;)
The Commentariat -- Nov. 11, 2012
AP: "Saturday marked the first of what will be three days of Veterans Day commemorations across the United States. The holiday falls on a Sunday, and the federal observance is on Monday."
Here, at long last, is your final Electoral College map, assuming of course there are no rebels among the collegians. The tally 332 for President Obama; 206 for Mitt Romney. Not exactly a close call:
... Thanks to Jeanne B. for forwarding the graphic. ...
... Lizette Alvarez of the New York Times: "... in Florida..., after days of counting absentee ballots, the official results are in, at last: To the surprise of no one, Mr. Obama narrowly beat out his Republican rival 50 percent to 49.1 percent, a difference of about 74,000 votes.... A record number of Florida voters -- 8.4 million, or 70 percent of those registered -- cast ballots."
For those who are discouraged that the country seems dominated by the right, these maps -- called "cartographs" -- which contributor Lisa forwarded, should make you feel better. ...
** AND there's this. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress: "Although a small number of ballots remain to be counted..., votes for a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives outweigh votes for Republican candidates.... There is a simple explanation for how this happened: Republicans won several key state legislatures and governors' mansions in the election cycle before redistricting, and they gerrymandered those states.... [For instance,] President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points, but Democrats carried only 5 of the state's 18 congressional seats." Get that? More people voted for Democratic candidates for the House than for Republican candidates. Absent GOP gerrymandering, the House would be about evenly divided, or Democrats would have a slight majority.
Prof. Stephen Hahn, in a New York Times op-ed, on political racism: "Although our present-day tactics are state-issued IDs, state-mandated harassment of immigrants and voter-roll purges, these are not a far cry from the poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements and discretionary power of local registrars that composed the political racism of a century ago. That's not even counting the hours-long lines many minority voters confronted." ...
... Brian McFadden of the New York Times has a few ideas for modernizing the vote. Here are some of them:
;)
CLICK ON CARTOON TO SEE ENLARGED IMAGE.Maureen Dowd: "Romney and Tea Party loonies dismissed half the country as chattel and moochers who did not belong in their 'traditional' America. But the more they insulted the president with birther cracks, the more they tried to force chastity belts on women, and the more they made Hispanics, blacks and gays feel like the help, the more these groups burned to prove that, knitted together, they could give the dead-enders of white male domination the boot."
Graph from Derek Thompson of The Atlantic.
Image by the ever-fabulous DriftglassKen Vogel of Politico: The Many Excuses of Karl Rove are not going over that well. "In his Wall Street Journal column the next day, he blamed Obama's win on an 'anonymous New York Times headline writer,' a 'hotel employee with a cell phone camera' who recorded damaging video of Romney criticizing American voters, and Hurricane Sandy, among other factors. And on Thursday, Rove told Fox News that Obama won by 'suppressing the vote.' ... Some donors have called Crossroads officials to ask how their polling could have been so far off, while others are openly grumbling that the groups should have spent more on the ground game. Rival operatives -- long frustrated by Rove's dominance of big GOP money — are seizing on the discontent, questioning whether he's hurting the cause and privately urging donors to shut him out." ...
... In case you're the one person who has gotten over his schadenfreude & is feeling a little sorry for poor, maligned Karl, this should snap you out of your conservative compassion. Dan Eggen & Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post: "Some of the biggest winners in the most expensive election in U.S. history weren't the politicians, but the private consultants who brought in tens of millions of dollars in fees for advertising, fundraising and other campaign activities. In the presidential race alone, the two main media firms working for President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney earned profits for handling more than half a billion dollars of campaign advertising, according to disclosures and ad tracking data.... Their combined cut could easily be $25 million or more at standard industry rates. Other big earners were the digital strategy companies, telemarketing firms, air charter services, pollsters and consultants who saw a spike in business in a presidential contest that cost at least $2.6 billion." ...
