Don't Like Israel's Settlements: Stop Paying the Tab!

The Obama Administration recently condemned Israel's announcement of expanded settlements on Palestinian lands. This is all well and good and it is about time that an American leader at least expressed the position that Israel should not expand settlements as they contradict US policy.

But is this "outrage" going to have any impact? Not really. After all, the Obama Administration speaks with a forked tongue. While they claim to be concerned and frustrated with Israel's antics, the Administration has not threatened to cut the $3 billion in foreign aid American taxpayers send to the nation. So, in essence, while Obama expresses his concerns, we're paying the tab. Does this make any sense?

Me, I'd rather cut off foreign aid to all countries (including Israel which receives a disproportionate share). This is especially true at a time of ballooning deficits and economic difficulties here at home. Ultimately, however, as the Cato Institute has pointed out, foreign aid is ineffective.

Is Obama "Interfering" in Israel?

Obama's domestic policy of drastically bigger government will be a disaster for individual liberty, but he is the first president in many years to put pressure on Israel to stop expanding settlements and to really advocate for a Palestinian state. For that he has been criticized by neoconservatives and some Democrats alike. He's even been accused of "interfering" in Israeli politics. Glenn Greenwald exposes that assertion as a myth and points to the positive impact Obama's Middle East initiative may have on America's standing in the world.

When Friends Fight

I love Jon Stewart's show. His is the only show on TV that I actually make a point to watch. He may be left of center, but he is also one of the few people on tv that is willing to question US foreign policy and poke fun at our elected leaders.

I also love Antiwar.com. It is the best source for news about US foreign policy and I have been reading it and listening to the podcasts for years. That is why this article by Justin Raimondo is so frustrating. After all, no one else in the mainstream media would even say the things Stewart does and yet here Raimondo criticizes him. I wish the freedom movement would stop circling the wagons only to open fire on each other and not the enemy.

Military Should Face Cuts in Current Economic Crisis

The following is a talk I plan to give at my Toastmasters meeting tomorrow (Tuesday night). Needless to say, I plan to stir things up.

There is no doubt that America faces significant economic issues right now. Since analyzing and discussing these issues is part of my job, I have analyzed and discussed the problems for some time. I have even shared some specific data in my previous Toastmasters talk just how big the problem really is. To summarize the situation without going into too much detail, I found a story published just the other day that puts the US Government’s total liabilities at $65 trillion, a number that surpasses the total economic activity on planet earth. Clearly, the federal government needs to reduce its size and scope dramatically lest America’s economy and future generations will be living at a much lower standard than that experienced today.

As with any truly big problem, no single decision created this mess and no single reform is going to solve the issue overnight. But, as a philosopher once said, “The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.” So, while maintaining a strong military to protect our shores is a core function of government and one that I stand strongly behind, I will use this opportunity to provide you with data showing that policymakers are missing an opportunity to find significant savings. The source of that potential savings is our military budget.

• The Department of Defense alone will spend $653 billion this year or over half of the world’s total defense spending;
• This number does not include the military portion from other departments like the Sandia Labs which are owned by the Department of Energy which totals $150 billion, spending on veterans’ benefits, plus interest on the debt incurred for these expenditures. Thus, real annual defense-related spending by the US is actually $1.5 trillion and as Figure 1 shows, it consumes half of the income taxes collected annually (this number does not including gas taxes and programs like Social Security and Medicare which are also known as entitlements);
• As Figure 2 illustrates in the handout, while China and Russia are the 2nd and 3rd largest military spenders in the world, their spending is dwarfed by the US and much of the rest of this spending is done by US allies like Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy to name just a few. Clearly, we could reduce this spending significantly and still have more than enough military might to fight off potential adversaries.

Regardless of your views on the Iraq War or the War on Terror, much of this spending is superfluous. For example, the US has more than 1,000 military bases overseas. More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea.

Others are scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — just to name a few. Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.

While I’m not arguing for closure of every single one of these bases, it seems obvious that Germany and Japan are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves at this point. After all, World War II is over as is the Cold War. I will also note that while military bases here in the US support local economies (like ours in Albuquerque), these bases located in foreign lands provide a boost for foreign economies.

Aside from having too many bases for no apparent reason, the military has too many expensive weapons systems that were designed to fight the Soviets, but are simply not needed today. The F-22 Raptor is a perfect example of this. While the US maintains air superiority over every other air force on the planet and faces no serious threat in this vein, production continues on this jet which was originally conceived to fight the Soviet Union. The cost for each of the 183 F-22’s purchased will be $339 million per aircraft. That’s $62 billion for a jet that has never been used in combat and faces no threat on the horizon.

