What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Raids by the Jihad

The administration’s handling of the razzia in Benghazi has been nothing short of disgraceful. Four Americans, including our ambassador, were butchered on sovereign US soil in a calculated raid, and for a week and more the administration has persisted in the flat-out lie that the whole affair was the consequence of overzealous protestors, understandably incensed at a Youtube trailer to an anti-Islamic film that may or may not exist.

The emphasis on this peculiar trailer arises from a derangement of mind under pressure from Jihadist agitation. It is the dhimma mentality at work. It exceeds in ignominy the same mentality evidenced by the Bush administration in response to similar pressure in 2005 during the Cartoon Jihad. And it hardly need by added that the 70 grand spent by the administration in ads denouncing the film might as well have been spent on ads promoting the film.

The country is now teeming with liberals who, with perfect sincerity, believe the First Amendment should be quietly abridged to protect favored religions from insult or abuse. Remember when all those Catholics rose up in revolt against The Da Vinci Code and our dear liberals instantly prostrated themselves in appeasement? Oh, wait . . .

In a word, the Benghazi razzia was a smashing success.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone noticed, but last week also witnessed another successful razzia — in Afghanistan, where the US Marine Corps suffered “the worst loss of U.S. airpower in a single incident since the Vietnam War.” Marine Attack Squadron 211 lost its commander and another Marine, suffered nine personnel wounded, and at least six top-of-the-line Harrier jets destroyed (out of production since 1999 and therefore unlikely to ever be replaced); the unit has been rendered combat ineffective for the first time since December 1941.

These events are unpleasant to contemplate. The Jihad is bolder than ever; it understands liberals better than they understand themselves, and has no hesitation in exploiting that knowledge when the opportunity presents itself. For all our material and military might, we remained crippled by intellectual and spiritual weakness.

Comments (65)

The only bright spot in all this is that, it now seems, that crowd of Libyans photographing Ambassador Stevens as they dragged him out of the burning building were actually clumsily trying to help him. And now these Libyans have attacked and overrun several Salafist militia encampments. Click and scroll. Libya may not become Italy anytime soon, but it's heartening that many of them don't want to become Pakistan.

Good point, Inspector.

What's amazing is that apparently Pres. Obama does not have anyone in a position of trusted adviser capable of telling him: you can make some great capital here by appearing to be 'presidential' and statesman-like, by forthrightly condemning these terrorist attacks. For crying out loud, he doesn't even have to follow up on sabre-rattling, all he has to do is appear to know how to pull the sword out of its scabbard if needed, that's all. It's mind boggling that the leader of the free world doesn't know that being the leader of the free world includes acting like a martial leader now and then.

Western diplomats in countries ruled by Muslim 'brotherhoods' and the like, are sitting ducks to be picked off whenever a bogus affront to Islam can be fabricated.

So why does the US even bother posting ambassadors to places like Libya? Maybe in this case there's an economic interest because Libya has oil that America covets; maybe not. (I know our diplomats are supposed to be cultivating the tiny plots of democracy that we are supposed to have planted during the Arab Spring.)

Last night I happened to watch Lawrence of Arabia on DVD. The movie was made in 1962, and it's curious to observe how even 50 years ago films were made that expressed a completely uncritical attitude towards Islam. While the movie dramatizes T E Lawrence's romantic illusions about Arab warriors and their reverence for the Koran etc., it also suggests that we, the Western audience as it were, have been conditioned to see Muslims through rose coloured spectacles for quite a while. During the same period, contrast the decline in respect for Christianity with the rise in esteem for Islam.

The Jihad is bolder than ever; it understands liberals better than they understand themselves, and has no hesitation in exploiting that knowledge when the opportunity presents itself. For all our material and military might, we remained crippled by intellectual and spiritual weakness.
Internal treachery has been the customary way in which Islam has advanced geographically, and certainly with respect to its advances into Christendom.
It's mind boggling that the leader of the free world doesn't know ...
He didn't audition for the role of "Leader of the Free World" (which concept is a "liberal"/progressive corruption, in any event), but rather "Reader of the Free World".

Readers don't act, they read about others acting.

The emphasis on this peculiar trailer arises from a derangement of mind under pressure from Jihadist agitation.

Greenwald explains its political motivation here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/obama-officials-spin-benghazi-attack

The country is now teeming with liberals who, with perfect sincerity, believe the First Amendment should be quietly abridged to protect favored religions from insult or abuse.

A few liberals (not enough unfortunately) have taken issue with how the White House handled this from a free speech perspective, especially the call to Google to ask them to review the clips which is a flagrant attempt to chill speech.

Also, the movie was produced by a felon still on probation who dubbed over the actors' voices to turn this "movie" into something completely different from what he pitched to the cast and crew. His "speech" is being forced on people who never supported it or suspected they were involved in it. I support his First Amendment right to make a movie insulting to Islam, but it should not be based on fraud every step of the way.

...you can make some great capital here by appearing to be 'presidential' and statesman-like, by forthrightly condemning these terrorist attacks.

So I take it you approve these Obama comments -
“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.”
"There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our embassies and consulates. So long as I am commander-in-chief, the United States will never tolerate efforts to harm our fellow Americans."
“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.”

"terrorist"?

Also, the movie was produced by a felon still on probation who dubbed over the actors' voices to turn this "movie" into something completely different from what he pitched to the cast and crew.

Step2, I had not heard about this aspect. Can you tell me where this is set forth? If the actor's speech in English is dubbed over in Arabic with something completely different, I would say that DOES constitute a kind of free speech 1st Amendment issue, wouldn't it? You are putting words into actor's mouths that they would not consent to being there. But that's a different free speech problem than that of forthrightly making accusations about Muhammad, and being told not to air such speech.

Tony,

As much as I hate to say it, Step2 has a point with respect to the fraud committed by the film-maker:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/anti-islam-film/index.html

The interesting question, from a 1st Amendment perspective (or is it a contract question), is how much leeway a producer/director has to turn "Desert Warrior" into "Innocence of Muslims" when the cast (and crew?) have no idea of his plans?

