How A Small Man Got His Way With Cuba

It was announced this morning that Trump will be revisiting the new approach to Cuba that was rolled out at the end of the Obama administration. While complicated, the new rules governing the relationship between U.S. and Cuba boil down to this: expanded markets and belief in development theory.

At least they did. Everything is about to blow up because a small man named Marco Rubio who needs to placate a constituency stroked the ego of a man who couldn't give two shits about Cuban relations, but the small man said that the man with small hands had hands that weren't so small after all, so everything is ok.

Gettin' Our G-Walk On

I'm referring to gunwalking here, obviously. A couple facts about the Fast and Furious scandal that Republicans need to be made cognizant of:

• This was a Bush-era program. Obama let it perpetuate, he didn't establish it.
• If you subscribe to the idea that "if we outlaw guns, then only criminals will have them," with gun ownership being important to defend yourself against criminals who will find ways to acquire firearms regardless of their legality, then we have to acknowledge these crimes probably would've happened anyway. The weapons involved just would've originated elsewhere.

Conversely, what I would like to remind Democrats of:

• See bullet #1 - your boy was responsible for perpetuating the program. Also, this administration has been a bunch of dicks about it.

This country seems to have a problem with supplying weapons to people and having the supply come back and bite us in the ass. Look to Afghanistan, look to the Contras, just look somewhere (yes folks, Reagan sent a lot more bullets to outlaws down in Central America than anyone who's held the office recently). When you purposefully let terrorists acquire instruments manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people, don't act surprised if it occasionally comes back to bite you in the ass; at the end of the day, you're still dealing with terrorists.

The next paragraph is where I offer my own insightful analysis on how to bring down higher-level traffickers and the cartels they supply without having to rely on gunwalking:

 

Not to Talk Smack on Richard E. Mourdock, but...

Senator Lugar, 
Thank you for your years of dedicated service to your country. You were a man cut from rarefied cloth, and the world is safer today due to your efforts in curtailing nuclear proliferation in Russia.
Sincerely,
Dave

T-PAW!

I feel like people should be screaming 'T-Paawwww; what, what!' after his name is announced when he walks onto stage.

I also think I hate him more every time I listen to him on a Sunday talk show. Given that I developed a strong distaste for him in 2009, he's sunk pretty low by now. It's not just that he says dumb things - everyone spouts bullshit on these shows (the reason Tim Russert was so great was the pushback he gave). David Gregory is ok about forcing people to be honest, but just seemed to give Pawlenty a free pass. Chris Wallace did a better job, but still let T-Paw get away with quite a bit. Problem is, whenever this man is interviewed, it seems as though he says something stupid, and the interviewer just lets him get away with it because it will take too much effort to explain the fallacy, and even if you did explain why he's wrong, Pawlenty would just double down on stupid. Kind of like Joe Wilson. And Bachmann. And, really, boiler plate Tea Party in general.

The awesome thing Pawlenty suggested was fixing Obama's approach to Libya by approaching it the way Reagan would. Gregory suggested Reagan pulled out of Lebanon, which runs counter to Timmy's "Obama isn't tough enough" mantra. T-Paw counters that Reagan used other methods to dispose of dictators. Awesome: Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty just went on national tv and suggested Iran-Contra was a good idea. Or maybe he just supported the way Reagan dealt with Libya. That was a time when our country was run by a strong, military-minded President who wasn't afraid to take on Gaddafi. So he engaged in a bombing campaign while refusing to send in ground troops and eventually called an end to hostilities without ever taking out Gaddafi. Which, oddly enough, seems to be what everyone is accusing the current weak, pinko president of doing...

For the record, Reagan on the debt ceiling:
Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

I wonder what it's like to exalt a man as your infallible guide to policy and politics, yet disagree with most of what he stood for and did.

Pause For Reflection

For your racially charged statement of the day: I can only assume we wouldn't allow this to go unaddressed in the Northern Hemisphere.

