Although I am a great admired of Harry Truman the man, I am much less impressed with some of his legacy, namely the United Nations and NATO. Like so many progressives (read socialist or neo-Marxist) I’m sure he labored under the impression that he was establishing a foundation for world peace. Many at the time thought that WW II was a result of the failure of the League of Nations and America’s failure to join. This of course is the typical reaction by France and Britain as they refuse to ever assume any responsibility for the disasters they created in Africa and the Middle East with their arrogance and meddling. Their unjust treaty of Versailles was the direct cause for the rise of Hitler and the desire of the Germans to retaliate against their oppressors. It is highly unlikely that even if America had joined the League of Nations WW II could have been avoided. But certainly President Truman must have felt that his United Nations would provide a forum to prevent any future wars. Of course he was proven wrong even in his life time.
The United Nations has morphed into a corrupt organization that is nothing more than an impotent debating club where nothing ever gets done and their peace keeping activities not only have universally failed to keep the peace but seem to have no function whatsoever other than cosmetic. This organization has become dominated by Islamic States led by strongmen, Presidents for Life, and terrorists like Arafat masquerading as heads of state. Yet the United States continues to participate in this charade which is bad enough but the US is expected to pay for its demonstrable anti-American activities. This is a failed organization that has clearly outlived its usefulness, must like that other misguided dream of Truman’s – NATO.
NATO was created in 1949 for the collective defense of Europe – aimed primarily at defending Europe from the Russian colossus to the East. In fact the role of NATO was summarized by the first Secretary General as “the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. While that may be a flippant remark it is also painfully accurate but in that accuracy also lies the truth that it is no longer relevant, a burden on the US military, and a constant irritant to the Russians. Russia is no longer the USSR and generally thought of as no longer being a super power, but that is just whistling in the dark. Russia is and has always been powerful and while it is distracted now as it grows into something similar to a democratic state, it is not a military threat to Western Europe.
The Germans have grown into a major economic power with an invisible military. Germany dominates Western Europe and the Euro-zone economically while France and the majority of Western Europe sink into their socialist quagmire of entitlements, over taxation, and irrelevance. So the only real function of NATO is to “keep America in” meaning that NATO is in fact just the United States acting under the euphemism called NATO. It is America that funds NATO and it is American soldiers who act under its banner. The military and defense budgets of Europe are virtually non-existent and their military is hardly capable of defending themselves much less providing any meaningful support to any joint activity like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. The military support coming from these NATO nations is at best cosmetic because with the exception of the UK they do not conduct active military operations in any major way. In general their troops are kept away from any real danger, because their governments can barely accept any military involvement and they participate only to keep the American money flowing into their military and NATO.
The fact is that America can no longer nor should any longer be expected to keep the peace world wide. If Europe needs defending then the Europeans should do it themselves and pay for it themselves. If South Korea needs to be protected from the North then they should do it with their troops and their money. If they think they need UN protection then let the UN field and pay for the troops not America. What purpose is served by maintaining a major military presence in Germany and Japan? These represent a drain on the American treasury and a misuse of American Troops that could be used more effectively in other places. NATO has seen its day and that day has past. It is an expensive anachronism and no longer serves America’s interests.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
The Arab Spring of 2011
The Arab Spring is worrisome on several levels. It seems that few in the Western World understand the dynamics of the area and American foreign policy over several administrations seems to be based more on wishful thinking (my opinion)than any true understanding of how things work. There is a reason why these countries have been unstable for generations if not for centuries. The Ottomans ruled this area for 500 years but did so with an iron hand and disagreements and disagreeable people were dealt with harshly. The Arab world is tribal in nature with fierce opposition between tribes. Khadafi (sp) in Libya is hanging on to power because his military is drawn from and led by his tribe. The opposition is not some group or groups of people grasping for freedom and democratic government, these are people who think it is time for their tribe(s) to rule. Once Khadafi is out nothing will change and in fact there is a high probability that Al Qaeda could seize power because of the fragmented opposition to Khadafi.
The West and America in particular seems to labor under the misconception that the Arab World is in turmoil because the people want representative government and freedom. There is nothing in the history of this region that would lead any thinking person to that conclusion. Even if "democratic" governments come out of these conflicts they will not resemble any democratic government that would be recognizable by the average American. Their press will be controlled, the government will be corrupt, the legal system will be controlled, there will be no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech, and in general what will emerge is the usual Islamic strongman dictator clinging to power for life or at least for decades.