Other stories on the internet indicate that they are suing the film-maker, so I guess we'll all find out the answer to these questions sooner rather than later.

It's a contract question, certainly not a 1st amendment question, and can presumably be dealt with by existing contract law, which has zippo to do with "insulting Islam." All that stuff is just a bunch of red herrings. Let's face it: The loony liberals who have been calling for prosecuting the film-maker as an "accessory" to Muslim murders (!!!) are not doing so because he may have violated or stretched a contract with some actors. They are doing so because Muslims riot and they want to be dhimmis and blame those who speak out against Islam for what Muslims do. If Muslims had rioted over Fitna or over some other angering-to-Muslims film (gasp) actually having an actor portray Mohammad, with which there were zero contract issues and zero other distracting issues (such as whether the film maker was on probation), they would still be saying the same. Moreover, if a film maker got routed out of bed and arrested for alleged probation violations because his film was controversial, but it was insulting Christianity instead of Islam and was carried out under a Republican administration, Hollywood would be saying all the same things the conservatives are saying now, such as, "Yeah, right, that's _exactly_ how zealous probation officers behave; it has _nothing_ to do with the controversial content."

Chilling effect, what chilling effect?

Jeff S, I am not disputing your point, nor disputing Step2's point about the producer's fraudulent methods. I was simply in ignorance that this had come up, so I was asking for sources.

Lydia catches and improves on my basic point: to say the producer has no free speech legal right to produce a movie trailer criticizing Muhammad is a far cry from saying he has no legal right to twist the actors' own words.

Lydia, I imagine that even if the actors lose on strict contractual grounds, they have a shot at winning on 1st amendment grounds, depending on just how far the producer went. If I film a person saying X, and dub over his voice to make him appear to say Not-X, then he may well have a right under 1st amendment to prevent me from releasing that film. Giving a producer rights over depicting what I DID say isn't (shouldn't be) giving him unlimited rights over depicting something completely other, completely unrelated, and completely fabricated compared to what I did say and do.

Who are all these teeming liberals, anyway, who "believe the First Amendment should be quietly abridged"? None were quoted or cited. I haven't been following the reaction, so maybe I missed them. I only noticed one person, Anthea Butler, apparently a really stupid professor who may or may not be a liberal, who said that the producer should be arrested. But that's it - one person. Maybe I'm like the only guy who hasn't been following this closely enough to know, but all the (other?) liberals I heard and read said that the guy has a first amendment right to make the movie, but that he sure was a jerk, and he shouldn't have done it.

So, who are the most egregious of these teeming liberals who want to abridge the first amendment? What exactly did they say?

The "he was arrested at midnight by Obama's stormtroopers" meme has been thoroughly demolished. He wasn't arrested but was questioned and safely released to an undisclosed location, they took him in for blatantly violating his probation terms against using an alias and probably violating his prohibition on using a computer and/or the internet. They took him in at midnight based on concern for his safety (and likely at his request), since the mob of reporters and TV crews that had surrounded his house were mostly gone by that hour and others connected to the film were receiving death threats. Then again, perhaps you agree with Instapundit that the First Amendment is a previously unknown trump card over spectacular probation violations.

"The loony liberals who have been calling for prosecuting the film-maker as an "accessory" to Muslim murders (!!!)"

Names please.

He seems to have been in violation of at least two terms of his probation (using the internet without the written permission of his PO and using an assumed name without the written permission of his PO).

"how zealous probation officers behave;"

Yes it is. Violating the terms of your probation in a flagrant manner will likely lead to problems and they don't usually call first and make an appointment. The LA Sheriff's SEB is known for this. The rest of Lydia's counterfactuals are baseless and irrelevant. The facts seem to be that an AQ cell planned an attack in Libya and a felon in California made a "film" for some unknown reason that a Muslim outrage machine got hold of and used to stir up folks whose piety is matched by their ignorance.

SI's point is important and shows that the Islamic outrage machine isn't operating everywhere in the Islamic world. I see on the TV that the Pakistan and Egyptian PMs are condemning the bounty on the film maker.

Some folks are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is possible to be conciliatory while hunting down and killing the folks who killed the ambassador.

Given the behavior of Johnson after the Liberty, Reagan after the barracks bombing, and Bush after 9/11, I fail to see the point of this post. Is it that oppressed and immiserated folks who cleave to their religion for comfort will often misdirect their anger or that the best response to terrorist attacks and street rabble is chest thumping outrage and an unnecessary war or two?

If Obama follows form, the drones and Seals will go to work and soon there will be a few more smoking holes in that part of the world.

Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch. They agreed among themselves that Terry Jones (whose connection with the movie is questionable anyway) should be investigated as an "accessory before the fact" to various Muslim behaviors. Video clip here. These are journalists, by the way. That should matter, but I guess it doesn't.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/12/msnbc-host-hey-lets-prosecute-jones-as-accessory-to-ambassadors-murder/

(Btw, we actually have had a commentator right here at W4 pretty clearly advocate censoring movies, etc., that would be offensive to Muslim sensibilties. It's not really in doubt that there are people who think that way.)

Yo, this thread AINT about the movie -- trailer, complete raw, or unreleased-released version. Does everybody HEAR that?

The very fact that the US government, on an international stage, intervened to denounce a private production on Youtube, of dubious provenance, is evidence enough for Aaron if he has eyes to see. What business is it of government what private hucksters and agitators and controversialists do? It's obviously counterproductive from almost any position, to mention and paradoxically encourage interest in, some isolated private enterprise of minimal consequence that the government intensely dislikes. In other words it is beneath the dignity of the President of the US, Barack Obama, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to enter in to this particular controversy.

Likewise the Bush administration was engaged in spasmatic boneheadedness when it answered in detail on the question of the Danish cartoons in 2005.

For our liberals to suddenly get all innocent about government insinuating and suggesting but not mandating certain policy of censors, is really rich.

I credit Greenwalds for being at least consistent liberals on this. He's right on torture too, whaddya know?

