dagblog - Comments for "Stuff I Want to Learn: National Security"

Here's a little more support

DF — Sat, 23 May 2009 17:04:28 +0000

In reply to 2. What is Cheney's fucking

Here's a little more support for the "fear of prosecution" theory:

Perhaps that outrage was not

DF — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:50:57 +0000

Perhaps that outrage was not born of the irrational hatred of one man, but the disgust over a set of reprehensible policies. If those policies have in fact not changed or changed very little (or, as some are arguing, have actually changed for the worse), then the justification for that outrage has not changed either, your own personal empathy notwithstanding.

I have to say that I really find all of this a bit odd. These supposedly loony lefties were the same people who were criticizing Bush and cheerleading Obama's campaign last year, but they did so because they believed, and I would argue that this belief was sound, that Obama largely agreed with those criticisms and intended to act accordingly. Now they are criticizing Obama, but it's strictly because he appears to be embracing policies that he appeared to oppose last year. Certainly there are political realities to take into account, not to mention that he's only been in office for four months, but there's nothing inconsistent about the content of the criticisms.

Is the rhetoric really that elevated? I don't know. I'm seeing some pretty well-reasoned criticisms for some moves along with well-reasoned praise for others. Take this essay by Bill Moyers (at the verboten Salon.com, fair warning). Is Bill Moyers a mouth-frothing, raving Bolshevik? No, he's not. He's calm, sane and one of the last American investigative journalists that's worth a damn. He's one among many that have a lot well-metered things to say. This essay in particular provides a salient historical context for the way that single-payer gets pushed out of the picture every time there's a remote chance that it might even be seriously discussed.

It seems inevitable that campaign promises will be broken. That's the kind of core cynicism you apparently need to suck it up and participate in American politics. However, the degree to which they are ultimately broken will bolster criticism of the President across the political spectrum. Right now, the best defense of Obama is that he's been in office a very short time. It's undeniably true and it goes a long way in defending him, but that's a defense that will, by its very nature, expire.

Maybe it would be helpful if, instead of railing against the supposedly out-of-touch rhetoric of some faceless political left, we were to identify exactly who or what we were talking about so that such comments could actually be evaluated on their merits. Otherwise, I have to say that it begins to sound not at all unlike the way the right dismisses criticism, where for almost twenty years nearly all dissent has been swept under the rug by being attributed to a well-known group of lunatics: "liberals".

The criticism is not in

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:34:21 +0000

In reply to This is interesting to me.

The criticism is not in question. The rhetoric is.

I don't have much taste for overheated rhetoric period, but during the Bush administration, I could at least emphathize with the rage.

Excellent point.

Orlando — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:39:14 +0000

In reply to Quite a can of worms you've

Excellent point.

This is a great point. And

DF — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:10:00 +0000

In reply to Quite a can of worms you've

This is a great point. And it's not as if the rest of the world wouldn't have co-operated with us to that end after 9/11. Instead, we dissed our allies as being part "old Europe" and decided that acting unilaterally was somehow justified in a "post-9/11" world, as if this was the first time in history that a country had been attacked by foreign radicals.

I just watched Rachel Maddow's take. I read part of Obama's speech, but I didn't get to the where he literally forwarded the idea of preventive detention. This is a problem. "Serious moderates" might want to consider what that sounds like in the rest of the world, outside of the narrow playground where they can casually dismiss criticisms as being nothing more than the emotional explosions of the marginal left (and despite the obvious fact that those criticisms are consistent with those levied against Bush).

Quite a can of worms you've

acanuck — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:42:12 +0000

In reply to 1. What are our options for

Quite a can of worms you've opened, Orlando. And we aren't even looking at the bigger problem, which is that the laws of war are in desperate need of updating to 21st century standards. I'm a big fan of the Geneva Conventions. Despite repeated and ongoing violations, they have saved the lives and limbs of perhaps millions of combatants and non-combatants.

But they reflect a 20th-century view (and reality): wars that start by getting declared, and end with a surrender, armistice or peace treaty. Combatants who wear identifiable uniforms. No failed states, mercenaries, wars of liberation, terrorists, insurgencies or assymetrical warfare -- all the stuff that typifies today's "fog of war."

The Bush administration finally noticed the existing rules were dated, but drew an unwarranted conclusion: that they therefore no longer applied. If a particular piece of international law is flawed, you work (with other nations) to improve it; you don't discard the entire concept of the rule of law. One more thing to add to Obama's second-term to-do list.

Well, this is the way I look

DF — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:05:00 +0000

In reply to 1. (continued) I like

Well, this is the way I look at it: It's politics. If you're taking it at face value, you're probably going to end up feeling like that. Just like I know that Obama has things on his mind that he isn't saying, I also know that when organizations like HRW continue to put the pressure on they realize that there is an ongoing political process. However, they exist to push for a certain agenda and that's probably what we should expect them to do. It doesn't mean they're out to get Obama, it just means that they have the same agenda that they did last year and the year before. Frankly, I think it's generally a good agenda. I also think that they know they're more likely to make progress on that agenda under Obama. In that sense, there is a rational motivation for them ratcheting up the rhetoric and pressure right now - it's more likely to produce results. That may seem counter-intuitive, but in a strange way the elevated rhetoric reflects a degree of confidence in actually seeing desired outcomes.

So, taking complicating factors into account applies all around.

1. (continued) I like

Orlando — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:56:00 +0000

In reply to Stuff I Want to Learn: National Security

1. (continued)

I like cocoa.

And I don't mind people leveling specific criticisms. It's the shrill, knee-jerk reactions that get on my nerves. It gets on my nerves from the right also. There's something in our brains that has a tendency to discount complicating factors when making a point. It's a human flaw (that OBVIOUSLY I DON'T HAVE), and it bugs me.

See reponse(s) below...

Orlando — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:53:31 +0000

In reply to Obama certainly didn't create

See reponse(s) below...

Obama certainly didn't create

DF — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:51:23 +0000

In reply to Well, maybe that's the

Obama certainly didn't create this problem. I hope that he solves it. I doubt that he favors indefinite detention. However, he did apply for and get the job. He knew the problems.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think that taking was he says publicly at face value is silly. Just as there were unwritten rules for what Obama the candidate could or could not say, there are unwritten rules for what Obama the President can or cannot say. If, for example, Obama decides to treat them as conventional POWs, that has specific implication. It would be wise to prepare for that outcome first, then announce it. I get that.

And to be honest, I think that most of the critics get that. Nevertheless, there's something to be said for keeping pressure on this stuff. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Keeping the buzz going on these issues helps to insure that they aren't simply lost in the din of the 24 hour news cycle. If Obama delivers, the critics will be pleased. People like Greenwald aren't just out to get Obama. They're making specific policy criticisms that are consistent with their point of view on these policies under the previous administration. Some would call that intellectual honesty. Greenwald, if you actually read him, gives Obama his propers along with criticism. I find the getting upset about the people who are upset at Obama to be equally silly. He's a big boy. He can weather the criticism. Cocoa and blankets all around.