Next time you hear Tom Friedman or some other supposed ‘sophisticate’ praising China’s enlightened, technocratic government or it’s vaunted economic wisdom, remind them of these prisons and prisoners. This is an ongoing human rights violation and a crime against humanity. Friedman once longed for the U.S. to be “China for a day” so the U.S. president could just order the policies he knows that would be best for the U.S. How delusional!

Watch the video and weep for these poor souls.

Technorati Tags: china, prison labor, slavery

Wow, rarely have I read such a direct and damning assessment of our relationship with Pakitan. I’m not sure what to think of it. Here’s an excerpt, from Christopher Hitchens in July’s Vanity Fair.

“Salman Rushdie’s upsettingly brilliant psycho-profile of Pakistan, in his 1983 novel, Shame, rightly laid emphasis on the crucial part played by sexual repression in the Islamic republic. And that was before the Talibanization of Afghanistan, and of much of Pakistan, too. Let me try to summarize and update the situation like this: Here is a society where rape is not a crime. It is a punishment. Women can be sentenced to be raped, by tribal and religious kangaroo courts, if even a rumor of their immodesty brings shame on their menfolk. In such an obscenely distorted context, the counterpart term to shame—which is the noble word “honor”—becomes most commonly associated with the word “killing.” Moral courage consists of the willingness to butcher your own daughter.

If the most elemental of human instincts becomes warped in this bizarre manner, other morbid symptoms will disclose themselves as well. Thus, President Asif Ali Zardari cringes daily in front of the forces who openly murdered his wife, Benazir Bhutto, and who then contemptuously ordered the crime scene cleansed with fire hoses, as if to spit even on the pretense of an investigation. A man so lacking in pride—indeed lacking in manliness—will seek desperately to compensate in other ways. Swelling his puny chest even more, he promises to resist the mighty United States, and to defend Pakistan’s holy “sovereignty.” This puffery and posing might perhaps possess a rag of credibility if he and his fellow middlemen were not avidly ingesting $3 billion worth of American subsidies every year.”

And this is just a start. He goes on to re-publish a letter from a Pakistani friend who expresses his deepshame about Bin Laden being found in Abottabad, especially given that KSM was found in Rawalpindi, the city which just happens to be home to the headquarters of the Pakistani Army. And that’s not all. Hitchens take on their betrayal of the U.S. reads like an indictment. He puts it in historical context as well, comparing it the treachery visited upon us by other “partners” in the past. It’s riveting, and to my thinking, a must read for anyone who’s thinking hard about what we are doing in that part of the world.

Read the full article here. I’d love to hear what you think.

Technorati Tags: christopher hitchens, pakistan

Obama has just announced that he intends to renew his ‘outreach’ to the Muslim world. Perhaps this gooey sentiment will be as effective as Obama’s many failed efforts as a community organizer in Chicago, but I digress. My question is does Obama think his vaporous words can change the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims who hate America so thoroughly? If he thinks so, he misunderstands the region and the nature and implications of the “Arab spring”. First off, the uprisings in some of the Arab countries were the creations of very small minorities of people who have been trying to create a civil, non-violent uprising for some time, so he needs to understand that genereally this is no “organic” movement of Arab peoples to embrace liberal democracy (Tunisia, the spark, is an exception but even there, social activists played a role in fomenting the revolution). In fact, many of the leaders of these factions have been trained by the west in organizing these kind of movements, and are now actively being guided by NGOs in how to carry out their protests. They have leveraged Tunisia and widespread dissatisfaction with current conditions by the lower classes in their countries. However, in each country that we examine we find that the ‘leaders’ are in a small minority. What they tap into is a populist rage against their dictators, many of whom we supported for decades. But this rage is not aimed at building an actual functioning free society, rather it is a rage against the status quo.

The majority of the citizenry in each of these societies favor either an Islamic society or a faux “modern” state in which Islam plays a huge role. I think that over time this inherent conflict between secular, liberal values and Islam is irreconcilable. Just look at Turkey or Pakistan – both states that supposedly set out to build “modern” or “moderate” Islamic societies. Their liberal institutions are falling by the wayside as Islamism increases it’s hold. Given these failures, how can anyone expect Egypt or Syria to erupt into anything other than more Islamic states, with all that implies in terms of our interests.

