Fast and Loose with Individual Liberty?
Kofi Annan in his farewell address lectured America on its apparent abandonment of civil liberties—remonstrating that when the United States “appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.”
Some thoughts: the use of wiretaps, surveillance cameras, and civil detention of citizens is far more common in Europe than here in the United States.
In comparison to past wartime measures—suspension of habeas corpus (Lincoln/Andrew Johnson), shutting down newspapers (Lincoln), jailing of dissidents (Wilson), interning citizens, military tribunals (Roosevelt), or enemies lists, misuse of the IRS and FBI (Nixon), the Patriot Act, passed by both houses of Congress, is pretty tame.
The UN versus the US
In fact, there is much more transparency, accountability, and free speech in the present U.S. government than under the UN as run by Mr. Annan. Had one of the Bush children, Annan-style, shipped in a Mercedes using government exemptions to avoid fees and charges, or had Bush himself turned over his government-subsidized apartment to a wealthy sibling, the outrage would have been immediate.
When we do see prosecutorial abuse and judicial overreach—such as the supposed rape case at Duke or the Kafkan pursuit of Scooter Libby (when Mr. Armitage, at no apparent liability, has confessed to the leaks concerning Ms. Plame)—Mr. Annan and others are conveniently quiet.
Apparently for the Ghana-born Mr. Annan and his Swedish wife, their near constant criticism of the United States rarely seems to reflect commensurate unease with the judicial, cultural, social, or legal life of Manhattan.
And how Orwellian for Mr. Annan to point to Truman and the Korean War in his farewell sermon as an object lesson about the UN for the Bush administration. Truman could use that agency only because of a Russian walk-out (and hence absence of a veto) over China. Furthermore, the percentage of US troops in the present multilateral coalition is probably smaller in Iraq than was true in Korea. And there may have been more nations represented in 2003 than in 1950.
A better concern would have been Bill Clinton’s unilateral (no congressional approval) bombing of Kosovo and Bosnia, since, unlike the Bush administration, there was no American effort even to engage the UN (e.g., the threat of a Russian veto).
Therapeutics 101
And concerning Kofi Annan: But by any fair token, his tenure at the United Nations will go down as one of the most corrupt in the entire history of the organization. The extent of the $50 billion oil-for-food scandal boggles the mind. Annan’s son profited from his dad’s position, and tried to profit from an embargo that put Saddam Hussein’s interests ahead of the strapped Iraqi people. When you add in the son’s business with the Mercedes, and the father’s apartment deal, then the corruption extended to the personal and petty. All this is largely forgotten once the suave Annan, emblematic of both the Third World and replete with a sophisticated British-Continental accent, begins his teary-eyed moral sermons.
Jimmy Carter’s recent book likewise displays glaring lapses in character—from his unacknowledged use of someone else’s maps, his questionable recollections of conversations, his factual errors, and his equation of democratic Israel with apartheid. Yet once Carter talks of God, his own past anti-poverty work, or the unique utopianism of the Carter Center, and bites his lip and looks down in humble fashion, we give him a pass as well.
Bill Clinton was a past master of this therapeutic style, voicing the now famous “I feel your pain.” He bit his lip and talked of global brotherhood as he went through Monica, shady financial deals, and reprehensible 11th-hour pardons.
Any of the three could have lectured George Bush that in lieu of ‘smoke-em out’ and ‘dead or alive’ or ‘bring ‘em on’, the creased brow, the bitten lip, and the eyes skyward looking for divine guidance or in solemn humility pointed downward can provide quite a pass on all most anything.
Some Thoughts About Readers’ Responses
The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan, although it is now popular to say the war is about lost, and that they “are back.” To the contrary, there is still an elected government in Kabul and, yes, it is under assault by Taliban insurgents streaming in from the border from Pakistan, whose government detests the present democracy in Afghanistan. But the Taliban will not come back into power unless the United States and NATO withdraw before Afghanistan is stabilized.
On rules of engagement: Changing tactics and wider latitudes of operation are necessary if we are going to surge more troops and raise the stakes. If we don’t disarm the militias, stop Saudi money and Iranian arms, control Iraq’s borders, disarm the gangs, and go after the militia leaders, then we will simply become more numerous and visible targets and ensure Iraqi dependency. The military response can only give a window of security for the Maliki government, which came on the heels of elections in a free autonomous Iraq.
Our leverage with it rests only with our willingness to depart if it chooses not to secure the country: again, Iraqis are now independent and free to ask us to leave.
Iraq is Not Lost!