... AND Rove is scarcely contrite. Karen Tumulty of the Post: "As Rove sees it, the campaign proved that American Crossroads and its more secretive issue-advocacy arm, Crossroads GPS -- which allows donors to remain anonymous -- are here to stay. Rove is pondering new missions for Crossroads to address weaknesses laid bare by the GOP's back-to-back failures to win the White House and the fact that the party fell short when expected to win back the Senate."
Eli Lake, et al., of Newsweek: "They were the gang who couldn't shoot straight. Romney's ground-game operation was a disaster -- from technology that didn't work to field operatives who didn't understand their tasks. The result: Obama won."
Alexander Burns of Politico: "For Republicans, one of the worst parts of the GOP's 2012 trouncing was that they didn't see it coming."
Roll Back the Enlightenment! Paul Krugman: Republicans, with their "faith-based analysis," have been getting everything wrong for some time. "You might think that the election debacle would force some reconsideration. But I doubt it; if the financial crisis didn't do it, nothing will." ...
... Case in Point. Let me put it very clearly. I am not willing to raise taxes to turn off the sequester. Period.... Look, [President Obama] may think it would be helpful to his presidency to continue to divide and demonize us. But my answer will still be short and firm: No. We won't agree to any tax increases that will hurt the economy. -- Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, in the spirit of bipartisanship
Gail Collins: "If Hillary Clinton ... follows through on her plan to not decide anything for a year, it would put the 2016 presidential speculation on ice, at least on the Democratic side. And that would be a signal service to the American public, the best-prepared candidate in American history: one who's lived in the White House, served in the United States Senate, a woman who knows virtually every head of state in the world.... If Clinton follows through on her plan to not decide anything for a year, it would put the 2016 presidential speculation on ice, at least on the Democratic side. And that would be a signal service to the American public, which needs an election break."
Matt Sedensky of the AP: "Firebrand Republican Rep. Allen West was defeated by Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, according to the state's vote count Saturday, but the incumbent won't concede. The state issued complete but unofficial results showing Murphy with a lead of 2,442 votes, or 50.4 percent. That's beyond the half-percent margin needed to trigger an automatic recount. A handful of overseas and military ballots remain outstanding, but under state law the decision for a recount is based on Saturday's count.... The race was the country's most expensive House race...."
Katharine Seelye of the New York Times profiles Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Garance Burke of the AP: "Longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack lost her seat Friday to Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-educated physician who mobilized the district's growing swath of Hispanic voters.... Bono Mack served eight terms after winning an election in 1998 to fill the seat of her late husband, entertainer Sonny Bono. Her current husband, GOP Rep. Connie Mack IV of Florida, lost his bid for the U.S. Senate." Thanks to James S. for the link to this delightful news.
Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books: a number of losing presidential candidates have gone on to post-election careers dedicated to public service. What could Mitt Romney do? Absolutely nothing.
Scott Shane & Eric Schmitt of the New York Times: "The investigation that led to the resignation of as director on Friday began with a complaint several months ago about 'harassing' e-mails sent by Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus's biographer, to an unidentified third person, a government official ... said Saturday. When F.B.I. agents following up on the complaint began to examine Ms. Broadwell's e-mails, they discovered exchanges between her and Mr. Petraeus that revealed that they were having an affair...." ...
... This Washington Post report, by Sari Horwitz & Greg Miller, is clearer than the NYT report: "The collapse of the impressive career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman with whom he was having an affair sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him.... The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and a Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus.... The e-mails from Broadwell indicated that she felt the other woman was becoming involved with Petraeus.... [Officials] said the e-mails were 'threatening and harassing' but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges.... The recipient of the e-mails complained to Petraeus about them and ... the FBI later obtained e-mails between Petraeus and Broadwell in which they discussed the harassment." ...
... Michael Wines of the New York Times: "... in a digital era..., the odds of exposure have become exponentially greater.... That prominent figures throw caution to the winds may be no accident.... A 2001 study in the Journal of Family Psychology concluded that the incidence of extramarital affairs rises with income and education.... Many scandals burst open in part because powerful men usually are rotten at picking mistresses. ...
