The Iron Throne

I started reading A Game of Thrones based on the online discussions that took place at First Draft during the HBO series' first season. I'll be picking up the second book this week.

Like most good science fiction and fantasy, George R. R. Martin's books go beyond the story on the pages and serve as allegories to our world. Like the best science fiction and fantasty writing, it does this in ways both subtle and sublime, and avoids the hokiness of smacking the reader over the head with some sort of message.

So it isn't a surprise to me that Foreign Policy magazine took a look at the series through the lens of international relations, or that Wired breaks down military strategy.

.

Hooked on Subsidy

Jay Bookman at the AJC talks about real American tax dollars at work in Brazil.

.

When Irish Ties Are Smiling

The White House protocol folks in the early days of the administration may have screwed up with the gifts to the British government, but whoever's running the show now got the Ireland visit just right.

And I'll be needing one of those t-shirts for 2012.

.

Credibility, the Final Frontier

Every time I think that the American Right, Talk-Radio, Fox News, and rank and file Republicans can't get any further from reality, they simply pick up their things and keep marching on. To explore new memes and new rationalizations. To boldy go where no mainstream political party has gone before.

At this point, their credibility is so far in the red (literally and figureatively) that it will take some serious consideration on my part to even entertain listening to Republican candidates, because they are are part of an organization where the national leaders who didn't stop with blatantly attempting to lie their way through the issues, but who are attempting to wholly rewrite history.

And not just early American history, or Civil War history, or history from the pre-Reagan 20th Century - but all American history, including parts thorough which I lived. They're now telling me that things I remember happening did not actually happen.

On Thursday, I thought the President delivered a fairly ho-hum speech, full of platitutdes and same-old, same-old. I remember every President since Clinton working on this issue in almost the exact same way. Reading actual history about the Middle East Peace Process, it appeared (up until Thursday on Fox News) that American Presidents have been working on these goals for quite some time.

So color me stunned to see the reaction on the right. Y'all, this is simply insane demagougery, the coup de grace of the "Barack Hussein Obama is an Un-American Muslim Mau-Mau" narrative.

Which means their narrative, right now, stands at this:

I am an America-hating, baby-killing, terrorist-sympathizer who, with help from my illegal immigrant friends and union thugs, will follow our Mau Mau illegitimately elected Kenyan anti-colonialist President to turn this nation into a communist economy with a sharia legal code that follows the homosexual agenda in an unholy alliance of secular atheist Islamic fundamentalists even as we work to destroy the state of Israel.

That is what the GOP is saying about people like me and people I want to see elected. From the top national candidates to the local police bureaucracy. But that's OK, they aren't intended to be factual statements and if we quote the actual words they say we are the ones who are lying. That makes it OK for me to believe them about taxes, infrastructure, and the deficit?

Face it, folks, the American right has now joyfully taken up the full moonbat status of the old "looney left," who used to expose all Democrats to paint from the insanity brush. The shoe is firmly on the other foot now.

.

The Middle East, Condensed

You're doubtlessly hearing a great deal of bullshit today from the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister (who himself might as well be part of the American right wing).

For any confusions you might have, please refer to Jay Bookman's write up in the AJC. This fantastic piece lays out what is really at stake and why, from an American point of view. Meanwhile, Yossi Klein Halevi at The New Republic looks at the same problem from the dualist Israeli view. (HT: Andrew Sullivan)

Both are essential, reality-based reads about a complex problem and the President's speech from yesterday, free of the disgusting demagougery and political goal-post moving you are currently seeing from the American right-wing.

.

A Wild Narrative Appears

Following up on last week's flop daring ALL BLACK RAPPERS ARE SCARY THUGS!, Right Wing Studios is set to release an even bigger pile of crap Summer Action Flick.

PIRATES OF THE MIDDLE EAST IV: ON ISRAELI SIDES

This newest installment of the classic franchise has the chance to top the Fox Box Office all summer. Even if you don't want to, you're guaranteed to see it again and again and again!

This film has been rated BS by the Reality Based Association of America.

.

Change I Still Believe In

I've been pretty plain in that I don't think the successful OBL operation had anything to do with George W. Bush's time as Presdient any more than it had to do with Clinton's.

The foregin policy this nation has (so far) engaged under the Obama Administration is far from perfect. But it is a tremendous positive change from what we faced under the last administration, and it has accomplished far more in two and a half years than Bush accomplished in 8.

.

A Grudging Acceptance

Andrew Sullivan examines the President's words:

The Libyan example was particularly vital because a rare constellation of forces came together to make turning away even harder: European and Arab support for preventing mass murder; UN permission; America's "unique" capabilities; and an imminent massacre in Benghazi.

Obama the Niebuhrian put the moral in realism. Yes, we could not do this everywhere all the time; but we could do this when we did; and that was good enough.