The odd thing is that while the violence increases, so does the economy strengthen in Iraq, with more GDP growth, more investment, and more oil revenues. The surging economy—higher salaries, more consumer spending, strong real estate—along with efforts to stop Saudi financing of Sunni terrorists, and Iranian arming and training of Shiite radicals, would in turn take the strain off US soldiers. This month the Iraqi Security Forces should reach their targeted strength of 325,000 troops. In short, Iraq is far from lost, as John Murtha, for example, insists.
Hard Pounding…
At some point one side will crack as happens in all wars: either American public opposition, sick of the violence and killing, will reach such Vietnam-era proportions, that Senators will be emboldened to cut off funding and our troops will “redeploy”, OR the insurgents will become isolated from Iraqis who want to get in on the new prosperity, and will learn it has become too dangerous to support terrorists, given the new rules of engagement of the US military and the increase in size and effectiveness of the Iraq army.
In terms of will, it is reminiscent of spring 1918, when the German spring offensive, energized by divisions sent from the freed-up Russian front, nearly won the war—only to be followed by a startling reversal with the allied 100-day summer and autumn resurgence. Then infusions of American manpower, and Anglo-Gallic courage, demoralized and routed the once undefeated Germans. In March-April 1918 it looked as if German would at last win; by September 1918 it was clear they were going to lose.
More on More Troops
We do need to enlarge overall U.S. ground forces, and do it without more borrowing. A modest gasoline tax would be helpful. But barring that, it would be, in fact, even more advantageous to end agricultural subsidies at a time when the US farm economy is doing well. In all their manifest incarnations, they now reach $32 billion and would fund and supply easily the yearly costs for 100,000 more Marines and army units. Farmers are conservative and patriotic folk, and should welcome the challenge. In any case, federal expenditures threaten again to climb above 7% per annum, far above the rate of inflation, and far higher than during the Clinton administration.
War Won’t Be Wished Away
No one wishes to see more war in the Middle East of any sort. But since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, we have seen a crescendo of violence against the US. Neither Jimmy Carter’s denunciations of the Shah, nor George Bush’s realism, nor Bill Clinton’s praise of Iranian democracy and embrace of Yasser Arafat—and not the American saving of Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, or the military aid to the anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan, or the billions in money sent to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians, or even the emergency aid provided to feed the Somalis or the Indonesians—have done much to counter the cheap appeal of jihadism. Hence arose the present policy of going after Islamist militias, and autocratic regimes that sponsor terrorists, while offering the people of the Middle East a third choice other than autocracy and theocracy.
Who is Who?
It used to be that Democrats championed human rights abroad. Now their leadership praises the likes of Mubarak, and wishes to talk with the anti-Democratic Syrians and Iranians that are at the apex of Middle East terrorism. Whatever one thinks of neo-conservatism, there was a strong strain of Wilsonian idealism in it—the academic President that Democrats still worship.
In turn, it used to be that Republicans insisted on fiscal parsimony. But had the Bush administration, through vetoes and the bully pulpit, just kept congressional spending at the rate of inflation the past six years, we would now have a budget surplus, be paying down the deficit, and all agreeing that the tax cuts brought in more revenue, not less, and came concurrently at a time of federal budget surpluses.
The common denominator? The path of least resistance explains much of anomaly: no one wishes to upset the old realist status quo abroad of subsidizing Egypt, kowtowing to the Saudis, and ignoring the crimes of Iran and Syria. And by the same token, the more entitlements, the more complacence at home.
Milk-Toast Politics
So Democrats have become old Republicans abroad, and Republicans have become old Democrats at home. We the public think the renewed realism is stability and a return to normality, but it is a prescription for disaster: a “stable” Middle East gave us 9/11. Its dictatorships, along with the terrorists they subsidize, will only incite their impoverished citizens and continue to blame us for their own abject failures. At home, Social Security and Medicare are time-bombs, and when the baby-boomers hit full stride very soon, we will discover that something must give—and radically so given our present financial incontinence.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
10 Comments
Junius:On the “abandonment of civil liberties”, it is worth noting that the “liberties” some perceive as guaranteed by the Constitution have arisen only in the last 40 years. An interpretation of the Constitution which fails to protect society, and the other points in the Preamble, is necessarily an incorrect interpretation.
Dec 19, 2006 - 8:52 pm Dave Begley - Omaha:Here’s Sen. Chuck Hagel’s Omaha World-Herald op-ed re: his introduction of Kofi Anan at the Missouri speech:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=609&u_sid=2298065
And here’s my letter reply published by the OWH two days later on 12-19:
Overhaul the U.N.