Tony, I don't have any reason to think that the 1st amendment is enforceable against entirely private persons. Do you? If, for example, someone falsely publishes a blog post in my name that includes statements that I didn't really make (or an interview or whatever), I'm sure I have legal recourse of some kind against him. At least I hope I do. But this has nothing to do with my using the 1st amendment against him. The 1st amendment has to do with government actors. The most that it has been stretched to include is public schools or colleges or government employers. Even the largest use of the incorporation doctrine won't cause it to be applied to an entirely private person who misrepresents another private person as saying something he didn't say.

Right, I'll stop helping with the threadjack about the movie.

Absent in all of this is a discussion of US policy in the middle east.
Jay Carney is on record (See Step2's link) as saying:

"This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to US policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at US policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims." [emphasis mine]

This is obviously a lie. The question is "why do we buy it?"

Ever since 9/11, I've constantly wondered "why?" (as in: "why did they attack us?") I've watched countless major network news stories about acts of terrorism and - almost without fail - they never mention the ties that the terrorists themselves make between their actions and US policies in the region. I am not seeking to justify terrorism here, or to blame the US, I'm just wondering why the cover up?

What business is it of government what private hucksters and agitators and controversialists do?

When it creates an international incident it would be completely bizarre for the government not to at least weigh in on the matter. You may not care what some graffiti written on the other edge of town says, but if it results in your friends being under attack in gangland shootouts you should take some interest in it.

So why no State Dept. comment on Bill Maher? Shake off your blinders, Step2. [typo fixed--Ed]

There was an international incident regarding Bill Maher?

Same question of the film in question produces an intriguing answer: not until the US government took notice of it.

Paul,
IIRC, the Cairo protest was called for by local clerics who discovered it from an Islamic TV show which in turn discovered it from an online source. The first embassy message was in response to this call for protests, which soon materialized.

Step2, I think it's turning out to be the case that what those clerics really want is the release of the blind sheik: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/328274/duplicitous-administration-andrew-c-mccarthy

What struck me as unseemly was Obama's and Clinton's urgent and repeated assurances that this video had nothing to do with the U.S. government, which of course deplores its message in the strongest possible terms, etc., blah blah. It was an attempt to placate the deranged masses, when he should have been saying, "Screw you, we have free speech over here. And now we're going to hunt down and kill the scum who killed our people. And if the powers that be in Cairo don't get things under control, you can kiss your foreign aid goodbye." The same message should be delivered to every riled up Muslim backwater in the world.

it is in response not to US policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.

This is obviously a lie. The question is "why do we buy it?"

Chucky, my sense is that the only Americans who are buying it in this case are those who don't believe it is something about ourselves that the Islamicists hate, but rather what we do and have done. In this particularly blatant instance of the "it isn't about us" meme the evidence that most Americans aren't buying it is that the Obama Adminstration now admits that the attacks weren't about the film. Not that that prevents Obama from diverting from that view when under pressure. He's trying to have it both ways. The reason Obama wants to think it was the film is a) because he's a doctrinaire lib; b) because it shows the utter bankruptcy and foolhardiness of his attitude and actions in the region as marked by his Cairo speech at the beginning of his term, and the collapse of any pretense that it might have been a good idea. Egypt's Morsi is now declaring that the US needs to (as expressed by the NYT) "fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger." If any more evidence was needed, this absolutely shreds the idea that they have responded in any positive way to Obama's overtures. For them nothing has changed, quite predictably.

But as far as "why do we buy this" for other violent incidents, isn't a comfortable thought that someone hates or even dislikes you because of what you can't change about yourself. Humans often engage in wishful thinking when the alternative is unpleasant, and usually wishful thinking follows that is more pleasant. I don't think it is much more complicated than that.

William is right.

And I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out than watch any of Clinton's smarmy performances again. The apologizing isn't helpful. I think Salmon Rushdie may have pointed out that apologizing and saying "but nothing justifies violence or murder" just doesn't work. The apology should never be offered, because state relationships are not personal relationships, and those who don't share our values don't get the quasi-friendship treatment where we treat state relationships in anything close to personal way. These states would have to stop expressing hatred for us and killing our citizens to have any hope of getting to the point of our citizens as a group might share personal feelings for them.

Given the behavior of Johnson after the Liberty, Reagan after the barracks bombing, and Bush after 9/11, I fail to see the point of this post.

Al, the sinking of the Liberty was a tragic accident, unlike the incidents in Beirut in 83 and NY on 9/11. I read a book in college that had me believing it was deliberate for years. Friendly fire incidents are maddening because there are always obvious things that would have prevented in ordinary circumstances. The US flag was clearly visible, blah, blah, blah. But it wasn't deliberate, and if any proof were needed that the Israelis didn't do this deliberately it was provided in declassified documents and tapes released about five years ago.

William Luse,

I want to second Mark's praise of your comment. This is exactly what Paul wrote the post about in the first place -- the feckless response to date of our leaders to Islamic terror. We need to stand up for our values and our civilization and if that offends the "Islamic world" then so be it -- they will learn to fear us and respect us or they will die if they try and harm us. That's the message they should receive -- loud and clear from State department officials up to the President.

The great Victor Davis Hanson on free speech:

This week amid the theatrics at the United Nations, let us hope that President Obama and his lieutenants do not persist with the ongoing administration de facto apologies for the views of a crude American filmmaker, and instead try to explain to the world the singular American commitment to free expression, which always eventually proves to be a commitment to unpopular and often repelling expression.

What has been especially galling about Secretary of Clinton’s chronic hedging, and the apologies aired on Pakistani television, are—other than the abject fear of Islamists— two salient facts. One, the Middle East — not its individuals, but its official government-sponsored and subsidized television, radio, press, and film — routinely demonizes and defames Christians, Jews, and Americans in the worst sort of way. Let us be spared from the sanctimonious boilerplate, for example, from a Prime Minister Erdogan, who has presided over a surge of Turkish anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American television shows and popular films, many of them with the de facto aid of the Turkish government.