... Joby Warrick, et al., of the Washington Post: anonymous sources say Petraeus had "an unusual bond" with Broadwell, which made his aides nervous & which Broadwell exploited. ...
... Kimberly Dozier & Pete Yost of the AP: "... the CIA, FBI and White House face questions from Congress about Petraeus' love life and how his emails came under investigation.... Petraeus' sudden departure made news before House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed, catching lawmakers who oversee the intelligence community off guard.... CIA officers long had expressed concern about Broadwell's unprecedented access to the director. She frequently visited the spy agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., to meet Petraeus in his office, accompanied him on morning runs around the CIA grounds and often attended public functions as his guest...."
Jonathan Weisman & Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times: "On a conference call with House Republicans a day after the party's electoral battering last week, Speaker John A. Boehner dished out some bitter medicine, and for the first time in the 112th Congress, most members took their dose. Their party lost, badly, Mr. Boehner said, and while Republicans would still control the House and would continue to staunchly oppose tax rate increases as Congress grapples with the impending fiscal battle, they had to avoid the nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years. Members on the call, subdued and dark, murmured words of support.... It was a striking contrast to a similar call last year, when Mr. Boehner tried to persuade members to compromise with Democrats on a deal to extend a temporary cut in payroll taxes, only to have them loudly revolt."
News Ledes
President Obama honors veterans at Arlington National Cemetery:
New York Times: "Greece’s fragile government pushed a tough budget of spending cuts and tax increases for 2013 through Parliament early Monday, moving a step closer to unlocking crucial rescue financing from the country's foreign creditors. The vote occurred as about 20,000 demonstrators gathered outside Parliament to protest austerity measures, the second such protest in a week."
New York Times: "Lawmakers with authority over intelligence and national security expressed consternation on Sunday that the F.B.I. investigation that led to the resignation of David Petraeus as director of central intelligence could have been conducted without the knowledge of officials in the White House or Congress. They also voiced puzzlement that it came to a head within hours of President Obama's re-election."
New York Times: "Syrian opposition factions signed a tentative agreement on Sunday to create a unified umbrella organization that could pave the way for long-elusive international diplomatic recognition, as well as more funding and improved military aid from foreign capitals."
AP: "A roaring explosion that leveled two homes and set two others ablaze in a huge fire forced about 200 people from a devastated Indianapolis neighborhood where at least one person was killed, authorities said Sunday. The powerful nighttime blast shattered windows, crumpled walls and inflicted other damage on at least 14 other homes.... The cause of the explosions remains unknown...."
AP: "Israeli aircraft struck the Gaza Strip on Sunday, killing a Palestinian man, as militants bombarded the Jewish state with rockets and mortars in a fierce second day of fighting. The clashes have threatened to draw the two sides into a major confrontation two months before Israeli elections, a possibility underlined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warning that Israel was ready to strike harder against the militants if the violence persisted."
AP: "Israel was drawn into the Syrian civil war for the first time on Sunday, firing warning shots into the neighboring country after a stray mortar shell fired from Syrian territory hit an Israeli military post. The Israeli military said the mortar fire caused no injuries or damage at the post in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and then annexed. But in recent weeks, incidents of errant fire from Syria have multiplied, leading Israel to warn that it holds Syria responsible for fire on Israeli-held territory."
Share Article
Reader Comments (23)
Re: the Petreus Affair. I call dibs on the film rights. We'll call it "All In". The only question remaining is who will play Mrs.Broadwell ...
J.Roberts? J. Garner?
Too easy...
The real discussion should be: why is war such an important agenda item in America? Nowhere else in the developed world are war, violence and politics so glorified. Shame!
