans, individually and collectively, minded their own business. It’s been more than a 100 years since we’ve done that. You and I belabored the War for Southern Independence to death, so we shouldn’t return to it except to say that it was a watershed event in our national history that still negatively affects us today. We learned to interfere and to reap the benefits of our interference.

At the turn of the 20th century, there was a movement afoot in the elite classes of the United States. Rich men and well-to-do intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, J.P. Morgan, and John Dewey were meeting casually in Catskills and Smoky Mountain resorts and discussing what they thought was wrong with society. It’s a big topic, but you can boil it down to “the elites aren’t in control, the unwashed rabble don’t know their place and they are leading us over a cliff.” You can’t completely hang it on Woodrow Wilson, but he’s the face of the Progressive movement, which started with elitists who used propaganda techniques to convince populists to get on board with programs we never would have agreed to if we hadn’t been manipulated into it.

Before becoming President, Woodrow Wilson was a political scientist who wrote in praise of the administrative state operating in Europe at the time. Over the years, he was greatly admired for his “clear view” of what the United States needed to bring her into the “modern” era. In 1887, he didn’t have the power to institute what he suggested and the people of the United States would have rejected it soundly. As a country, we were individualists who preferred to make our own decisions. We could starve or become wealthy; what mattered was that our life circumstances were within our power. We were also inveterate “neutralists.” The US did not involve itself in the wars of other nations, which was largely the normal state of affairs in the world in general. International law favored neutrality and expected warring countries not to involve neutral nations in their conflicts.

By the early-1910s, there was a growing movement of progressives including intellectuals, big business interests, mainstream Protestants and government cronies. Wilson was both an intellectual and a Protestant pietist, but he certainly had friends in business and government and they helped him get elected. The idea was that Big Government and big business would form a coalition with technocrats and intellectuals to create a “progressive” state government. Big business would use the government to cartelize the economy, restrict competition, regulate production and prices and wield a militaristic and imperialistic foreign policy to force open markets abroad while protecting foreign investments. Intellectuals would be able to use the government to restrict entry into their professions and to assume jobs in Big Government to help plan and staff government operations. These groups believed that this fusion would create a Big State that could harmonize and interpret the “national interest” and provide a “middle way between the extremes of laissez faire and the bitter conflicts of Marxism. The Puritan pietists would also be able to use government to coerce those around them into being “good”. It’s all in the history books, but is not a popular view today that Wilson and his friends staged a coup.

Never let a serious crisis go to waste, a famous politician of our own time said. Well, if there isn’t a crisis … create one or get yourself involved in one. The people of the United States liked the system they had. Maybe it didn’t have all the soft feather beds of the European system, but you were largely free to make your way in the world. Starve or become insanely rich … it was all up to your individual effort. Results would indeed vary, but hard work and out of the box thinking would often lead to a vast improvement in your standard of living.

There’d been some legislative reforms in the early 1900s that had entangled Big Business with government. Trust me, anti-trust legislation worked out well for the big corporations. In Wilson’s first administration he worked on getting an income tax and providing for direct election of Senators. These were keys to the progressive agenda, which needed more money than excise taxes could raise and a Congress not beholden to the state legislatures when asked to declare war. The elite knew that war offered a unique opportunity to move the country in the direction they wanted it to go. Most of them had lived through the Civil War and knew that militarism, conscription, massive intervention at home and abroad, a collectivized war economy all became allowable during times of war. What better opportunity to create a mighty cartelized system and to convince people to walk in lockstep against their own interests? Find a threat, create a crisis and make full use of it.

The progressives tried to substitute war with other threats, usually stemming from the risky behaviors made possible by personal liberty. Not just Wilson, but men like Josiah Strong insisted that personal liberty destroyed the social conscience and must be dampened in the interest of protecting society from itself. Of course, government couldn’t leave people to their own devices because only the elite really understood the world and the unwashed masses needed guidance. The problem was that the unwashed didn’t agree and they voted.

World War I started … oddly. Seriously, a guy with no real power gets killed and half the world goes to war? Sounds like a conspiracy theory when you look at it rationally.