It seems to me that Obama is missing the point. Islamism is ascending in these societies, not retreating. Islam will tend towards radicalism and violence, just as Christian monarchies did for centuries. It took numerous reformations of Christianity and the concomitant rise of liberalism in the West to create a consensus among the elites in Western countries to cast aside their tyrants in favor of building liberal societies. Intrinsic with this movement was an utter, and explicit rejection of any role for religion in the governance of these countries. Then, and only then, were we able to throw off the yoke of religious authority in the political sphere. Is there any evidence of such a reformation movement gaining hold in Islam? Is there any evidence that the elites in the countries in question support liberal, secular ideas? It’s laughable to even ask the question.

The problem goes even deeper for the west. Our own conflicted views about freedom, whether it’s from Marxists/Socialists, Progressives, Social Justice theorists, Keynesians and/or now behavioral economists like Stiglitz who claim to have proven that classical market economics is a myth, all to feed a constant critique of Western values to those in repressed societies to denigrate the very idea of freedom. Bin Laden himself adopted these ideas in his own anti-American rhetoric. Sophisticates and elites the world over pander to the rage of the oppressed, convincing many of them that the U.S. is an imperial war criminal, bent on destroying them and controlling their countries for our gain. Ask yourself, why would they want what we have? Obama is a perfect representative of these cadres, how does he expect to speak authoritatively and authentically about liberty when he doesn’t even believe in it himself? Answer, he can’t and won’t, but it’s not just him. This ideological fault line has been built over a long period of time, and enjoys wide support amongst the elites of the West. How can they encourage these folks to adopt liberal, free societies if they don’t believe in it themselves? I mean, can you really believe that Chomsky could stand up and speak to those in repressed societies that he claims to fight for about building a liberal, free society without having his own critique of it handed right back at him? These folks and their ideological forebears have spent more than a century denigrating the American experiment with liberty, despite them saying they love freedom. Put another way, what does Obama believe these folks should do? I mean, the same week that his NLRB gins up highly politicized charges against Boeing, in the interest of his union cronies, he’s now going to talk to Muslims about the benefits of a limited government and individual sovereignty? Sure, he’ll mouth tropes and be slick, but he’ll never be an advocate for freedom in the way that say Reagan was. He threw in with ‘Solidarity’ in Poland based on his beliefs, not out of some desire to manipulate the masses.

Once again, Obama is showing his superficiality. If the thinks freedom and limited government are a good thing, he should start at home. He might then have some credibility when he ‘speaks to the world’.

Technorati Tags: arab spring, liberty, obama

Warning, the images in this video are not suitable for children or the faint of heart. Real images of stoning, genital mutilation and honor killings are shown so be prepared. While I’m actually opposed to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I also think that we shouldn’t kid ourselves about what the Islamic faith is about. The treatment of women depicted in this video is supported by mainstream Islamic doctrine – these are not “radicals” – these are mainstream  Imams in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere upholding these practices. Why should we be tolerant of this? I’m not tolerant of a religion that oppresses women so horribly, are you? Shar’ia is not just religious – it is also a governing structure for society, hence it is not comparable to other religions we “tolerate” in the U.S. Political Islam is a movement that seeks to expand the Muslim world and Shar’ia along with it. Are you actually prepared to say that this belief system is an alternate way of life that we should accept? I’m not, it’s pre-modern and horrific in its very nature – no thanks. No tolerance here for this repressive, violent, authoritarian and totalitarian belief system – how about you?  If you are “tolerant” of it, well perhaps you should watch this video again…

I know I usually do political or current events stuff, but hey, I really wanted to review this movie and if I can’t take a little license with this site from time to time, what’s the point of publishing a blog in the first place?

Okay, so I went to the movies, undecided as to whether I was going to see Crazy Heart or Green Zone. Truthfully, I was in a pretty grumpy mood having been cooped up for too many days in a row in my southern headquarters, so I made a last minute decision to go for some blood pumping action. I knew it was going to be an anti-Bush administration movie, which isn’t a big problem for me. I knew it was going to be dealing with WMD and figured Hollywood would sensationalize it a bit. I can quite enjoy a thoughtful send-up of our country and government, as long as it’s done well, and, like I said, I was kind of in the mood for a ‘shoot ‘em up’. In the back of my mind I guess I was ready for something along the lines of War Inc, which in hindsight made no sense because War Inc. set out to be a satire, and was a brilliant one. I don’t know what critics have said about it, but my advice is that you’d be far more entertained and thoughtfully engaged by renting War Inc rather than the hackneyed and ham-handed Green Zone.