The F-22 is just one of many weapons systems being built today for yesterdays’ threat. We could save massive amounts of money and dramatically improve our nation’s budget outlook by reducing these unnecessary annual expenditures.

Ironically, while President Bush is well-known for having expanded the military dramatically, President Obama is also increasing military spending despite erroneous media reports to the contrary.

In fact, Obama’s first budget will increase defense spending by 8 percent over Bush’s last budget. This, despite claims from media sources as diverse as Fox News and the Washington Post which falsely reported that Obama was slashing military spending. The reality is that Obama was reducing spending levels from what the various departments had requested, not making actual cuts.

Thus, while Obama may be slowing the rapid and unnecessary growth in military spending, he (at least in his first budget) has missed an opportunity to really take on the problem.

Lastly, while some will defend a bloated military budget as an effective jobs program and will inevitably decry attempts to reduce spending in the middle of an economic downturn, the fact is that money not used to fund the military can either be spent to pay down our massive debt or be used to fund other projects.

After all, for the cost of one combat jet – an F-22 – that we all hope never has to be used, we could re-build the Paseo and I-25 interchange, thus improving the quality of life for the thousands of Albuquerque residents and others who drive that road every day. Completing this project would likely create even more jobs and would certainly provide greater long-term economic benefit than one jet.

In conclusion, I am by no means opposed to all military spending, but do think we spend far too much right now, particularly on overseas bases and costly and unnecessary weapons systems. I hope you’ll use some of the data I have provided to come to your own conclusions about the proper role of our military and whether we might use some of these resources more effectively.

The Gaza Strip

In case you might have been so foolish to think that 2009 might have brought about a change of attitude among our leaders, especially when it comes to the Middle East, the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip should have dispelled those hopes. Perhaps not surprisingly, given my previous praise for Jon Stewart's "reporting," the Daily Show has had better and more balanced coverage of the conflict than the mainstream media. Check out a recent example here.

NY Times Confirms Georgia Attacked Russia

In the aftermath of the war between Russia and Georgia, both McCain and Obama harshly criticized Russia, blaming them for the war. Said Obama, "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire."

Well, this week the New York Times finally reported that in reality the truth is much more complicated and it is more likely that Georgia actually attacked the Russian army. Too bad the reporters at the Times don't read Antiwar.com, they'd have known the truth months ago.

Early Bad Sign from Obama

For many libertarians and others hoping for an end to perpetual warfare in the Middle East, Obama's pick for White House chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel is discouraging. As this article from Foreign Policy magazine points out, Emmanuel is a fierce advocate of Israeli militancy:

Rahm's father Benjamin Emanuel served in the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group that targeted British and Palestinian civilians -- most famously with the King David Hotel bombing and the Deir Yassin massacre -- to advance the goal of creating a Zionist state. This week, the elder Emanuel has not exactly assuaged doubts about his son's pedigree. "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he told the Israel daily Maariv, "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab?"

Obama isn't yet President and therefore hasn't made any policy decisions, but picking such a pro-Israel chief of staff is a troubling sign. Hopefully, Obama will reverse Bush's hawkish, neoconservative-driven foreign policy agenda, but pro-peace voters should not take this for granted.

$1 Billion for Georgia?

In case you missed it, earlier this week President Bush proposed that US taxpayers should send $1 billion to the Republic of Georgia which was recently engaged in a brief war with Russia. The aid would dwarf the $63 million the United States provided to Georgia last year.

I'd have a problem if Bush wanted the rest of us to send $1 billion to the State of Georgia where lots of taxpayers reside, much less another country. Worse, it seems that between the foreign aid and the out-of-control rhetoric from the Administration, Bush Administration policy seems hellbent on re-igniting the Cold War for the benefit of a country that is at best on the periphery of US interests.

If Obama and the Democrats take a strong stance of opposition to these absurd and dangerous policies, those who have rational foreign policy beliefs might have someone to vote for, but it seems unlikely.

Jeanne Dixon, Russia v. Georgia, China, the CIA and Global Warming

There is a book by Jeannie Dixon where she predicted a Chinese migration into Russia. Given the current demographic reality, with the bulk of the Chinese population concentrated on their coast, this seems nutty.

Given the possibility of global warming and the current conflict between Russia and Georgia, her premonition deserves a second look.

