Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist

In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.

Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .

It’s American conservatism.

In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).

And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” 

He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).

In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the  result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:

It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?

These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.

What is he talking about?

Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.

Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, ”unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.

unbalanced?

Seriously, this is how liberals think.

America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.

If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”

How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?

Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?

Wright continues:

Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.

However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.

Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.

Take a moment to ask yourself this …

How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?

Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?

It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.

And why is it not a safe haven?

Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.

In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years;  but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease  – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.

This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.

This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.

Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.

-

Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage.  Gabor Steingart at Der Spiegel.  Translation Christopher Sultan. 

Selected text that reinforces the point.  The hope and change prancing is not a foreign policy dance.

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

Not even a protocol-blundering bow by a President to Japanese royalty was sufficient. 

The “first Pacific president,” as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

“Obama bows to Prince Akihito in Japan.”
Image courtesy of http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_bow_japan_akihito/2009/11/15/286394.html.

Worthless currency on the world stage.

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama’s currency isn’t as strong as he had believed.

“Obama Funny Money”
 Image courtesy of http://www.catalogs.com/info/bestof/the-top-10-items-to-get-you-off-on-presidents-day. 

Israel maintains its priorities in the face of a sweet talking politician.

Obama’s new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry.

“Hand wave.”
 Image courtesy of http://www.bbc.co.uk/cornwall/extremesports/stories/thrusters_diary_archive/thrusters_diary_150305.shtml.

Talk softly and carry a big stick.  Or else, start running.

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. “We’re searching for an exit strategy,” said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

“Scared chicken running.” 
Image courtesy of http://www.livingbeing.com/domesticanimals.htm.

Prescient observers note the “one term” foreboding moniker looms.

Obama’s advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. “

“Jimmy Carter.  Barack Obama.” 
Image courtesy of http://www.exposeobama.com/2009/09/10/obamas-crisis-credibility/.

The sharks smell blood in the water.

Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,” Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: “This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter.”

“Sharks.  Blood in the water.”
Image courtesy of http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/safari/shark/photo/photo_zoom9.html.

See:

• http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662822,00.html

9:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends the Official South Lawn Arrival Ceremony for His Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of the Republic of India, and Mrs. Gursharan Kaur, at the White House.
(MEDIA TO BE DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

10:20 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends Bilateral Meetings with President Obama and Prime Minister Singh, at the White House.
(MEDIA TO BE DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

1:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden host a Luncheon for Prime Minister Singh and Mrs. Kaur

3:05 p.m. Secretary Clinton signs a Memorandum of Understanding with His Excellency S. M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India, at the Department of State.

5:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a Bilateral Meeting with Prime Minister Singh, at the Willard Hotel.
(MEDIA TO BE DETERMINED BY INDIA)

7:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends the State Dinner in honor of Prime Minister Singh and Mrs. Kaur, at the White House.
(MEDIA TO BE DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

(Photo by Dennis Brack-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama’s Cabinet met yesterday and an announcement on troop numbers and an exit strategy could be announced within days:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama held a “rigorous final meeting” with his Afghanistan war council and is expected to announce his revised strategy for the eight-year-old conflict just after his Thanksgiving break.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama’s last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.

The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement — in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it to reporters on Monday, it’s “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out.”

Obama held the 10th meeting of his Afghanistan strategy review since mid-September on Monday night, with a large cast of foreign policy and military advisers, to go over that revised information from war planners. The two-hour Situation Room session was aimed at discussing “some of the questions that the president had, some additional answers to what he’d asked for,” Gibbs said.

[snip]

“After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days,” Gibbs said late Monday.

The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday, after Congress returns from its Thanksgiving break. Military officials, congressional aides and European diplomats said they expect Obama to deliver a national address laying out the revamped strategy.

…

By Christopher Hitchens  Posted Monday, Nov. 23, 2009, at 1:37 PM ET  (Hitchens is usually very good: on this he is excellent!)

