America’s Place in the World (Still More Discussion)

In my last post entitled "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)" I set forth my exchange on this subject with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ, and then set forth a somewhat lengthy exposition on the subject by Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

I decided that I can most effectively juxtapose my views against Nekimken’s by interlineating my comments directly into his. I do so by showing Nekimken’s text in italics and my responses in bold type. Those who may want to re-read Nekimken’s views without distraction can do so by referring to my last post "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)."

I found myself agreeing the most of your reply to Eric Offner, Did you? It doesn't sound that way! even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize, he also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. 

I don't believe that this is a fair criticism. The immigration laws were clear, and these refugees were not eligible for entry under those laws. I don’t think Roosevelt had the power to ignore those laws. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. Again I disagree! There is no indication that Roosevelt had anti-Semitic views. To be sure Cordell Hull, The Secretary of State did, but to a large extent Roosevelt was unaware of this, until much later when Morgenthau brought it to his attention Roosevelt was shocked but did not feel there was much he could do about it without shaking up his Administration and he wasn't about to do that.

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. Not every Administration is equally guilty of this. Democrats are much more given to humanitarian considerations, than Republicans.  Clinton acted in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Carter was always concerned with Human Rights.

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can.

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, Somalia didn't fail! We didn't act! Overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

The listing below I think is the crux of your argument.

·As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. True! , But we can change that perception, if we follow a consistent policy that puts greater emphasis on human rights than national Rights. Can we do that politically, doubtful, but it is worth striving for.

·We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. Not so! Neither Bosnia nor Libya had that effect.

·We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. How reminiscent of the mood in 1939. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. Limited intervention does not have very high costs and non-American lives have just as great value as American ones. Neither Bosnia nor Libya had a major impact on our budget. Iraq is always the bugaboo but that was the wrong war with the wrong commitment.

Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades.

But you and those likeminded keep coming back to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are not relevant models and references to those are misleading and inapplicable.

·For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment. 

This will happen regardless of anything else. Technology, not policy drives this. 

·Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, The will always require human direction though from a remote location. or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyberterrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now.  I don't understand this. Self piloted drones are in use. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. But this is not relevant to policing atrocities.

Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. Now you are talking apples and oranges. Dealing with terrorists is something we are doing, and will continue to do. It has its challenges as you point out. But it has nothing to do with intervening when mass slaughter on the scale of the Nazis, or in Bosnia and/or Kosovo or in Rwanda, takes place, and as we saw in Bosnia and Libya, it does not require boots on the ground, or even huge expenditures. You are raising a great many irrelevancies and bugaboos.

·Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. Chemical weapons have not been the issue until now! It has been the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. Right then and there we should have told Bashar al-Assad, stop or there will be consequences, followed by drone attacks on airfields and on anti aircraft batteries until his capacity to use those weapons was suppressed. Anti tank weapons, to the secular forces would also have made sense.

·Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S.  Nobody has suggested an attack on the chemical weapons.  Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs.

·Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. Erdogan is absolutely right! His country is bearing the brunt of caring for Syrian refugees, while we are doing nothing to help them. He is in no position to unilaterally take on Bashar al-Assad. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.) This last is unworthy of you! As you well know I am not looking for spending more on armaments and the humanitarian actions I am urging, have nothing to do with defense contractors. They will do very well regardless.

The slaughter of innocent civilians, whether Jews in Germany or the Soviet Union, or Slavs, or Africans, cannot be permitted. Better that we can unite on it, but it cannot be tolerated unless you feel that the worlds polices toward the Jews in the Holocaust was right. Russia or for that matter China cannot be allowed to be the dogs in the manger, who continues the defense of the indefensible and the absolute obstacle of humanitarianism.

It seems to me your instincts are pacifist and even suggest isolationism, which after Iraq and Afghanistan has gripped the country, just as it did after the WWI.

Final comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but not distributed.

America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)

With my temporary return to my blog, I posted my exchange with Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY, in a blog entitled "America’s Place in the World." Subsequently, I posted discussions with Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, PA, Nancy Vierra of Silver Springs, Maryland, and Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ in my blog post entitled "America’s Place in the World (Discussion).

