The Fogh of War

Should the international community get to declare war on America’s behalf?

Some people don’t know what country President Barack Obama was born in. I don’t know what country he’s president of.

When he’s talking about trade agreements, Obama is as parochial as a UAW shop steward.

When protecting calcified domestic industries, he’s as nationalistic as a Frenchman.

His astoundingly still employed Treasury Secretary denounces foreign central bankers like an old school South American strongman.

For the Olympics, a primitive exercise in flag-waving, Obama will travel across oceans in a vain attempt to bring home the gold.

Yet during wartime—when patriotism and group identity and blind tribalism actually have some value—Obama turns into a neoliberal internationalist, Mr. Arugula with a splendid military.

Yesterday evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kept her press gaggle waiting for more than an hour before emerging to make this clear-as-mud announcement about the unconstitutional war in Libya: “All 28 allies have...now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission under Resolution 1973.”

What does this mean? Is the president, having ignored the intentionally complex process of getting congressional agreement on war, now subjecting our armed forces to the unintentionally complex process of getting agreement among 28 different countries? Will NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen be calling the shots for American forces, or just for the no-fly zone portion of the operation? Are there other kinetic military operations going on other than the no-fly zone? Why does Rasmussen refer to the coalition operation as “separate” from the NATO operation? Why is a Cold War-era trans-Atlantic mutual defense alliance the correct tool for a time-limited, scope-limited act of power projection in North Africa? Should Americans ever be listening to somebody with a Soviet-sounding title like “Secretary-General”?

And most important: Does Obama view himself as the president of the United States or as the president of the international community?

I’d prefer he stick with doing just the former, but the latter is easily justified once you concede that the U.S. Constitution has become subordinate not to presidential will but to international consensus. In the first decade of the 21st century it was fashionable for Americans to ask “Why do they hate us?” But the real problem is that they love us, that the world is incapable even of imagining a war—punitive, humanitarian, mercantile, U.N.-approved, or other—that is not led by the United States.

While this assumption made sense when building coalitions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (where the invasions themselves were American ideas), it also gets applied to interventions like the Balkans wars of the 1990s (which employed American air power and, despite promises to the contrary, American ground troops in "peacekeeping" roles) and to the debate over intervention in Darfur (which did not). Just listen to Bahraini political activist Hussein Muhammad, who in a phone call to The New York Times last week hollered, “Where are the Americans, where are the Americans, why are they allowing this, they are killing us with heavy guns, where are the Americans?” Whether we have a long history with the civil or cross-border combatants in question or we just seem like the likeliest suckers, somebody, and usually a group of somebodies, always wants the Americans to intervene.

In the case of Libya this is particularly unjust. The impetus for a U.S. attack came from Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, and a consensus of the long-past-its-prime Arab League. France was the second country on this planet to field an air force, and its air force was made a stand-alone military branch more than a decade before our own. British pilots fought Hitler’s Luftwaffe to a standstill. The Arab countries (as dissident Yeminis and Bahrainis are learning at this moment) bristle with American weaponry. Why did they need us?

But the love of American military power, like romantic love, dies once it is consummated. The Arab League has inevitably cooled in its enthusiasm for Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the long delays and frequent miscommunications in NATO policymaking do not, I’m guessing, indicate an abundance of consensus or good will.

When wars are conducted with neither respect for law nor honest-to-God nationalism, the efforts of the mainstream media to drum up domestic support for them are never pretty. There is no longer any justification for putting manned fighter aircraft into combat. Even if there were, it’s been 10 years since Lockheed won the contract for the joint strike fighter, and five years since the first flight of the F-35. So when you hear the good news that the two-man crew of a downed F-15 was rescued by locals, ask not: “Were any of the rescuers attacked by our own forces while they were trying to help?” (They were.) Ask: “Why are we still putting up the ancient F-15 at all?”

In the answer to that question is the secret of post-Cold War interventionism. The armed services cost a lot to do very little, and we are calling on them to maintain three full-time wars as well as clandestine killings and supporting actions beyond number. We invade and brutalize the world not only because we want to but because the world wants us to. Requests for American intervention in every hell hole on earth have increased since the end of the Cold War. The now-unwinding Global War on Terror was a brief respite that allowed us to believe the American president, rather than the mirage of international consensus, was the decider in all these invasions. Like so much else in America, this overburdened system is collapsing on Obama’s watch.