Petraeus should be left alone. He is a human being--a man who just turned 60--and given his high degree of macho and past struggle with prostate cancer, may be having a late mid-life crisis. Plus, we know nothing about the Petraeus marriage. I am guessing this may not be the first affair, and the "complaining person" may well be a former mistress, who feels rejected. Remember: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Don't trash Petraeus the human. Trash the global politics of war and war industries instead. We must encourage our media and populace to grow up and put on their big boy/girl panties! It is way past time for a radical change in the way we think about what is moral and immoral. Sigh.
It wasn't going to be a documentary! Geez...
Huzzah! Looks like Mary joins Connie in the dust bin of history.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21970469/gop-rep-bono-mack-loses-calif-seat
"La guerre est une chose trop grave pour être confiée à des militaires. I would translate Georges Clemenceau's famous quote more accurately as "War is too serious a business to be left to military men" but most often we hear of it being too important to be left to the generals. There is a distinction, but for our purposes, either will do. I don't know if Clemenceau ever read Carl von Clausewitz' major opus, "On War" but he takes a similar approach.
Clausewitz understood the complex nature of war. A career military man, he had a firm grasp of the political component of war and the necessity for engaging a population and a military establishment about to be thrust into the "fog of war" (his expression), and he advocated for as much clarity as possible and honesty with those about to descend into the maelstrom. This meant that the politics of the war needed to be clear and as unambiguous as possible.
Interesting that this is 180 degrees opposite to the approach taken by chicken hawks Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bush (who was also a deserter in time of war), who decided that mendacity, misdirection, and murderous misanthropy fueled by their own specially concocted right wing HGH compound specifically tweaked for hate, racism, and xenophobia (and WAR, natch) was just the thing.
Where, you might ask, is the point in all this? Just this:
Last week I noticed the release of a new book by Thomas Ricks, the author of the excellent "Fiasco" a brutal overview of the nodding stupidity of the Bush/Cheney wars and their distinctly non-Clausewitzian approach.
Ricks' new book, "The Generals" concerns itself with the distinct turn in the military, after WWII, in how generals were selected, promoted, reviewed, and handled. It's an eye-opener.
Not to be too prolix, his primary point is that military leaders during WWII were selected for very specific tasks. If they didn't perform, they were given the boot. Fast. No bullshit. No press conferences. No explanations. Out. Next guy in.
AND generals were selected, mostly by George Marshall (I don't know if this guy gets enough credit for his role in the way the war and its aftermath helped rebuild the world under the tenets of liberal democracy) for specific tasks, always with an eye toward both the political, sociological, and military tasks required of them. There were consequences for failure.
Over the last few days (shit, last few decades) we've seen that, for many right-wingers who are ass-wipingly wrong (thanks Diane) on a daily basis, there are NO consequences.
But as we moved beyond the second world war, generals were treated with far more obsequiousness, until, during Vietnam, Westmoreland could basically say "Every soldier will go into battle with a stick of Dentine and we'll win the fucking war" and few would question him.
And, of course, neither Bush nor Cheney, nor any of the risk averse chicken hawks in charge of the Iraq war had any reasonable chance of making any serious assessment of the military plans, such as they were, in any reasonably accurate manner. Instead they opted for propaganda and photo ops.
Outliers with different ideas for winning the war were routinely sent to Siberia. In this atmosphere, guys like Petraeus were golden. Petraeus actually did come up with a fairly useful counter-insurgency handbook but it was far too late to be of any real use when they needed it.
The point here is that our current military is treated with far more deference than they should be. Republican candidates offer blank check support for military plans no matter how whacko. When I hear intellectual midgets like Rand Paul declaring undifferentiated fealty for the armed forces no matter how fucked up the plans, I want to puke.
Clemenceau and von Clausewitz would be in the stalls next to me.
War, whether necessary or not, IS a complex business. Something deserter, lying, smirking frat-boy cheerleader Bush never cared to concern himself with. And I'm one hundred percent sure that Romney and Ryan would have been even more clueless. After all, Romney wanted to make sure they had plenty of horses and bayonets to go along with the 1898 gunboats.
