Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.

Eccentric Chinese rich guy tries to give out money and make headlines in New York City

Maybe you heard about the eccentric Chinese industrialist who pulled a charity stunt in NYC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDH4C0B956Y
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/world/asia/chen-guangbiao-profile/

While it was a generous action, instead of one posh NYC lunch for 200 needy folks (assuming $30/pers), a scalable, efficient charity like Second Harvest could have delivered 12K meals (60X impact). A businessman should know better, but I guess there are no headlines in that. Chen says his "wealth is limited" and he wants to inspire other rich people to give. For the record, his net worth is above $700M, so if that is limited, I think the rest of us are in deep trouble. Also, I don't think he needs to waste a plane ride over to NYC to preach to the choir - Americans are WAY more charitable on average than Chinese (US #5 in the World Giving Index vs. China #141 on par with Rwanda). Well China considers HK (#19) and Taiwan (#52) its territory too, so in that case their aggregate giving score would be a bit higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index#2012_rankings

In 2009, 27% of China lived on less than $2/day (roughly the population of the US), so I don't think Chen has to go overseas to seek out the needy. And China now has 3/4 as many billionaires as the US (~300 vs. ~400), so their domestic pool of potential philanthropists is large too. No need to bring your antics here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty#Countries
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131764299/Average-Net-Worth-of-Billionaires-by-Country-The-2013-Hurun-Rich-List

What to do about ISIS, Iraq, and Syria?

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Iraq crisis and what to do next: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/getting-rid-of-maliki-wont-solve-iraqs-crisis/

----

I came across this article with a sort of summary of ISIS that i found interesting.  the writer's point is that Iraq was inevitably going to be a 3-state division.  Sunni, Shia, Kurds.  Baghdad has no chance of falling, Kurdish north has little chance of invasion, and ISIS was simply the first group to be able to tap the opportunity.   

----

Yeah I agree - the media and hawks always make any sort of new threat into super-villains (esp. if they're Muslim). Apparently ISIS or affiliates paid key commanders of the Iraqi Forces to defect/desert, and that encouraged the regular troops to flee as well. It's not on YT due to copyright, but Maher had a great monologue from his June 6 show about the 5 Taliban we traded for Bergdahl. Morons like McCain made those 5 out to be like the Legion of Doom or something, when really they are just marginal "terrorists" who have been out of the game for 12 years. Hardly an imminent threat to the US. But as your link said, hype hype hype. Plus, this offensive is not totally driven by ISIS. They are relatively small, but have the tacit or overt support of the Sunni tribes and paramilitaries in the area. Rolling into a vacated city is different than holding it vs. a modern gov't backed military.

I am not sure about our role in diffusing the civil/sectarian conflict in the Levant now. Rand Paul types advocate that we stay out, and just let the sects "have at it" like the Christians did in the 16th Century. It's their land and their problems that we are not qualified to solve for them. Short-sighted cynics would even say that it's great for Sunni and Shia militants to kill each other (but what about the innocents?). Maybe all this is a normal progression of major religions, and eventually they will mature into relatively peaceful coexistence.

Personally, I don't think that is feasible given America's tradition of global leadership and official stance on human rights (plus other nations' expectations of our leadership). Unfortunately there is no better alternative to broker a deal (Iran, Saudi, EU, China, Russia). However, the Syrian civil war is in its 4th year with over 200K dead and not much "concern" by western powers - which has caused us to lose more cred on the Arab Street. If we intervene in the region, it is going to be costly for us. But we should act when the long-term costs of inaction are worse (economic, reputation, safety of our local allies, etc.). The problem is it's really hard to estimate the costs of inaction. Maybe that is for the best, because once we commit, it can't be undone - as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ideally, if we can somehow cut off support from rich Gulf Sunnis, Iran, and the inflow of foreign fighters, the Syria-Iraq conflicts may naturally simmer down without us having to put boots on the ground. If we can use our military resources to keep humanitarian corridors open, aid reaching the needy, and massacre prevention - it could buy some time for reasonable leaders to make a deal. But all of this is pie-in-the-sky and fraught with risks too.

You probably noticed that I said nothing about leadership change and nation building. We can't do that stuff competently so we shouldn't even try.