Apparently leaders of the Islamic world present a non-negotiable demand to the West that they be given a blank check for their governments to defame Jews, Christians, and Americans, but the United States must condemn any private individual who, quite apart from the knowledge of the U.S. government, does the same to Muslims. That is the issue, and anything less than an unapologetic defense of free speech is not only a betrayal of our Constitution, but a very dangerous concession that will only incite more violence in the near future. Unfortunately, Western hedging, appeasement, and apologies to theocrats and authoritarians have never won gratitude, but instead such magnanimity is seen as either weakness to be exploited or proof all along that the apologizer admits culpability and will do so again in the future — a fact well known to history’s thugs, big and small, whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Second, Muslim outrage over an amateurish trailer for a probably non-existent video coincides with an ongoing hit Broadway play ridiculing the Mormon Church, the reappearance of the once government-subsidized Piss Christ photos, and so on. When the administration apologizes for the excess of a private individual, but ignores condemnation of far more widely disseminated similar venom, some of it sponsored by the U.S. government, it is making a policy statement — we dare not tamper with free speech unless it touches upon Islam, not out of principle but because of sheer cowardice.


I love the way VDH puts it about what is "especially galling". When the hypocrisy is put that way the actions of the ME leaders can be seen to be about as brazen an anything could be. And as long as we apologize (whether combined with condemnations of violence or not) their demands will no doubt continue to be.

Regarding teeming liberals again, the government is a different topic; I don't really know the details of that one, so no opinion. But Lydia gave two examples - neither of whom I'd heard of, but that's just me I guess. And I suppose maybe it's possible for two people to teem. But the real story, the accurate story, seems to be that teeming (more than two) liberals are defending free speech that they don't like.

If Mr Romney gets elected in November, does anyone here believe his administration will adopt a more robust policy towards Muslim 'provocateurs' ( both internal and external)?

In the UK there's nobody on the political scene with any chance of forming a government who would grasp the Muslim nettle. British politicians have either looked the other way or responded to the 'Benghazi incident' in the same terms as Mr Obama and his minions have (so far) done.

From my low level vantage point, we seem to be marching into a bleak and hopeless future with a quiescent people who, as far as the threat from Islam is concerned, are suffering from outrage fatigue.

The Senate approved the six-month spending resolution to keep the government funded early Saturday morning. The vote was 62-30, with 10 Republicans voting with the Democratic majority and only one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (W.V.), voting against. The vote took place after the upper chamber came to an agreement on other votes, including Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) bill to end foreign aid to Egypt, Libya, Pakistan and Yemen unless they met certain conditions. … Paul had been filibustering the Senate for days, delaying action by requiring the maximum amount of time be spent on each vote until he got a vote on his own bill, which failed, 10-81. Numerous Republican senators stood up in opposition to Paul’s bill, calling it dangerous and irresponsible, especially to Israel.

It's a pity that federal and constitutional law exempt the Congress from being prosecuted for funding terrorism.

on sovereign US soil

I am fairly certain this is not correct: an embassy is US soil. Consulates and missions---the post in Benghazi was one of these, the news is not consistent---are not.

top-of-the-line Harrier jets

That's hardly a fair characterization. The Harrier is a mildly dated piece of British-built equipment useful mainly because of its VTOF capabilities.

But those are small nits. The overall point is well-taken.

Romney will in his first 100 Days; attack Iran, Syria, Dearborn Mi. and Pakistan.

Can't wait.

Grim, that's pretty silly. He doesn't even know where Syria is.

Tony - good point. Let us pray the people of Syracuse are spared a war of liberation.

Mark:

Chucky, my sense is that the only Americans who are buying it in this case are those who don't believe it is something about ourselves that the Islamicists hate, but rather what we do and have done. [...]
But as far as "why do we buy this" for other violent incidents, isn't a comfortable thought that someone hates or even dislikes you because of what you can't change about yourself.

I think you have it backwards. I don't for a minute buy into what this administration (or the previous several) have told us are the reasons behind terrorism (and I am one of those people who thinks that their motivations are not "who we are" but "what we do"). The people who buy into this stuff are the people who want to think they hate us for who we are - NOT for what our government does. Remember Carney denied first and foremost that the attacks were about "US policy" and "the administration". I firmly believe that one of the main reasons "why they hate us" is because of our interventionist foreign policy in their countries. The fact that their religion encourages stereotypes and arrogance may fuel it, but I no longer believe they just "hate us for who we are".

The reason Obama wants to think it was the film is a) because he's a doctrinaire lib; b) because it shows the utter bankruptcy and foolhardiness of his attitude and actions in the region as marked by his Cairo speech at the beginning of his term, and the collapse of any pretense that it might have been a good idea.

The Bush administration told the same type of lies as the Obama administration has. Both are seeking to divert our eyes from US foreign policy.

Egypt's Morsi is now declaring that the US needs to (as expressed by the NYT) "fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger." If any more evidence was needed, this absolutely shreds the idea that they have responded in any positive way to Obama's overtures. For them nothing has changed, quite predictably.

We should get out of the region completely and let them settle their disputes on their own. Israel can take care of themselves, and neither they, nor their neighbors, need our meddling.

Remember Carney denied first and foremost that the attacks were about "US policy" and "the administration". I firmly believe that one of the main reasons "why they hate us" is because of our interventionist foreign policy in their countries. The fact that their religion encourages stereotypes and arrogance may fuel it, but I no longer believe they just "hate us for who we are".

Um Chucky, the Obama administration denied it for transparently self-serving reasons. Because before the Libyan embassy attack they were saying the same thing you are now!

The Bush administration told the same type of lies as the Obama administration has. Both are seeking to divert our eyes from US foreign policy.

Well that's why they call what you are espousing a conspiracy theory. Explain much by little, and the reasons don't really matter.

We should get out of the region completely and let them settle their disputes on their own.

That was the plan until 9/11. It happened in New York City. But we deserved it because of our policies right?

That was the plan until 9/11. It happened in New York City. But we deserved it because of our policies right?