Congress adopted a policy of neutrality, which was fully supported by the American people. While Wilson certainly acted like he agreed with this policy, many of his cronies were making bank on selling arms to both sides of the conflict. Under international law, neutral country merchants were allowed unrestricted shipping to all ports of call, except for arms and ammunitions. The United States got away with it because they were selling to both sides, but then a British blockade of Germany meant American vessels couldn’t reach Germany. Was that our fault? No, but under longstanding international law we should have stopped shipping to Britain as well and we didn’t, even though Britain’s blockade was in clear violation of international law.

Wilson, the political scientist, believed that nations (the US) had an obligation to determine “aggressors” and “victims” in a military conflict and “good” nations had a higher moral obligation to come in on the side of the “victim” against the “aggressor”.  This discussion was academic unless he could manuever us into war. Propaganda films and yellow journalism assured that Americans would see that Germany was the “aggressor” and Britain and France were the “victims” despite the actual reality. As soon as Wilson won reelection (ironically on the slogan “he kept us out of war”), he began working to involve the US in the war, because war gives government special powers and they needed that unique opportunity to change our political dynamic.

It didn’t completely work … not immediately. People objected to the progressive tax structure that took as much as 68% from high-income earners. It’s really hard to get rich … or even financially comfortable –when a large percentage of your income is taken from you before you even have a chance to use it. Seeing that acted as a disincentive to low-income earners to strive to enter that class. The Depression of 1920 gave a clear warning sign that taxation was harming the economy, so taxes and government spending were rolled back by more conservative presidents and advisors. However, the experiement was largely a success for those patient enough to wait for their next turn. War allows government to get away with all sorts of nasty behavior – shutting down dissidents, conscripting people into military slavery (uh, service), controlling the economy, even stepping into people’s daily lives to dictate what they eat and drink.

When we turn to World War 2, however …

Can war ever be just, Thom? Like that California death penalty you mentioned, there’s more than a single side to murder and war and it’s hard for mere observers or even participants to parse the fact from the fiction. Heck, we’re 70 years removed from the events. Are you sure your high school history teacher knew what the heck he/she was talking about?

One of my history professors was from England and he had a different view of the American Revolution. I’m not saying he was right. I’m simply saying that we aren’t always told the full story.

Let’s get this straight. I am not a pacifist. If someone attacks me I will fight back, including using deadly force. Until Alaska secedes from the union, I value living in the United States and if the United States is attacked, I think we should fight back. But … when is the United States being attacked and when are countries simply defending themselves from our aggressions?

What Hitler did and the people of Germany let him do was horrible, but we need to recognize our own culpibility in that series of events. A 10-year-old boy starving in Munich in 1918 was a 22-year-old man in 1930. He watched siblings and friends die as hunger gnawed at his belly because of the British blockade of Germany which lasted years, not months. All the propaganda in the world wasn’t going to wipe away that memory. England (and by extention, her ally the United States) starved him!

England then further ruined his young life by imposing crushing economic sanctions after the war. The country never really recovered – industrial production in 1923 was only 54% compared to industrial production in 1914. The loss of land under the Treaty of Versailles saw 10% of Germans living outside of the borders of Germany. The Weimar Republic, new and fragile, overspent and caused a hyperinflation crisis in 1923. Unemployment was almost 30%.

The US did somewhat make up for our part in the mess by propping up the Weimar Republic with loans throughout the 1920s, but when the Great Depression started, those loans stopped, sending Germany into a deeper depression that even we were in. Maybe we had no choice, but maybe that’s not how a 20-year-old German felt about it.

And it’s not like we weren’t, once again, providing food and arms to Britain while allowing Germans to go hungry. We supported the English blockade of Germany, once again. We also provided pilots for the RAF. The Rhineland had been German before the Treaty of Vesaille. Germany and Austria shared a language and so many family connections that many Austrians considered themselves to be Germans – including Hitler himself. Part of Germany had been ceded to Poland in 1919 and some ethnic Germans there were persecuted by the Poles. That doesn’t excuse the abuses Hitler committed. I’m just trying to show that there was some legitimacy to the actions of Germans in the early years of the war.

From their perspective, we were aggressing on them. Damned right, they had a right to defend themselves. Maybe if we had stopped that – or acted like an actual neutral party before World War 1 – Germany and England would have worked it out among themselves and we wouldn’t have set up World War 2 to happen.