Tim Cavanaugh is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I don't want to sound all cowboy here, but it's our military, our reputation, and our asses on the line if we take action. It's our decision. Fine if we want to smooth the way internationally, but even that shouldn't be happening in earnest until Congress has spoken.

    I'm so tired of this administration. It's beginning to make the last one look like they were behaving by the book.

  • ||

    I swear...this guy is so incompetent, yet combine that with the press letting him slide, and we may end up with a scandal or fuckup so massive that it dwarfs anything seen before.

    It's like letting Kennedy kids get away with relatively minor crimes constantly, and then pretty soon you have manslaughter and murder. Oops!

  • ||

    We don't just need a new system of government to replace this broken one, we need a new fourth estate to help us keep an eye on our new government. Because the current iteration makes People Magazine look deep and philosophical.

    In fact, same analogy for the administration.

  • ||

    Sorry, ProL, but your minarchism will fail in time exactly as the Founders' did. This is why minarchism is a foolish, though admirable, ideal. Because it will always--always--grow into what it wants never to be.

  • ||

    I've never said this to you, but I think I'd better. The same exact flaw exists in anarchy. Humans are inherently screwed up and can't seem to avoid walking down the road to tyranny. Occasionally we'll take a walk down the freedom trail, but we just can't stay there for long.

    We need to improve the breed. I figure the only way out is technological.

  • ||

    Of course, ProL. But at least anarchy is honest. Every form of "democratic" government pretends that it isn't the powerful guys in charge, which makes it worse. Don't you get that? Warlords fucking love government; it gives them a fig leaf of legitimacy. And people buy it. "Look! We had an election! See, I'm a legitimate warlord; you voted for me!"

    Why someone as smart as you can't get that, I will never understand.

  • ||

    Both your ideologies are fucked because neither is willing to do the necessary dirty work.

    The problems with Anarchy and min-anarchy is not the unpopular politics of them or innate flaws it is the inherent weakness of its believers.

    Socialist/fascists/republicans/democrats/tyrants all are willing to lie cheat and steal their way to power....and in fact the founders had no problem with doing the same.

    You puritarians on the other hand are just too fucking clean to get the shit done.

  • ||

    At least we're not scumbags, joshua. Are you?

  • ||

    At least we're not scumbags, joshua. Are you?

    Would you rather be a scumbag or a slave ruled by scumbags?

    Cuz those are the only choices.

    Also which is worse...being a scumbag who rules slaves or being a scumbag that frees slaves?

    Somethings are more important then avoiding being a scumbag. I happen to think "liberty for all" is one of them.

  • ||

    The origins of our current system are based on a largely minarchist model, though, clearly, not minarchist enough.

    My point to you, Episiarch, is that I think there's more stability in a system with checks against the growth of government power. I don't think you can completely prevent that growth, but it can be slowed.

    Khan was right, you know: "Your [political ]accomplishments? Improve a [governmental system] and you may double liberty. But improve man. . .and you gain a thousandfold."

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I really feel that space colonization is the last hope for a well-maintained, long-lasting, liberty-based government/community/whatever.

  • ||

    Yeah, but how do we get there without using the government-endorsed monopoly on space travel?

  • ||

    SpaceX and the other New Space outfits. They're our only hope.

  • Kolohe||

    "They're our only hope."

    True fact - a couple of weeks ago SpaceX's acquired land for a test facility in Texas in a town called McGregor

    http://article.wn.com/view/201.....perations/

  • ||

    SpaceX and the other New Space outfits. They're our only hope.

    So, they're like Obi Wan?

    Seriously, though. They have been for a decade.

  • ||

    Things are moving along. I'm predicting that the first private customer for Dragon (as a manned space vehicle) will be Bigelow.

  • ||

    How will space colonization help maintain liberty? Even once we colonize other planets some people will still be smarter than others and greed will still be a fact of life. As long as you have those two conditions, individuals will continue to try to acquire power over each other.

  • cynical||

    Every social-legal arrangement will change dramatically over time (call it "failing", if you wish, but tyrannies will usually fail in time as well). Anarchy will likely transform into abuse and thuggery even faster than minarchy. Who exactly is going to protect the state of anarchy, unless the majority of people are committed to freedom? But if the majority of people are committed to freedom, minarchy will work just fine too.