It’s both amusing and educational to observe a consensus when it suddenly starts to give way at all points without yielding an inch. A couple of weeks ago, the consoling view was that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a man more to be pitied than feared, a full-blown officer in the U.S. armed forces who was too shaken up by the stories of returned veterans to be able to function properly, and a physician too stressed-out to bear in mind that there was such a thing as a Hippocratic oath. Why, even the FBI had interpreted his e-mails to Anwar al-Awlaki as quite “consistent with research being conducted by Maj. Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center.”

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan

That latter finding does not stack up very well with the disclosure that the major was imploring Awlaki’s spiritual advice some time before the online imam issued a finding of his own to the effect that bullets discharged at American soldiers were fired in a holy cause. The Washington Post and ABC News, which drew well ahead of the consensus in their reporting, also unearthed e-mails from Hasan to the Yemen-based preacher, asking when jihad tactics might be justified, what were the circumstances that would license the killing of innocent bystanders, and expressing the hope that the e-mailer and his respondent might one day be united in paradise. Since Awlaki was only in Yemen in the first place because he’d found the United States an inconvenient domicile (after having had direct contact with three of the 19 air pirates and mass murderers of Sept. 11, 2001, or “9/11 hijackers” as they are now euphemistically termed), we can apparently congratulate ourselves on paying for an FBI that lacks the nasty and suspicious mind that spoils so much police work in “the community.”

Very well, then; the case for Maj. Hasan the overburdened caseworker seems to have evaporated. Robert Wright, among others, is big enough to admit as much. Wright, now emerging as the leading liberal apologist for the faith-based (see his intriguing new book The Evolution of God), now proposes an alternative theory of Maj. Hasan’s eagerness to commit mass murder. “The Fort Hood shooting,” says Wright, “is an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism—or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” I know that contributors to the New York Times op-ed page are not necessarily responsible for the headlines that appear over their work, but the title of this one—”Who Created Major Hasan?”—really does demand an answer, and the only one to be located anywhere in the ensuing text is “We did.”

Everything in me revolts at this conclusion, which is echoed and underlined in another paragraph of the article.  Why, six months ago, did “a 24-year-old-American named Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad—Carlos Bledsoe before his teenage conversion to Islam—fatally shoot a soldier outside a recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.?  ABC News reported, “It was not known what path Muhammad … had followed to radicalization.”   Well, here’s a clue: After being arrested he started babbling to the police about the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.  ” Wright describes this clue-based deduction of his as an illustration of the way that “an isolated incident can put you on a slippery slope.” Though I can’t find much beauty in his prose there, I want to agree with him.

For a start, did Hasan or Muhammad ever say what “killing” of which “Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan” they had in mind?   There isn’t a day goes by without the brutal slaughter of Muslims in both countries by al-Qaida or the Taliban.   And that’s not just because most (though not all) civilians in both countries happen to be of the Islamic faith.  The terrorists do not pause before deliberately blowing up the mosques and religious processions of those whose Muslim beliefs they deem insufficiently devout.  Most of those now being tortured and raped and executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran are Muslim.  All the women being scarred with acid and threatened with murder for the crime of going to school in Pakistan are Muslim.  Many of those killed in London, Madrid, and New York were Muslim, and almost all the victims callously destroyed in similar atrocities in Istanbul, Cairo, Casablanca, and Algiers in the recent past were Muslim, too.  It takes a true intellectual to survey this appalling picture and to say, as Wright does, that we invite attacks on our off-duty soldiers because “the hawkish war-on-terrorism strategy—a global anti-jihad that creates nonstop imagery of Americans killing Muslims—is so dubious.”  Dubious?  The only thing dubious here is his command of language.  When did the U.S. Army ever do what the jihadists do every day: deliberately murder Muslim civilians and brag on video about the fact?   For shame.   The slippery slope—actually the slimy slope—is the one down which Wright is skidding.

It is he, who I am taking as representative of a larger mentality here, who uses equally inert lingo to suggest that Maj. Hasan was “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”   That’s a nice and shady use of the word “perception.”   Might it not be equally true to say that Hasan was all-too-easily pulled over the edge, having already signaled his devout eagerness for the dive, by a cleric who makes a living by justifying murder of Muslims and non-Muslims alike?