America is withdrawing from Iraq leaving behind a fragile "democratic" government. It is unlikely that government will survive and very likely that a civil war will occur driven by Al Sadr and other religious leaders. It will be Sunni versus Shia and tribe against tribe with the Christians and Kurds playing a minor role. People seem to forget that the British and French tried to bring democratic governments to this area following WW I and it failed. Those goverments collapsed into strong man dictatorships run by "Presidents" for life. The best thing America can do now is to cut our losses and leave these people to sort it out for themselves. The alternative would be to stop playing this ridiculous game of moral superiority and attempting to establish our rules over them. They regard our freedoms and rules as weaknesses and act accordingly. A few public executions, mass bombings, and an emasculation or two would send the only kind of message these people understand because those are their rules and the rules they understand.
The upheaval in the Arab world is driving out dictators who supported America but what they are being replaced by may be -- and probably will be -- much worse for American security than what it has been under the dictators. Egypt is abandoning their peaceful coexistence with Israel, Syria is in play over Lebanon and Israel. The Iranians are pushing their anti-west and anti-Israel agendas in the background. Our foreign policy is non-existent or at least doesn't give the appearance of being a coherent policy.
Royce
The West and America in particular seems to labor under the misconception that the Arab World is in turmoil because the people want representative government and freedom. There is nothing in the history of this region that would lead any thinking person to that conclusion. Even if "democratic" governments come out of these conflicts they will not resemble any democratic government that would be recognizable by the average American. Their press will be controlled, the government will be corrupt, the legal system will be controlled, there will be no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech, and in general what will emerge is the usual Islamic strongman dictator clinging to power for life or at least for decades.
America is withdrawing from Iraq leaving behind a fragile "democratic" government. It is unlikely that government will survive and very likely that a civil war will occur driven by Al Sadr and other religious leaders. It will be Sunni versus Shia and tribe against tribe with the Christians and Kurds playing a minor role. People seem to forget that the British and French tried to bring democratic governments to this area following WW I and it failed. Those goverments collapsed into strong man dictatorships run by "Presidents" for life. The best thing America can do now is to cut our losses and leave these people to sort it out for themselves. The alternative would be to stop playing this ridiculous game of moral superiority and attempting to establish our rules over them. They regard our freedoms and rules as weaknesses and act accordingly. A few public executions, mass bombings, and an emasculation or two would send the only kind of message these people understand because those are their rules and the rules they understand.
The upheaval in the Arab world is driving out dictators who supported America but what they are being replaced by may be -- and probably will be -- much worse for American security than what it has been under the dictators. Egypt is abandoning their peaceful coexistence with Israel, Syria is in play over Lebanon and Israel. The Iranians are pushing their anti-west and anti-Israel agendas in the background. Our foreign policy is non-existent or at least doesn't give the appearance of being a coherent policy.
Royce
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Ayn Rand in Summary
Several days ago I was challenged for being an ideologue without actually understanding conservatism or acknowledging the extreme views of Ayn Rand. As part of this discussion I was asked to respond but in something short of a white paper.
Ayn Rand is a very complex person while paradoxically seeming to be simplistic and predictable. I agree with others in that Rand’s philosophy can be summed up as “Objective Materialism”, but what this means probably falls into the same amorphous category as ‘socially conscious”. Do I find her views “appealing?” Yes and no – I think Rand makes some very valid philosophical points but that doesn’t mean that I subscribe to all of her positions, which can be extreme. Some of the left have asked that I distill Rand’s philosophy into a set of bullet points. The bullets below represent my effort to do so, but condensing Rand’s philosophy into a series of bullets probably cannot provide any in depth insight into her philosophy as a whole. So here is my (pathetic?) attempt to summarize Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
1. Probably the simplest and easiest way to view Rand’s philosophy is to summarize it as the struggle of society and government between individualism and collectivism. Where the individual has a right to be himself and to retain the fruits of his labor while the collectivist represents the right of government to take the fruits of the individual’s labor and use it for the “greater good”.
2. Rand sees the collectivists as destroyers of capitalism and the profit motive who if left unchecked will cause the ultimate collapse of society itself. Although Rand died before the collapse of the USSR I think that bears out her conclusion.
3. The Philosophy of Objectivism essentially is a defense or advocacy for reason, individualism, capitalism, and the free market economy while establishing a rejection of government coercion through laws and regulations intended to further government control and support for the greater good of society.
4. Much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be summarized as describing the inherent conflict between Marxism (Rand was a strong anti-Marxist) and Capitalism in the form of a free market and individual rights over the collective.
5. Rand’s Magnum Opus “Atlas Shrugged” actually was a treatise on how fascism, communism, and socialism or any form of government control of society is fatally flawed at its core and ultimately destructive to society as a whole. She feels that any form of coerced self-sacrifice is destructive to society.
6. Perhaps the most controversial part of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is her rejection of God or any sort of higher being. In her philosophy she rejects anything which she sees as claiming authority or control over the individual or the individual’s mind. Whether or not she is an outright Atheist is unclear, but this position puts her at odds with much of the conservative political movement.
