Will we ever learn? Rand Paul

SEN. RAND PAUL: There is no debate more significant for a legislator than the decision to engage in war. We must hold our leaders accountable. If we do not, there will be no end to war. The ridiculous and the absurd must be laid to rest. You've all heard it before. Toppling Ghaddafi led to a jihadist wonderland in Libya, toppling Hussein led to the chaos that is Iraq, toppling Assad will lead to a new chaos and greater danger from the jihadists.

The moss covered too-long-in-Washington crowd cannot help themselves. War, war, what we need is more, more war. Their policies and the combination of feckless disinterest, fraudulent red lines, and selective combativeness of this administration have led us to this point. Yes, we must now confront ISIS, in part for penance for the President's role in their rise. But while we do so to protect our interests here, what we need is someone to shout: War, war, what are we fighting for?

Amidst the interventionist's disjointed and frankly incoherent rhetoric, amidst the gathering gloom that sees enemies behind every friend, and friends behind every enemy, the only consistent theme is war. These barnacled enablers have never met a war they didn't like. They beat their chests in rhythmic ode to failed policies. Their drums beat to policies that display their outrage but fail to find a cure. Unintended consequences drown and smother the possibility of good intentions.

Must we act to check and destroy ISIS? Yes, and again yes, because of the foolishness of the interventionists. But let's not mistake what we must do. We shouldn't give a pass to forever intervene in the civil wars of the Middle East. Intervention created the chaos. Intervention aided and abetted the rise of radical Islam and intervention made us less safe in Libya and Syria and Iraq.

To those who wish unlimited intervention and boots on the ground everywhere: Remember the smiling poses of politicians pontificating about so-called freedom fighters and "heroes" in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq...unaware that so-called freedom fighters may well have been allied with kidnappers, killers or both. Are the so-called moderate Islamic rebels in Syria friends or foes? Do we know who they really are? All debatable questions at best.

As the interventionists clamor for boots on the ground, we should remember that they were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about Libya. They were trying to intervene last year on the wrong side of the Syrian war. When will we quit listening to the advocates of perpetual war? When does a track record of being consistently wrong stop you from being a so-called expert when the next crisis arises?

We should remember that they were wrong, that there were no WMD's, that Hussein, Khaddifi, and Assad were no threat to us. We should remember that radical Islam now roams about in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We should remember that those who believe that war is the answer for every problem, were wrong. We should remember that war against Hussein, that war against Khaddafi, that war against Assad led to chaos.

That intervention enhanced the rise of radical Islam, and ultimately led to more danger for Americans. Before we arm the so-called moderate Muslims of Syria, remember what I said a year ago: "The irony you will not be able to overcome is that these arms will someday be used against America."

That prediction is now true. We will fight ISIS, a war I accept as necessary, largely because our own arms and the arms of our allies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar have enabled our new enemy ISIS. Will we ever learn?

Kurdistan

I just spent some time in Italy and spoke with a man who said he was from Kurdistan.

I said that I didn't know that the Kurds had acquired a country and he said:

"We're working on it."

Just a handshake.

The American nation has labeled Iran a principle source of terrorism in the world.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is the head of state and highest ranking political and religious authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran's current Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei.

The number two man in Iran is its, President Hassan Rouhani, who was required to obtain the permission of Khamenei in order to even be eligible to run for the office he currently holds.

Apparently, someone suggested that Iran's number two, Rouhani, should chat with our number one, Obama. Obama, agreed.

Rouhani then backs out and leaves Obama with his "hand out for a shake" that never came.

Some say the symbolism of such things is irrelevant.

I disagree.

Machiavelli?

If you would like to see a description of the current Syrian situation that presents Obama as engaging in a deep and successful maneuver that has trapped Putin go here and check out Andrew Sullivan's view.
 

Obama and Egypt

I want to get this post up now because you are going to shortly see a lot of howling about how Obama is siding with (gasp) Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which is a Muslim religious-political organization.

Briefly the Brotherhood won the (close) elections and put President Morsi in office.  He apparently did not govern very democratically and was moving to "permatize" his power.

The Egyptian military overthrew him.