And we overreacted to what was a one time incident. We created a whole new federal department, federalized tens of thousands of airport security personnel, jacked up our federal laws and rules of criminal procedure. Why? Because a few third world barbarians got lucky. Once. Not a single publicized anti-terrorism case on US soil has shown an organic Islamist or non-Islamist terrorist movement capable of pulling off another 9/11. Almost every one of them border on or cross well over into entrapment. You can bet that if the risk were as palpable as many argue, that the FBI would have had plenty of good stories for us. They love spilling the beans when it makes them look good.

Well Mike, I think almost everyone thinks we overreacted. I do. The difference amongst us is how. I'd agree with you that much of the security changes were misguided, and much of what we have now is feel good security theatre that only limits our own freedom.

But the most fundamental difference is the one that separates those who see a long string of terrorist and deadly incidents as isolated events that could be effectively prosecuted in courts of law, and those who see them as coordinated events prosecuted by regimes through NGO as a cover --acts of war that courts have no power against. Not unlike the dividing line between those who see the attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous mob and those who see it and a well-planned attack using a ginned-up mob action as a cover. So you see this fundamental difference tends to appear at every level of conflict involving terrorism in one form or another.

Mark:

Um Chucky, the Obama administration denied it for transparently self-serving reasons. Because before the Libyan embassy attack they were saying the same thing you are now!

I don't give a hoot what they say - it's what they do that counts! And what they are doing is meddling in foreign affairs in Libya, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iran, etc.

Well that's why they call what you are espousing a conspiracy theory. Explain much by little, and the reasons don't really matter.

No, what I am espousing is the truth. I fully trusted the Bush administration when they told their lies, (I was a dyed-in-wool Republican for 34 years!) I won't get fooled again.

That was the plan until 9/11. It happened in New York City. But we deserved it because of our policies right?

My point is that most Americans aren't even aware of our foreign policy. The media keeps us in the dark. I read a story today in the Oregonian newspaper (I believe it was a NYT article) that still toed the company line and blamed the Libyan embassy attacks on the "Innocence" movie. Nobody questions it. We refuse to listen to the reasons the terrorists give for attacking us and instead buy into the government propaganda that "they hate us for who we are".

Airing your feelings of betrayal isn't exactly a new rhetorical device, but not the most effective either.

But your points from what you are saying seem to be that most Americans aren't aware of US foreign policy, that the media keeps them in the dark by denying terrorism by rationalizing it, while the government keeps them in the dark by declaring "they hate us for who we are"? Well there are two major schools of thought in play within media, the government leader, and the public generally. If you can't identify them you can't participate in the discussion.

But your points from what you are saying seem to be that most Americans aren't aware of US foreign policy, that the media keeps them in the dark by denying terrorism by rationalizing it, while the government keeps them in the dark by declaring "they hate us for who we are"?

Not exactly - no. My point is this: most Americans aren't aware of US foreign policy BECAUSE the media keeps them in the dark by parroting government propaganda (and that's exactly what it is: propaganda). The media is mostly complicit in this propaganda: either through laziness (they refuse to dig beyond the official government storyline), ignorance (they actually believe the official government storyline), or collusion (they are just doing what they are told). Either way, it is undeniable that media coverage of terrorist events and terrorism in general is almost completely devoid of any discussion of US foreign policy.

Well there are two major schools of thought in play within media, the government leader, and the public generally. If you can't identify them you can't participate in the discussion.

One is that Islam is a bloodthirsty religion that fosters a murderous, irrational hatred of all things non-Muslim and that Islamists cannot be reasoned with or appeased but must be killed. The other is that Muslims are 'misunderstood' and 'oppressed' so we need to coddle them and welcome their culture into our country with open arms (ignoring any despicable aspects of it).

There is a modicum of truth within each, but both are distortions of reality.

The truth is that, while Islam does tend to inspire people to ignorant acts of violence, those acts would remain mostly isolated within Islamic communities if our government wasn't over there invading countries, undermining sovereign governments, accidentally bombing civilians, supporting (then abandoning) dictators, instituting economic sanctions, making overt threats, etc. So yes, there is truth to the part about Muslims feeling 'oppressed' by the West, but the solution is NOT positive government intervention (of the kind Obama feigns) to counteract the negative, but rather to just mind our own business and leave them the hell alone!

As for the media and our foreign policy: If the mainstream media (both conservative and liberal) refuses to discuss it, most Americans will never hear about it. If most Americans never hear about it, they will never see a relationship between the two. If they do not see a relationship between the two, then anyone who dares to tie acts of terrorism to US foreign policy will be labeled 'unpatriotic' and 'un-American' because such talk seems so 'out of the mainstream'.

I like you Chucky. I appreciate where you're coming from, but above all I think you argue honestly and openly, and I appreciate those qualities more than agreement. The only thing I'd say now is that the media is a liberal media so they repeat the administration talking points because it is liberal. Recall the last administration where it was very different. I suspect you'll say that the media pushed the previous administration's view for a time so it's all the same, but I'd say that when opponents agree it is most likely because what they believe is actually true, or certainly that they are both sincere in any case. None of which it seems you accept.

Look, I have the same business discussions every day with people I know. Business politics is worse than plain politics. People lie and they're believed, and they tell the truth and everyone claims they are lying. Isn't life that way? Most people can't analyze very fairly and tend to indulge their prejudices and desires for wish fulfillment in any given area that they have an opinion on, at least the ones not having to do with their direct involvement such as family and friends. Things outside our direct knowledge require a more disciplined approach, and that is where one's strategy for acquiring knowledge becomes crucial.

Mark:

I like you Chucky. I appreciate where you're coming from, but above all I think you argue honestly and openly, and I appreciate those qualities more than agreement.

Thank you. I appreciate that. That says a lot about your honesty and integrity as well.

The only thing I'd say now is that the media is a liberal media so they repeat the administration talking points because it is liberal. Recall the last administration where it was very different. I suspect you'll say that the media pushed the previous administration's view for a time so it's all the same, but I'd say that when opponents agree it is most likely because what they believe is actually true, or certainly that they are both sincere in any case. None of which it seems you accept.