(For any Clemenceau detractors out here, I'm right there with you, regarding his demands at Versailles, that Germany take it up the ass with a splintery telephone pole, pay for the privilege, and thank us on top of it. He effectively tilled the scorched soil for the rise of Democratic Socialism. You have to win the peace after you win the war, fucknuts. Something the Bushies forgot all about as well. Much more fun to play dress up and strut across an aircraft carrier with your one and half inch woody, declaring that the mission has been accomplished. Have I said, lately, what demented fucks Republicans are?)
Akhilleus: You frighten me. When the wing nuts take over you will be in the first railroad car. However, you are often right. In all of the years we foundered in Iraq, not one General Officer had the nerve to retire in protest even though all General Officers have time and grade to retire in comfort. They all waited for that good old boy extra star they give them on a quiet retirement.
Rummy and Cheney treated them like school boys.
@ Caryle: General Eric Shinseki stood up to the cowards. Here is a quote from Wikipedia.
" Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation.[9] From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned.[10] "
He was scheduled for retirement and I would love to say he was forced out but since his retirement was all ready decided a year prior I cannot. I can say though that at least he did speak his mind and was shunned by the criminal cabal.
@Akhilleus
The Chicken Hawk alliteration was perfect. What really upsets me is that the criminal cabal will never be held responsible. Can you arrange a surreptitious trip to Spain for those miscreants? You could say it was a preemptive strike for atonement and redemption.
@ Marie
Thank you for keeping Reality Chex a place to find the truth. I love your astute asides in regards to the articles you post and the thoughtful comments by your loyal group of followers.
A Blast from the Past: Lest we forget about one of the most famous generals, that narcissistic, blowhard MacArthur with whom Truman gave the boot to. After MacArthur's farewell speech to Congress––you know the one–-old soldiers fade away business––Dewey Short, a Republican from Mo. said, "We saw a great hunk of God in the flesh and we heard the voice of God." To former President Hoover, MacArthur was "the reincarnation of Saint Paul into a great General of the Army who came out of the East." Truman, typically, was blunter: "It was nothing but a bunch of damn bullshit."
Thinking about Kate's comments: It's interesting to me that Republicans seem to remember the past with such nostalgia, especially the part where through the years we have lost our moorings, drifted away from the kind of morality that was prevalent then. But when we look at the underbelly of what was never reported, what only people in the know knew, it reveals that if anything we have become a much more judgmental and strident society. Allen Dulles, one of the most famous of CIA directors, didn't have a few affairs, he had hundreds to which his wife, Clover––love that name––was privy to and after many of those affairs, she'd go out and buy herself an expensive bauble or two; I imagine her jewelry box was quite large and deep.
Then Akhilleus' comments about the military: Again back to the Dulles' brothers––the other one, John Foster, when he was Secretary of State in the Eisenhower era, was a fierce hawk––he wanted to use nuclear weapons to deal with any country that would provoke the US. Omar Bradley dismissed that idea as "crazy." Our allies were terrified plus talk about giving impetus to an arms race! A great irony here is that when Dulles is pushing for the US to intervene in Vietnam––at this point we are already giving the French 3 billion–––LBJ, then minority leader, asks how many allies had Dulles consulted with other than the French––none, said Dulles. Johnson also pointed out that the US had carried 90% of the burden in Korea in terms of both men and finances. Yet––it was this same quagmire that brought Johnson down in the end.
And I'm reminded, too, about our foray into Iran––the coup we implemented to take out Mossadeah––"Old Mossy"–– the fact that this went down so easily gave appetite for more of the same as Akhilleus mentions––again the Dulles's brothers front and center––. It was the beginning of our new role in the world that put us in conflict not only with the communists but with our own traditions. What was evolving was a closed state within an open state. When you think of the billions of dollars we spent on the arm's race alone when how much better those billions could have been spent on the world's poorest countries...Oh, and Achillleus' mention of the coup in Guatemala, again conducted by the CIA which involved the American United Fruit which was covered up–-the NYT has been used and the public was ignorant of the true nature of the whole matter.