I agree with U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel (Dec. 17 Midlands Voices) that this “defining time in history” requires “a new American 21st-century frame of reference.” His proposed solution of “strengthening the world’s multilateral organizations” is not, however, the correct one.
The corrupt and failed United Nations doesn’t need strengthening but, rather, massive overhaul and reform. I won’t recount the criminal activity that took place under Kofi Annan’s watch with the oil-for-food program, as the world doesn’t seem to be interested. I’ll also bypass the current genocide in Darfur, as the world community also appears to be unconcerned with that.
It was an extremely revealing insight into Sen. Hagel’s thinking that he cited the alleged success of the United Nations’ nuclear nonproliferation programs. Just this year alone, North Korea joined the nuclear club without the United Nations’ permission. Iran is on the verge of doing likewise. And Iran has plainly said that it intends to wipe Israel off the map. Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for many years, and it is only by luck that such weaponry hasn’t fallen into the hands of Islamist terrorists.
Given the perfect failure that is the United Nations, the United States has had to step into the gap to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. The only thing rogue states and terrorist organizations comprehend is strength and force of arms.
David D. Begley, Omaha
OWH editor cut out my sentence about the US Air Force bombing Iran’s nuclear program to bits.
Dec 20, 2006 - 7:34 am paul pietrowski:The latest Brookings Institute “state of Iraq” chart isn’t very encouraging:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/opinion/20ohanlon.html
Dec 20, 2006 - 10:47 am cfbleachers:Ah, finally an analysis we can trust…the Brookings Institute as filtered through the prism of the NY Times. Forecasting the amount of breathless anticipation for THAT objective view of the “State of Iraq”, simply can’t be overestimated.
Kofi Annan and his vacuous homilies about liberating countries from the oppression of “the world’s uberpower”…strikes me as laughingly disingenuous and absurdly “projecting” of him.
Apparently there are no mirrors in this man’s glass house.
The sermon might perhaps be more genuine, (although equally disgusting)were he to deliver it about say… “liberating” donations from the collection basket while the congregation was asleep. Or how Food for Oil, turned into a Kofi clutch.
Or perhaps using his stained pulpit to advance a few more mendacious lies and a last handful of resolutions against the very existence of Israel. The Ghana prima donna will not be missed, except perhaps by those whose nefarious misdeeds and lined pockets are made to crawl back under the various rocks from whence they came.
His idea of liberation of the poor and oppressed, was to liberate them from their hard earned money. A seven seas pirate, an international robber baron, a universal disgrace. Good bye and good riddance.
Dec 20, 2006 - 1:22 pm MarkP:My friend and mentor, the late Professor Charles M. Sherover, was an army private stationed with the U.S. Signal Corp in San Francisco at the end of World War Two. His unit was charged with spying (radio intercept and decoding) on the proceedings that would lead to the creation of the United Nations. Over many a late night conversation he expressed to me his belief that the U.N. was a deeply flawed institution from its inception. In fact, he pronounced it stillborn. He saw first-hand, had the radio intercepts in his hands, bearing witness to the cynicism and skullduggery that marked the proceedings.
The good professor would later become a recognized authority on Kantian philosophy. He always maintained that Kant’s vision of bourgeois democracies banding together to oppose tyranny would resemble something much like NATO, but nothing like the U.N. Sherover saw clearly, and expressed to me just before he died, his belief that the United Nations had become a forum for tyranny. As an apostrophe to this post, I will tell you that Sherover was on a first name basis with his classmate, Hanna Arendt, a woman who knew a thing or two about tyranny.
And here I stand with torch in hand, the flame was passed to me. His ghost whispers in my ear to stand against tyranny. In a world where right is wrong, and wrong is right, it’s sometimes hard to see, truth from fiction covered by clever sophistry. Well, damn them all, I have George Orwell on my side. And I am, I stand, as a witness to the truth. As heir to men better than I am, or could ever be, I stand, nevertheless, with a basket of bonafides for posterity. Righteous wrath has a place, and a ferocity all its own. Cowards talk because they lack conviction, while patriots move toward resolution based on fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. I dream of the day when we rename the constellations. That one is Jefferson. I see Franklin’s spectacles in Orion. The pole star will be renamed George Washington. (Righty, right, we haven’t seen this sort of jingoism since Benjamin Disraeli). Well, piss off, mate (to use the vernacular), I don’t give the south bound quarters of a rat for your opinion. Enjoy your sagwala. Might I suggst a bit of tumble weed to spice up the meal? Ruffage is good for you.