In many recent reports of this controversy one has seen reporters from respectable papers referring not just to generic, uniform “Muslims” but even to the places where they live as “Muslim lands.”   If you would object to seeing the absurd term “Christendom” in your newspaper as a description of Europe, let alone to reading about “Jewish land” on the West Bank, then please have the fortitude to complain next time violent theocracy is smuggled into the discourse under the increasingly feeble disguise of multicultural masochism.

President Barack Obama has convened his “war council” for the ninth and possibly final time before his expected announcement next week to send more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan after more than 80 days of deliberations.

via Telegraph.

By Gabor Steingart

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said “thank you, guys,” and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists’ questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public’s expectations had been “too high.”

The mood in Obama’s foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The “first Pacific president,” as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

via spiegel.de

Lincoln Memorial, Washington DC

 ”All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. “

~Thomas Jefferson

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-A

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-B

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-C

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-D

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-E

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-F

Glenn Beck-11-23-09-G

The Meaning of Independence Day

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. “

“”The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson Memorial, Washington DC

Background Articles and Videos

United States of Amercia Government

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml

http://www.federalbudget.com/

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans

$1.4 Trillion in Red Ink Means Less to Spend On Obama’s Ambitious Jobs, Stimulus Policies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101602388.html

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/11/obama-tripled-the-national-deficit-his-first-year-in-office.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125119686015756517.html

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Official Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%–15,700,000 Unemployed American Citizens–Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5%– 26,950,000 Americans Seeking Full Time Jobs–Obama Depression Worse Than Great Depression

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Third Party Time? Yes Provided You Have $10 Billion and 10 Years!

Independents Lead The The Second American Revolution Surge–Independence Day–Saturday July 4, 2009 In Washington D.C.–Tea Party Time–On To Washington–Dare You To Move!

Lincoln Gettysburg Address –November 19, 1863

The attorney for one of the terrorist defendants has had some interesting tings to say. Thinking about what he said and reading a  comment or two from rush have switched the light on for me, I think. The attorney is  Scott  Fenstermaker and he had  this to say. The defendants will  plead not guilt but will not deny their role in he 9/11 attacks. But, they intend, according to him, to tell what happened and why. Along the way, they will share their thoughts about United States foreign policy, particularly vis-a-vis terrorism.

Now, if I am Attorney General Holder of maybe even the President, I may just like the sound of that. If U S foreign policy is “put on trial”, wonder what Administration’s foreign policy it will be? Not this one, but the Bush Administartion of course. So, and I would lik eto be wrong, rally I would, but maybe the potential for this kind of thing played into the Administration”s decision to use civilian courts, rather than the military . Another opportunity to stick it to Bush and continue to place the blame  thereon.

One side note, Congressman Louie Gohmert, R, Tx  has proposed a bill that would require terrorist defendants to be  tried before a  military tribunal. He probably knows the bill, even with 40 co-sponsors, has very little chance. But I applaud his pushing this issue  and publicly keeping the heat on the Administartion decision.

Towards the end of the George W. Bush Administration, a series of essays by Richard Haass, former Head of Policy Planning of the State Department of the Bush Administration, now Head of the Council on Foreign Relations, marked a breathtaking change in the  analysis of America’s national interest in one or the other  conceivable structures of world order. Beginning with America’s self-assessment as the anchor of a unipolar world (Richard Haass, “The Case for Integration,” National Interest online, January 9, 2005), he then  shifted the focus to a multi-polar model to be used actively by Washington in a “Palmerstonian moment” (Richard Haass, “The Palmerstonian Moment,” National Interest online, February 1, 2008), and finally arrived at the preference for a non-polar world that would ultimately be in America’s own best interest (Richard Haass,  “What follows American Dominion?” Financial Times, April 16, 2008).

I. Thinking and Rethinking on Unipolarity, Bipolarity, Multipolarity,

Today, world opinion is essentially unanimous about the end of unipolar or bipolar ideology of the Neo-conservative spectrum. Multi-polarity appears to many as the obvious alternative to both.  But before mistaking the multi-polar alternative for a scientific certainty, it is worthwhile to retrace the thinking and rethinking of an acknowledged pragmatic voice of the Bush Administration about the sequence of changing world-views between 2005 and 2008.