Bottom line, it has no regard for the facts as it meanders through the ridiculous fantasy adventures of a rogue Army Chief Warrant Officer, played by Damon,  who is tasked with finding WMD in Iraq after the invasion based on intelligence supplied to the military. First,  the action isn’t remotely believable. Damon just barrels around, going off mission and putting his men in way too much danger on a regular basis in ways that even I can see are ridiculous. Even less believable, Damon, operating apparently free of any operational command, develops his own intelligence source, is seconded to the CIA and then hunted down by our own special forces. Right, that’s exactly how things go down in the real world of military operations. He ultimately single-handedly discovers that the intelligence is entirely fabricated and then apprehends a senior Iraqi general, the commander of the Iraqi army, who subsequently tells him that he provided intelligence weeks before the war to the U.S. that there was no WMD in Iraq. This general is then shot by special operations forces under the command of the administration’s minion in Iraq. Right, yeah, that’s how it was under Bush.

Okay, what’s going on here? First, the feel of it reminded me a bit of the Generation Kill mini-series,  so, okay, and in recreating the feel of Baghdad, it seemed to work well – but that’s it. I think the director/writer stopped trying to engage in reality right then and there. One of the most ridiculous elements of the plot is that the CIA was actually trying to stop the administration’s puppet from behaving so badly, that somehow the CIA doubted the intelligence in the run-up to the war. I mean there is no mention of a CIA director telling  the President that it’s a “slam dunk. The entire story comes off like something a superficial, liberal wing-nut would scribble out in a single evening after smoking some fine weed.  It wasn’t even a thoughtful satire or a critique of the real situation, nope, it just made a story up with stick figure caricatures of characters. These characters lack depth, believability and aren’t even likable. It also makes overuse of the shaky camera, fast frame changing action effect of the Bourne movies which makes the action completely unintelligible. So, all in all, it simply doesn’t work on any level.

So, okay you say, another bad hollywood movie, big deal, why are you so ticked off, Glenn? Well, it’s because when treating a subject like this, so recent in history, with an authentic feel, I think the authors have a responsibility to have a basis in fact for their storyline. It’s not like Avatar, in which – as science fiction – I’m perfectly happy to ignore the corporate use of military forces to extinguish indigenous species because the story, characters and special effects are so captivating that I just don’t care about the politics. Green Zone seems earnest to be taken seriously and Damon is certainly trying hard to be taken seriously with his sternness and military rigor. But it just fails miserably to deal with any of the complexities of this issue.

You see, I’m a troublemaker. I actually read stuff like source documents, when I can. And guess what, there is a great document on WMD in Iraq and there have been several studies of the intelligence failures on Iraq. The Iraqi Survey Group, headed by David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector and no Bush administration lackey, did an in depth report of what we actually found and didn’t find in Iraq. First, WMD capability is about much more than just stockpiles of munitions. It also requires significant infrastructure of men and equipment to manufacture. In the concluding remarks by David Kay in his report, he claims that in significant ways Saddam was more dangerous than we thought and that he had substantial WMD operations in place. While there were no stockpiles of weapons found, when analyzed in it’s totality, there is no doubt that Saddam was a danger with respect to WMD. Second, after three separate investigations of the intelligence leading to our invasion of Iraq, not a single ‘smoking gun’ of politicization was found. Instead, the thoughtful critics have concluded that this was an epic intelligence failure. Also,  the entire scenario also reflects the grave difficulty of gaining intelligence in totalitarian, despotic regimes. It also should makes us all think about the very difficult nature of making decisions about what  acceptable levels of risk of this sort are. But these more nuanced and complex ideas, only arrived at after analyzing the facts involved, don’t even try to peek out from anywhere in this movie. Instead, we are treated to a Manichean story line in which the dumb, ambitious administration lackey, played by Greg Kinnear,  ignores or kills everything in the way of his agenda – an agenda which is never explored, btw.

I think that one of the biggest risks we face as a society is the pre-eminence of politics in our public discourse. Our entire public debate is politicized now – from global warming to health care reform, it’s all polemic and bashing the other, and the actual issues and facts aren’t even discussed that much in our media anymore. We are in real danger as a society if we all don’t try and catch ourselves more. Ask yourself, am I just railing for my side or am I adhering to a set of principles and looking at the facts to make my decisions? What are your principles? I think this is the core problem – neither the Republicans or Democrats have a fixed set of principles that I can discern. This is why I love the Libertarian Party – “The Party of Principle”. We work from clearly elucidated first principles that we’ve carefully examined and developed, and then make our minds up on issues based on those principles.  The lure of the outrageous polemic has less effect because we start from a different place. You should check it out at :  www.lp.org/platform . Most people will find themselves agreeing with our principles, but then start to have trouble with some of the positions/policies that flow from them. If that’s the case, you should ask yourself, am I willing to govern my views by principle or not? If the answer is yes – we are the party for you. If not, well, good riddance – you are the problem in our society.