A Sunday rant, fer sure.
Re: Serve your time; get your dime. Ak; I read an article in Atlantic about general incompetency in the Armed Forces. What I got from the reading was there is many problems in producing quality high leadership. One is the "don't fuck up" theory that blames the rotation in and out of generals in a war zone. Given a command for a year all you have to do is "Don't fuck up" for your alloted time and on you go to the next posting; all leading up to a cushy retirement and a MIC job when you out.
Another is a general comes to a war zone knowing less than a boots on the ground corporal. His learning curve can cost both his troops and the local population blood and trouble.
Petraeus is held up as a general who got it right and ran a district in Iraq better than his peers. He parlayed that into his directorship of the CIA.
There's more but I let others read for themselves. What I want to address is how a progressive citizen sees the role of the US Military.
Petraeus was a success because he pulled bad guys out of their homes in the middle of the night, shot worse guys on sight, and scared the locals into believing he was the baddest badass in the district. He rewarded good behavior and punished bad and he made the distinction between the two himself.
Is that what we(ME but i'm trying to gather support for my conceit) want from the most powerful force in the world today? Do progressives want to be the world's policeman? Do we have the right to alter the course of another nation or ethnic group however irresponsible they may be acting?
The Islamic Wars that we have been engaged with for the last decade or more are the result of this kind of thinking.
The Arab Spring has not yet sprung but I believe we should not be surprised at the outcome. Biting the hand that holds the bread is time honored. The bread itself always has a bone or two in it anyways.
Afghanistan is a good example. My thinking was, go kill the people that attacked us and leave. Period. Simple minded? Sure. Not as complex as changing a culture that has resisted change for a thousand years or more is it?
I'm trying to spark response from others because I believe now that we have a President that most of us here wanted we need to move on to what we want that President to try and do. Not that he can do but what he can try and do. I feel our Military Industrial Complex could be altered ever so sightly in the next four years. Profit from war is blood on the flag.
The line I remember the most from generals I read or recall is a general in WW2 was talking to a reporter and the reporter asked how the general was advancing along a certain valley in Italy. He replied by pointing to a campaign map and said, "Each inch represents dead American soldiers and we keep moving an inch at a time"
We must change with the times, change is. Remember those that gave all on Veterans Day because the dead can't change.
Okay, JJG, here's my 2 cents:
I just spent the last 6 months in New Zealand. All (northern) summer long the papers were full of the dramatic repositioning of US Naval Forces, and the deals Australia was making with the US to have US military on Australian land. This is a direct response to China's growing military power; and looks to me to be a sensible anticipatory response. This is our one planet: not all of the world is our friend. Some countries definitely do not have our best interests in mind. This move seems to be a correct response to China, and a correct use of a military force.
I realize this has not been extensively covered in the MSM; but it was big news in WesPac.
I'm putting it out there, so people can jump down my throat.
I watched Zakaria GPS this morning. He had 3 former Chiefs of Staff: Duberstein, Podesta and Gergen. Most of it was the expected blah blah blah, although Duberstein was quite strident about the Republican Party's need to wake-up and smell reality. What really struck me was all this tired talk about schmoozing, although pointedly only on Obama's part. Gergen offered that Clinton played 105 games of golf with Republicans while Obama has played one. Really? That's all you're coming with? Schmoozing means "bonding" rituals that haven't changed since Tammany Hall days. How about engaging the President. He's obviously well read and knowledgeable about history, how about watching a soccer game or basketball, he works out daily and he is well traveled. He's probably not big on Republican pursuits. I'm pretty sure tanning doesn't take up a lot of his time, he quit smoking, I'd bet he doesn't wear diapers or bang hookers and he doesn't strike me as a lush.