That required that we reduce our support for Egypt.

Obama temporized for several weeks about stopping aid (which is a cornerstone of the Camp David Accords which established peace between Egypt and Israel) and is now moving in that direction.

So - as usual in the Middle East - we have easy choices:
         a)  The Muslim Brotherhood which was moving away from democracy, or
         b)  the military which staged a coup and has already killed hundreds.

Sometimes I think that I know what a president should do.
Sometimes - like Jose Jimenez - I am glad that:  "It's naa my job."

You will soon hear that this means that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer or "worse".

With respect to that, I say poppycock.

Snowden 2

The following is from empty set:

If this is true, it changes the whole complexion of this matter from whistle-blower to espionage.

Here is an excerpt from the article in the Wash. Post. " The South China Morning Post, which has interviewed Snowden, reported Monday that he had taken a job with Booz Hamilton Allen earlier this year with the express purpose of being assigned to the NSA and accessing classified documents. "

Snowden and civil disobedience

Some of his admirers describe Snowden as being engaged in civil disobedience.

He is not.

Civil disobedience requires that you stand in place and face the consequences.  It does not include running to one of the places most likely to use the info against your country.

Unions - some thoughts

If people who work hard for a living can't make a decent life, then we have lost America.

I agree with the following analysis by Abraham Lincoln: Italicised parts are implied.  

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. (Therefore) Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. (Which is not to deny that) Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."  Abraham Lincoln – POTUS – 1861-65

Except for a short stint before college I have never been in a union.  But I support them because I think that they are the only way for the working people to get a big enough share of the fruits of their labor to raise a family.  Notice I avoid the word "fair" since I agree with Tom (who writes here) that fair is way too subjective to have any real meaning.  I wold add that, like FDR, I am not as enthusiastic about public employee unions.  The conflict of interest of the elected managers is too great.

I would even support the use of state power to assist the unions, because I believe that the disparity between the lower middle class and the upper middle class is becoming dangerous in this country.  It is not a classic rich vs poor.  The disparity is between the poor working class and the well to do knowledge class.

There are many of us who make (or made) a living with our minds and are doing very well in this new world.  If the disparity becomes too great it will produce instability.  This situation cannot continue in a nation which is fundamentally democratic and has even a large minority of poor people.  So how do you require the knowledge workers to grant the working class a greater share what they produce?  I see three ways to do that.

1.  Take it in taxation and mail them checks.

2.  Provide a broad array of free services – free education, medicare, and SS so that the obligations of the middle class are reduced.

3.   Have stronger unions.

I prefer a combination of 2 and 3.

I do have one problem with unions and that is this whole business of being required to join (or just pay) in order to work.  I see the validity of the argument that if you don’t pay, then you are a free rider and that is not fair.  But I find the argument that you have to join an organization that you may not agree with and pay for the things that it does in order to work there to be pretty offensive as well.  Huge amounts of that money go to the support of one political party.  If you oppose that party, then you are being forced to financially support something you are against.  Is there no reconciliation of this?  Is it not possible to just have the union contract apply only to union members and everyone else deals with management on their own?

Anyway, let me finish my note on unions with my real nightmare.

With the rise of multinationals and states and nations competing to attract industry (capital) the coin of the realm in which those deals are made is labor.  I find that very scary.  One can imagine this new world rising to be much like that of late nineteenth and early twentieth century America in which the states and the industrial leaders treated the workers as less than chattel. In that earlier environment there was the very powerful and overarching organization that was fundamentally controlled by the people:  the United States of America.  It eventually gave the people some leverage.  But in this larger world environment that same US will be just another one of the competitors.  The world itself is not fundamentally controlled by the people. This time there is no international entity that the people of the world can turn to for support.  

Throw into that mix the fact that some players and nations who are new to the whole capitalism game have no reason to respect the traditional rules which were made by those who are now their competitors.  Why should they be respectful of patents and copyrights made by those who happen to have gotten into the game first.  Then there is the possible rise of state capitalism where an entire nation might function as some corporate-state unit with people playing the roles of ants in a colony.  

Now there's a brave new world, so to speak.