As far as the media goes, the liberal media fawns over Obama and Democrats in general, the conservative media fawns over Romney and Republicans - but both parties push the same foreign policy! There is not an ounce of difference between them! Obama vowed to "end the Iraq war" then followed the Bush timeline. He has pushed for military and political intervention throughout the middle east (just as Bush did). The specifics of their interventions may be different (e.g Bush may have continued to support Mubarak while Obama abandoned him) but the policy of throwing our weight around in the middle east does not change. Politically, I think this transcends the liberal/conservative divide. There is a huge military industrial complex in this country with roots in every state. Big money is at stake. Jobs are at stake. Tax revenues are at stake. Democrats and Republicans alike push an interventionist military agenda in order to keep the cash flowing to their district. The media turns a blind eye to this (for whatever reason) and refuses to even explore the possibility that our government's meddling may be a catalyst for terrorist acts against our country.

Things outside our direct knowledge require a more disciplined approach, and that is where one's strategy for acquiring knowledge becomes crucial.

I wholeheartedly agree. As it sits right now, I don't trust the information coming out of the mainstream media (including Fox News) because I can see the obvious bias. My enlightenment began when I decided to follow and support Ron Paul during the past primary election cycle. I watched with amazement (and disgust) how both liberal and conservative media refused to even acknowledge any of his arguments (except for the occasional dismissal). Ron Paul makes a substantive case that directly ties the motivations of Al Qaeda (in their own words and in US government studies) to our foreign policy. What I witnessed was a systematic media blackout against such a view. Now, before this, I was a "Fox News only" kind of guy. I thought they were reporting the unreported "truth" that the liberal media suppressed. Observing the suppression of Ron Paul's views by liberal and conservative media alike was a real eye opener for me. Some would say "well Ron Paul's just crazy", but that, I would argue, is a reflection of the media's portrayal of him and not a considerate reading of his actual positions.

Well I'm cynical of Ron Paul. Except for parts of his economic conservatism I see not much truth in what he says. But look, the mainstream media isn't where most serious people get their news anymore. But I don't think the news makes any sense anyway without and understanding of our history and the great questions we've always wrestled with, so it isn't a surprise that I'm going to find US history and general political philosophy to be of great importance. I think Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology with a sliver of religion on top, and I think our past dealings with such things will be somewhat instructive.

But as far as "throwing our weight around in the middle east", I think we need to act in such a way that evil men don't gain strength, and this means helping their enemies sometimes. The dumb move in anything is to act in such a way to make a bad outcome certain, and the bad outcome includes the oppression and death of many. Many of Ron Paul's stripe advocate doing just that for some higher principle that they never quite specify, although it seems close to the "prime directive" of Star Trek, the one that was always getting violated to do the right thing.

You're right (and I've made the same point) that it transcends the liberal/conservative divide. It is the idealist/realist divide in foreign policy that goes back to the beginning, and I'd say is rooted in basic human nature. It is present in any moral drama. The movie High Noon is often cited as a great example. Winston Churchill famously dealt with the same issue. I think Reinhold Niebuhr is a case where a theologian engaged with politics during wartime and made a theologically informed case for engagement. I think if we really wanted to have a true discussion on this question we'd be reading him.

Look, why don't read the report by Jonathan V. Last on the ground with the Syrian rebels and ask yourself he you think he understands what is at stake in Syria. What is wrong or right about his analysis? See if you don't think he gets the questions right about the dangers of the various choices we face there, including doing nothing. Is his view balanced and fair, or is he just a cheerleader, and if so for what? We can't discuss it here since we're already off-topic, but the sooner you forget the mainstream media and move on the better. You're just preaching to the choir here on that one, and it doesn't mean you're necessarily right about anything else, however much it may be a part of your personal journey to realize how wrong and biased they are.

I've read Last's report. He describes the horrors of war, then concludes that we have to side with one type of Islamist (Sunni in this case) in order to keep another type of Islamist (Shia) out of power. In the process, he advocates overthrowing a regime (Assad's) that is not Islamist. (If you know the history of the Assad regime you'll know that people from all over the region would go there to escape Islamist restrictions in their own country. Muslim women could go to Syria, remove their head scarf and walk down the street in full view without fear. That will not be the case when we're done.)

I found this sentence particularly telling:

Ensuring that the rebellion against Assad succeeds would strike a major blow against the mullahs.

Our foreign policy can only be described as "paranoid/schizophrenic": we are now backing, in Syria, Libya and Egypt, the very movement that attacked us on 9/11 - all out of an irrational fear that Iran ("the new Iraq") will somehow become a threat to us (and the mistaken belief that Israel cannot defend itself).

It was this exact same reasoning that got us into Iraq. In Iraq, however, we backed the Shia against the Sunni (thus increasing the power and influence of Iran) so we are now fighting the consequences of our own foreign policy!! Our government apparently does not understand the "first rule of holes" (i.e. "when you find yourself in a hole - STOP DIGGING!")

The only way to avoid this mess is to get out! Let the chips fall where they may. We can't keep inventing a new "domino theory" every decade. It's time to reconsider whether it is in our best interest to intervene at all in foreign affairs. The factions in the middle east tend to balance each other out, that is until we side with one over the other. Our actions produce instability in the region by constantly altering the balance of power. Iraq was arguably a freer country before we intervened. Iran had less influence in the region before we intervened in Iraq. Al Qaeda was weaker before we trained them in Afghanistan (during the Soviet occupation). Iran was a stable country before we backed a coup to put the Shah in power. Egypt, Libya and Syria were stable and under control before we started backing the Islamists there. And, in almost every case, it is demonstrable that Christians were freer before we intervened.

So what have we accomplished in the middle east?

This is the central tenet of Ron Paul's theory of government (as I understand it anyway): Government intervention always distorts things. I think it's safe to say that we see ample evidence of this in both our domestic and foreign policy.