Not much needs to be said about the passage from unipolar to multi-polar analysis. Unipolarity was empirically refuted by the failure of the US-led “coalition of the willing” in the Iraq war. The interesting aspect is the post-Iraq war, search for realist alternative by the Head of Policy Planning of the State Department of the Bush Administration. Almost inevitably, one might say, the search resulted in finding the classical balance of power prescription of the 18^th and 19^th centuries applied to the perceived situation of the 21^st century. Of course, it seemed attractive for a US Statesman to be the “balancer” of such as system like Metternich, Palmerston or Bismark in their times.  The history of those older balance of power plays shows however, that multi-polarity is a structure that can easily turn against the “balancer” if other players feel threatened by his influence and coalesce against him.

This risk became immediately apparent in 2008 when neo-conservatives called for a “league of democracies” that would have challenged Chinese and Russian “autocracies” to enter a new bipolar competition of systems. Russian and Chinese political scientists quickly scrambled to counter the universalist dissemination of Western values by asserting Confucian values  (Xiang Lanxin, “What Prospects for Normative Foreign Policy in the New Multipolar World?” Paper presented at the 29th session of the CEPS/IISS/DCAF/GCSP European Security Forum, Brussels, May 26, 2008) values of the Russian Orthodox Church (Andrey Makarychev, “Rebranding Russia, Norms, Politics and Power,” CEPS Working Document No. 283, February 2008). Such a league would also have to get by without India, the world’s largest democracy. Despite bilateral territorial conflicts, an influential segment of the Indian political establishment feels greater cultural proximity to China than to the West, or at least to its neo-conservative form based on a violent, utopian idealism (Radha Kumar, “What Prospects for Normative Foreign Policy?” Paper presented at the 29 th session of the CEPS/IISS/DCAF/GCSP European Security Forum, Brussels, May 26,2008).

Both realists and idealists in the traditional sense had difficulties suppressing their dismay at how the Neo-conservative rhetoric of a bipolar conflict between democracy and autocracy misled Georgia into military action in South Ossetia in August 2008, inviting massive Russian intervention and certain Georgian defeat. Since the US was unable to come to the rescue of Georgia, the final effect of the bellicose rhetoric was to evidence the powerlessness of its authors. Richard Haass’s words remained unheard. Barbara Tuchman’s “March of Folly” came to mind.

The fundamental problem of multi-polarity is that it only gains attraction as the negation of unipolarity, as resistance to an existing empire or hegemonic state. This was the case with the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the universal claim of the Holy Roman Empire and established the international system of sovereign nation-states that henceforward bore its name. It was once again the case with De Gaulle’s sensational recognition of China in 1964, which he intended not only as a negation of the bipolar system but also of Anglo-Saxon hegemony West of the Iron Curtain.

The Westphalian system is the only historical example of a multi-polar world order  successfully established and maintained over a prolonged period of time. But this says nothing about its suitability as a positive strategy for preserving the peace between states. While the European states in the system endeavored to shape domestic peace, domestic economic developments and social coexistence in a more or less beneficial way, they regarded the international system as area in which they were free to to choose between diplomacy and war. They used this freedom with gusto, and mostly with the aim to expand their own power, state territory and access to economic resources at the expense of other states in the system or colonies not possessing statehood. The predominant state practice was in keeping with Hobbesian political theory,   in which Hobbes’ Leviathan ensures order within the states but in which the law of the jungle governs relations between states.  

Respected realists such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Haass have praised the European pentarchy (Great Britain, Russia, France, Prussia and Austria) as an exemplary world order, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there were no fewer than 52 wars among the five members, not to mention wars with other states or in territories outside Europe not recognized as states. It appears doubtful that the willingness to switch alliances at any time, which Lord Palmerston saw as in Great Britain’s national interest, really contributed to preserving peace and the balance of power (see Graph 1)

In order to avoid wars at least part of the time, every system based on a balance of power requires statesmen of extraordinary analytic faculty, such as Palmerston, Bismarck and Kissinger. As soon as these statesmen “leave the ship” – in the figure of Bismarck in  Punch’s 1890 cartoon -, the system threatens to collapse. This is why the rest of the world could not find much comfort in Richard Haass’ plea for a “Palmerstonian moment” on the part of the US, not even as an alternative for the uni-polarity associated with the political adventure  of the Iraq war.