It is hoped that the CIA is looking into what would happen if sea levels rose and the price of gasoline began to rise again. Global warming may be off the table at EPA, it should not be at CIA. Both energy prices and rising sea levels may drive the majority of the Chinese population away from the coast and the Chinese military west in search of oil, which is conveniently located in Siberia. Global warming and changing weather patterns could water the Gobi, or at least force the kind of technological development which makes drinking water more available in the Russian Steppe.

Due to the value of the resources contested in any Sino-Russian conflict, nuclear weapons won't be used - at least not strategic ones. This makes analysis of Russian v. Chinese conventional capabilities over the coming years essential. As we learned in Korea, China has the advantage of numbers, even after the one-child policy has been in effect for a generation. As those pampered pets need gas for their cars they may go west to get it. Picking on the Georgians, or even pushing back against Georgean militants, is one thing. Fighting a surging China, whether in war or in illegal immigration, is another (as we know with our southern border).

What is happening in South Ossetia?

From the sound of media reports and Bush Administration rhetoric, Russia is a clear aggressor in its war against Georgia. This ">excellent article by Justin Raimondo disputes that assertion and debunks it rather effectively.

But even that video doesn't question why the US has unwisely chosen to bring the outdated NATO (originally organized to counteract the Soviet Union in Western Europe) to Russia's borders. As if expanding an outdated NATO were not dumb enough, the US should at least understand that a second Cold War with energy-rich Russia would not be in its own best interests.

Then again, it seems like American politicians have a knack for consistently making bad decisions when it comes to foreign policy. I'm not saying that Russia is completely innocent in this war, but it seems that at the very least the US should not have emboldened Georgia to attempt to take back its breakaway republic. Of course that would mean that there is a place on the globe free of US meddling...we simply can't have that.

American Conservative Defense Alliance: Fighting the War Party

Free Liberal board member and all around good guy Michael Ostrolenk has taken on yet another new project. He is now heading up the American Conservative Defense Alliance which is working for a non-interventionist foreign policy on Capitol Hill. Listen to a recent podcast from over at Antiwar.com.

Jon Stewart Takes on AIPAC

As usual, Jon Stewart takes on issues that other media outlets refuses to discuss and does so in a humorous way. Check this video on the candidates for President (including Hillary) efforts to pander to the powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Democracies and War

As we in the United States celebrate Memorial Day, I noticed an article by James Bovard on the relevance of democracies and whether they make war on each other or not. My college political science professors liked to say that democracies don't go to war against each other. Democracy-building has been a core tenet of American foreign policy since at least the days of Woodrow Wilson. As Bovard makes clear in his excellent article, democracies often do fight each other and have done so for hundreds of years, for a variety of reason.

The point is not to denigrate democracy as a means of political organization, but to encourage the American people to question their political leaders the next time they preach "spreading democracy" as a foreign policy goal.

Do Muslims Really Hate Us?

Ever since 9/11, Americans have been highly suspicious of Muslims. While there a certain amount of healthy skepticism of a religion that many believe to be at the root of much of the unrest in today's world may be warranted, a new survey from Gallup sheds some light on what Muslims really think. The truth is, the vast majority of them have positive feelings about America.

Among the study's findings:

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical;
Only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001;

In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation;

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation;

Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran;

Perhaps most important is the fact that radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks of 9/11. This is an indicator that it is our actions and our government's policies, not our culture that offends radical Muslims. Perhaps our leaders should take a close look at this survey?

The Lies Have It

Someone finally took the time to tabulate all the lies foisted upon the American people in the run-up to the Iraq War. It looks like the answer is 935. That is a lot of lying especially when you consider that just one lie could get a President impeached.

Burying Hitler

It looks like war with Iran may be on the back burner for now -- even warmongers take Christmas off -- but they'll be back soon enough. Justin Logan over at Cato makes an excellent case for burying the Hitler analogy once and for all. After all, even if we don't go to war with Iran, some future leader will be compared to him as a means of ginning up a US military intervention.

Israel: NIE Report Could Spark War

No matter what US foreign policy agencies come up with, it seems like all signs point to war with Iran. Now, the Israeli public security minister is warning that the recent finding by the CIA that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program would cause war. More troubling, according to its director, Israeli intelligence "will work to change the American intelligence agencies' view of Iran." This means that next time, if Israel has anything to do with it, the CIA will come to the "correct" conclusion about Iran's ambitions.

Clearly the US intervenes in far too many internal decisions of foreign countries across the globe, why does it seem that Israel is the only country that is openly permitted to work to influence our own intelligence decisions?