I thought the profile on Elizabeth Warren ended with the same meme of old white guy standards. When I read Schummer's comments that Warren could have a "voice" but be also be a "team player", I had a picture of him patting her on the ass while shoving her behind a whole line of male Senators. "Get in your place honey." My perception of Warren is that her passion about what is right will prevail as well as her apparent natural likeability. Schummer is afraid Warren will expose his straddling an impossible line between Wall Street and his constituency.
@JJG
First of all, being the "world's policemen" is such a distorting phrase. Police are there to "serve and protect" the citizens. If we were to be the "world's policemen" than that would mean we're serving and protecting ALL of the 6+ billion people in the world. Clearly this is impossible, but the real issue here is that looking at the facts of history, our military is used to promote National interests. If it comes to backing some foreign allies to promote our national interests, then we're generally glad to help. But injustices in faraway lands without important natural resources are not considered worthy of our blood and treasure. Not to mention the hypocrisy of being the "bearer" of Human Rights and Democracy while shielding countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel from international condemnation and criticism. And how many times have we sent the "police" into Democratic countries to force a regime change and prop up a puppet more partisan to our interests?
A quote from U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, in the magazine "Common Sense" from November 1935 seems appropriate:
"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a highclass muscle man for Big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street."
Our Defense Department is the Offensive Department: where are we going next?
However, I'm not a Utopist although it'd be nice. I see the Realism guiding international relations theory, and it's been happening since the days of human civilization. Everybody is out to get yours so you better take theirs first. Thus the game continues.
Beyond the world's police argument, I find it interesting you're quote:
"Afghanistan is a good example. My thinking was, go kill the people that attacked us and leave. Period. Simple minded? Sure."
Maybe this is a little nit-picky but as we've seen with loose-lips Williard the Rat, words matter. And here your simple-minded response to 9/11 was to "go kill" the people that attacked us. This thinking is, in my opinion, an indirect consequence of our constant military forays into foreign countries. Where did the idea of "bringing people to justice" go in our Democracy? I know the existence of "International Law" is superfluous and nearly impossible to impose, but we do have institutions (International Criminal Court) now where we can try people in court following the rule of law of Democratic nations. The U.S. hasn't ratified the Treaty to participate in this institution and its legitimacy is certainly questioned (nearly every person to stand trial is non-white), but the option of using the judicial system to punish the 9/11 seems an afterthought. Just kill 'em.
Kate
Do you have a separated twin in Brooklyn? Picked this up in the NYT comments....
brooklynforchangeNew York CityReport Inappropriate Comment.Vulgar.Inflammatory.Personal Attack.Spam.Off-topic..SubmitCancel.
Flag
..At the risk of sounding like an unpatriotic person, I think the real discussion should be: why is war such an important item in today's USA? I don't think anywhere in the developed world outside the U.S., war, violence and politics based on war get so much glorified coverage.
Petraeus would be treated better by media corporations if he's left alone. Think of him as a human being -- full of virtues and vices -- just like anybody else.
Don't trash Petraeus the human. Trash the global politics of war and war industries instead.
It's time for a radical change in our thinking process
@Haley Simon-
Ya got me there, Haley! I did not "copy" the post, because I wanted to make a further point, but should have attributed what I did use to "Brooklyn for Change." My argument was that we are so immature as a culture (especially the MSM) that we focus on and abhor the small picture of people's moral frivolities--especially those in power. At the same time, we choose to deny the big picture--the immorality of war--all war.
Please, please do not consign me to the same circle in Hell occupied by Maureen Dowd.
@Safari; once you have destroyed a country's infrastructure and dismantled its civil service and all of its government agencies you have by demo become the police. Like it or not. To me
killing the people that were responsible for the 9-11 attacks is justice well served. Your faith in international law is to to be commended. I don't know of another foray in to a foreign country in the last half of century that was more justifiable than our entering Afghanistan and pursuing Bin Liden. I respect your opinion and hope someday to reach your level of understanding until then I still like the "walk softly and carry a big stick."