Since the discussion with Reiner has continued, I now want to share that with you, and also add a rather lengthy analysis, which came from Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

Herb Reiner countered my last repost with:

Yes, Emil, I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. In fact I believe we are now giving substantial military aid to groups we believe are secularist. But the situation on the ground is so chaotic and confusing that I doubt our government is flexible and smart enough to insure our weapons won’t end up in the hands of our enemies. This country has been hurt many times because of our failure to understand the limits of our power and the unintended consequences of military action. 

To which I responded with:

I don't agree that we have been hurt primarily by "our failure to understand the limits of our power and the unintended consequences of military action". We have been hurt most when we act in our primary interests; when we are obsessed by a narrow view of our interests. In Iraq, Bush I acted on principle. It served us and the world well. Bush II was obsessed with power. Even when the UN inspectors said "no weapons of mass destruction", he was determined to proceed and then he destroyed the institutions that made governing possible. We should not learn the wrong lessons from that debacle, or from Vietnam where we kidded ourselves that we were fighting Communism, when we were in fact fighting to maintain French colonial interests.

When we act on our "better angels of our nature" to quote Lincoln, we actual serve our national interests best.

Our actions in Syria and elsewhere must be directed by our best humanitarian instincts, and not by a narrow view of National Interest, or at least that is my view.

I doubt that we disagree on principle, but isolationist voices have been loud and have found lots of reasons to support their narrow view. Obstacles can always be found for not doing what one has no interest in doing.

And finally Albert Nekimken set forth his views as follows:

Your commentary arrived yesterday and I received it with great pleasure. 

  

I have been hopelessly behind in attending to my e-mail and other correspondence for some time. I did realize that you were frustrated by your inability to establish any kind of regular, timely dialogue with your correspondents, but the best I was able to do was to set up a dedicated mailbox in my Outlook program to capture and save all of your commentaries. My plan was to reply to them when possible, even if after a rather long delay. It was certainly never my intention to ignore them. 

  

Due partly to the weight of my sense of guilt over this prior neglect and the gravity of the Syrian issue, however, I did want to take a few minutes to send an immediate reply. 

  

I found myself agreeing with most of your reply to Eric Offner, even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize. He also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. 

  

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. 

  

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can. 

  

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons: 

   

1.) As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. 

  

2.) We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. 

  

3.) We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. 

  

4.) Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades. 

  

5.) For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment.  

   

6.) Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyber terrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. 

  

7.) Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. 

  

8.) Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. 

       

9.) Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S. Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs. 

       

10.) Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.)

Next time I will set forth my response to Nekimken. And then once again ride into the sunset.

I no longer invite comments! 

All good things must come to an end and so this discussion too must end.

America’s Place in the World (Discussion)

Hopefully, many of you have by now read my recent commentary entitled “America’s Place inthe World."

I have had a number of comments and exchanges as a result of that posting, and would like to share that discussion with you.

Janet Cooke of Philadelphian, Pennsylvania wrote:

I was just thinking about your blog and that I was missing hearing what you might be thinking about this budget/healthcare/threaten to shut down the government fiasco we are witnessing in Washington now!  I was planning to communicate with you this morning about missing your commentary -  and then I opened the email from you and found the comments from Eric re: Syria, etc., and your response.   

 Not the topic that was on my mind but good to hear your thinking!  I'm always glad to learn what you're thinking about situations and behaviors that amaze and overwhelm me.  The budget stuff and the ridiculous but dangerous(?) behavior of the Republicans is of great concern.  Maybe, because like you, I've wanted to expect so much better behavior from members of our government, it's especially upsetting. I am tuned in.

To which I responded:

With respect to the shutting down of the government and the even more serious imminent failure to raise the debt ceiling there is not much to say. It is akin to a father, (or a mother) taking one of their children hostage and demanding ransom for not harming such a child. Will the mother (or father) pay! Probably yes. But when that happens again and again, without any assurance of the safety of the child or even children, there comes a time when it is necessary to say no more. These are our children. This is our economy. This is the world economy. You can't use that for blackmail.

The trouble with paying ransom to hostage takers is that the more one pays, the more it encourages the hostage-taking. No matter what the cost, at one point one has to refuse or there is no end to it. The ransom will just keep going up. 

However, even though you feel this crisis is front and center, I would still like to have your input on my exchange with Eric Offner on the Syria debacle.

Nancy Vieira, who works for the National Institute of Health, and is domiciled in Silver Springs, Maryland, contributed the following:

So good to read your column once again! Thank-you for deciding to respond to your friend’s provocative email and for posting it on your web site for us (always!) interested readers.  