Of course, we don’t think like that.  Since 1914 it has been standard practice for every fight between countries to be considered the business of all other countries. We insist that it is our moral obligation to get involved, figure out which country is the “bad guy” and then rush in on the side of the “good guy” country and beat the stuffing out of the alleged “aggressor” in defense of the alleged “victim.” It’s led to ridiculous scenarios such as where the US first funds Iraq to fight Iran and then declares Iraq to be an aggressor state, thus giving us an excuse to invade it twice, destabilize its government and then blame it for the ensuing civil war.

In that toxic soup of inventionism, neutrality gets a bad name, but prior to 1914 the charge of “he kept us out of war” was high tribute. Neutral states had “rights” which were mainly upheld since almost every warring country knew that someday it would be neutral once more. Under international law, a warring state could not interfere with neutral shipping to an enemy state, so long as the neutral shipping did not include arms and ammunitions. So countries had an incentive to make peace, but they also had an incentive to not start wars.

Then along came Woodrow Wilson with the the idea of “collective security against aggression.” Every war must have one “aggressor” and one or more “victims”. Nations obligated to “collective security” arrangements (League of Nations, United Nations, NATO) identify the “aggressor” nation and then join together in an “international police action” to stop the aggression.

Of course, in real life, it’s not that easy to identify one warring “aggressor”, which is why Wilson’s second rationale of foreign policy is so dangerous. The idea that the United States and other countries have a moral obligation to impose “democracy” and “human rights” throughout the globe has led to our perpetual wartime footing since World War 2. We must bring Utopia to the world with guns, tanks and bombs. Remember our “humanitarian” intervention in Somalia. The United States hadn’t a scrap of national interest in the “civil war” there. It wasn’t even really a civil war, just a collection of tribal alliances we insisted upon calling a country. But, hey, we had to establish peace there by imposing universal love at the end of a bayonet. We were ging to sort out the situation and bring governmental order back to Somalia … even if the Somalians didn’t want that. My, were we surprised when the “good” guys and the “bad” guys in Somalia joined forces to shoot down our helicopters using American guns and then expelled us from their city so they could go on conducting their tribal interests their own way! The international community has since managed to enforce a federal government that is rumored to be as tyrannical as the Somali Democratic Republic was. But, hey, we can tell the “good” guys from the “bad” guys and we know better than other countries how they should conduct their internal affairs because we’re standing on high moral ground. Our moral clarity justifies mass murder, destruction of institutions and property and general wreaking of havoc.

Thom StarkThe United States was anything but a neutral power prior to World War 2, despite our official stance. I’m not arguing that Hitler wasn’t an insane dictator who needed to be stopped by someone. My uncle was front lines in Europe, including liberating one of the concentration camps. My father was a mercant mariner who worked in the Pacific and got to see Nanking, the brutality of which shocked him, but didn’t change his general view that war is rarely the answer to anything. Like most of his generation, I don’t think he really understood why we got into the war. He felt guilty that we hadn’t entered the war sooner to save the lives of Jews and Chinese. He told me about the German sub war on Eastern Merchant fleet 30 years before any history books were talking abou it.

Thom StarkThe question we should ask ourselves is what was the US doing prior to our entry into the War to piss off Germany and Japan? Like before World War 1, we were providing arms to combatant nations, but this time round we were picking the winners and losers. I don’t think that is the action of a neutral nation and when you’re taking sides, you got to expect the “enemy” to start taking pot shots at you.

I am WAY over the word limit on this, so I will tackle how American interventionism does NOT make the world a safer place in a separate post.

Thom Stark on History, Government Spending and Isolationism   3 comments

Thom StarkThom and I took some time off because I’ve been formatting books. Please find the earlier conversation here and the post he is replying to here.

Let’s start with earmarks.

I don’t consider them a better solution than the present one, because they invite abuse like the Bridge to Nowhere. That said, I’m suspicious of block grants as well, because they merely push the abuse down to the state level, without solving the central problem of wasteful spending.

I’m not at all sure what the solution is, other than to institute Draconian sanctions for corruption on the part of elected officials at all levels: local, state, and federal. I’m not talking about longer terms in “country club” prisons, here. That’s a deterrent that does nothing to deter, much like California’s death penalty. I’m talking hard time, whopping fines, and being barred for life from both elective office and from involvement in government contracts of any kind.