Obama's Victory Lap

I've got no problem with Bush not attending Obama's victory lap in NYC today. The former President has refused to be goaded into criticizing the current one, and thus shouldn't be expected to endorse him either. This event would simply be too politicized, and staying home shouldn't necessarily be construed as bitterness.

What I do take issue with is the notion that Bush was 'snubbed' for his efforts. A 'source' stated that: Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. It rubbed Bush the wrong way.

Boo hoo. Obama has publicly thanked 'the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals.' But as far as the 'intelligence infrastructure' Bush put in place? No one should ever, EVER, be thanked for the clusterfuck that is the Department of Homeland Security. Spending billions on things that fail to increase the safety of the American people is not a laudatory action. Bush did things deserving of praise. This wasn't one of them.

Realpolitik

If Obama had moved early on Libya, it would be easy to condemn him for bogging us down in another armed conflict. There would be no counterfactual available to demonstrate hundreds would have been killed if the rebels weren’t protected via No-Fly Zone.

If Obama does nothing, Gaddafi eventually retakes all of Libya and those areas/peoples opposing him would be subject to massive reprisals. Obama is condemned for allowing a massacre to unfold.

Solution: Obama lets enough slaughter to go down that the media supports intervention. His opposition is split, now deriding the decision for a new entanglement after having first protested his lack of action in Libya. You think maybe they had one of those big thermometers stuck to the wall of the Oval Office like they have at fundraisers, waiting for the mercury to hit 2,000 before sending in the Air Force? 2,000 lives for about +/- 4 points in the polls is a pretty solid bargain. Well done, Mr. President, well done.

This video has been making the rounds on the internet and stirring up more sentiment against the formal Libyan Government:

I struggle with not wanting to diminish the harm done, and recognizing how insignificant the event really was. You can reasonably assume hundreds of women have encountered mistreatment in Libya since fighting began in February. Absent a quick reunification and proper rule of law, thousands more will follow. Rape is what happens when regions suffer destabilization, but I don't think we like to talk about it because it makes us feel icky. Anyway, body counts aren't always the best way to measure the impact of armed conflict, but these types of externalities never make it into the broader conversation surrounding military engagement.

Good and Evil

The Wikileaks releases have been juicier than I anticipated, which makes me appreciate them for no other reason than selfish indulgence. What's interesting about society is that apparently these cables have all the power to hurt, and do nothing to help. Secret meetings, personal opinions, and pointed criticisms are now exposed that threaten to undermine diplomatic relations. Anti-US sentiment in Pakistan is booming. Evil.

Here's where it's interesting: you also have top diplomats on record saying 'gee Mr. President, maybe you should radically change your Middle East policy because as it stands, you're fomenting attitudes that will actually cause more Americans to be killed.' But Americans don't want to hear that, because it doesn't fit within their ignorant understanding of the world. So this leak could never result in any sort of policy shift.

In conclusion we see that Wikileaks's media grab is bad as it relates to putting lives at risk. We also see that it is worthless in demonstrating how offensive the Bush Doctrine really was, because people just don't want to hear that. 'Merica!

White, Black, Green: I Like Bags of Tea, Ranked Thusly

I don't have any great desire to live in a house - as long as I've a decent sized kitchen and some storage space an apartment is just fine. What I would miss is a garage/work area. That's the real reason home ownership is important to me.

We've had a week now to examine the impacts of last Tuesday's primary results. The Tea Party (Express) caught more than a few stares, and has proven itself a force to be reckoned with. I want to respect these guys as a small government proponent, I really do. But until I see a Palin rally highlighting the inappropriateness of government intervention in prostitution, marriage, and drug use (particularly marijuana), I fear the rhetoric remains superficial. Also, you can't be neocons anymore - even your misguided attempts to idolize Reagan gloss over the fact he got the hell outta Lebanon and was much more prudent about putting troops on the ground (terrorization of Nicaraguans notwithstanding). True conservatives hate meddling in the affairs of other nations, particularly via military action. The best hope for tempering this teabag movement of with reasoning may come from an unlikely source: the man once mocked for hosting a show with puppets making crank calls as a lead in (more on this later in the week).