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel and barbaric the “civilized” human species can be. I will never forget watching a live broadcast from a hut in Rwanda and, as the journalist spoke in the doorway of the hut, seeing in the background, down the dirt road, 2 men with machetes hacking away at “something” on the ground (a fellow human being was my presumption). Striking with a machete and seeing up close what it is you are actually doing to a “living thing”, to me, is mind boggling enough. But, dropping a bomb of chemical weaponry on your own citizens, innocents, while comfortably sitting at home with plenty of food, water, all the comforts of modern day living and family and friends, not ever having to see the chemical damage inflicted upon the human and other animal species up close and personal, their suffering, is unconscionable.   

And, to turn one’s head and say, “it’s not my problem” is also unconscionable. I cannot imagine how a human being can justify condoning these acts of vicious cruelty. I can only hope that, one day, we will all live in peace on this planet.

Prompting me to reply as follows:

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

You are one of very few, who has seen barbarity up close. Every time we close our eyes we become accomplices. It is so easy to say there is nothing we can do. There is always something we can do. Where there is a Will, there is a Way. 

It is high time for us to take the words, "NEVER AGAIN" seriously". But it isn't only chemical weapons that should arouse our ire, as horrible as they are. Every time we condone atrocities, and in Syria we should have acted after the Hama murders in 1982, which few people even remember. (I might add that I had not remembered it until I read Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" published in 1989, but not read by me until three years ago. It is still an eye opener.

Again thank you for taking the time to write.

And finally, Herb Reiner, of Cedar Grove, NJ expressed this view:

Glad to hear from you that you’re well and glad to see that you have not lost interest in expressing your political views despite the lack of response to your last commentary. I will just add a few observations to chew on. 

  

Firstly, the distinction between a civil war and a revolution is nebulous and in the case of Syria one can truly say it is both. The Syrians are certainly not fighting against a foreign occupying power. 

  

Secondly, even from the early stages of the conflict, Obama realized that the Opposition was fractured and disorganized. The most motivated and well organized among them were the Islamist, who today appear the strongest among the opposition groups. Obama was always left with bad choices, but I believe his reluctance to supply heavy weapons was justified.  The secular groups, it seems are welcoming all the support they can get from the Islamists and it is not clear who would control our heavy weapons.  Let's not forget how the Stinger missiles we supplied to Pakistan were used to shoot down our own aircraft.  

  

Thirdly, it may be beyond the power of even the most powerful military in the world to alone help "people being slaughtered," without engendering even worse consequences. We should be thankful that Obama did not have to carry out his threat against Assad crossing the red line with the fantasy of a quick in-and-out punishment, which would kill even more innocent victims and could plunge the whole region into chaos.  As for overthrowing Assad  -- be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!  

 Best wishes and keep writing and thinking.

Prompting this response on my part:

It’s so good to hear from you and to have the benefit of your views.

It is so easy to find reasons to close one's eyes. Maybe, because of my background as a Holocaust survivor, who remembers, and who has studied the history of that atrocity while the world found just as many reasons to close its eyes. There were worse things than Hitler they said. We should be worried about the Communists, not the Nazis. What business is it what happens to German Nationals? We must not interfere in their sovereign affairs.

Above all we have our own problems with high unemployment, and didn't we have enough getting involved in European affairs in World War I.

Even when Britain was on its last legs, they argued it is only about protecting the British Empire, what do we care. 

I fear that what we are witnessing is neo-isolationism.

Yes, I hear the arguments that you are making. But that was not true in the beginning. In the beginning we witnessed peaceful demonstrations of an oppressed people and we saw Hama of 1982 all over again. That was the time to say NO - NOT AGAIN! This will not stand!! At the very beginning a no fly zone, which could have been attained with weapons fired from off shore at airbases, should have been imposed. It would not have been 100% successful. So what. It would have made a difference.

Yes, a lot of extremist elements have reared their ugly head. But that is because we stood aside. If we wouldn't help them others will jump in. And so they did. But even now we see battles between secular groups and religious ideologues. Why don't we help the secularists? The longer we don't help them, the more a desperate people turn to the Jihadists. Our failure has helped the Jihadists and continues to help them. But above all where is our sense of compassion; our sense of justice.