    Minarchy recognizes that power hungry assholes will always exist, and the smarter variants try to engineer systems that turn their ambitions against each other instead of the people; they also utilize aspects of human psychology like religion and tradition to inspire veneration for freedom in those whose personalities might otherwise be less receptive (consider how many conservative give the Constitution the sort of respect otherwise preserved for the Ten Commandments).

    Eventually those safeguards will fail if the will to enslave is stronger than the will to be free; the best analogy I can think of is a battery backup for a computer system -- minarchist safeguards don't exist to prevent failure on their own, but to delay failure so you have time to get on the ball and do something. If the people lack the wisdom or strength of character to be free, nothing will solve your problem.

  • Helpful||

    "Anarchists think the "invisible hand" of the marketplace will work in the place of government. But read what Adam Smith had to say about businessmen in that famous "invisible hand" passage. Smith knew that government was a precondition of the market, and of the working of the "invisible hand." Without government, the "invisible hand" becomes a closed fist, wielded by the most powerful gang(s) to emerge. Why? Because government prevents competing forces from defining -- and enforcing -- their own private "interests" subjectively and arbitrarily.

    Even if 99 percent of "protection agents" behave rationally, all you'd need is one "secessionist" outlaw agency, with it's own novel interpretation of "rights" and "justice," tailored to appeal to some "customer base" of bigots, religious fanatics, disgruntled blue collar workers or amoral tycoons with money to burn. Do anarchists care to argue that outlaw agencies -- given our current intellectual and philosophical "marketplace" -- would have no such constituencies? Dream on.

    Oops -- did I say "outlaw?" Under anarchy, there is no final determiner of the law." There would be no final standard for settling disputes, e. g., a Constitution. That would be a "monopoly legal system," you see. That's because anarchists support the unilateral right of any individual or group to secede from a governing framework. (After all -- wrote anarchist Lysander Spooner a century ago -- I didn't sign the Constitution, did I?)

    So whose laws, rules, definitions and interpretations are going to be final?

    Consider the logical alternatives under anarcho-capitalism. Either...

    1. No "protection agency" imposes or enforces any of its interpretations, standards, definitions, decisions or verdicts on any other competing agency, or on any individual acting as his own agent. In which case, there is no "final arbiter" of disputes, no court of final appeal, no enforceability. Everyone some agency deemed "guilty" of an improper initiation of force would retain a unilateral right to ignore the verdict of that agency, or to "secede" from any rule-making framework designed by that agency or any group of agencies.

    From a practical standpoint, a "protection agency" which could not enforce retribution or restitution against a wrong-doer would be a paper tiger. Who would pay for such toothless "protection"? Who would stand to lose?

    But who would stand to gain under this option? Only the thugs, who would unilaterally declare themselves immune from anyone's arrest, prosecution or punishment. Either as individuals or in gangs, they would use force, unconstrained by the self- limitations adopted by the "good" agencies.

    In short, under this option, the good would unilaterally restrain themselves, while the bad would assume the right to use force without self-limitation, and with no fear of retaliation. This option would mean de facto pacifism by the moral, in the face of the immoral."

  • Helpful||

  • Molderin' Teddy||

    Leave the children alone!

  • ||

    "when I returned, Maryjo and the car were gone". Had a friend worked Edgartown PD. Always wanted to get a copy of THAT report. I am sure it was no longer in their archives. Probably stored in the same place they keep the ark of the covenant

  • ||

    OT, but pretty comical. Obomba says neither he, nor Holder knew about Operation Fast and Furious.

    So.....basically, the head of our government is full of shit and the press will give him a pass.

    FTA, When asked whether he knew of the weapon smuggling plan, Obama responded that it is “a pretty big government” with “a lot of moving parts.”

    Un-fucking-believable.

  • ||

    Plausible imbecility.

  • Surly Chef||

    I'm stealing that.

  • ||

    You can't steal it because I'm licensing it to you. Just use it well.

  • Lyin' BushPig Obama||

    You can't pin that rap on me.

  • ||

    Bush had plausible imbecility, too. It's proven very effective for political gamesmanship, somewhat surprisingly.

  • Harry Truman's Desk||

    The buck doesn't stop here anymore.

  • cynical||

    It works a lot better for a President who isn't trying to cultivate an image of intelligence and competence.

  • Sad thing is....||

    this is story that will fizzle out. The link refers to an interview from Spanish-language Univision. Does anyone expect English-speaking Big-TV will ask the same questions?

  • Sudden||

    No, because Univision is taking their jerbz

  • Chris Matthews||

    Tim Cavanaugh, paid shill for the Koch brothers, wants world-peace...Jesus, what a capitalist pig!

  • JoshINHB||

    It would work better this way

    Tim Cavanaugh, paid shill for the Koch brothers, wants world-peace...Jesus, what fascist pig!

  • ||

    As a brake on war-making/use of force, Congress has pretty much abdicated any responsibility for initiating or ending military action. Republican or Democrat, we have presidents who have the power to do what they want, when they want, to whomever they want.

    Obama is no different than the rest of the lot. He plays by the same rules with the same structure as Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and so on.

  •  ||

    NATO...a Cold War-era trans-Atlantic mutual defense alliance

    The Soviet Union is gone, it is true. In its place there sits an increasingly fascist gangster state whose rulers still pine for the good old days. That's one of the reasons NATO is still around, not to butt into the eternal Arab morass.

  • Snoopy Snoop Poop Dog||

    Russia is officially "gangsta."

  • ||

    Does that mean the kids are all going to dress and act like Russians now? Because the ghetto black thing looks silly with white suburban punk kids.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I must break you" is the new "yo sup".

  • ||

    Uh, it's "mus brek, yo".

  •  ||

    The Russians could only improve upon the music.

  • ||

    Have you heard current Russian music? No, it would not be an improvement.

  •  ||

    I've heard gangsta. The only thing worse is white gospel.

  • ||

    I've heard gangsta. The only thing worse is white gospel.

    I live next to a Mexican woman and her daughters.

    Mexican "umpa" music is the true music of Satan.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Konstantin Brayko||

  • Pip||

    "Because the ghetto black thing looks silly with white suburban punk kids."

    It looks silly on black kids too. When saggin', they walk like a three-year-old who pissed his pants a good two hours ago.

  • ||

    Yes, I agree, but it's legally racist to point that out, so I refrained.

  • Mr Obama||

    They look like jackasses.

  • One of the few good things..||

    Obama has done: calling out Kanye for being a jackass.

  • ||

    ever since the general sang "pants on the ground", making fun of saggy pants is culturally acceptable

  • ||

    It looks silly on black kids too. When saggin', they walk like a three-year-old who pissed his pants a good two hours ago.

    Watch an episode of Breaking bad. Notice the cloths the white guy is wearing?

    Yeah Ghetto black kid cloths despite its faults is actually better then the fucked up direction white kid cloths are going.

    Silk screen patterns of demon and dragon Bone patterns and sequins on brightly colored hoodies.

    FUUUUUUUUUUCK THAAAAAAAAT!

  • ||

    Notice the cloths the white guy is wearing?

    Young white guy.

    I think his name on the show is Jesse.

  • ||

    Does that mean the kids are all going to dress and act like Russians now? Because the ghetto black thing looks silly with white suburban punk kids.

    In case you haven't noticed Russian kids already dress like 70's ghetto black kids.

  • Fashion Police||

    '70's? Russian "style" never left 1985. Especially for women: Big hair, purple blush, blue eye shadow--it's like a Duran Duran video.

  • Sudden||

    Dude, they all went hipster, and yes, it is somehow even considerably fucking worse.....

  • DJF||

    The European members of NATO have a larger population, GDP and higher technology level then Russia so why does the US need to be part of NATO? The only reason is that the European members of NATO don’t think that Russia is much of a threat and so they keep on cutting their military budget. If the Europeans don’t think that Russia is a threat to Europe why should the US spend huge sums of money to defend them from a threat they don’t think exists.

  • sevo||

    "The only reason is that the European members of NATO don’t think that Russia is much of a threat and so they keep on cutting their military budget."

    Possibly.
    Another possibility is that they're very comfortable free-riding on the US defense structure and for all their hypocritical whining, they'd be terrified if the US told 'em to act like adults ad provide their own defense.

  • x,y||

    A lot of questions coming from a guy who voted for the man ... wait for it ... because he's black. I think Obama is not the only one who has some explaining to do.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I propose the Cavanaugh Rule: "Anyone who made a public showing of voting for Barack Obama and should have known better is required to eat shit (figuratively) before turning on him."

    This could also be known as the Brooks/Parker/Sullivan rule, but I thought of it just now, so Cavanaugh Rule it is.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Every European country has a military, so why the hell are we there? I'm so sick of European "soldiers" cheering us on while we're the ones doing the fighting. Bunch of fucking espectators is what they are.

    I say it's time for those foreigners to go to Libya and die for Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, San Marino, France, Germany, Lithuania, Greece, Italy, Turkey, etc, etc, etc.

    The eurofarts like socialism? Fine, then they can all join hands and fight Qaddafi together.

    But this is America, we already have two wars and Libya is NOT our problem!!!!

    Earth Hour: Hating Humanity's Progress.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....gress.html

  • ||

    TEAM RED troll is hating on TEAM BLUE war.

  • ||

    Eh.

    I kind of like Europe still simply because they want a war does not mean we have to jump in and lead and fight it for them.

    Smith's only sin is he doesn't like Europe and used mean words to describe them.

  • Jim||

    HA, that is Smith's only sin? Have you ever read any of his other posts?

  • ||

    HA, that is Smith's only sin? Have you ever read any of his other posts?

    I was referring to the sins of this one singular post.

    But yeah his other posts guarantee he will spend the next trillion years in the worst hole of Hell.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Thank you, Corning! I realize that some "libertarians" believe in political correctness and get offended by "mean words."

    I also realize liberals usually focus on "how you say it" than "what you say."

    Real libertarians like you see the truth.

  • ||

    America wants to be there, they love war and now come up with a lame story that Europeans somehow made them fight there.
    Also what soldiers are "fighting", launching missiles from submarines and controlling drones from secure bunkers in America, such brave fighting men they are.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Bravery doesn't mean stupidity, what do you want? For them to wear red uniforms and go in to battle yelling "shoot me, shoot me?"

  • Gregory Smith||

    Bravery doesn't mean stupidity, what do you want? For them to wear red uniforms and go in to battle yelling "shoot me, shoot me?"

  • DJF||

    Obama administration wants to move the no-fly zone over to NATO so they can pretend that its no longer a mostly US dominated operation even though NATO is mostly a US dominated operation.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Can't blame him, after all, it worked in Serbia.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    In the first decade of the 21st century it was fashionable for Americans to ask “Why do they hate us?” But the real problem is that they love us, that the world is incapable even of imagining a war—punitive, humanitarian, mercantile, U.N.-approved, or other—that is not led by the United States.

    Getting the people you hate to fight your wars for you seems pretty smart to me.

    But the love of American military power, like romantic love, dies once it is consummated.

    Sounds like you need to get better at consummating.

  • jtuf||

    The situation is too sad for words.

  • sevo||

    Where's the guy telling us we need to off Libyans to gain Arab street cred?

  • Kolohe||

    Why does Rasmussen refer to the coalition operation as “separate” from the NATO operation?

    This is actually a thing we do now. It's been that way in Afghanistan since I think 2003 or so. There is an ISAF mission which operates under a NATO command, and a separate US-led operation which falls under the umbrella of Operation Enduring Freedom. OEF is almost entirely a US thing, but does have some adhoc mostly anglosphere allied involvement.

    In broad strokes, ISAF does the 'counter-insurgency' function while OEF does the 'counter-terrorism'. For a long time, most US forces in Afghanistan were OEF, not ISAF. Only in the 'uplift' starting in 2009 did the US contribution to ISAF forces exceed those in country for OEF.

    Also, starting in the last year or two of the Bush Administration, the ISAF commander and the US Forces Afghanistan Commander have been the same (USA) dude*. (aka 'dual-hatting'). But technically, two different operations run by two different organizations are going on in Afghanistan. I expect Libya to shape up similarly.

    *it's the job Petreus holds now, and McCrystal, McKiernan, and McNeill held before

  • sevo||

    "Also, starting in the last year or two of the Bush Administration, the ISAF commander and the US Forces Afghanistan Commander have been the same (USA) dude*. (aka 'dual-hatting'). But technically, two different operations run by two different organizations are going on in Afghanistan. I expect Libya to shape up similarly."

    This is news to me.
    Given the US military is (supposedly) under civilian control, to whom does the USA dude report in which role'?
    Given the (muddled?) command structure, it sounds like the overall strategic aims could easily be set by the commander in the field.