Before I get to the issue of spending reform, however, I can’t help but address your mischaraterization of the USA’s supposed responsibility for WWII. While I’m willing to concede that the Wilson administration felt it was important to involve this country in WWI, and that the logic of that determination was questionable, I categorically reject your portrayal of the Roosevelt administration’s Lend-Lease program as somehow unjustified and manipulative.

Nazi Germany was exclusively responsible for the war in Europe. The Austrian Anschulss, the appropriation of the Sudentenland, and, particularly, the invasion of Poland were all acts of agression by a rogue state whose leader was determined to create a European empire. That last action was purposely provocative – designed to force the Allies into declaring war because of their treaty obligations to Poland, in order to give Germany a causus belli to invade France and the Benelux countries. If the US had not supplied Britain with … well … pretty much everything, including food, fuel, and weapons, Hitler would have succeeded in establishing complete hegemony over Europe, and would then have been free to concentrate on conquering Russia.

We very likely would have been next – except that the Japanese miscalculated our resolve (and were unlucky enough to launch their attack while the Pacific aircraft carrier fleet was out of port on maneuvers), and forced us into declaring war on them after their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Once again, treaty obligations (this time between Japan and Germany) forced Hitler to declare war on the USA … and there went the balloon.

The thing is, both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were ruthless imperialists. Without military opposition on our part, there is every reason to believe they would have targeted the United States in time – first by crippling trade sanctions (recall that Germany was only kept from seizing the Middle East oil fields by our entry into the North African theatre of the war) and, eventually, once we were sufficiently impaired by those sanctions, by military invasion.

And all that leaves aside the issue of the Nazi policy of systematic genocide, and the Japanese butchery of Philippinos at a time when the Philippines was a US possession, both of which constituted a moral imperative for the United States to intervene.

I don’t want to get too far off-topic, but I think it’s important to note that isolationism was a bad idea then – and would be a disastrous one now. Geopolitics, like the atmosphere, abhors a vacuum. Were we to withdraw militarily from Europe and Asia, that action would destabilize those regions sufficiently to practically guarantee a third world war – and this one would be fought by multiple state actors who possess nuclear weapons. Consider Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its ongoing attempt to wrest away control of Western Ukraine. Likewise, think about China’s ongoing confrontation with Japan over control of islands in the South China Sea. It’s pretty easy to see that our withdrawal of forces from Europe would constitute an open invitation to Vladimir Putin to try to grab back the Eastern European states who (like Poland, for instance) historically constituted buffer zones between Europe and Russia. Similarly, China would be encouraged to go on an acquisition spree were we to withdraw our forces from Japan, Thailand, and South Korea.

Oh, and North Korea – a rogue state which not only possesses nuclear weapons, but has been actively engaged in exporting nuclear weapons technology to the Islamic world – would undoubtedly launch an attack on South Korea. Again, treaty obligations would force the Chinese to intervene on North Korea’s behalf.

Once again, the result would be world war – only with nukes all around.

That is why we literally have no choice but to maintain our worldwide military empire, despite its enormous expense: because the alternative is a global war into which we could not help but be drawn, even were we to adopt an official policy of non-alignment. (Which we could not do, because of – yes, that again – existing treaty obligations. And a country can’t unilaterally abandon its treaty obligations without ensuring that no nation would ever again be willing to sign a treaty with that nation.)

So let’s talk taxation and spending reform.

First, disbursement of Federal tax receipts disproportionately benefits less-populous and poorer states at the expense of more-heavily-populated and richer states. Alaska, for instance, receives $1.49 in Federal spending for every $1.00 of taxes paid by its residents and corporations. That’s a fact. So, if you want to complain about income redistribution, it’s important to recognize that the very states you have, in previous essays, made a point of claiming are underrepresented in Congress nonetheless benefit substantially from that redistribution. Or, to put it another way, New Yorkers and Californians, who are the top payers in combined local, state, and Federal taxes (and are, not even coincidentally, among the wealthiest Americans) subsidize residents of states like Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska with their Federal tax payments. And, despite your thesis that imposing heavy taxation would cause a general exodus to low-tax foreign shores, that is simply not what happens in actuality. In the real world, businesses flock to those states, because their benefits to employers – large pools of technically-talented labor, attractive amenities, and tax breaks for research and investment in local employment and production – outweigh the incremental cost of additional taxation.