This is the central tenet of Ron Paul's theory of government (as I understand it anyway): Government intervention always distorts things. I think it's safe to say that we see ample evidence of this in both our domestic and foreign policy.

Chucky, your understanding of what would constitute progress lacks any historical basis. Nothing that you'd now acknowledge as a good thing could survive the test you've described. None of the political decisions the benefits of which you're now the recipient could be justified. And you swing from understandings almost entirely based on theology to those almost entirely based on politics. Where is the grounding in Christian theology for your view unless the pacifist interpretation we all know and most consider misguided? Who is my neighbor? Well, all I can say is that if I were you I'd spend a few years studying those who've given their lives for what doesn't pass your test and ask yourself what it is that makes them do it. Is is stupidity?

Saddam Hussein payed a bounty to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and after that Iran took up the task though the Israelis have effectively countered for now. They do it because no one else does now. Who would do it if Iran falls? Probably no one. We didn't create the Iranian problem, it was always there as Bush always said it was. This is criminality and evil 101. Be glad your local police don't share your view on the futility of stopping violence and evil acts.

Chucky Darwin,
Perhaps the US Govt seeks a balance of power in Mid East between Shias and Sunnis.
So what you see as confusion, is perhaps a deliberate strategy.

Gian, if the USG wants a balance of power between the two, we would never have broken the tenuous arrangement in Iraq, whereby Baghdad was able to serve as a threat and an irritant to Tehran, but not a real threat to Riyadh.

What marks US foreign policy, now as ever, is a profound strategic deficit. Our application of force follows no rational design. We are guilty of perfidity and faithlessness, but also of soft-headed naivete--we manage to combine all the most amoral aspects of realpolitik without the benefit of practical political payoff. Our largest military action in the region was undertaken for thin ideological reasons, and quickly became a debacle that empowered our direst enemies. We are confused and sophomoric, the Obama administration no less than the previous one, though there is a lot of difference in the details.

When the Russians and the Chinese inherit our position in the Near East, we'll see what grown-ups do with that kind of influence. Unlike Chucky, I don't think it's at all possible for a country as big and powerful as the US simply to have no policy with respect to individual dictators, political movements, and so forth in any important part of the world--we have to make choices about whom we will support, and that usually entails the commitment of some resources. In short, you have to have a policy. I would agree with him, though, that our pursuit of our ends (inasmuch as we can identify what those are) has been clumsy and stupid, characterized by Model UN levels of speechifying and sloganeering, and facilitated by the generally infantile level of our television news outlets.

This is the central tenet of Ron Paul's theory of government (as I understand it anyway): Government intervention always distorts things.

That's as good a reason I know to always reject Ron Paul-ism. If government actions is always "intervention" that "distorts" (i.e. makes disordered) what is ordered, or can only become ordered _without_ government action, then government AS SUCH is evil and must be fought against always and everywhere.

Whereas adults recognize government action as sometimes interference, and sometimes its proper role properly achieving order for the common good. That's not "intervention", and it's not a "distortion" to enforce law so that people are restrained from harming their neighbors, (including their neighbors across the border, at times). If Ron Paul-ism characterizes government action as simply interference, then he is basically a puerile, sophomoric pretender not yet grown up in public matters.

Mark:

Where is the grounding in Christian theology for your view
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Sage:

I don't think it's at all possible for a country as big and powerful as the US simply to have no policy with respect to individual dictators, political movements, and so forth in any important part of the world--we have to make choices about whom we will support, and that usually entails the commitment of some resources.
I'm not advocating for "no policy", I'm advocating for a policy of non-intervention. This would also entail a lifting of economic restrictions so that US companies could freely trade with any country in the world. In short, I'm with Jefferson on this "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none".

Tony:

If government actions is always "intervention" that "distorts" (i.e. makes disordered) what is ordered, or can only become ordered _without_ government action, then government AS SUCH is evil and must be fought against always and everywhere.

You've reworded my statement so you're arguing against a straw man. I probably overstated it a bit - I'm not actually quoting Ron Paul, I'm just making a broad generalization based on what I know of his positions on specific areas. I should not have said "all" government intervention. Regardless, I did not say "government action" but "government intervention" The fact that you then go on to argue that some government actions are not interventions only strengthens my point.

If Ron Paul-ism characterizes government action as simply interference, then he is basically a puerile, sophomoric pretender not yet grown up in public matters.
Another strawman. The basic point he makes is about government distortion of markets (ample evidence of this exists: housing, health care, the Fed, bailouts, college tuition, etc.) but the same principle applies to government interventions in foreign affairs (ample evidence already cited above.) In short, it is the fallacy of central planning in a complex system (markets, countries) which inevitably results in a tsunami of unintended consequences.

Perhaps USG is not deliberately engaging to inflame the Shia-Sunni tensions in Middle East, but the things are working out well for USG.

Whereas adults recognize government action as sometimes interference, and sometimes its proper role properly achieving order for the common good. That's not "intervention", and it's not a "distortion" to enforce law so that people are restrained from harming their neighbors, (including their neighbors across the border, at times). If Ron Paul-ism characterizes government action as simply interference, then he is basically a puerile, sophomoric pretender not yet grown up in public matters.

You make it sound like Ron Paul is an anarchist. He has never characterized government involvement as inherently just interference. When government involves itself in any matter between others, it is necessarily interfering with them, however sometimes that is justified. What Ron Paul tends to say is that the scenarios in which the interference is justified is substantially less than most people (including possibly you, Tony) believe. For example, it is very possible that had the federal government not interfered in Iran in 1953, a left-leaning, quasi-democratic Iran might exist today and be helping us do peace-keeping operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will never know because our activist foreign policy assassinated a legitimate democratic government, installed a dictator and lead to the radicalization of 1979. But many "adults" and "right-thinking people" dismissed opponents of this attack as "doves" and "Communist lovers" (they were too stupid to understand that most of our NATO allies were already social democracies, but I digress).

In reality, a significant amount of what the government does really is just interference. These are some good examples. None of those sign issues represent a concrete common good issue. Why should the government be allowed to interfere here? Countless examples of that sort of "intervention" out there.