7. Rand’s philosophy when examined at its core echo’s the position of Frederic Bastiat (The Law) which postulates that no man or government can obtain anything of value from an individual through force either physical or legal. In effect the rights of the individual are paramount (read rights of property) and that the individual has the fundamental right to the fruits of his labor. In effect Rand supports laissez faire capitalism – a free and unregulated market. Rand (and Bastiat) reject any legislation based on enforced or coerced altruism (e.g. equalization of opportunity) which Rand sees as a triumph of special interests over those who produce value (the individual).
8. Another summarized view of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and what probably makes it attractive to the political conservative is her position that society must protect itself from the parasites and “looters” (her term) who are represented by the “tax the rich politicians”, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government economic planning, onerous federal regulations, and most of all any form of wealth redistribution. That latter point in and of itself makes her philosophy attractive to the political right.
I think the above is a brief summarization of what passes for Ayn Rand’s philosophy called Objectivism and Individualism. There is undoubtedly more than what is shown here but I think these brief paragraphs demonstrate why she is attractive to the political right. Now it can be argued that her positions are extreme and that a society composed entirely of individuals beholden to no one but themselves could not be sustained anymore than the collectivist society that she condemns. On the other hand it can be argued that the US was a great deal richer and freer before the federal government became so powerful while the failure of the collectivist society is demonstrated by the failure of the USSR and the growing woes of the socialist European nations
Ayn Rand is a very complex person while paradoxically seeming to be simplistic and predictable. I agree with others in that Rand’s philosophy can be summed up as “Objective Materialism”, but what this means probably falls into the same amorphous category as ‘socially conscious”. Do I find her views “appealing?” Yes and no – I think Rand makes some very valid philosophical points but that doesn’t mean that I subscribe to all of her positions, which can be extreme. Some of the left have asked that I distill Rand’s philosophy into a set of bullet points. The bullets below represent my effort to do so, but condensing Rand’s philosophy into a series of bullets probably cannot provide any in depth insight into her philosophy as a whole. So here is my (pathetic?) attempt to summarize Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
1. Probably the simplest and easiest way to view Rand’s philosophy is to summarize it as the struggle of society and government between individualism and collectivism. Where the individual has a right to be himself and to retain the fruits of his labor while the collectivist represents the right of government to take the fruits of the individual’s labor and use it for the “greater good”.
2. Rand sees the collectivists as destroyers of capitalism and the profit motive who if left unchecked will cause the ultimate collapse of society itself. Although Rand died before the collapse of the USSR I think that bears out her conclusion.
3. The Philosophy of Objectivism essentially is a defense or advocacy for reason, individualism, capitalism, and the free market economy while establishing a rejection of government coercion through laws and regulations intended to further government control and support for the greater good of society.
4. Much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be summarized as describing the inherent conflict between Marxism (Rand was a strong anti-Marxist) and Capitalism in the form of a free market and individual rights over the collective.
5. Rand’s Magnum Opus “Atlas Shrugged” actually was a treatise on how fascism, communism, and socialism or any form of government control of society is fatally flawed at its core and ultimately destructive to society as a whole. She feels that any form of coerced self-sacrifice is destructive to society.
6. Perhaps the most controversial part of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is her rejection of God or any sort of higher being. In her philosophy she rejects anything which she sees as claiming authority or control over the individual or the individual’s mind. Whether or not she is an outright Atheist is unclear, but this position puts her at odds with much of the conservative political movement.
7. Rand’s philosophy when examined at its core echo’s the position of Frederic Bastiat (The Law) which postulates that no man or government can obtain anything of value from an individual through force either physical or legal. In effect the rights of the individual are paramount (read rights of property) and that the individual has the fundamental right to the fruits of his labor. In effect Rand supports laissez faire capitalism – a free and unregulated market. Rand (and Bastiat) reject any legislation based on enforced or coerced altruism (e.g. equalization of opportunity) which Rand sees as a triumph of special interests over those who produce value (the individual).
8. Another summarized view of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and what probably makes it attractive to the political conservative is her position that society must protect itself from the parasites and “looters” (her term) who are represented by the “tax the rich politicians”, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government economic planning, onerous federal regulations, and most of all any form of wealth redistribution. That latter point in and of itself makes her philosophy attractive to the political right.
I think the above is a brief summarization of what passes for Ayn Rand’s philosophy called Objectivism and Individualism. There is undoubtedly more than what is shown here but I think these brief paragraphs demonstrate why she is attractive to the political right. Now it can be argued that her positions are extreme and that a society composed entirely of individuals beholden to no one but themselves could not be sustained anymore than the collectivist society that she condemns. On the other hand it can be argued that the US was a great deal richer and freer before the federal government became so powerful while the failure of the collectivist society is demonstrated by the failure of the USSR and the growing woes of the socialist European nations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)