This is especially true of the EU, which has no foreign policymaking authority of its own, despite the name given its “Common Foreign and Security Policy”. Even after the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, it can make no decisions concerning war or peace without the approval of its member states. Germany will always remain the biggest hurdle, since any German consent for military missions needs prior democratic legitimization by the Bundestag.  Hence the EU  cannot keep up with China, India, Russia and other power centers organized as nation-states. As a consequence, Richard Haass believed that NATO was losing its value for the US and that changing alliances like in Palmerton’s day were preferable. The EU is not even included on most lists of a multi-polar global pentarchy in the twenty-first century, least of all Kissinger’s. The most dramatic implication of Richard Haass’  “Palmerstonian Moment” was that the pentarchy had moved from Europe to the Pacific region, and that the majority of the five power centers  was henceforth constituted by three Asian states—China, India and Japan (Graph 2).

II. Beyond polarity

This does not mean, however, that a multipolar world order along the lines of a globalized Westphalian system had won the day. For the very nations considered by proponents of realism as the three new Asian power centers are also the driving force behind a renaissance of multilateralism and are pursuing a forward-looking strategy of functional integration in  Asia. The more unilaterally the Bush Administration has acted acted, the more China has championed multilateralism  (see Henrik Schmiegelow, “Asia’s International Order,” Internationale Politik (IP) Global Edition, Fall 2007, p. 17-22). The North Korean nuclear crisis marked the first time China voted in favor of sanctions in the UN Security Council—targeting a neighbor that has long been considered its charge. In the six-way negotiations on denuclearizing the North Korean end of  the “axis of evil”, Washington began relying on China to work out a solution. It is therefore no surprise that Richard Haass highlighted the North Korean settlement when he moved on to argue in favor of a non-polar world  in the last article of the series cited above. 

Like other Asian states, especially members of ASEAN,  Japan and China have closely observed Europe’s experience in functional integration. They have drawn their own conclusions from evidence of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the European model.  And they started a process with a sequence suitable to Asia (see our post “Is Asia’s Integration less Functional than Europe’s?”). As in Europe, the functional integration of Asia produces such large advantages for one-time warring parties that there is no reasonable cost-benefit relationship to justify wars. It is the best example of today’s opportunity for  a world order surmounting the risks of the Westphalian system.

Moreover, it is an example that cannot be criticized as an outgrowth of Euro-centrism or an aggressive expansion of western values. Fortunately, cost-benefit analysis can be performed using trans-cultural math. The integration of the Chinese national economy into the world economy, especially the supply chains between Chinese, American and Japanese companies, suggests that the Chinese see no contradiction of such a process to Confucian norms. Russia, which thus far has profited mainly from rich natural resource deposits and is much less integrated into the world economy than China, is already feeling challenged to learn lessons from this example. After 2006, Russia’s renewed power led to Putin’s deliberately sharp-edged foreign policy, but a “Medvedev moment” was supposed to convey a somewhat softer image of this reemerging power. The new president was quoted as saying that, in the end, Russia will not earn the world’s respect “through strength but through responsible action” (Nikolai Petro, “Seizing the Medvedev Moment,” International Herald Tribune, March 14, 2008). Unfortunately, the “moment” seemed abruptly suspended in the “bipolar” derailment of Georgia’s South Ossetian adventure. But eventually, cultural relativism will not stand in opposition to a functional understanding of national  interests in Russia either, however nationalist the tradition of the Russian-Orthodox Church be.  Much depends on the West’s recovery of its own capacity of functional calculation of interests in relation to Russia.

As we shall discuss in our next post, the global economic meltdown of 2008/2009, the worst since the Great Depression contributed to a new awareness of the world having no other choice than working as a problem solving community.

Two years since the passage of the Mérida Initiative – a $1.4 Billion military aid package to combat narco trafficking in Mexico – the country is experiencing more violence than ever. Dallas News reported that 2009 has been Mérida’s bloodiest year yet, “with more than 6,000 dead, including about 2,280 just in Ciudad Juárez, across the border from El Paso.” But even more disturbing is the fact that blame for the violence is falling increasingly on the U.S.-funded military.