Crap. I’d rather be disgusted than amused.
Dec 20, 2006 - 4:25 pm Jeffrey S. Neher:Dr. Hanson once again answers the bell. It is becoming clearer and clearer by the day, month, and year that there may be no bigger force for evil in the world than the UN. This became so under the reign of indifference, incompetence, and a free-for-all corruption that would make the CEO’s of Enron and WorldCom blush. The man in charge of this run-away mayhem? The one and only Koffi Anan. This man has stood by while millions upon millions have died at the hands of their own governments. I don’t blame Mr. Anan in the sense that he committed those atrocities himself. I’m not even foolish enough to think that had he led in the cause of stopping these tragedies that he would have succeeded in stopping any of them. No, it’s the indifference and hypocrisy with which he was so endowed that requires us to hold him accountable. He spoke of human rights while looking the other way time and time again. He spoke of human rights while agents of his were commiting atrocities. He spoke of government reforms while ignoring calls for reforms in his own organization. He claimed U.S. actions in it’s defense to be illegitimate while failing to claim those perpetrating violent acts to be illegitimate in their existence. He talks the talk when speaking about Rwanda and the Sudan but fails to lead the UN in real action to stop the killing. He pays lip service to eliminating terrorism while coddling terror outfits like Hamas and Hezbollah. He speaks of democratic reforms for the Middle East then constantly and continually denigrates and criticizes the only democracy in the region, Israel. He claims Saddam must be held accountable for his violation of a dozen resolutions and then claims the action to hold him responsible illegal. He personally, personally oversaw the rape, murder, and pillaging of Iraqi citizes during the oil-for-food debacle. Anan’s organization routinely voted to allow the world’s worst tyrants to join the human rights council. Where has he been on the rape allegations against UN peace-keepers in Africa? He says nothing on his organizations constant assault on the U.S. constitution, in areas ranging from reproduction to gun-control. What about the environmental theft he attempted by trying to bully America into signing Kyoto? Anyone seeking to be objective would have to call his tenure a massive failure. A failure of vision, action, purpose, credibility, and ethics. On all counts, a dismal failure. Listening to his rhetoric, particularly the last few months, it is apparent for anyone seeking the truth that Annan’s sole agenda is the weakening of America. His is the agenda of the world far-left; America is the problem and has to be knocked down a few pegs. In typical liberal fashion, to hell with raising the tide so all boats float higher, let’s sink the biggest, fastest ship. Along with millions and millions across this nation, I say good riddance Mr. Anan and may your dreams of indifference and corruption haunt you for the rest of your life………
Now, shall we turn our attention to the misnamed war on terror. I understand why we made the decision to call it war on terror but it has come back to haunt and hurt us. Terror is a tactic, not a specific enemy. We didn’t declare war on Nazism, we declared war on Germany. We didn’t declare war on imperialism, we delared war on Japan. I know what you’re saying, you’re saying, Jeff, there is no nation we can declare war on. True, mostly, but this is the one time in history when it is perfectly legitimate and vitally necessary to declare war on an idealogy. It is true there are nation-sponsers of terror, Syria and Iran among them, but still our fight is with an idea. This idea of course has several names, jihad, what we call terror and the name I believe most accurately describes it, Islamo-fascism. We have to come to terms with this for one very important reason; to defeat an enemy one must know who that enemy is. It’s really that simple. It’s so passe to use sports analogies but think of an NFL coach drawing up a game-plan for an unknown opponent. His chances aren’t very good. Right now the biggest battle in this war is actually taking place on our very soil. We’ve been successful thus far in not allowing actual violence to break out here. No, the battle is an intellectual one. One side wants to carry an agressive fight to the enemy while the other side, well, doesn’t seem to want to fight militarily but rather legally. And strangely enough, some of their legal avenues certainly would help those we are fighting. The best example of this is the Al Qaeda bill of rights they seek to extend to illegal combatants. So, while the physical part of the war is raging around the world, we have a debate war going on here. As far as I can tell, there seems to be three groups of people. One group wants to fight now, to end the threat that is here and now rather than kick the can down the road. The second group wants to negotiate terms of tolerance, use diplomacy to replace military engagement, believing that terror is episodic and liveable. The third group is those individuals living in their own Egypt, their own state of denial. This group also includes those that just don’t want to be inconvenienced by a war they only see on TV. The ones living in denial assuage their guilt with large doses of pop-culture. Is there a way to bridge this gap, to unite these groups into a fighting force of support and understanding of just what it is we face? Is there a leader out there, a Churchill? This president has tried and tried but been knee-capped at every turn, not by the named enemy but by his own nations political opponents. The question has to be asked, does this nation want that leader? We may have someone that has the strength of character, the courage of his convictions and, and, the charisma to lead. He may be out there. Will this nation put down it’s x-boxes, video-poker, lotto tickets, American Idol, football games, and even some of it’s economic pursuits to be LED. This is the 50 million dollar question. My haunting fear is that before that leader is ready to lead and this nation ready to be led, another calamity of even larger proportion will have shaken this nation. Never have I wanted to be so wrong about something in my life…but this is that something……
Dec 20, 2006 - 5:50 pm Jack Marcotte:Essential VDH
Humans may be the only animals and beings on earth that can selectively chose a parasitic life style—-While at the same time rationalize it as a higher calling and still survive due to “others”.