Now as to Stinger missiles. The problem is not that we supplied them to Pakistan. We supplied them to the Taliban to shoot down Soviet planes in the Soviet-Afghanistan campaign. Was that a mistake? NO!!!!! At a time when we were in a life and death struggle with the Soviets, handing them a major defeat was the first, and possibly only, priority. In any case Stinger missiles have not been our major problem in Afghanistan. Very few of our planes have been shot down by Stinger missiles. In fact we have lost very few planes. The weapons that have bedeviled us are IEDs, the roadside bombs, not Stinger missiles. That is a phony argument that is being used. But, carefully selected groups would minimize the risk if any. 

Does anyone really think that if we stand aside and don't try to influence events that things will turn out better than if we do? That doesn't work in private life and it doesn't work in public events. Trying, even if sometimes failing to influence events, is almost always the better course. 

As for "plunge(ing) the whole region into chaos" this is not what our action would do. It is our non-action that is doing this. Our non-action is destabilizing Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and possibly others. Both Turkey and Jordan have been begging us to help.

This argument is essentially one to be left to the Right. Laissez-faire is an argument that should be left to the proponents of the Right. Pacifism sounds good. But is has never worked. Isolationism has its appeal, but it too has never worked.

I continue to invite comments, questions, or corrections, and will respond to them. I will distribute such exchanges with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

America’s Place in the World

As some of you may have noticed, (I fear that most did not even notice) I discontinued my blog postings following my post of "The Silence is Deafening" when that post did not end that silence.

I have no desire or intention to discontinue that self-imposed exile, since my efforts continue to be unrewarding.

However, when I have an exchange on a topic of interest with a friend and the work of writing is already largely done, I intent to post for whatever readership may still remain. And so my exchange follows.

Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY sent me two e-mails that I quote below:

Sorry about your blog when you could analyze Obama's Tuesday speech and the horror of chemical warfare in Syria and US greatness. You could have explained ten million gallons of Agent Orange, which are killing people to this day. We can include napalm on list of chemicals; depleted uranium munitions can also be included. You know well that one needs clean hands to obtain equitable relief.

And then in a separate e-mail:

Common Dreams: "Halliburton Pleads Guilty to Destroying Evidence in Gulf Disaster." 

  

Another item for your blurb. 

$200,000 fine. 

I hope this encourages you to resume.

My response to Offner, who is a Holocaust survivor like me, but first fled to England and then to Brazil before coming to the United States, was:

Your comment makes no sense at all. To savage the country that gave you and me refuge is a travesty. You particularly had many choices. You could have made England your home, or Brazil. But you chose the U.S. There must have been a reason.

Ditto for my relatives who came to the United States after World War I and whose presence here saved my family and me. They chose the U.S. over all other countries, despite the fact that it always had a lot of warts, not the least of which was its racism and its anti-Semitism. After all this country was born in slavery and has never completely shed its past.

But like what Winston Churchill said about Democracy, i.e. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." can also be applied to nations, i.e. the U.S. is the worst country in the world until we look at the others, most particularly in foreign policy. 

You talk about this country’s sins in Vietnam! Have you looked at the atrocities committed by the French? I have been to Vietnam, they are bitterer about the French then about the Americans.

Btu whatever sins we committed more than a half century ago are rather irrelevant on the question of our role in preventing atrocities in todays world.

But if you want to go back in history, the most relevant period occurred almost four score years ago. As Hitler besieged Britain, threatened the whole world and slaughtered Jews, Gypsies, and countless others, FDR's desire to assist Britain with arms shipments were opposed by these same isolationist voices, who wanted us to turn inwards, who proclaimed that our racist policies at home gave us no warrant to criticize others and besides with unemployment at record highs we should worry about the home front. Roosevelt had to employ subterfuge in what he chose to call "lend/lease" to hide the fact that there was no loan and no lease. He was aiding Britain in its hour of need. It wasn't enough! Without our entry into the war before it was too late Hitler would still have prevailed, Russia's heroic defense notwithstanding. But American isolationism tied Roosevelt's hands, until Japan foolishly solved the problem for Roosevelt by attacking, followed shortly by a declaration of War by Germany and Italy. Even then there was little desire to aid the Jews. It was not our problem.