I set a really lofty goal for myself yesterday. I'm scared to reveal it because there's a fair chance I'll fall flat on my face, and talk without action is bragging without having done anything. But I'm gonna try, cognizant of the fact that sometimes you simply bite off more than you can chew. Like a hippo.

Who's Ready?

September 9, 2010: a U.S. District Court judge rules 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' unconstitutional. Additionally, the ruling contains a rebuttal of the argument that openly gay military personnel adversely affect readiness; it even argues that the policy has a 'direct and deleterious effect' on the military. As evidenced by my previous work, I should be a district judge for coming to this conclusion six months sooner. That's right, I win the race to prove DADT bad.

I'm not a liberal, but I'm increasingly considering myself a Democrat. Democrats seem to be owning things that facilitate military success in recent years. Climate change mitigation (which Pentagon papers have now identified as a threat to our soldiers' lives in future years): Dem-owned. Not doing stupid stuff to offend Muslims and thus not incite violence in the Middle East (i.e., oppose Islamic community centers, proclaiming a Muslim president would be evil, etc.): Dem-owned. Opening overseas dialogue to encourage reconciliation and avoid brinksmanship: Dem-owned. Keeping our eyes on the ball in Afghanistan by not invading Iraq: Not Repub-owned, but the spineless refusal to oppose the invasion meant the Dems were essentially providing tacit support. Point is, if a Republican says we should do it to support the military, someone's making money off the deal.

I've been taking another stab at 'A People's History of the United States,' and have come to the conclusion there's no excuse for having money and not making more off of war. The next time government gets a little neoconny (we'll see how November elections go), if you aren't investing in Boeing and General Dynamics, you don't deserve your wealth.

Comparing the Middle East to Vietnam is soooo 2005

This is one of those posts that was more relevant a month ago, but tonight I'm stuck in a hotel room with nothing to do - so it gets addressed today. Enjoy:

Much was made last month as our engagement in Afghanistan marked quote 'the longest war in American history.' I'm not sure how I feel about this. The stat itself assumes an entry of 1963 and withdrawal in 1973 (we were actually there longer) from Vietnam. What's bigger is that over 5 million people died during this conflict. Afghanistan doesn't even come close in terms of blood and treasure, and we've yet to place boots on the ground as long as they were in Indochina; deeming the two fit to compare isn't a measure I'm ready to take.

I worry making the time comparison alone without context does a disservice to our understanding of history and political realities. Additionally, the fact that everyone from John McCain to David Gregory calls Afghanistan the longest war in U.S. history furthers the myth that a war is a war if you call it a war. (Similarly, a war isn't a war if you don't call it one.) So let's start calling Afghanistan missionary work or something, our involvement in Indochina remaining the longest recognized war in U.S. history.

We also need a single definition when we use the word war. If you want to say war is a situation where U.S. troops are deployed and suffer military engagements, that's fine. Call the measures in Afghanistan a war, even though there is no country or leader to fight (various factions lead by tribal warlords notwithstanding). But by this definition, we had a century of warfare whilst cleansing the country of Native Americans. Our War Against Savages (WAS) was ten times longer than the Afghan War. The War on Drugs continues with no immediate end in sight. And yes, Americans have paid for excursions into foreign lands while prosecuting the War on Drugs. We paid more during WAS though.

To quench your thirst for a bigger dose of Vietnam War history, statistics for U.S. soldiers: 536,000 deployed. Over 10% KIA, over 50% injured - and these numbers don't come close to the civilian and military losses experienced by Cambodia, Northern, and Southern Vietnam. So call the nation-building in Afghanistan a war, but you disrespect the 5 million that perished in Indochina by glossing over 20% of the past century in throwing around the headline 'longest war in U.S. history' while failing to furnish context because it sounds catchy.