Second, Social Security is not really that far out of balance, financially. It’s future obligations could quite easily be met by simply raising (or, better yet, eliminating) the cap on taxes dedicated to the Social Security trust fund. There are hundreds of millions of American taxpayers who depend now, or who will depend in the future, on Social Security payments to enable them to retire without having to change to Fancy Feast-based diets. And “privatizing” Social Security is not the answer, for a number of reasons: because it’s unrealistic to require working people to become investment experts, because the stock market is currently the only remaining investment area that’s providing meaningful returns (interest rates are nearly down to negative numbers, so bonds aren’t a good investment, and the real estate market is still largely a disaster area – and would be a good deal worse, if the banks that hold the vast oversupply were not keeping their repossessed properties off the market), and because stock brokers and financial advisors conclusively proved in 2008 that they’re a pack of lying, swindling, conscienseless bastards.

The real problem is Medicare. That problem is, again, a product of a mismatch between the program’s obligations and its income – and that, in turn, is pretty much entirely the fault of the Bush administration’s drug benefit giveaway. There are two contributing factors to that debacle. The first is that the drug benefit was itself completely unfunded. Congress simply punted on paying for it. Worse still, that same Congress included a provision that forbids the Social Security Administration from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over pricing of the covered medications.

Imagine that. The single largest buyer of drugs in the entire domestic medical economy is forbidden by law from using its purchasing power to negotiate discounts on those purchases – something every medical insurance company, PPO, and HMO in the country does routinely.

The fix for Medicare is, once again, dead simple: raise the Medicare premium to cover the actual costs of the program, and replace the ukase against the SSA bargaining for lower drug prices with a requirement that it do so.

Which takes us to the towering Federal deficit.

If you subtract Social Security and Medicare, the two largest sources of imbalance, from the equation – and the above solutions would do exactly that – the major remaining problem is military spending. Now, to my mind, the size of the military, and expenditures on its personnel aren’t the big issue. As we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military is plenty big enough to fight two wars simultaneously. It’s simply nowhere near big enough to successfully occupy any even moderately-sized conquered territory. So we need to stop invading places we can’t hold afterward, especially for idiotic goals like “regime change” that replaces a distasteful dictator (who nonetheless provides a needed bulwark against the expansion of an active enemy state) with an unstable, corrupt government that’s a virtual captive of an enemy state.

Just as importantly, the military procurement system desperately needs a drastic overhaul. Currently, for instance, Congress has appropriated $181 million for upgrades to the Abrams M1A1 V2 tank force in 2015 alone. General Dynamics persuaded 150 Congressmen to co-sign a letter claiming that the Ohio plant where the tank is manufactured needs to remain open to ensure that the design and manufacturing expertise of its employees continues to be available in the future. GD also claims that closing the plant for a year would incur $1.6 billion in costs to reopen it.

Why did 150 Congressmen co-sign that letter? Because General Dynamics makes it a point to spread the manufacture of the Abrams’s components over as many Congressional districts as possible. Essentially, those Congresscritters’ argument boils down to “it’s a jobs program for my district.” The problem with that contention only begins with the fact that it’s an incredibly expensive jobs program. In fact, we spend about a half-million bucks for each job it provides. More crucially, the Abrams tank – and tanks in general – are pretty much entirely outmoded by the kinds of wars in which we are currently engaged, as well as the ones we’re likely to fight in the near future. (Sure, with the current situation vis-à-vis Russia, we might wind up in a shooting war in Eastern Europe, but the chances that war would last long enough for us to move additional tanks to the European theatre are pretty slim, given that both sides have lots of tactical nukes.)

That doesn’t even begin to address boondoggles like the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, or the Air Force’s upcoming next-generation stealth fighter.

We need to institute a policy of requiring weapons manufacturers to consolidate, rather than widely disperse component manufacture, just to start with. We also need to absolutely forbid military officers above the rank of Lieutenant Commander or Lieutenant Colonel to accept employment with military contractors of any kind for a minimum of 5 years after they leave their service. And we need a law that bars Congress from increasing any weapons acquisition budget above the figure the service that asked for it requested.

Good luck to us with that, of course.