After the war we declared: "NEVER AGAIN". It was meant not just to apply to Jews, but to all atrocities against mankind. But the voices of nationalism, the voices that spoke of "National Interest" domino theories, and exit strategies, caused us to engage in all the wrong conflicts, including Vietnam. But even before Vietnam we foolishly arranged for the CIA to overthrow the Democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh and installed the hated Shah; we overthrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and since Vietnam, we foolishly intervened in Lebanon in 1982, invaded Grenada in 1983, and invaded Panama in 1989. 

But when the Rwandan genocide occurred, much to our shame, we sat on our hands while Tutsi's were slaughtered, but there was no national interest, just as there was no national interest in preventing the slaughter of Jews and Gypsies. Much to our credit, we intervened when the breakup of Yugoslavia led to slaughter in Bosnia and Kosovo. When Clinton with NATO decided on a bombing campaign that eventually led to a breakup of the country and the end of the slaughter, we heard "where is the exit strategy", where is the "National Interest." But it was our finest hour! No boots on the ground, no American casualties, but mission accomplished!! Not the phony "Mission Accomplished" of Bush after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Libya too, despite its warts, stopped the slaughter and belongs in the success column.

Obama is up in arms about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. He is right to be up in arms, because better late than never. But where were we when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in his own country. Where were we when Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran? Where were we when Hafez al-Assad, the father of Bashar al-Assad, massacred 20,000 of his own people in Hama in 1982? To quote from The Guardian, "The 1982 massacre is regarded as the single bloodiest assault by an Arab ruler against his own people in modern times and remains a pivotal event in Syrian history."

We are told that Syria is a civil war that we should not get caught up in. But so was Spain a Civil War in the 1930's. Had we taken sides there or when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, or when Hitler occupied the Rhineland, the whole history of the Holocaust and WWII might never have happened.

But is it a Civil War? Have we forgotten its beginnings? How people peacefully demonstrated, and Bashar al Assad mowed them down just like his father did 30 years ago. We fight the wrong wars and then use that as an excuse not to fight the right ones. Bush I was right to fight Iraq for invading a peaceful neighboring country. Clinton was right to enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq and sanction them for their treatment of the Kurds. Bush II and the Congress were even right when they decided that unless Saddam gave up weapons of mass destruction we would do it for him. And the build up of weapons was successful in forcing Saddam to let the inspectors in. But when the UN inspectors found that there were no such weapons the raison d'être was gone, but Bush didn't care. He wanted the war, and all else was pretense.

And so because we fought a wrong war, nobody wants to help a people being slaughtered. When the Left and the Right agree something is wrong. Syria is not a civil war. It is a revolution. Our failure to arm the secular revolutionaries has empowered and strengthened the fanatics. Arming the rebels and enforcing a no fly zone was and is the right thing to do.

It is late, but not too late.

Why should the U.S. be the policeman of the world? Because we can and no one else can. The world desperately needs a policeman.

As for your comment about laches, you well know that laches applies to a party seeking relief. The U.S. is not seeking any relief from any judicial body or from anyone.

Even though I have discontinued my commentaries, Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Speculators and the Price of Gasoline - Discussion

This is an issue that I had not originally intended to discuss. But since it is one of the favorite hobbyhorses of the Left and since Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY has been raising this issue forcefully, I discussed it in my post of March 29, under the heading "Control of the Weather (Discussion)." Offner has now chosen to pursue this, which prompted me to do a fairly long dissertation on the subject. I now want to share my analysis with my readers.

Offner wrote:

First see the article in Business Week entitled "Why Obama's Crackdown on Oil Speculators Won't Work." 

Then answer these questions:

1.) If a crackdown on oil speculators won’t work, does it not imply that there are oil speculators?

2.) Is it possible that Wall Street oil speculators affect the price of oil?

3.) The bigger question is whether speculation on food, water and other necessities exists and whether such action is ethical?

4.) Is failure to restrict unethical behavior unethical?

My response to his questions is set forth under corresponding numbers:

1.) Yes of course there are. The question should not be whether there are speculators but whether it is ever possible to eliminate them and whether they are bad. The answer is that it is not possible to eliminate them and in many cases not even possible to regulate them. Sometimes they are bad, sometimes good, most often neither.

2.) It is not only possible, it is probable. But that is not necessarily bad. Look at the article you sent me. He argues convincingly that speculators even-out the speed at which prices change. Without them, as happened some years ago the price can quadruple almost over-night and a more gradual rise is better for the economy and consumers.