Bomb Iran, bomb, bomb, Iran

One would think that US intelligence reports that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons for several years now would be welcomed as great news and that the Bush Administration might cool the rhetoric and take some of the heat off....of course, that would be in a rational world, not Bush's. Of course, as Justin Raimondo points out, the neocons, many of whom are quite close to the Bush Administration and the Giuliani campaign oppose any effort to tone down the rhetoric.

It would seem that no matter what Iran does, some will spin Iran's actions as a reason for sanctions and threats. The question for "mainstream libertarians" like Eric Dondero and other Iran hawks is whether the average American really would support war with Iran and exactly what such a move would achieve for their security.

Why did libertarians support the war?

This article provides about as good an explanation as I've seen for so-called libertarians who supported the Iraq War. While it is good that libertarianism has become "cool," (this is not a new phenomenon in my opinion), a lot of these recent converts don't really understand how limited government evolves and how war is antithetical to it.

John Howard Deserved to Lose

Glenn Greenwald takes Howard to task not only for his failed foreign policies, but for his blatant hypocrisy in criticizing American candidates while vowing not to intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations.

A Legacy of Losing: JFK, Obama and Viet Nam

Andrew Sullivan raised a question. I've got an answer.

Q: Larison doesn't see any overlap:

Sure, superficially Obama and [Ron] Paul might seem to offer some similar themes, and both did oppose the Iraq war, but Obama is essentially an interventionist at home and abroad and Paul is diametrically opposed to both. One invokes JFK, the other invokes Robert Taft. Obama thinks everything on earth is tied to our national security; Paul thinks that there are very few things overseas that are tied to our national security.

A: JFK gave us the Viet Nam "Conflict," which served no vital national interest [poor grammar (perhaps a translation issue); accurate article]. Ron Paul would prefer that the Department of Defense actually be about defense and not about offending most of my veteran friends who signed up to "solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

I didn't spend over a decade in the Army to build nations, police the world or install a freer election system (and they call this democracy?) than we have in the United States -- which was accomplished by the force of guns aimed at people who didn't have WMDs nor harbor bin Laden. I'll never forget the day "The Wall" fell in Germany. It was the only time I recall not being irritated by a traffic jam; people and luggage stacked up in broken-down Traubis to escape the totalitarian East was the perfect symbol that freedom had won this round.

Now we have the totalitarian West, where we remove our shoes for TSA agents in order to not recall that the concept of habeas corpus has existed since the year 1215.

An interventionist foreign policy doesn't work well for very long and the consequences are often dire. Coca-Cola, Levis and the Rolling Stones won the Cold War (to be sure, there was a military stick to the free market carrot). Instead, Obama proposes that we retry failed policy by following in the footsteps of the man who more-or-less brought us Viet Nam.

We all know how that one ended up.

Disagreeing with Ron Paul

I love Ron Paul. I agree with him on nearly all major issues and think that his race for the Presidency of the United States is the most important political movement this nation has seen at least since Barry Goldwater ran for the White House.

That said, I think he is taking the wrong track -- at least from an economic perspective -- in opposing the ability of Mexican truckers to work in the United States. His argument seems to boil down to the fact that US truckers are too heavily regulated to compete with Mexican truckers and that we should do away with onerous regulations first. Of course, regulations should be reasonable, but the only way politicians and industries can be deregulated is to force them to compete and thus to lobby for more reasonable regulations. Until then, the regulated will simply dictate how they are governed.

Of course, I understand that politically-speaking, free trade is relatively unpopular right now (and Dr. Paul has always been skeptical of trade agreements), so it makes sense to emphasize that point.

I discuss here in greater detail some of the reasons for allowing the Mexican trucker program to move forward.

Another great, but obscure anti-war classic

While looking through the list of You Tube videos featuring the great early 80s Australian pop band Men at Work I came across their great anti-war song It's a Mistake.

The video's Cold War motif is a bit dated but the songs humorous attack on the venality and foolishness of those in charge of the warfare state still holds up.

Iraq = Vietnam?

Once upon a time, some in the antiwar movement compared the war in Iraq to that in Vietnam. Of course, these comparisons were quickly and sometimes harshly quashed by supporters of the war.

Now, Bush himself is favorably comparing the two and saying that we should apply the lessons of Vietnam to the current situation in Iraq. Bush actually agrees with Ron Paul to an extent, but they are starting from polar opposite assumptions. Who is right?

Ron Paul points out that we wasted the lives of 58,000 US troops fighting in Vietnam and gained nothing. We got out and now Vietnam is a trading partner. Bush is concerned that many Vietnamese will die if we leave. Both are correct but Bush fails to realize that Iraqis and Americans alike are dying every day over there. It may get worse for a time if we leave, but ultimately some form of peace will be restored.