I'll add only a few things. This felt like a tremendous gamble, militarily, internationally, and politically. But I'm not privy to the cards held in the hand of the American President.

While I still believe in the internationalism embodied by the UN, and the good that can be done in the face of humanitarian disaster, even the best of intentions can blow up in your face. I'm still not sold, and we know not what we will reap from the continued entrenchment of a Presidency so imperial that no Congressional approval of any kind is needed before committing troops to an intervention of choice. Today's internationalism is yesterday's tomorrow's war of choice.

Which reminds me, especially as I read Sullivan, how we are still fighting the last war, literally and politically.

Though I grudgingly admit: our alliance has so far prevented a true humanitarian crisis; our alliance has so far been welcomed as liberating; Quaddafi is responsible for more terrorist attacks on NATO members than Saddam Hussien could manufacture in his wildest dreams - and an attack on one is an attack on all; the Arab Spring continues; and this has so far been the most efficient international intervention in memory.

But this chapter of history is not yet in the books. So many things have yet to be resolved, and there ought be no desire to wave a Mission Accomplished banner over the proceedings until we are damn sure it really is over.

I don't have to like the bet to hope the gamble pays off.

.

World Police & the Foreign Entanglements

As wonderful as it would be to remove a tyrant, it is difficult to imagine the United States engaging in another regional conflict when our prior two regional engagements have yet to be concluded successfully. I'm not even talking about all the possible realist and pragmatic obstacles that exist to US intervention in Libya, I'm discussing things from a straight-up resource managment scenario.

If your domestic priority is the subsidization of the uber-wealthy, your nation cannot also pursue unending wars and military conflicts as a foreign priority. At least, your nation cannot do both of these things, and hope to remain solvent.

In America, our governments are slashing funding for medicine, schools, roads, infrastructure, and programs that assist our most vulnerable citizens under the guise of "fiscal responsibility," even while our nation maintains a robust military presence all over the world, and is still engaged in not one but two ongoing wars.

And now, a lot of the same folks who have argued that health care and schools are too expensive want to get us to go in, guns blazing, and rescue a bunch of Libyan rebels who many not really represent the "good guys" we'd like to pretend they are on the evening news.

Which is it, fellas? Are we broke, or do bombs grow on trees?

I will be the first one to say that Quaddafi's continued rule is not in the interests of American foreign policy; nor is it in the interests of human rights and dignity. The best thing would be a cavalry-call of international smackdown to remove the liveried dictator from power and drag his ass before The Hauge.

But there is only so much the United States can do about that based on the resource management skills of our former and current national leaders. The nations of Europe have militaries, as do the nations of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. (Well, I guess our allies the Saudis are too busy putting down the popular demonstrations with their military in another US client state to be bothered by an actual military threat that exists in their region.)

And that's just the resource managment angle. The moral responsibility angle is still out there. Luckily, some real conservatives are specifically examining America's responsibilities in this scenario. Too bad we didn't read more of that back in 2002.

.

Intervention Price Tag

Have these people ever seen a military action that they didn't like? After all we've heard from the war yahoos, from our decade in Iraq and Afganistan to the desire to open up a third war against Iran, do they have any credibility left? Especially after they've spent years telling us out of the other sides of their mouths that "debt" is killing our future and that the United States is out of money to pay for schools.

What do you think makes the planes go, fellas? Jet fuel costs hard currency, and munitions don't grow on trees. And don't forget, you've got an American population weary of supporting a decade of war with no end in sight. How is getting involved in an Arab civil war going to benefit the USA?

Not to mention the fact that the Libyan rebels seem to be doing an OK job with this.

Pardon me if I don't see President Obama as weak-kneed or indecisive for not rah-rahing our way to another foreign entanglement. We cannot solve all the world's problems and suffer no prestige hit for the President acting prudently in America's own self interest (finally).

I'm sure there is already some behind-the-scenes stuff going on, and this is just political point scoring on the part of Washington politicians and pundits who need something to talk about for the Sunday papers. I'd rather our President not be goaded into cowboying up and charging in with the cavalry for what would amount to a very, very expensive infomercial on American air-power.

We are already at war in two places. We already have troops stationed around the globe. We pay dearly for all of that. If the world - NATO, the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity, or the United Nations wants to get involved, I will have no problem if our President supports their actions. I have no problem with our nation assisting a shared international burden.

But America, unilaterally? Again? We just can't afford it.

.

Torturing Your Way To Freedom

Of course, if this view gains any traction, the neocons and defenders of George W. Bush's Presidential legacy will let us know this was all part of their double-secret plan to bring real democracy and human rights to the Middle East.

.

Christendom

Rick Santorum sums up the problems with historical revisionism and its application to utopian right-wing politics. He is one of the reasons people can freely associate mainstream Republicans with the policies of 'endless war' and the 'clash of civilizations.'