3.) Yes and Yes. Let me take this down to basics. There is a rumor that sugar, or for that matter water, will be in short supply. Most people, i.e. consumers upon hearing this will head for the markets and hoard it. The result is the price goes up and soon the shelves are empty. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Now let us suppose a larger speculator wants to take advantage of the situation and so he goes out and buys many tons of sugar, puts them in a ware house (or he buys futures) and then taking advantage of the rising prices resells it at a hefty profit. As he and others begin to sell the price goes down. Is he/she now a good speculator? How do you stop this? Do you make it illegal for anyone to buy more than a certain amount? How do you determine the amount? How would this effect a legitimate store or a legitimate wholesaler, who by the nature of their trade must buy large amounts?

The way to stop this is price controls and rationing which brings about a black market, where the price is even higher and even less sugar in the stores. We are now seeing this in Venezuela.

Are there times when rationing and price controls are appropriate? Yes!!! But only in extreme cases, such as war-time, when the evils of the black market are preferred to letting hoarding control, but it is always a close question. Where the hoarding is by a limited group, intent on creating shortages and raising prices, it falls afoul of the anti-trust laws and definitely should be prosecuted.

Is Obama's approach sound? I don't know, but it is good politics. He is doing something!!!

Raising the margin price on commodities speculation seems like a sensible thing to do, but it takes someone more knowledgeable than I to analyze the consequences. The article you sent me seems knowledgeable and objective.

I will say this. When Allan Greenspan talked about the stock market suffering from irrational exuberance, the obvious thing to do, as far as I could see and still believe, was to raise the margin requirement, which was within the power of the Fed, but because of Greenspan's hostility to all regulations this was not done - ditto for so many other things that could have headed off the crash.

But I don't know the commodities market - We apparently have regulations but we need money to enforce them. Everything else is shooting in the dark. Simplistic answers whether from Left or Right rarely have any merit.

The article in Business Week appears to be an intelligent one. It recognizes that regulations are important and need enforcing by the CFTC. Thus it is apparent that we have regulations in place that are not being enforced, or at least not being enforced adequately. But the Republican Congress will never appropriate the money needed. Instead, they will make sure that what can be done is not done, and then blame the President, who can only do so much without Congress' help.

There are many problems with the world's food supply that are exacerbated by US policy.

The use of US ethanol as an additive to gasoline has created a shortage of corn and driven the price higher, but the corn lobby will prevent Congress from changing this.

Our foreign aid program with food is counter-productive. The law requires that we not give money to aid organizations for food aid, but rather buy the food from American farmers at much higher prices than we could buy it on the world market and it must be shipped in US vessels. If the law would allow our aid to be by buying the food from African farmers, we would save money both in the price of the food and in the shipping costs and we would aid the African economy. Now it enriches the American corporate farmers and hurts the African economy because it competes with the African grown food and drives that price down.

4.) No and the question is irrelevant since I have said such action is not unethical. But even where it is unethical there is always a weighing of unintended consequences. Simplistic questions and simplistic answers to complex problems are, well, simplistic.

I then added:

The oil market is a world market. How do you regulate trades made outside the US? If you rationed gasoline in the US, it would have no effect on the price of oil on world markets. If you had price controls on gasoline that were below the world price of oil, no one could afford to sell gasoline, since they would lose money on every gallon. World markets and globalization make a new ball game. But we can no more change it than we could stop the industrial revolution and now the technological revolution that brought about globalization.

Furthermore a high price of gas is not bad. It makes clean energy and conservation much more competitive

Even boycotts have limitations. We put a boycott on Iranian oil. But if China does not join the boycott, can it be effective? The boycott might force the price of Iranian oil to go down, in which case China gets a windfall. How do you stop this? Only with a full fledged blockade of Iran, an act of war, which would put us in conflict with China and get Iran to try to close the Straight of Hormuz. Can you imagine what the price of oil would go up to? Speculators will make a lot of money, but they are not causing the price rise - they are taking advantage of it. Is there anything we can do - yes, but I am not smart enough to know what. Ask Barney Frank - he understands these things better than I do, and while I am talking about Barney Frank I commend to you an interview of him, which appeared in New York Magazine.

Also we do have laws on the books and the Commodities and Exchange Commission, which needs more funding as recommended in the article you sent me to enforce the laws and regulations. But the Republicans will never authorize this. What can we do? Get rid of them to whatever extent we can.