DSC01494As for the national debt, I could not agree more that something needs to be done about it forthwith, because the problem is MUCH worse than you have indicated. Consider that we currently spend about a trillion dollars a year paying the interest on that debt. Just the interest, mind you. We’re not paying down the principle at all, because we can’t afford to do so, given our current level of Federal tax income. However, what nobody wants to talk about is that, once interest rates rise even slightly, we won’t be able to afford to pay the whole annual interest amount – which means we’ll shortly be paying interest on the interest.

Stabilizing Social Security and Medicare would go a long way toward freeing up money to pay down the debt. We still will need more tax income to get the debt under control, but that would at least be a start.

Of course, given the Congress will be Congress, regardless of how irresponsible “being Congress” is, they’ll likely choose to spend the surplus on something other than debt reduction.

Like more Abrams tanks.

Stay Tuned for More Conversation   Leave a comment

Thom Stark and I continue the conversation.More conversation

Lela Asks: Why Stay Like This?   2 comments

Lela Markham Davidson Ditch Corrected

Last week, Thom Stark responded to a reader who objects to his tax money being used to provide grants for infrastructure or services that, he felt, government shouldn’t even be involved in. Today, I’m going to touch on that topic, but then turn to the larger topic of whether what we’re doing currently is even sustainable.

Thom, I’m going to surprise you and agree that earmarks are a better system than what has replaced them since the big “bridges to nowhere” scandal. This is my nod to our modern-day reality of the federal government stealing from individuals in the form of taxes, thus impoverishing the states and forcing them to rely on federal revenue sharing which looks a great deal like welfare payments. If this is the way things must be (and they are at the moment), then earmarks make sense. Congress gets to direct the moneys to specific projects in specific states for specific purposes. Senators and representatives are elected from their states for the purposes of “bringing home the pork”. In theory, Senators are all equal and get a chance to lobby for their own earmarks. Of course Ted Stevens was, by virtue of his longevity in the Senate, more equal than others in committee assignments and that made Gravina Island bridge (which the Gravina Island residents did NOT want) possible. When Mark Begich replaced Uncle Ted, that longevity and the federally-funded projects that came with it went away. And, I say, good riddance. Alaska needs to disentangle from federal revenue sharing and plan for our future.

But the subject is earmarks and Congress bringing home the pork to their home districts.

These days, of course, they can’t really do that. The flap over earmarks was a long time coming and needed to occur, but Congress got the wrong impression from the criticism. It’s not “earmarked” funding most people hate; it’s the out-of-control spending. States must balance their budget by law. The federal government has no such requirement. In 2006, the country was only $8 trillion in debt and people were fed up. At 62% of GDP, anyone who has ever balanced a home budget knew we were in trouble. Earmarks took the limelight, but war spending and entitlements are what were and are driving the debt. Because earmarks became a dirty word, Congress now directs the funds as block grants for specific types of funding and leaves it to the Executive branch to determine the allocation of those funds. In other words, they gave more power to the Executive branch and furthered the imbalance of federal power while ceding their own tradition authority. And look what the Obama administration did with that new system? We are now $18 trillion in debt, which is 103% of GDP. To “solve” this problem, Congress is now considering a competitive funding system, at least for transportation infrastructure. I can see it now. The states that hire the best PR firms to write their grant applications will get more federal dollars. Poor states will become poorer and rich states will become richer — at least until the wheels come off the federal spending bus.

Earmarks were not the problem. Spending was and is the problem. And that is the larger conversation.

Yes, it is the way that it is now, but should it be that way? Why couldn’t it be some other way? It was once.

Before there was a federal income tax, the federal government was small and pretty efficient. We weren’t at war all the time because the federal government couldn’t afford to start wars. States raised their own revenues and used them on things of local and state interest. Roads got built, there were hospitals and museums, and churches took care of the poor. It was only with the 1914 passage of the Income Tax Amendment that the federal government could afford to start a war and it celebrated by starting World War 1. Yes, I know the war started in Europe, but the US prior to its official entry in 1917, spent three years egging the Europeans on, supplying the British and basically waving a red flag in the face of Germany, asking them to attack our bomb-carrying merchant ships. Our government did the same thing prior to World War 2. There’s nothing like being on a near-permanent wartime footing to make people think they should pay their taxes and bargain away liberty for security. Never let a crisis go to waste, after all.