You've reworded my statement so you're arguing against a straw man. I probably overstated it a bit - I'm not actually quoting Ron Paul, I'm just making a broad generalization based on what I know of his positions on specific areas. I should not have said "all" government intervention. Regardless, I did not say "government action" but "government intervention" The fact that you then go on to argue that some government actions are not interventions only strengthens my point.

Right. Either "all government intervention distorts" is an absolute tautology, because the meaning of "intervention" is "whatever distorts", and your comment was actually empty of all substance, or your comment extended too far and implied that when government gets involved in something that it wasn't involved in before it is "intervening" and thus distorting.

I accept your correction: not all government involvement is a distorting intervention. Those that are within the proper sphere of government are not intrinsically distorting.

It remains to ask: which is which? Of course, that's a matter of judgment, and subject to degrees. Foreign treaties are within the natural sphere of government, if they are about appropriate government issues. I doubt that you would claim that US negotiations with China to honor their treaty obligations and stop stealing copyright inventions by US companies is beyond the proper sphere of government. But foreign treaties about specific commercial obligations is always tied in with other kinds of obligations, you can rarely negotiate about one without the others. Why should it be inherently outside of US government role to seek to ensure that Iran honor its obligations under its agreement to join the the UN and non-proliferation agreements? As to Iraq: arguing about the Iraq war cannot be done without arguing about the 1990 Gulf War, which cannot be done without arguing about our commercial ties to oil in Kuwait, Saudi, etc. Back to commercial obligations. (It would be better if we had no interest in that oil, and our interest in Mid-East oil does modify our foreign policy, making it more problematic. While Bush can be cited for not doing much, much more to decrease our dependence on that oil, even assuming he had set us on a road that would reasonably have taken us out of that oil in 20 years, he cannot be scolded for taking the actual dependence into account in 2003.)

If the US wanted to hunker down and not have commercial or other ties around the world, we could get rid of all sorts of foreign entanglements and just stick to our own selves. Would make a lot of things simpler. But it would also mean things like telling US businessmen that we will make no effort whatsoever to make international thieves and bullies stop stealing from those businessmen outside our territory - in other words, we should never have gone to the shores of Tripoli to stop the Barbary pirates in 1801. That's pretty tough to sell.

Another strawman. The basic point he makes is about government distortion of markets (ample evidence of this exists: housing, health care, the Fed, bailouts, college tuition, etc.) but the same principle applies to government interventions in foreign affairs

Well, that's exactly why I couched my comments in terms of a conditional: IF what you said is that Ron Paul is saying... Now that you say Ron Paul isn't saying that, my condition doesn't apply. Naturally, whenever gov. makes a rule that changes the playing field, it AFFECTS the playing field. To call that an intervention or a distortion goes further, and presumes a point of view that can tell the difference between "affecting" the playing field and "distorting" it. Some people think that what is "natural" is for strong players to achieve monopolies and other conditions that re-enforce their positions, and that outlawing monopolies is a "distortion" of the level playing field. You cannot make a judgment about what is natural, normal, and undistorted without having a view about what makes the market place sound - what constitutes soundness, whole, thriving. Which requires a view of human nature. Which people disagree about all the time.

I second what Mike T. said about Ron Paul - and I agree with much of what Tony says too. It's the legitimate use of government power that is at issue. Some would argue that it is legitimate for the US government to mediate between a patient and a doctor, between a bank and a borrower, between a student and a University, between two foreign countries, between two competing political movements in a foreign country, and etc. I would argue that most of that is an overreach by our government into areas that it would do just as well to stay out of. I would argue further that many of these government interventions/distortions have come back to haunt us. Certainly that can be argued domestically, and there are numerous cases internationally as well (just look at virtually all of our military entanglements since WWII).

As for our most recent "war" (excluding Libya): We did not have to go into Iraq. We chose to go in there based (at best) on faulty intelligence. We unwittingly empowered the Shia in a country neighboring Shia Iran, then stepped back all perflunked when Iran began exerting its newfound influence in the region. Such are the consequences of centrally planned government action. And that has been the biggest eye opener for me - that it is the overwhelming desire for a centrally planned society that is behind the belief that a handful of government bureaucrats can micro-manage such things as the gargantuan US economy, the entire health care industry, the US education system, and all the world's affairs. It is the height of arrogance (and stupidity) in my concerned opinion.

Some would argue that it is legitimate for the US government to mediate between a patient and a doctor, between a bank and a borrower,

Would you say that it is a government responsibility to enforce contracts?

Would you say that it is a government responsibility to enforce contracts?
For its citizens - yes.

So, including contracts between a bank and a borrower. Such as, construing what is meant by the contract when the terms of the contract aren't obvious?

Would you say that it is a government responsibility to enforce contracts?

At the federal level, generally no. The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction in most cases as they are intrastate contracts. Most federal involvement is not based on contracts, but on enforcing provisions in the 14th amendment (which libertarians and conservatives should oppose on principle).

Mike, I agree on both points. I was not speaking of federal government per se, just "government" simply, which includes city, county, and state as well. Seems to me that a libertarian has to either be willing to say that enforcing contracts (like between a lender and a borrower) is a government-type activity, or that it ISN'T a government-type activity which implies that when the 2 parties dispute they get their knives, guns, and 100 closest friends and duke it out - anarchy. Since only a small subset of libertarians (the anarcho-libertarians) think that's really the way you settle disputes in a libertarian utopia, I think they have to go with the former.

Don't get me started on mis-application of the 14th. Ugh!

So, including contracts between a bank and a borrower. Such as, construing what is meant by the contract when the terms of the contract aren't obvious?
Yes - absolutely.

The kind of meddling I find illegitimate is of the type where the government dictates to banks the kinds of loans they must make, and to whom they must loan money. Or when they selectively enforce regulations (to eliminate competition for their buddies at Goldman Sachs). Or when they bail out one bank (with a multitude of customers) and let another bank (with a multitude of customers) fail. Stuff like that.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.