According to Human Rights Watch:

Since Calderón deployed more than 40,000 troops to combat drug-related violence, Mexican soldiers engaged in counternarcotics operations have repeatedly committed egregious abuses against civilians – including rape, torture, and killing. Last year, the country’s human rights ombudsman received 1,230 complaints of military abuses, a six-fold increase over the past three years.

The problem is largely rooted in the military’s lack of accountability within the Mexican legal system. Kristen Bricker of Narcosphere News points out that, according to Mexico’s Federal Constitution:

A soldier that has been accused of human rights violations has legal recourse in a civilian court if he believes justice has not been served in a military tribunal, but that a civilian victim has no such right.  If a civilian victim of human rights abuse does not obtain justice in a military tribunal, there is absolutely no possibility of appealing to the civilian justice system.

Allegations of misconduct on the part of the soldiers are tried entirely within the military tribunal system, which is notorious for failing to prosecute. A report by Human Rights Watch details a series of incidents that have gone unpunished by Mexican military tribunals, including:

In a May 2007 case, soldiers detained eight people after a shootout between the military and alleged drug traffickers in Michoacan. Soldiers took the detainees, none of whom were involved in the shootout, to military installations, where the soldiers beat and kicked four of them, placing their heads in black bags, and forcing them to lie on the floor, blindfolded. A federal prosecutor requested that the military investigate the soldiers’ actions. The military closed its criminal investigation in a month and sent it to the archives, arguing there was no evidence that the soldiers had committed a crime.

The U.S. Congress was well aware of these failings before Mérida was passed. In an attempt to placate human rights organizations, 15% of Mérida Initiative funds have been held back on the condition that the Mexican government improve transparency and military accountability. However, the administration is currently looking to free up these funds. In response, over seventy Mexican civil society organizations sent a letter to Congress calling for a halt in U.S. military aid to Mexico, citing the growing number of unpunished human rights abuses. José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, also drafted a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, urging him to block the allocation of the remaining 15% of funding.

Whether or not this small percentage of funding goes into affect is, unfortunately, somewhat irrelevant. According to a senior Obama administration official: “U.S. assistance to help Mexico fight drug traffickers will probably continue beyond the allotted three years of the Mérida Initiative,” despite indications that continuing with the program is likely to further deteriorate the human rights situation in Mexico.

By Mary Tharin

SNL goes after Obama.

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Saturday Night Live’s portrayal of Chinese President Hu Jintao?

Answer: He sure doesn’t enjoy Obama’s spending spree.

HAHA!

Maybe Saturday Night Live is starting to get the hang of it? Lets hope so because we all know they could use some better ratings. The only thing that is missing right now is CNN’s fact check of a comedy skit, but than again… the day is not over with yet, haha.

Best quote from the skit:

I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money.

Yeah… It’s funny how that one works and I still find it quite baffling to this day, but I’m glad SNL pointed it out.

While surfing the other day I came across the recent Quinnipiac national poll….there was much in there about Obama’s popularity, personal and policy, but the part that fascinated me was the question and answers on Afghanistan.

When asked if they, the people who answered, do you approve or disapprove of the Obama handling of Afghanistan…..38% approve, 49% disapprove…..then they were asked: do you think the US is doing the right thing in Afghanistan?…..45% is yes, 41% say no…..when asked if a democratic government in Afghanistan a worthwhile goal……34% yes, 56% no…..

But now the telling question that was asked:  do you think that the elimination of terrorists in operating in Afghanistan a worthwhile cause?……65% said yes and 29% said No…….

I will bet you are asking why is that a telling question, right?

To me it shows that the normal American is not paying attention to the situation in Afghanistan….why would I say that?

I believe that Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that we originally went into Afghanistan, to get is now operating from the mountains of Pakistan…..the Taleban did not have anything to do with 9/11 other than letting AQ use some training facilities within their borders….the Taleban maybe a terrorist group, but it is against its own people and not an international one….