But I get tired of the Left and their "it’s the speculators.”

Finally allow me to add that while normally a two party system benefits the country, now a defeat of the Republican Party to the point where we have only one party has the best hope of reforming the system. Now it is broken and can't be fixed. In our system a one party system would not last long. The Democratic Party would split in two.

Talk of a third party in our system is very counter-productive. It would make sense if we had run-offs as e.g. the French and most of the world do.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Control of the Weather (Discussion II)

In my last post entitled "Control of the Weather (Discussion)" that was posted and distributed on March 29, I set forth some comments made by Eric Offner Esq. of New Hyde Park, New York. To access those comments double-click on the title of the post above.

At the end of that post I promised that: “Next time I want to tackle a very important and complicated subject, i.e. the role that race plays in American life and politics. It will be entitled: “It’s All About Race.” But since the discussion emanating from the comments contained in that post continued, I want to share them with you.

In response to the comments I made as set forth in that last post, Eric Offner wrote:

Thank you. Please discuss the present Supreme Court hearings. It seems that we will get a 5 to 4 decision, as was the case in the decision that made Bush President. We can throw out the commerce clause, and cite pre new deal case law. By the way I did not realize that the price of gas issue is a left/right issue, but I do not intend to pursue this. Your scholarly articles are very much appreciated.

To which I replied:

I am sorry to say that the Supreme Court hearings on the Health Insurance Reform Act is not a subject I plan to address in forthcoming commentary. There are only so many subjects I can deal with, and as I have indicated, I am anxious to deal with the issue of race in our society and politics.  

I will say, however, that 5/4 against is not a foregone conclusion. Kennedy has been and continues to be the linchpin, so that we do not have a court of 9, but essentially a court of one. Kennedy decides. However, that does not mean a 5/4 if it is upheld. Some commentators have speculated that if Kennedy goes with the liberal 4, Roberts will join the majority for upholding the law, in order to appoint himself as the one who writes the majority opinion. That would make it 6/3 but assure a narrow holding, with concurring opinions.        

As for the Commerce clause - yes it has been under attack for some time. They are pushing for a pre-New Deal interpretation. Only Kennedy can stop it and if Obama loses, the Right wing Court majority will go to 7/3, when Ginsburg retires or dies, and Kennedy will no longer be the swing vote. It will lead to total Right Wing domination.    

As for the price of gas being a Left/Right issue, it is not. Rather it is a partisan issue. There is a difference. When Bush was President and the price of gas reached levels comparable to the price now, Democrats, including Obama, attacked Bush. I don't remember the details but my guess is that Bush was no more responsible than Obama is now.

But then, after listening to the NewsHour on PBS on Friday March 30, I felt further comments were called for. I wrote:

Since saying "that the Supreme Court hearings on the Health Insurance Reform Act is not a subject I plan to address" I have seen additional facts, particularly on the NewsHour on PBS on Friday that made me feel I had to comment. So here goes:              

In listening to the NewsHour on PBS yesterday I saw a clip of Romney on the campaign trail (See here at two minutes into the video) where he says: Obama Care “will directly control almost half the US economy.” There is a tendency to exaggerate on the campaign trail, but this is beyond all reason. The absurdity is evident when we consider the government will not control anything. It will regulate the health insurance industry. Regulate not control (Medicare or a single payer might be considered as controlling but this does not control, it regulates) and the whole Health Care Industry of which insurance is a small part, is 16% of our economy. See here.              

He then goes on to say, “if I am President I will repeal it.” Doesn’t he ever read the Constitution? The President can’t repeal an act passed by Congress. Only Congress can. 

At 55 minutes 22 seconds into the video we get a discussion between Brooks (representing the Right viewpoint and Shields representing the Left, actually they are both rather moderate) and they both are embarrassed to note that some of the justices during the hearing are actually expressing Tea Party talking points.  

It is difficult for me to understand why there is even a question as to the Constitutionality of the Law. It is no different from any other tax levied, i.e. you pay taxes on your income unless you choose to give money to charity, in which case you don’t have to pay a tax on that portion. Social Security taxes don’t benefit you directly and not immediately. They benefit another generation, i.e. those over 67.              

Talking about forcing people to buy broccoli is and was intended to be facetious. But of course Congress can tax people who don’t eat broccoli, if it is shown that there is a reasonable connection between that requirement and the regulation of Commerce, but that can only be decided when that issues is before the court. Even if such a regulation were ridiculous it would not therefore make it unconstitutional. Some of the justices are behaving like clowns.              