The history of the world is made up of cultures swallowing cultures; no nation is innocent. Killing those who attack us is one answer. You may be right, there is a better way; I'm old fashioned.
The decline of the generals didn't start with the middle east. I saw it first hand in Vietnam. Just don't fuck up was their mantra. The few who did were shown the door, but they were the exception. General Koster (CG when Mylai took place) reduced to BG, and forced to retire, but he escaped court martial. As the war wore on, the generals began to live like medieval princes, with posh quarters, waiters in white coats, helicopters dispatched to bring in fresh seafood. No wonder they became more detached from the troops. When they did go out, it was always in a helicopter far above the battlefield. Then there were the medals they got they never earned. There were a few generals who were exceptions. General Depuy CG of the 1st Division was ruthless. If an officer got soldiers killed through negligence, he was summarily dismissed.
The rot didn't stop with the generals. It trickled down to battalion and brigade commander. Lying about body counts, etc. Take over a unit, run it into the ground just long enough to get your ticket punched and move on, leaving others to repair the damage. One exception to this was LTC Schwartzkopf. He didn't look to live the plush life, and he earned his medals. Those who came after...not so much.
Bad habits learned in Vietnam carried on. General Powell tried to change this, but the bushies made sure his legacy didn't last.
Kate
Well that's a funny twist! I was sure some lurker here had taken liberties with our Kate. And you need not worry that you will not be forgiven, especially since I always agree with you. But the Patraeus affair is the exception. I expect little from the CIA, but I do expect discretion and this mess is nothing but "in your face". Sweet jeebus! Love notes by email and appearences on The Daily Show? Give me the good old days of Pamela Harriman. When the movie is made I think Paula B should be played by Glenn Close.
I never thought I'd have to say this on Reality Chex, but I guess I do. If you copy another person's writing -- whether or not the other person is a well-known writer -- give him credit.
If you want to add to the author's thoughts, here's how you do it:
{Joe Schmoe says "blah-blah." I think he's right as far as he goes, but there's more nuance to it than that....}
If you copy exactly what Schmoe says, put it in quotes. If you paraphrase, don't use quotes, but still credit Schmoe.
If you both copy and paraphrase, put any of the original writer's exact phraseology in quotes, and leave off the quotes for the parts you're approximating; i.e.,
{Joe Schmoe says he's relieved Obama was re-elected, but he hopes "the Prez will stand up to the Orange Man and the Turtle."}
Generally, you'll want to identify Schmoe & where you found his writing: "In this week's Time magazine, columnist Joe Schmoe says "blah-blah."
If you're not sure how to give proper credit, ask me. I do it dozens of times a day.
Please.
Marie
@JJG
I couldn't agree more in the case where we're the culprits that gut/destroy the security services and state institutions. In a country like Afghanistan I feel we have a moral obligation to play policeman and try to restore what we destroyed. And going to war with Afghanistan was really the only option after the attack, although if I recall correctly the large majority of the hijackers where Saudi nationals, not Afghans.
When considering our role as "global policeman" I was more thinking of countries like Malawi, or Surinam, or Nepal. We've no vested interest in serving and protecting the periphery countries like those, so the "global" reach falls well short.
Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article on the petraeus debacle in the Guardian.
http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kuow/audio/2012/11/20121108_glenn.mp3 is a radio program in which he discusses Obama the liberal and drone warfare.
Re: Kate and war footing. I had a friend who got a copy of "Report from Iron Mountain" because he doesn't like books that question why 10-20% of federal spending needs to be for the military going out of print and not being in his bookshelf. As we clearly see, a lot of military spending is like spreading the fat of NASA around the Jim Crow states just like something out of an LBJ negotiation.
"The Agenda Item" is all about spreading the fat of federal largess in every single district so nobody wants to opt out. How many schools could be built for the price of one B1 bomber?
We as a society need to learn to shun the military and their spending. Hence all the elaborate ritualistic behaviour about honoring the military and their business. Just like the religion businesses in the States.