The psychology and sociology of gun rights

I was reading a short exchange on gun rights on FB (yes, with a kid now that is my only connection to the outside world LOL). I don't remember all the details, and either I or FB (or both) are too stupid to have comment searchability, but my thoughts were:

Gun rights proponents often fail to consider how other parties are impacted by their stance. Yes, I suppose it is important that they feel that their rights to have the option to commit violence (in a patriotic, lawful manner of course) are not infringed, but does that supersede the rights of others to feel safe, or even to live? And what about all the extra costs imposed on society to try to safely manage gun ownership/use? Maybe pro-gun folks would say that any regulation is unnecessary then - so would they be OK with their neighbors owning artillery and doing target practice in the church parking lot? In a society where none of us is king, we make rights tradeoffs all the time. We have the right to be offensive jerks in most situations, but we don't, often because of the self-serving (and totally valid) reason that it is not prudent. Unless you are a guy like Rush who gets rich by being a jerk.

We practice self-restraint and self-censorship when it serves our interests, so why can't we do the same when it serves the greater social good? First of all, we're selfish. And that is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if you decide to be good and a team player, you may get taken advantage of and end up worse off than if you continued to be bad, because everyone else is being bad. Of course gov't incentives and regulations could resolve the dilemma fairly easily, but the 2nd Amend., NRA, and such make that nearly impossible.

So who has the right to the option of violence in society? I remember in a previous email thread, J said something like in orderly societies, the state has a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you have Mad Max if citizens are permitted to resolve disputes and settle scores with weapons. We surrender some of our individualism and freedom to be part of society, because society confers some benefits and advantages that we couldn't get on our own. It's a good deal for many of us. Sometime we don't have a choice; if we want to be a recluse in the woods, I think we still have to file tax returns or the Feds may come after us. Maybe that is a violation of our individual freedoms, but as far as I know, no human has ever lived with absolute freedom (especially while having a family!). Even the cave men were restrained by the elements, hunger, and predators. Even Adam and Eve couldn't eat the apple. So this bizarre conservative fixation on absolute liberty as an attainable goal is puzzling to me, especially since many of them have a fairly negative view on human nature. Even the hardcore Marxists set limits on their grand plans to collectivize everything.

I know I am wading into philosophical territory where I am not knowledgeable enough to make much sense, but I hope you get my drift. Looping back on the "monopoly on violence" issue, obviously the risk is: what would happen to the poor citizenry if the gov't decides to abuse its monopoly and subjugate us? Well isn't that the whole point of political engagement and civic responsibility? Our gov't is of/by/for the people, so if we notice that it is descending toward tyranny, we take peaceful, proactive, corrective action. Relying on guns as a check on gov't abuse is like relying on surgery in medicine. Sure it may accomplish the goal, but there are plenty of less extreme, less risky alternatives that you can employ to fix the problem before ever needing to resort to the nuclear option. So gun patriots likely can do more good for their country and their loved ones by educating themselves, voting, and volunteering, instead of stockpiling more AR-15s and open-carrying them to Starbucks. But that is not glamorous enough I guess.

Obviously, the NRA and gun industry have pitched the "guns = freedom and defense of liberty" narrative pretty well, and plenty of politicians are echoing it. Now all of a sudden you are Capt. America if you buy a Glock (an Austrian product by the way). It's pretty intoxicating. Why go through the effort of doing all the boring, thankless work of being a good person/citizen when you can just arm yourself, and voila? It's like the choice between the unending discipline of healthy dieting and exercise vs. the one-off liposuction and surgery to look good. If you have the money, why not take the easier shortcut? It relates to the whole freedom argument - being good all the time is hard work; it cramps your style. I am not sure if this reflects the schizophrenia or genius of our system, but in order to ensure liberty and freedom for all, we have to sacrifice our freedom to diligently maintain it. Guns give us a lazy opt-out.

There is the whole potency and self esteem angle too. Somewhat related to the Rodger UCSB case, many men (and gun culture is overwhelmingly white male) probably feel emasculated and minimized by society at times (try being a woman, or an underprivileged minority then). That is partly due to unrealistic and frankly juvenile expectations. Nearly omnipresent messaging has told us that we are supposed to be "the man" with all the wealth, power, women, etc. We're supposed to be winners who get our way every time. Obviously that can't happen unless everyone's interests are aligned, and then we are back to Marxist territory. And a society of all alpha males is a scary thought to me (that is called frat row at USC).