If the court, after the Gore case and the United Case goes down the same partisan ideological route it will discredit its legitimacy. Years ago, (at the moment I can’t pinpoint when it changed) one could not tell how a justice would vote by whether a Republican or a Democrat appointed the Justice. Now that is controlling.              

In Roe v. Wade a decision that was 7 to 2 (not 5 to 4) the majority consisted of Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart. (It was not the Warren Court, and by the way Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower, a Republican.)

Blackmun was appointed by Nixon (Republican); Brennan by Eisenhower (Republican); Burger by Nixon (Republican); Douglas by Roosevelt (Democrat); Marshall by Johnson (Democrat); Powell by Nixon (Republican); Stewart by Eisenhower (Republican). Of the 7 justices in the majority, 5 were appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet this has now become a partisan issue.              

When we know how a justice will rule by which party appointed him/her, then it is an extension of the party, and no longer a judicial forum.                       

I don't know what the answer is, but we cannot indefinitely allow a partisan body to have the power to overrule an elected legislature. Only a judicial non-partisan body can be allowed to do that.

And Irving Lesnick Esq. of Boca Ratan, Florida picked up on the issue of eliminating speculation in oil and other commodities, writing:

Your comments are interesting, as always. While I generally agree with them, I will mention a disagreement, or at least a query, since you prefer disagreement, with your statement that outlawing speculation would require banning all commodities trading. It seems to me that the situation here is somewhat like that which prevailed in the life insurance business in the 1700s or so in England. There people were buying what we now call term life insurance on the lives of public figures.  Reportedly, it became a bit of a bubble, and both because it was viewed as morally objectionable as gambling but probably more importantly because some of the public figures began worrying that allowing the wrong people to get into a position to profit from their speedy death, their death might become more speedy than it would otherwise be. The response was the imposition, I think by legislation, of a requirement of insurable interest in the purchase of insurance, which limits insurance purchases to situations where the purchaser would suffer a loss from the occurrence of the insured against event. There are non-speculative reasons for buying and selling commodity futures - a manufacturer who wants to be protected against a rise in the cost of raw materials, an airline who wants to be protected against too much of an increase in fuel prices or and farmer who wants to be protected against a fall in the price of his or her future crop. Requiring participants in futures markets to have these kinds of interest would bar speculation, without banning commodity trading. How to structure such a requirement is, of course, another question.

To which I responded:

Your analysis is worthy of one who was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.                 

You are absolutely correct that there is a way to outlaw speculation without banning all commodity trading, and the insurance industry, (your area of expertise) is clearly a perfect example. But that then brings us to the question of whether it is desirable to stop speculation. I would argue that it is not desirable. If you placed the kind of restrictions on the commodities markets as you suggest, the market would shrink to a degree where "legitimate traders" would have a hard time finding buyers when they were ready to liquidate their positions. Furthermore not all commodity traders can be defined in the futures market as your focus suggests. What about commodities like gold and silver? Traders in gold buy the metal to hedge against inflation. How do you limit this? Or do you limit the market to jewelers.

The problem becomes similar to the stock market, where one could argue that only legitimate investments in a start up business should be allowed, but without a secondary market, the primary market collapses. That is also true in commodities. When you get rid of the "speculators" you are getting rid of the secondary market.                 

Please advise if I am missing something.

And then added:

This reminds me of Revolutionary times. Since the Continental Congress had no taxing power and the states were very poor providers of money to fight the war, the Congress issued promissory notes that went unpaid and because it appeared they would never be paid, they became worthless. A secondary market of speculators arose ready to buy the notes at huge discounts, thus giving them some limited value to the relief of the primary holders. Jefferson argued that the notes should not be paid because that would unjustly enrich the speculators. Hamilton in turn argued that what was at stake was the full faith and credit of the US. Washington sided with Hamilton, the speculators were paid, and the Full Faith and Credit of the US was never in doubt thereafter. [Until the Tea Party (to all intents and purposes, the Republican Party) decided to threaten to prevent the US from paying its debts. For the first time since then, the US full faith and Credit has now been put in doubt.]  The bracketed portion is a bit of a digression, but the point is a secondary market, which usually consists of speculators, is vital to a functioning market.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.