Aren’t we humans wonderful. Kofi Annan, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, “Jimmy” Carter, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi,– I’ll stop here–but could easily name about 30 more people, mostly Dems but also some RINO’s who as Political animals all have the same thing in common.
They would be not be recognized as complete nor even desirable people over 100 years ago in America. Then Americans would not even have to explain why. Not even the MSM back then would have praised them. They would know that every one knew that these type of people were the kind you would not want to do business with out in the open.
What they do and say is still considered by many Americans as Un-American and unworthy of comment and certainly unworthy of praise.
100 years ago most Americans would have seen their “kind” as an example of how not to be.
100 years ago most Americans would know of their kind but would have felt sorrow at their “attitudes” and disgust at their “weaknesses”. and their “ideas”.
100 years ago today they would have been considered flim flam artists that appeal to the “weakness” of Americans who could not afford to be weak and petty and not responsible for themselves. Strong families were what was needed–everyone knew that–even “minorities” that were not called minorities but every name in the book but they were coming on strong–they had to be strong in America as Americans whether their ancestors chose it or not.
What has changed? Is it the Welfare State? What ever it is we need the antidote and quick. We may be in trouble.
Dec 20, 2006 - 6:18 pm HerrMorgenholz:VDH, always a breath of fresh air…
For some reason this article put me in mind of Peggy Noonan’s words a year or so ago about “the wheels falling off”… For some reason I can’t find it now, but I think most readers will remember it.
As for Kofi, well, at least he’s gone from the UN. Why the US isn’t, I can’t comprehend….
Dec 21, 2006 - 4:47 pm Fred L:One wonders what motivated such churlish behavior on Annan’s part. He and his family have done very well from the US and the UN, and I find it unlikely his speech was well enough reported in the rest of the world to gain him many points elsewhere. He can’t have thought he was going to reform us with a single speech, he can’t have thought he’d be handed keys to lakefront property in Geneva in return — why then the gratuitous slap? The only reason I can see for his giving us the bird is vindictiveness. How very undiplomatic. (I say that as someone who worked in diplomacy for 25+ years). I presume he’ll have a lifetime pension of a quarter million dollars a year and permanent use of a UN Laissez-passer. I’m sorry about that: I’d really like to see the State Department refuse to give him a visa to enter the US. Oh, except that would be vindictive too. Well perhaps the best retribution we’ll ever have is to ignore him totally from now on. If only. . .
Dec 22, 2006 - 8:49 am Abu Nudnik:F
But what can be done in a world where style trumps substance and suicidal joy greets ever more boring repetitions of Bush-the-moron jokes? The culture is in tatters and everywhere I look I see young ghosts of the ’60s: walking contradictions of impotent rage and pacifism, moral vacancy and moralistic condemnation of every imperfection, seeking to be “plugged in” and unplugged at the same time. It’s a madhouse. Has there been a time like this before?
And (is it only ironic?) at the same time it seems to me that the Muslim world is going through its own terrible temptation, being simultaneously attracted and repelled by the culture we ourselves are so ambivalent about.
As a kid I had a job with the Canadian National Railway to re-fit culverts: we replaced the old wooden ones with corrugated steel. We hammered old wood out with the new and, after the structure was secured, removed the waterlogged beams and punched sand around the newly installed pipe. The UN is waterlogged. There are more votes for tyranny than democracy and therefore no disincentive to bad behaviour but free-world taxpayer bribes. A new organization should be built to replace it. I recommend the creation of a “United Democratic Nations” with strict rules for membership. Let it replace the UN.
Dec 24, 2006 - 8:53 am