The original plan was to get terrorists but since the invasion of the country, we have been playing defense more than offense….why?…..the Taleban is fighting to rid their country of what they see as occupiers that threw them out of their position of power….they only want to return to the “ivory tower”….nothing else…..

Americans, with their answers show they do NOT have a grasp of the situation….only what they hear on FOX or MSNBC or CNN…..in other words, I return to one of my favorite things…..rational ignorance effect……(look it up…my page will help)

Tentative schedule:

10:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds Weekly Meeting with the Assistant Secretaries of State, at the Department of State.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with Her Excellency Rumiana Zheleva, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria, at the Department of State.
(MEDIA TO BE DETERMINED)

4:50 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with President Obama, at the White House.

“In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” — President Barack Obama, June 4, 2009

To most Americans, the major political turning point in Iran is the 1970s Islamic Revolution. Little is known of the nation’s history before the overthrow of the Shah or America’s and Europe’s involvement.

In 1953, the CIA carried out Operation Ajax: An organized coup d’etat that successfully overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, and enabled the return of authoritarian monarch, Mohammed Reza. The CIA acted at the request of the British government and in the interest of American oil.

While the coup is openly admitted to by both American and British leaders today, it is not something that is taught in schools or discussed in light of current events. If America intends to address the current Iranian situation, in cannot do so without first looking to the past.

Visit MohammadMossadegh.com for a comprehensive archiving of the 1953 coup d’etat and Mohammad Mossadegh.

“People are indeed the essential of commerce, and the more people the more trade; the more trade, the more money; the more money, the more strength; and the more strength, the greater the nation…All temporal felicities, I mean national, spring from the number of people.” — Daniel Defoe

Growing up in a conservative household, I was taught the value of free-market economics and limited government from a young age. Government was a thing to be feared and restricted. Human beings, on the other hand, should be allowed maximum freedom — at least in the area of economics. But when it came to the issue of illegal immigration my parents sang a much different tune. In their minds, illegal immigration was a scourge on America’s land that bankrupted both the economy and American culture.

Ironically, most conservatives today share the sentiments of my parents. Why is it that those who are the loudest advocates for laissez-faire capitalism are also the loudest advocates for protectionism? If conservatives truly believe in the power of the “unseen hand,” why do they not extend it beyond America’s borders?

The necessary, logical conclusion for those who truly believe in the free-market is that legal immigration is beneficial for a society. Conservatives need to revisit their belief in supply-and-demand. Perhaps then they would realize it is the demand of American consumers that brings immigrants to our country.

In an interview with New York Times’ blogger, Melissa Lafsky, British economist and journalist, Phillippe Legrain, makes the case for freer immigration which he believes increases prosperity:

“We tend to think it’s fine that foreign financiers cluster together in New York, I.T. specialists in Silicon Valley, and actors in Hollywood, while American bankers ply their trade in London, Hong Kong, and China; surely the same logic should apply to Mexican construction workers, Filipino care workers, and Congolese cleaners coming to the U.S. After all, they are all simply service providers plying their trade abroad.”

Jason L. Riley, author of the book “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders,” agrees with Legrain. As a conservative member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, Riley finds the anti-immigration attitudes rampant among his fellow conservatives troubling.

“Most of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes out of the political right,” Riley said in an interview with the Telegram’s Robert Z. Nemeth. “As a free-market conservative, I find that disturbing.”

Riley Argues that there is no correlation between an increase in population and poverty. He compares the influx of Mexican immigrants to that of the Italians, Germans and Irish.

“Scapegoating foreigners for domestic problems, real or imagined, is something of an American tradition,” Riley said.

“Scapegoating” is quite popular in America today as Mexican immigrants are blamed for crime, job loss and the demise of American culture. As the saying goes, “there is nothing new in the sun.” Since its inception, fear and nativism have directed America’s immigration policies. In the 19th century, Bejamin Franklin spoke out against the influx of German immigrants coming to America:

“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion.”

Illegal immigration is a problem as it allows for millions of undocumented persons to live in the shadows of a nation. However, immigration is the result of market demand. Americans need to realize legal immigration is a benefit, not cost, to them.

Watch Jason Riley at The Cato Institutes’ book forum.