It's frustrating and hard on the ego to compromise, feel disappointment, and get crapped on by others. So again, instead of doing the hard work of self-improvement, setting reasonable limits/goals, and strategic decision making so that we can feel happier and more successful, we lazily stay the course and blame everyone else instead if we're not living the perfect dream life. We buy a gun because the marketing tells us we'll be more of a man with it. And tragically, some of us may turn to that gun when things don't go our way, or we use it as a shortcut to get what we want unlawfully (or lawfully if you are in a Stand-Your-Ground state). That is one reason why guns are so dangerous - they channel all our internal insecurities, angst, and flaws into physical harm. Men just need Fight Club instead? But maybe that is why guns are so alluring too. They give some people an outlet to release all their baggage and demons to the world, and damn the consequences. Again, juvenile selfish thinking. Guns enable people, in their deepest moments of fearful desperation, to think they can employ violence to take back the power that society has unfairly deprived them.

So what is the remedy? Sadly, enough data suggests that more killings won't change our ways/laws, even if it worked in Australia and parts of Europe. We can't expect lawmakers and bureaucrats will solve the Prisoner's Dilemma for us. Unfortunately it has to start with each of us. We have to visibly commit to the hard work of being a peaceful, well-adjusted, engaged citizen (amidst all the dysfunctional messaging that continually tempts us to do otherwise). Noblesse oblige: we have to be happy and proud to give up some freedoms so that we can all have more freedom and liberty (same thing applies to the climate change and economic inequality issues, among others). That is why I personally do not think mental health is the main driving force behind America's gun violence epidemic. Most murders are fairly rational, which is the problem. We have to change people's values and mental calculus so that guns and violence are not the rational option. Of course changing minds is hard, but it can be done (racism, smoking, gay rights, etc.). Every revolution started with one person.

------

Jon Stewart on the intersection of Open Carry and Stand Your Ground (a.k.a. Perpetual Violence Machine):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/jon-stewart-open-carry_n_5457760.html

"You guys are idiots there are kids in here." - Chili's patron

Amazingly, some gun nuts are scary enough to even bully the NRA into submission! The Texas Open Carry club was first criticized by the NRA for drawing unnecessary, negative, risky attention to themselves and the gun rights issue (all true). But after an angry response from parts of the "gun base", they issued new statements supporting the right to Open Carry.

Some good links

A visit to the Bush Museum: http://www.vice.com/read/the-george-w-bush-museum-is-just-as-infuriating-as-you-think-it-is?utm_source=vicefbus

A pretty impressive study about reparations for blacks, highlighting the pernicious effects of housing inequality on top of the more familiar US racist policies: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Plenty of GOP lawmakers urged the White House to get Bergdahl back at any cost before recently changing their minds: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html

A former Bush admin. security adviser: "Sometime in the next couple of years, whether it's in the beginning of 2015 or shortly thereafter, this conflict in Afghanistan is winding down, and we would be required, at least under the traditional laws of war, to return people that we've detained in that conflict," he said. "So it seems in this case, we've gotten -- we traded them for reasonable deal here."

"What we left behind" when we pulled out of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307980657/exploring-what-we-left-behind-in-iraq
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we did.

The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power, Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000 civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was 2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.

There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix, the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to offshore personal accounts.

So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead, decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted, and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.

As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable - after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian handlers were against it too.

-----

since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been pretty stable.  They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.  As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but free speech was not tolerated at all.  Now the social freedoms are minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.  Political dissent is not discouraged.  There is a high literacy rate.  I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an american puppet government.

Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for anyone.  How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us?  Do you really think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there?  The only thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and building materials.  They're an educated population.  They can rebuild and choose their own government.  

American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest and nothing else.  We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its people.  I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or uppity. 

------

Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi) currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too. Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (green revolution). And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly 72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.

I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us "in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control. Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us) to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.

Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago, and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a hornet's nest of problems and corruption.