Technorati Tags: green zone, libertarianism, libertian principles

Obama and his hackneyed ilk like to prattle on about how Gitmo or our harsh interrogation tactics are actually causing Al Qaeda to grow by providing PR fodder for their recruiting drives. It is true that the U.S. is continuously villified in Arab/Muslim media for many things, including these issues, but if you spend some time on Al Jazeera (easy to do, they publish on YouTube) or other sources, you’ll quickly realize that U.S. caused civilian casualties is the biggest issue they scream about. Today’s report of 27 civilian deaths caused by NATO air strikes in Afghanistan is business as usual for us (despite our apologies) and you can guarantee that this will be huge on Islamic media.

Rightly so. U.S. and coalition forces have killed thousands – maybe tens of thousands of civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also true that many more civilian deaths have been caused by ‘insurgents’ of various stripes. It seems clear at this point that in the Muslim world an individual’s life is not worth that much when taken by a fellow Muslim in the name of Allah (pause, throw up, continue). However, that doesn’t matter when measuring our own actions against our own morality, and in fact, it’s clear that some of these deaths are the foreseeable consequences of our actions so we do bear some moral responsibility for even these deaths. It’s this dissonance that is used against us and what makes our claim of serving the higher purpose of freedom ring hollow in the Muslim world.

The facts are hard to find, as the reporting is always sketchy and politicized, and our own defense dept isn’t very forthcoming about this issue (understandably). Fighting an insurgency is, defacto, something that occurs in the midst of civilian populations and will result in civilian deaths as collateral damage (what a euphemism that is, ehh?). After all, the insurgents don’t wear uniforms (not unlike many militia-men in our own revolutionary war, btw) and many civilians support the insurgents openly or covertly, so they may even be legitimate targets in some sense. Even taking all of this into account, the bottoms line is that we are killing innocent people every day.

Just look at our drone attacks in Pakistan on Al Qaeda and other targets. Obama has launched 57+ such attacks since taking office – more than Bush did in his entire administration. Since the inception of this tactic, we have killed about 900 civilians in drone attacks. Just stop and think about that for a moment. From remote control in Nevada, the USAF is launching and controlling these unmanned drones, not unlike a video game, in your name. What do you think that is like for some poor peasant living in Waziristan? They see robots in the sky tracking them down, blowing them, their friends and family members up. If you lived there, what would you think? Do you think you might want to join up with the only folks brave enough to fight back?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not supporting these Islamic maniacs. The Jihadi movement is repugnant to me in so many ways.  However, I cannot stomach these civilian deaths. There are many reasons to oppose our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere, be on the lookout for what we are doing in Yemen), but this is something that breaks my heart, and I think that it creates a future generation of Jihadis to fight us. Hmm, why doesn’t Obama talk about this as a recruiting tool? Answer: He’s just another political hack without any real vision. Some of us saw this ahead of time, but hey, it’s not like McCain was any better.

Libertarians believe that we should only initiate force in defense of our rights, and country (although some libertarians would debate the latter). Our policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs is based on the beliefs which many of our founding fathers held dearly, and a belief that the unintended consequences of our actions ultimately make the world less safe for Americans. We also believe that we cannot afford our military adventurism – with a price tag of over 700 billion slated for 2010. Can you imagine? That is more than the GDP of 170+ countries. It is wrong, scary and very far from what I want America to be. How about you?

Technorati Tags: afghanistan, civilian casualties, iraq, libertarian politics, libertarianism

more .... )

Video Tags: afghanistan, taliban

Technorati Tags: afghanistan, taliban

]]> http://libertariancomment.com/inside-afghanistan-fighting-alongside-stoned-afghan-soldiers/feed/ 0 http://libertariancomment.com/obama-to-nobel-committee-pacifists-are-stupid/ http://libertariancomment.com/obama-to-nobel-committee-pacifists-are-stupid/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:58:23 +0000 Glenn http://libertariancomment.com/?p=168

“America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.” Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech

I’m still trying to collect myself. I’ve watched carefully over the past couple of months as Obama has attempted to get his head around being Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, it is perhaps the most awesome responsibility in the world that any single person can shoulder. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the rapid aging all U.S. Presidents is in large part due to wearing this heavy mantel, and Obama is wearing it no less lightly than his predecessors. The stakes involved and inherent complexity make it impossible for any person to prepare for it – there is no equivalent level of responsibility in the world, and as a result the job tends to shape the inhabitant of the office rather than the other way ’round.

I have developed a deep and profound respect for Obama as he attempts to shoulder this responsiblity seriously and thoughtfully. The first evidence I saw of this seriousness was in his speech at Ft. Hood, commemorating our fallen soldiers. I think the subtleties of that speech were lost on many observers. First, I think you have to remember who he was speaking to in that speech and what his role is in that world. He was speaking as the Commander in Chief, and the troops were looking to him as their leader. He is at the end of the chain of command – and for those of you not familiar with the military, the chain of command is everything. It is a command and control organization where subordinates salute their superiors and follow their orders under the color of law. Obama’s speech clearly signaled that he was inside of this world now, speaking clearly about the heroism and honor of those who serve our country. It was a moving eulogy, and one that fit the occasion. One could feel the heavy burden of the vicious attack in his every word. I don’t think this was a speech he would have been capable of giving during the campaign.

The second signal Obama gave me of his seriousness was the timing, process and outcome of his Afghanistan strategy. While I disagree with his policy pronouncements, I saw him listen closely to his military leadership and the more sober members of his national security apparatus. His proscriptions were clearly a result of reasoned debate winning out over hysterical impulses.

Obama’s Nobel speech makes clear he has stepped up to a realism that in many ways is indistinguishable from that of say, George Bush the elder or Bill Clinton. While he claims otherwise, his positions do his talking for him. It is a traditional view of our role in the world, not really representing much in the way of ‘change’ for those of you keeping score, btw.

While as a libertarian I want a very different foreign policy, I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I have cornered the market on reason. Libertarian thought and principles would call for a non-interventionist stance in many conflicts we are embedded in around the world, closing down many of the 700 foreign military bases that we have and withdrawing our forces back to our shores. I’m not so stupid as to think that this would not cause dramatic instability in the world, and I know it represents a radical departure from the past. Continuity of our current policies has much to argue for it and it’s a legitimate course of action. I hope you crazy ideologues out there can get this – I can disagree with him and still respect him.

One of my greatest fears upon Obama’s election was that he was a dilettante, and as such might make deadly blunders with respect to foreign policy. It’s clear now that this is not the case, that he has embraced our traditional role as the guarantor of global security and that we are a force or freedom and human rights in the world. At least I can sleep at night…

Technorati Tags: foreign policy, libertarian, libertarianism, obama nobel

Pew Research has come out with a fantastic report on global attitudes – they just do a fantastic job of this work. Check out this article for a summary of the findings. I quote from another article they published on the topic.

A 47-nation 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey found that, among the seven major world regions included in the study, support for free markets was lowest in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Across the six Eastern European countries surveyed — Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine — a median of 56% agreed with the statement “Most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor.”

If you dig into the data, a few things start to emerge. Not surprisingly, both age and one’s perception of how one’s own fortunes have fared under “capitalism” are big drivers. However, I think that something more pernicious is at work. First, if you look at the other drivers, you’ll see that countries with lower support for capitalism have a higher concern about crime and corruption. How can we interpret those data? I suggest that a number of countries that are supposedly “free” in eastern Europe and Latin America actually have crony capitalist systems, which in many ways more resemble the Facism of pre-WWII Italy than of say 19th century Britain or 20th century U.S. What they are really saying is that they are not secure in their property and persons, which has nothing to do with “capitalism” and has everything to do with good government. Without a certain threshold of confidence in these basics, economic liberty will always falter because property rights are fundamental to being free.

I also think there is something even more destructive going on. How much effort is being put into educating people about what it means to be free in a democratic and free market society? One of the basic assumptions (although sadly it’s losing ground in the U.S.) is that the government isn’t the generator of prosperity. It’s individuals acting in their own interests, trading with each other that through the power of comparative advantage creates more wealth for everyone (see this link for a primer on this topic ). Populations of these countries may actually believe politicians when they say that they can create prosperity with their policies, just like the dictators of old did, when in fact the best the pols can do is clear the path for free enterprise to do what it does. Would that our own leaders spoke to the American people in this way, treating us like sentient adults instead of greedy children waiting for goodies from our parent/elected officials. Sadly. classical liberalism seem to be going the way of the do-do bird. The only group that remains faithful to these ideals are the libertarians, and libertarianism has a long way to go before enough people understand it, let alone support it.

Technorati Tags: crony capitalism, libertarian economics