This is a guy invited to speak to private Christian schools, and Republican womens' organizations in South Carolina - an early primary state for Presidential politics. Santorum has a high profile, nationally, and continues the politics of theocracy, demonization of Islam, and appears to advocate perpetual war by America against nations of the Middle East.

Sounds like a lot of national Republicans these days, doing what they can to fire up the base for 2012.

.

The Massacre Begins

I guess Mubarak thinks that he has "compromised" with the Egyptian demonstrators now that he has decided he will not run for "reelection." This is the same guy who - upon facing hundreds of thousands in the streets asking him, personally, to leave office - fired people in his cabinet.

The Egyptian "president" has been trying all week to label these demonstrators as violent: sending plain clothes police and hired thugs to loot and terrorize neighborhoods. He wants the world, and Americans especially, to conflate the anti-Mubarak population with violence and rioting and terrorism. He wants the world to think there is some spontaneous outpouring of support for him to remain "president." Once the confrontations become more pronounced, the Army will then be compelled to violently quell it - and we all know which "side" the crackdown will land the most heavily on. To Egypt's autocrat, it won't matter, "justification" will have been provided in his imaginantion and for the cameras. That's his plan - to do one thing and make us believe his hand was forced. Some Americans are quite happy to oblige him.

Some of us know better than to be fooled.

The same Egyptians who knelt to pray in the face of batons, water hoses and tear gas formed human chains around libraries to keep the looters at bay. They are marching for freedom against a tyrant, one who has demonstrated what tyranny actually looks like on live television. They carry the flags of their own nation, and have stepped up to protect their own neighborhoods against the police state thugs. How can any American think ill of such people, considering our own long history of struggle for the expansion of personal and social liberty?

Especially with our national obsession with blame. There needs to be no debate on this point in this situation.

Because now that his "compromise" has not been accepted, the Egyptian autocrat has sent in his thugs, on horseback and with weapons, into the crowds with the intention of visiting violence on what had been to this point a mostly non-violent demonstration. Blood now runs through the streets. This means that the one man who could have ensured Egypt stepped away from a violent transition of power chose instead confrontation. And for what? So he can continue to be "President" for a few short months.

It will be much more difficult for him to live out his days in "his country" now.

And now we, as Americans, must consider this: a peaceful transition of political power in the Arab world's most populous nation would have been a game changer for our national and strategic security. Never underestimate the importance of any society achieving justice through peaceful means, much less a society such as Egypt, located at the heart of a region troulbed by violent autocrats and governments built of religious fanaticism.

Now, with the violent retribution, we have a higher risk of fanatic religious forces providing the violent counterpunch to the pro-government thugs. Logically extended, Mubarak's actions have now increased the chances that whatever government will follow him in Egypt will be much more anti-American. The window for addressing such concerns is short.

I only hope the platitudes out of Washington that continue to talk of "peaceful and eventual transfer of power" and "urging all sides to refrain from violence" are being matched with audacity of word and action behind the scenes to pressure Mubarak to immediately bring an end to the crackdown, and leave power.

Because his actions, especially those of this morning, have violated the contract we made with him to ensure stability over these last decades. His use is at an end for us, and every drop of blood that falls today increases the chances that whatever government Egypt uses to replace Mubarak will be one unfriendly to the United States.

.

The Egypt Narrative on the American Right

I've long said that the GOP/Tea Party/Right-Wing folks can take any issue, and talk themsleves into being on the right side of an issue and their political opponents into being on the wrong side of the issue, regardless of what the issue actually is.

Though I don't think I've ever seen an example as good as this one. See if you can follow the pick-your-own-right-wing narrative about Egypt:

Stability Good, Obama Bad: Obama isn't doing enough to support Mubarak against these protesters, who will install in Egypt Kenyan-anti-colonial-Marxist-Sharia government at the hands of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Stupid Cairo speech. Why does this administration hate our allies?

Freedom good, Obama bad: Obama didn't pressure Mubarak enough to liberalize Egypt over the last 30 years, and now these protesters want the sweet promise of freedom George W. Bush offered them by invading Iraq. (Visual.) Why does this administration insist on keeping dictators as allies? Neoconservatism is vindicated, just eight short years later, in a different country, that the USA did not invade. (Though Fox News appears to be confused on this last point.)

How easy is this? If anything bad happens, it is automatically Obama's fault. But if anything good happens, Obama needs to thank George W. Bush, and widely discredited neoconservatives will be proven right about...Iraq. It doesn't matter that either choice completely ignores pesky reality or contradicts the other.

Luckily, there are a few really real conservatives out there who seem to be taking the correct lessons from this. While Limbaugh and Breitbart have to give their cults of personality what they pay for, other thinkers are working it out.