The downside to federal income taxes is that states cannot derive sufficient revenue from state taxes. There is a limit to how much people can pay in taxes and still support their own lives. Because state legislators must face the public on the streets of their home towns, they are loath to raise taxes too much. So states require revenue sharing from the federal government, which makes no sense to me because the money is coming from their residents, bypassing them and then returning from the federal government. It provides a disconnect in people’s minds. Everybody wants cool federally-funded projects in their district and they applaud their states for lobbying to get them, while at the same time struggling to pay their bills because the federal government and then the state takes so much of their income in taxes. It’s a vicious cycle of taxation and spending.

Well, all that spending is catching up to us. There’s all that debt, which will take decades to pay down, IF we stop deficit spending soon, but worse, our entitlement system is on the verge of collapse. We’re approaching $90 trillion in unfunded entitlement liability, which is more than 200% of GDP. Sooner or later, this house of cards is going to come crashing down unless we seriously change the way we do things on the federal level.

So, you say “this is the way things are; live with it.” I look at the looming fiscal disaster coming our way and say “we can’t live with it because it’s unsustainable. Something must change.”

But what?

Everything these days is a 3rd rail. The politicians insist we can’t reduce Social Security, even though it is the single greatest revenue suck in the domestic budget (Medicare is almost equal to it). The politicians say we can’t reduce military spending because ISIS is going to sail up Chesapeake Bay with a squad of suicide bombers. Sequestration means we have to close the Washington Monument and that makes tourists grumpy. So we play around, reduce deficit spending from $1.1 trillion to $980 billion (otherwise denoted as a reduction of $3 billion) and pretend a drop in an ocean is a fix. The half of the country that wants to believe that the gravy train can keep going forward accepts the propaganda and says “we’re reducing the deficit. Isn’t it wonderful?” and make those of us who passed basic math in high school wonder if societal IQs dropped suddenly while we were reading Bastiat.

Yes, technically we are reducing the deficit, but the debt continues to grow and it is the debt that will eat our liver some time in the near-future. The solution will not be found in raising tax rates on the “rich”. You could tax everyone making a million dollars or more a year at 100% of their income and come within a couple hundred billion of closing that budget gap, but the next year, the “rich” will all have renounced their citizenships and moved to Malaysia or gone bankrupt.  You could tax corporations more, but they would do the same thing, taking more American jobs with them to Malaysia.

Thom StarkEngland’s history is indicative of what happens when you try to tax your way out of a spending problem. The British Empire used to be a great deal bigger than it is today and much more powerful, until they taxed their prosperous citizens into bankruptcy and emigration to support perpetual wars and welfare programs. Now the taxes rest on the soldiers of the middle class who cannot afford to leave  and their children are starting to espouse libertarian philosophy. This isn’t just happening in England, but there are political trends suggesting Europeans generally are beginning to rethink the socialist nanny state. They’re much further down the road than we are, so it is harder for them to define let alone find the exit, but they have many of the same issues that we do and some of them are thinking the solution won’t be found in government growth, but in a return to classical liberalism.

Yes, this is the way things are, but that way is not sustainable. It isn’t the fault of one political party or the other, or one president or the other … it is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed before the federal fiscal bus goes over a real fiscal cliff and takes the economy with it. My income and retirement are tied up in the economy, so — yeah, I care what happens to it. I would think you would too.

 

Lela Markham is the author of the epic fantasy The Willow Branch and the soon-to-be-released apocalyptic dystopian Life As We Knew It, which will explore many of the issues Thom and I touch on in this conversation.

Inside My Mind

Words from my brain

Happiness Between Tails by da-AL

Tales + Tail Wagging + Book Love + Writing + Art + Food + Dance + Travel + Joy

Fairfax and Glew

Vigilante Justice

The Wolf's Den

Overthink Everything

SaltandNovels

Sprinkling wonder into writing

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore!! Love for books and series is all we need. Life can be lonely without books. All I love is books, series, and talking about serious causes like bodyshaming. Do join me if you love to live your life to the fullest

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

Read. Write. Love. 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

Ediciones Promonet

Libros e eBooks educativos y de ficción

the dying fish

Book info, ordering, about me etc. in upper right

STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

Never underestimate the power of a question

%d bloggers like this: