Harvard Hypocrite
Michael Young | February 19, 2008, 12:14pm
In Salon, Barack Obama advisor, Harvard professor, and author Samantha Power on how the United States needs to get out of Iraq:
We need to be incredibly sensitive as we leave Iraq to the welfare of Iraqis who are going to be left in our wake. That potentially entails the idea of sectarian or ethnic relocation if people are in a mixed neighborhood and feel that they'd be safer in a more homogenous neighborhood. Also, [it entails] massive support for neighboring countries that have taken in 2 million refugees, and some very systematic effort between now and the time we begin leaving to build funding and resource streams to internally displaced people.
We have shown again and again that we care about Iraq only insofar as it serves our interests. But I think it's time to show not only Iraqis but the rest of the world that at least as we leave, we're leaving with a very vigilant eye on how to mitigate the consequences of our actions.
Quite remarkable. So here's the plan from the author, incidentally, of a book on genocide. Accept the realities imposed by ethnic cleansing; give plenty of money to several of the neighboring countries that have been responsible for sustaining the fighting in Iraq; and pay off displaced Iraqis so that the U.S. can feel less guilty about abandoning them to their sad fate.
I exaggerate? Not much. Power wants to have her cake and eat it too. Essentially, her solution is a grand buy-off. Drop some money into everyone's cup, call it "mitigating the consequences of our actions", and, with vigilant eye closed, blame everything on the Bush administration if the U.S. leaves chaos and death in its wake.
I would be able cynically to stomach her scheme if it were not couched in the hypocritical language of moral self-righteousness. Power knows enough about killing to know that she really needs to answer the question: What happens if an American withdrawal leads simultaneously to mass murder? But the egghead smells a foreign policy post. She's not about to jeopardize that by possibly straying off the reservation.
From the Keystrokes of John Q. Public... | February 19, 2008, 3:38pm | #
Yet the Left today still thinks they did a great thing by rolling over for the Soviets and Mao and they eagerly look for any new chance to sell out yet another vulnerable group. The utter selfishness of this vile behavior is utterly unbelievable as is the intensity of their self delusion. Not even vast piles of the corpses murdered to cement the power of despots shakes their unbendable faith in themselves
Dear Shannon Love,
It's odd how schizophrenic politics allows partisans to be. How someone of a particular position can call a stranger selfish for not wanting a war. For not wanting to pay for a war. For not wanting to stay in a war. A war that quite literally has been billed Democracy at the Sword.
We have socialized defense, more specifically the territory in which our nation exists. This ideaologically driven war, which was initially planned by PNAC in the mid 90's, is not in the interest of national defense. A war without a declaration of war from the Congress quite literally, is not a war in the defense of the people. While the German's fought to the 8th floor of the Reichstag, and the Japanese to every troop, this is not a war with everything we hold dear on the line.
I submit to you, if you want to start a war do it of your own private means. Fund a war of this caliber, organize and contract a war of this size individually. If you truly believe in the purpose and the success of this ideology, then you will have no qualms supporting it without the aid of your neighbor who may not agree with you. To do otherwise, for any reason, would be Selfish.
As for this mantle of Patriotism you may or may not presume to have, let me remind you that to love your Country is separate from it's Government. A theme that I have rarely heard uttered in modern speeches or found in modern literature. That in accordance with the fiery proponent of liberty Thomas Paine: "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from it's government." The critique and comdemn actions of your government is not only Patriotic, it was once quite clearly American.
Looking the Founding Fathers, I think we should take particular notice to the fact that Vermont Regiments refused to cross into Canadian Territory during Washington's two pronged attack. In protest, they had no desire to conquer, only to defend what was their land. To do anything further would be an injustice, even as the loyalists of Canada were their enemies.
After the Revolutionary War, George Washington was constantly badgered by his good friend LaFayette to help spread The Republic to France. Something that Washington refused flatly to the point of losing his friendship with The Marquis. If you will recall, the first 2 years of the French Revolution went quite well for LaFayette, and it was unforseen circumstance that proved Washington the wiser of the two. Not only did LaFayette's mess cost him his right to live in his homeland, it would lead to the Napoleonic Wars. Imagine the fate of this country had we gotten involved militarily in such a bad turn of events.
The Cold War, which could have been prevented had Wilson stayed out of World War 1, was not one by Vietnam or Korea. The Cold War was not won by Ronald Reagan, as is famously the myth. In fact by 1973 the Communist Regime had hit it's highpoint and began heading downhill. It wasn't the fact that we had built large space based programs to hopefully one day counter their nuclear capacity.
That in the end, it was the inherent flaws within Marxist Economics that would bring about the downfall of a nation so large with so much power at it's grasp. That Communism was an idea, a very poorly constructed idea. An idea can easily be explained away and is poorly shot at. It was the Soviet Union that excuted 51,000 deserters a year during world war 2. It was the Soviet Union that would see underground radio stations. Underground networks of capitalism slipping through the bloated fingers of beauracracy to dodge the stifling tax system. That the people's of Russia bought blue jeans and Coca Cola even as we pointed Nuclear Missiles at them.
Yet while you mention Vietnam, which did not further the cause the idea espoused in our Constitution, you omitt the origins. You omitt that the Vietmanese were throwing off their oppressive rulers the French. That it was our Military Industrial Complex that was fighting against freedom. That in the name of all things good we were outraged at anyone who would make a capitalist follow communism by the sword. How hypocritical that you do not mention that we, the USA, were more than willing to force Communists to live under Capitalism by the sword.
Perhaps the most puzzling thing of all, is that you presume Government Intervention is the just method of securing liberties. Yet in the last century alone, government was responsible for 137 million deaths alone. This would indicate that Government is not the keeper of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it's the greatest threat. 400 billion dollars in defense spending could not prevent 9-11 but a 400 dollar pistol in the cockpit could. Yet it was government that would not allow airlines to protect their private property.
The Reason why people use words like Imperialism is also clear as day. All you have to do is look at our territories. Look at the bases all around the world. Look at the way we discuss balancing the powers or creating stability in the region. It's reminiscent of Caesar's Campaign in Ghaul. It's this offensive defense that Rome so often resorted to. How many geopolitical differences have been left as just differences since the post world war 2 Era? Are we not just arming political allies,deploying troops, engaging in sanctions, or overthrowing governments?Yet even the Romans had the good sense to understand you don't force people to live under the same house if it's not their perogative.
As stated in prior posts, Iraq has never known stability outside of the Saddam Regime. 16 coups and counter coups between 59-69 alone. It was by the creation of the Tikrit Intelligence Gang and by mass torture,murder and rape that stability was created politically. The word insurgent is just another word for Iraqi. You have Iraqi's killing Iraqis, for a whole host of reasons. The people should be split into 3 different countries and allowed to govern as they see fit. In fact many Iraqis will tell you it was the Occupation of Iraq that's to blame for the Occupation of Iraq.
David | February 20, 2008, 6:03pm | #
http://posthumousluger.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/an-open-letter-to-samantha-power-senior-foreign-policy-advisor-to-barack-obama/
An Open Letter to Samantha Power, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Barack Obama
Ms. Power:
Your February 18th interview with Salon.com includes the following passage:
“The Bush administration has a long-standing policy that it doesn’t engage with terrorists or dictators. Is there a time when the United States should?
Absolutely. I’m with Barack on this. But it’s not indefinite. Barack’s point is you don’t treat meeting with America as if it’s in and of itself some great reward. It doesn’t buy the other side anything. In fact, today it hurts a lot of people to be in business with the United States. So what you do is you meet in order to achieve things. You meet in order to know your foe, if it’s a foe. You meet in order to get international wind at your back so that America is not seen as the problem — [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is the problem. You meet because you want to stop lumping together the unlike — al-Qaida, Hamas, Iran, Iraq.”
Your response to this question represents perhaps the single element of Obama’s platform that is most abhorrent to many voters who have rejected all possibility of supporting him. I respectfully ask that you elaborate upon what you said here, given the weight this issue holds for many Americans.
A) You mention that an Obama administration would not only be open to engaging with dictators, but also with terrorists. Would you mind naming some of the terrorists you would be advising that Obama meet? Do you wish that he meets with Haniyeh? Bin Laden?
B) You mention that “you meet in order to know your foe, if it’s a foe.” I am not sure what you are saying here – you either wish to 1) meet with terrorists and dictators so as to “know them”, or 2) meet with terrorists and dictators so as to determine if they are, indeed, your foe.
If you intended the former, what is it you wish to know regarding the intents and motives of, say, Hamas and Al Qaeda? Have they not been clear?
If you intended the latter, what information do you need to receive from any terrorist entity or dictator to further determine if it is a foe? If an entity has committed acts of terror, or has established itself as a dictatorship, are you implying that you would advise consideration of the possibility that this entity could be considered a US ally?
C) You mention that “you don’t treat meeting with America as if it’s in and of itself some great reward. It doesn’t buy the other side anything. In fact, today it hurts a lot of people to be in business with the United States.”
Can you name some of the entities which would change their relationship with any other entity based upon their meeting with the US? The only ones I can think of are currently designated terrorist groups or dictatorships. Or are Vladimir Putin.
Are you advising that a President Obama, prior to meeting with a terrorist or dictator, somehow negate the concept that establishing relations with the US is “some great reward”, because the US should be concerned that said terrorist or dictator will lose his or her standing among other terrorists or dictators? Why should this be a concern to the US?
And how, exactly, would you advise President Obama establish that meeting with the US is no “great reward”?
D) You mention that “You meet because you want to stop lumping together the unlike — al-Qaida, Hamas, Iran, Iraq.” Are you implying that you would establish a hierarchy wherein one terrorist or dictatorship is more deserving of a meeting with the US than another? If so, what would be your criteria?
Al-Qaida wishes to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate governed by the Koran. Hamas wishes to annihilate Israel so that they may establish a state governed by the Koran. Iran is a state enforcing brutal human rights abuses, with the goal being a state most closely aligned with the teachings of the Koran. You refer to these entities as the “unlike”.
Why are you looking to examine any possible differences between these terrorist groups and dictatorships, without first examining the similarity of which they scream at the top of their lungs?
Best,
David
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/18/samantha_power/
samantha_power@ksg.harvard.edu