I linked you to one such sample yesterday, and today I link you to Kyle Wingfield at the AJC:

But for the part of Americans, via our government, one lesson is clear. The time for demanding real change and reforms in a country such as Egypt with a regime such as Mubarak’s, into which we have poured tens of billions of dollars, is not when the people have finally taken to the streets and defied the tanks.
...
But this should be a red line: No more aid for undemocratic rulers who aren’t moving their people toward greater liberty.

Glad to see some conservatives on board the "let's not pay dictators to be allies" train, finally. It has taken some time. A long time. A really, really long time.

But, hey, while we're discussing unsavory allies....

.

"History Makes Fools of Us All"

It is good to know that, concerning the events in Egypt, there are a few folks out their with their rational thinking hats on. While it ain't all about us, we play an important role, and that role directly affects our nation. It is time to take a serious and sober look at the real effect our policies and diplomacies have on the world. Because:

It’s quite possible that if Mubarak had not ruled Egypt as a dictator for the last 30 years, the World Trade Center would still be standing.

Ouch. (HT: The Daily Dish.)

Good thing this guy is conservative, because if he were a liberal, he'd be accused of riding on the "hate-America-and-blame-us-for-everything" train. (I mean, hell, some individuals are already linking the protests to the onward march of Kenyan-anti-colonial-Sharia-Marxist-fascism, hating America can't be far behind.)

It is a delicate subject, after all. Just look at the confusion many Americans seem to be feeling, since they are unsure which "side" to support in Egypt. Who is doing what, how does America play a part in all this?

The last is, of course, the most complicated due to our cultural fear of introspection. No one wants to remember the US role in Cuba's history; or Iran's; or Iraq's; or Afganistan's or any of those places now that another international client of our tax-dollars is facing another popular revolt. We just like to have bad guys and good guys, and shame on History if it can't be more cut-and-dry than that.

Hell, this thing should be wrapped by now anyway, the 15 minutes of fame over, allowing our national narrative to declare us the liberator/conquerer/victims of something so we can compartmentalize it to the dustbin of national memory of vague recollection of grainy news footage and future "remember when" specials, and get back to the new season of American Idol.

Pesky reality.

.

One Man

I'll write more about the international stuff once we see what happens. History is being written right now, maybe in a way we haven't seen since 1989. While it unfolds, and you watch the passions of people yearning to be free struggle against the yoke of those who would curtail their liberty, ask yourself what effect can one man have on the world?

For this is what the blood of patriots and of tyrants looks like in real time. Why must the cost always be so high?

Will this just be another false dawn, forcing the United States again into the realm of realpolitik to protect our interests? Or we be able to come down on the side of true freedom as our moral compass demands? It is time we start looking very deeply at our own motivations, and perhaps even our own complicity in keeping things the way that they are.

For we will not decide the outcome here. Perhaps that is for the best.

And, yes, I choose my words carefully. The very fabric of my being as an American and a Southerner knows the meaning when I see images of a people on a bridge, praying in the face water cannons, tear gas and police batons.

I don't need to think too long to realize where I've seen that before.

.

Neoconservative Fantasy Life

This weekend when I wrote about Tunisia, I wondered how long it would take Neoconservatives to start taking credit for the Tunisian people's revolt.

Back home, failed neoconservatives - architects of our failures in Iraq, Iran and Afganistan - will point to the recent and ongoing Iraq war as the catalyst for the Tunisian revlot. "See!" They will say, "that's what happens when democracy is spread."

Some may see this as prescient, but this is easy to predict. After all, this train is never late.

.

The Credibility Gap Continues

I hope, as these next two years begin, that folks remember the insanity offered by the likes of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, John Kyl, John McCain, John Bolton, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the other two-bit destroy-Obama-at-the-expense-of-American-national-security crowd regarding the New START treaty.

They were a veritable nest of Chicken-Littles, predicting a falling sky.

And the Senate responded by passing the legislation 71 to 26.

We should always keep in mind that, when it came to real national security - not the fantasy land stuff that you can talk about on the radio - that crew of hacks put politics before policy.

.

The Beginnings of a Spine?

Could this be evidence that the Democrats and Really Real Republicans are finally getting tired of the nonsense?

One can only hope.

Here's the As Seen on Reality Television Half-Term Governess Herself, telling us that the Democrats, Republicans and Foreign Service officials who have designed our foreign policy for decades are all ready to sell us down the river to Russia.

She really is Ray Nagin with hair.

Palin/Nagin 2012 - Chocolate Moose Party, Baby!

.

Palestine Recognized

I'm not sure what the exact ramifications of this will be, but official recognition by a major emerging international player is nothing to sneeze at.

And specifically stating the 1967 borders is also a big deal, at least symbolically.

.