Most Americans agree that Vietnam was not worth it. Bush would seem to be wrong once again.

Bush: President for Life?

Philip Atkinson, author of the book A Study of Our Decline, argues that Bush should have followed the model of Julius Caeser in Iraq, slaughtering all Iraqis who did not comply with his demands. He also argues that he should make himself "President for Life."

If you are wondering from what hole in the ground Mr. Atkinson came, it should be no surprise that he is associated with right-wing uber-hawk Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy.

While Atkinson may seem extreme, I'm sad to say that many formerly "limited-government conservatives" seem to be of the mind that we should give all power and authority to Bush and the federal government in order to protect us from the threat of "Islamo-fascism."

Response to Randy Barnett

Recently I blogged about Randy Barnett's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal justifying libertarian support for the Iraq War. Needless to say, I was not the only one who found Barnett's logic wanting. Robert Higgs of the consistently libertarian Independent Institute responded to Barnett with a well written letter.

The Push to Keep Us in Iraq

While all of the momentum at the grassroots/public opinion level has been geared towards getting US troops out of Iraq and even Congress has made half-hearted efforts even if those efforts overlooked better options.

Something that has not been seen, at least outside of the Bush Administration, is the "hey, we're winning the war" attitude that was so prevalent in the early days of the invasion. That changed recently when supposed "Iraq experts" and supposed "critics of the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq" O'Hanlon and Pollack wrote an article appearing in the New York Times making the case that we "just might win" in Iraq.

Of course, as Glenn Greenwald documents so well, these two were cheerleaders for the invasion and did not criticize the Administration until nearly everyone had left the pro-war bandwagon. And, of course it is worth pointing out that the supposedly liberal Times itself was a big backer of the war and that publication only began sniping at the Administration when the war was clearly going poorly.

When it comes to foreign policy, the "establishment" unites. Hopefully the continued pressure being put on Congress by the American people can get our troops home in a timely fashion -- without them going through Iran first.

Bizarro Libertarianism

It is hard for me to believe that there are still self-proclaimed libertarians out there who support the Iraq War specifically and an interventionist foreign policy specifically. Justin Raimondo has an excellent piece attacking Randy Barnett, a Georgetown professor, self-proclaimed libertarian, and warmonger

First and foremost, even if a true believer in limited government could rationalize the Iraq War, any moron who reads the Constitution can understand that Congress holds war-making power and no such declaration has ever been made. While the Bush Administrations "reasons" for going to war were transparently bad, perhaps there will be a day in the future where a president will have better reasons for going to war. My position is the same: only an actual declaration from Congress...

I'd think this concept would be pretty easy to grasp for someone of Barnett's intellectual pedigree, but maybe not.

The CIA: Still evil after all these years

The recent disclosure of the CIA's "family jewels" elicits an outstanding rebuke from Justin Raimondo. The only problem I have is the term "family jewels." That would certainly imply that these are cherished items that have been held for the CIA for some time. The term "skeletons in the closet" or "dirty deeds done at taxpayer expense" might be more appropriate.

Of course, I don't remember the CIA being in the US Constitution....

Reason author Clueless on libertarian foreign policy

It is no surprise that the folks over at Reason Magazine fail to understand the importance of Ron Paul's candidacy and the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy in general. Granted, Michael Young is one of the more clueless folks over at Reason and this article places his ignorance on full display.

Perhaps Young, like Giuliani, should get his own reading list: the Constitution would be a good place to start followed by anything he can find on antiwar.com.

Young seems to think that the neocons were the only ones who had ideas to explain the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and that the left and libertarians had nothing by the way of explanation. This is patently false. After all, the Neocons were already in the Bush Administration waiting for something like 9/11 to happen. All they had to do was use their tremendous influence in the Administration to spin the facts in their favor.

The fact is that both left and right agree in this country that America has to "throw its weight around" and command the world as a hegemon. Anyone who has a problem with this is a pariah or even part of the axis of evil.

It would be nice if libertarians or writers for libertarian publications like Reason understood the benefits of non-interventionism, but perhaps that is too much to expect.

USS Liberty

If you've never heard of the USS LIberty, this week marks the 40th anniverary of the attack on the Liberty by a foreign nation. No, it wasn't the axis of evil or the Soviets that attacked us, but one of our greatest "allies" and a client state of ours that has received billions of dollars in direct subsidies from US taxpayers.