  • Kolohe||

    For starters since the previous two ISAF commanders were abruptly fired by the US Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States respectively, it's pretty clear who is in ultimately in charge.

    The US side is fairly straightforward, Petraeus reports to CENTCOM, who reports to Gates, who reports to Obama.

    In the role of ISAF commander, Petraeus 'reports' to NATO via an operational command - Allied Joint Forces Command Brunssum (JFC-B)(who has a German guy in charge) and then to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Brussels who has a US Admiral in charge (and who is also the EUCOM commander in the US military command structure.) SHAPE in turn gets its direction from the political arm of NATO, the North Atlantic Council (NAC), composed of representatives who are ambassadors from the (currently 28) member countries.

    So, there is only a sole non-US guy in this chain of command - plus, this guy (and his staff) really only take care of resourcing issue plus some strategic doctrine, which in turn are coordinated with the supreme head headquarters and the political arm - and most importantly the troop contributing nations.

    So you are substantially correct, the overall strategic aims are a great deal set by Petraeus, and McChrystal before him. That is one of the reason while I was there they stood up a separate and subordinate 3 star HQ to actually run the day to day war. And the command structure is arguably far less muddled than it was mid decade when there was almost literally, 4 or 5 separate wars going on simultaneously within the Afghan theater.

    Also, every other country has similar qualms about sovereignty, and half the ISAF force is not a part of NATO, so each country has a set of caveats set by their countries' governments stating specific operational circumstances that their personnel and equipment may not take part in. (and to be clear, none of these limit the prerogative of inherent self defense). And for the most part, operational units (as opposed to intermediate and upper level command staffs) are almost entirely composed of personnel from a single nation, so, for example, if you're a grunt given an order to 'take that goddamn' hill, it will be in your own language from one of your own countrymen.

  • sevo||

    OK, overall, it seems there's no greater discretion granted to Petraeus than there was to, say, Eisenhower during the campaign in No Africa/Europe.

  • Nick Sarkozy||

    It's simple to understand why peace loving countries like France and England wanted to get involved. Libya produces a high quality sweet crude, predominantly used by European countries. They just needed the U.S. for cover when the defecate hits the rotary oscillator.

  • EuroTrash!||

  • sevo||

    "They just needed the U.S. for cover when the defecate hits the rotary oscillator."

    So it's a case of:
    'Hey, you warmongering cowboy! Come save out butts.'?

  • ||

    Recently deceased, United States Constitution, after a long struggle with man's 'better nature'. There will be no services as the survivors cannot agree on having any at all, let alone by what rite or ritual. For over 200 years "Uncle Sam", as he was known by his loving children in uniform, worked without rest in the cause of liberty and justice for all. Remembered in his last testament are some of his most beloved scions, among them Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Patrick Henry, all of the poor bloody infantry of every color, faith, and station in life who fought in all of 'his' wars, Molly Pitcher, those who operated the Underground RR, the original founders of the American Red Cross, the YMCA & YWCA, Boy Scouts, the Rev. Martin L. King, Jr., all of the honest folk of the civil rights movement, and 50 million aborted children. He will be missed by the seventy percent of Americans who, while they loved him dearly, never understood him and what he stood for. Those who have just recently obtained the citizenship are among his bitterest mourners. No flowers will be accepted, but contributions may be made in his name to privately-funded and operated spaceflight companies, in the vain hope that freedom may grow out there in that "Final Frontier". Burial will be in an unannounced location, to avoid future descrations and quasi-religious pilgrimages.

  • ||

    How does this compare to Kosoko? Also, it would seam to me that he is 1 hiding behind "others' for the decision, and 2, conveniently the same hiding provides him with the condition to infere that the international community should decide things, NOT America.

  • zentai costume||

    I think president represent his country, not himself.

  • pzm0729||

    sound great~,i think this article is pretty good~lol, but there is more awesome in here:http://www.topbagclub.com

  • ||

    Did Reagan get authority his secret wars?
    Was G W Bush condemned for the false evidence used to get his authority to invade Iraq?
    Is our goal in Afghanistan anything more than a pay off to military lobbyists?

  • Rasmussen||

    No way will Fogh be calling the shots. He is a clownish mouthpiece for American actions through the flunkey organization NATO which he heads--e.g. missile "defense" and the occupation of Afghanistan.

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some lebron 9 for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it lebron 9 china for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement