If we are not in it to win it, then pull out
There are only two ways to fight a war. Either we put the full resources of the country behind the war effort with the explicit goal of total victory in the shortest time, or we don't fight it at all. It is immoral to fight a war any other way. It is morally wrong to ask young men and women to put their lives at risk knowing full well that if we had provided more resources and manpower, many of the casualties could have been avoided.
It might seem that Obama is quickly making doves out of hawks, and one could be excused from thinking that conservatives are simply opposing Obama for opposition's sake, but a simple thought experiment (since it doesn't seem likely to happen in real life) will dispel that: imagine Obama approved his general's request for 40,000 troops—or, heck, suppose he doubled it and approved for 80,000 troop increase. Can you imagine a single conservative who would oppose that?
We just want our president to stop dithering. We should either fight to win, or, especially since we have already achieved important milestones, stop putting our men in danger. Anything else is a disservice to our troops:
Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home.
If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.
We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L. Jones’ assessment of the situation. “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban,” he said in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued: “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”
Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda around the globe. So let’s bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly to protect America.
Let’s instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us.
One can make an argument for nation building. A strong, free democracy doesn't make a good training ground for terrorists and jihadists. But, we can make that argument only as long as we are committed to success, in the shortest amount of time possible—by commitment of whatever resources and manpower necessary that this nation can provide.
If we are not committed to success, then the single argument for nation building collapses. As it was once said, "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Update: This is comforting. By the general's own admission, the ball's in his court, and frankly, I have far more confidence in the men of our military than its current commander in chief, so it's very comforting to know that the future of this war is in the military's hand.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little minds
At least that might explain some of the positions of liberals:
For instance, she has supported the work of feminists all along. She, in her book, Greta, as you know, gives credit to Title IX, says if Title IX was not there, she would not have been able to go to college because she couldn't afford to do it. She gives full credit. Do you know how much aggravation and pressure went on trying to fight the conservatives in Congress and get that legislation passed when I was in Congress?
How does that matter that feminists had to fight conservatives in Congress to get Title IX legislation passed? Conservatives then are not conservatives now, for one, and even if we are talking about the same conservatives, are liberals saying that conservatives cannot (or shouldn't) change their minds on anything?
Conservatives are, rightfully, wary of sudden changes. We want any changes to be gradual. We want to be able to roll back the changes if the changes we make to our society turn out to be harmful. But that does not mean we don't see benefits of certain changes.
Even supposing that small-government conservatives were against, say, women's suffrage or emancipation of slaves (trust me, they were not; they just wanted federal government out of states' affairs), tell me if you can find any conservative today who actually wants to remove women's right to vote—or re-institute slavery (in fact, the only slavery-praising quotes I have seen come from a liberal making up and claiming that Rush Limbaugh said something that he didn't).
Liberals were good for something once. At one point, they did stand for liberty (which is why the label "liberal" stuck, even after the label was no longer true). But, in foolish pursuit of consistency, they are pushing even more power for women, minorities, and unions, because that's the direction they have been going in and they think they need to continue in that direction. The concept of equality and moderation (i.e. that once some major goals are accomplished, that's where you stop, or at least try to balance the power and "rights" of various groups) has no place in the liberal vocabulary.
Just like trade unions were good for something at some point, liberal ideology was good and honorable in the long, long times past. And, just like trade unions today, we are better off without liberal ideology than with it.
Why does U.S. need to keep troops ’round the world?
Twenty-six percent (26%) of Americans say the United States should remove all its military troops from Japan, a central issue in President Obama’s trip to that country Friday and Saturday.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% disagree and oppose the removal of all U.S. troops from Japan. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not sure.
I might have guessed such a result (after all, we still have troops there; it wouldn't stay that way for long if it was unpopular), but I did not expect such a wide gap. What drives people to think that U.S. military presence in Japan is beneficial for U.S. (or Japan, for that matter)?
I am guessing that the people answering that we need to keep some troops in Japan answer so because they think of it as supporting our ally:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say Japan is an ally of the United States. Only 10% view the country as an enemy, while 24% think of it as somewhere in between an ally and an enemy.
Forty-six percent (46%) believe America should help Japan militarily if it comes under attack, but 41% disagree.
And, sure, as a strong democracy with capitalistic economy in the region (albeit with a hint of mercantilism), Japan can be a valuable ally. But what does not follow is that U.S. needs to keep a troop presence there, using our own resources for day-to-day protection of the islands. We have had a special relationship with U.K. for more than a century now—but we do not keep a troop presence there to protect them.
The fact that these countries are our allies—and that if they are attacked, whoever attacked them will live to regret the day—is protection enough. There is no reason to overstretch our military. We should be pulling all our troops from Japan and Germany—and given how strong these nations are, it will not be seen as a sign of weakness by our old (Russia) and current (North Korea and Iran) enemies either, unlike the cancellation of missile shield program in Poland.
Subverting opposition to “too big to fail”
JP Morgan executive appears to say the right thing, but not really:
"If some unforeseen circumstance should put this firm at risk of collapse, I believe we should be allowed to fail," Dimon wrote on Friday in The Washington Post. "Global economic growth requires the services of big financial firms. It also requires that big financial firms be allowed to fail."
If that's all he said, he would be perfectly right. Capitalism cannot work when the traditional system of rewards and risks have been destroyed by government guarantees. Socialized risks are as bad as socialized economy. The government is not the large corporations' keeper.
However, that's not all that he said, which is what makes me nervous:
Dimon said regulators deserve authority to manage failures of large financial institutions, including the ability to replace management, sell assets, and wipe out shareholders and even unsecured creditors.
Mr. Dimon forgets that by advocating for regulators with broad authority to take over private companies, he is setting up for an idea that is "politically, economically and ethically bankrupt": an idea that the government (and its regulators) are "too big to fail".
Mr. Dimon's idea—of regulators with such broad powers such as replacing managements and wiping out stockholders, destroying the instruments of capitalism that has stood the test of time—may work fine, when the angels govern, anyway. When the regulators' models are perfect, when the regulators' decisions are infallible, and when the regulators themselves are incorruptible, Mr. Dimon's idea of omnipotent regulators will work fine.
But until then, it will not work. Power to shut down companies—with no just cause and with no due process—is too much power for anyone to have. What kind of guarantee do we have to ensure that Mr. Dimon does not use his friendship with regulators to shut down his competitors through regulators, rather than by fairly competing in the market place? What kind of checks and balances are on these all-wise regulators (who predicted and successfully stopped all the recessions and depressions known to mankind)?
Mr. Dimon is right about one thing. "Too big to fail" must stop. It must first stop at the government. There should be no government program that is "too big to fail". The maximum role of government should be protection of life, liberty, and property (i.e. prevention of crime and fraud) and no more.
Gitmo not closing: prelude for landslide win in ‘12?
Rather predictably, Obama administration is not serious about closing Gitmo:
Struggled? Yes, that’s one way of putting it. After Craig damaged US-British relations by sticking four Gitmo detainees on a plane to Bermuda, and after he dumped less than a dozen more on the island nation of Palau, the pickings for release became mighty slim. Even with the US sending five 9/11 plotters to New York City to face a criminal trial, the Washington Post estimates that 75 prisoners remain that simply cannot be released, sent elsewhere, or tried normally — a situation Obama’s critics predicted all along.
This is going to eventually come back bite Obama. He is disillusioning his own base by breaking every promise made during the campaign: in fact, the ones that he actually does want to keep (universal health care) he doesn't have the power to push through, because this is a center-right country and president is not a king, and the ones he can keep using his executive powers (closing Gitmo, bringing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq) he was never serious about keeping.
This is developing into a landslide scenario for a conservative candidate in 2012, whoever that may be. Conservatives are happy that Obama isn't keeping his promises (perhaps with the exception of some libertarians on Afghanistan-Iraq wars and Gitmo, but when it comes down to it, domestic policies will matter far more to libertarians). Independents who thought Obama was a moderate have fled from him as they found out more. And finally, liberals will be disappointed with Obama and will simply stay home on the election day.
Unless Obama can change direction drastically on foreign policy (and he probably won't be able to, even with that Nobel Peace prize), his only hope for the second term will be the economy—he might be able to win back some of the independents back, if economy improves enough (just pray that Obama and Pelosi do not raise taxes enough to kill the recovery). But even then, it would be an uphill battle—he will no longer have the enthusiastic netroots support, and the resurgent conservative grassroots movements will be opposing him.
Liberals take note: statism doesn’t pay
This is what happens when you put a statist in power:
Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)
The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
As much as Bush was unloved by the liberal media (and the feeling was probably mutual), he would never have tried such heavy-handed tactic. Even as a neocon, such overt exertion of government power (with no apparent compelling state interest) would have gotten him disowned by his own base.
But, as a statist, Obama administration doesn't have any problem with government control and government action—neither does he fear alienation of most of his base when he does something like this—because most of his supporters care far more about redistribution of wealth than liberty and freedom.
If there is any liberal left who gives a damn about freedom (never mind which freedom you cherish most—regardless of order and priority, there are some freedoms that we all care about deeply), take heed: statism is the wrong road to go down, for statism always leads to totalitarianism—and the day when totalitarianism is synonymous with liberalism is when Orwell's nightmare has come true.