30 December 2014
Honoring Wounded Warriors
Brave men and women. All of them. Wasn’t it a waste to have paid them to risk their lives in a futile attempt to bring liberal democracy to the ersatz nation state of Iraq? More than that, it was probably a sin.
Created by the victors of WW1 out of remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire as a reward to an Arab prince, Iraq has never had a genuine raison d’etre. Surely, it was not a good candidate for adoption of a European style of government. And yet, skilled manipulators of public sentiment were able to convince public policy-makers in the U.S. and the United Nations that removal of a ruthless dictator from power would lead to enlightened reordering of a hodgepodge society of ethnicities that couldn’t be kept peaceful in the absence of a forceful police state.
We in the U.S. took advantage of the readiness (if not economic desperation) of our all-volunteer armed forces to upset an autocrat. The world might be a better place without him, but no advance regard was given to the unfortunate consequences, including unleashed religious unrest and, most touchingly, physical and psychological war casualties.
Now indeed we owe a great debt to those who paid with their lives and livelihoods for our failure to avoid a senseless military adventure. After all, our country had sustained a painful attack on 9/11 and we felt we just had to do something about it. But the obligation which we must fulfill is not thanks for undertaking our battle for freedom; it is rather begging absolution of our guilt for stupidly spending our wealth and blood on a misguided war effort.
Of course, we should already have paid for the disabilities caused by this mistake, particularly if the scandalous Veterans Administration screw-up is resolved. Our guilt for so sheepishly allowing our government to lead us into war cannot be expiated with money to causes like the Wounded Warriors Project. It will only be escaped when we collectively insist on more clear-eyed public policy.
Created by the victors of WW1 out of remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire as a reward to an Arab prince, Iraq has never had a genuine raison d’etre. Surely, it was not a good candidate for adoption of a European style of government. And yet, skilled manipulators of public sentiment were able to convince public policy-makers in the U.S. and the United Nations that removal of a ruthless dictator from power would lead to enlightened reordering of a hodgepodge society of ethnicities that couldn’t be kept peaceful in the absence of a forceful police state.
We in the U.S. took advantage of the readiness (if not economic desperation) of our all-volunteer armed forces to upset an autocrat. The world might be a better place without him, but no advance regard was given to the unfortunate consequences, including unleashed religious unrest and, most touchingly, physical and psychological war casualties.
Now indeed we owe a great debt to those who paid with their lives and livelihoods for our failure to avoid a senseless military adventure. After all, our country had sustained a painful attack on 9/11 and we felt we just had to do something about it. But the obligation which we must fulfill is not thanks for undertaking our battle for freedom; it is rather begging absolution of our guilt for stupidly spending our wealth and blood on a misguided war effort.
Of course, we should already have paid for the disabilities caused by this mistake, particularly if the scandalous Veterans Administration screw-up is resolved. Our guilt for so sheepishly allowing our government to lead us into war cannot be expiated with money to causes like the Wounded Warriors Project. It will only be escaped when we collectively insist on more clear-eyed public policy.
23 September 2014
World Nuclear Self-Destruction Is One Risk That Can Simply Be Averted
The news article by William Broad and David Sanger in the September 22, 2014 NYT, “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms,” shows how inexhaustible is the fantasy that we need everlasting one-upmanship when it comes to weapons-building in anticipation of threats to national security. Eleanor Roosevelt got it right seventy years ago at the dawn of the atomic age that things would never be the same now that this new method of mass destruction had been used (cf. Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts shown the previous week on PBS). Perhaps she was under an illusion to think that the world’s self-immolation was never inevitable anyway.
Whether as a result of radioactive fallout, global warming, environmental pollution, overpopulation, stateless terrorism, or another consequence of the human condition, life on Earth will surely not continue as long as the planet itself is allowed to survive by the physical laws of the universe. The best we can do is to extend our reign on its surface for as long as possible. Ending the danger of blowing it up with the products of our ingenuity is probably the simplest, least costly and most immediate measure we can take to eradicate one of those threats to our existence. How can we justify enhancing the deadliness of our nuclear arsenal when the use of even our current inefficient one will undeniably make all else irrelevant?
24 August 2014
Should a Struggling President Help a Brutal Dictator Reestablish Order?
A genuine test of President Obama’s commitment to act in America’s long-term self-interest is whether to help an allegedly brutal dictator (or his regime, whether or not he is in control of it) to defeat a terrorist group because it challenges both that regime’s hegemony in its own country and the freedom of U.S. citizens to exercise the rights guaranteed by their government’s Constitution. A case in point is the barbarous execution of the journalist, James Foley, by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which had held him captive for the previous nearly two years.
In fact, it is only since the U.S. has become the world’s single most powerful state that its citizens have come to believe that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that its Constitution guarantees against actions by the American government are guaranteed by the Constitution to be enforced by their government across the globe. This is particularly problematic when it comes to practitioners of professions such as journalism, who often assume dangerous risks in the performance of their tasks.
A world at peace and maintained in order is definitely in the long-term interest of the American (and all other) people. The inability of a brutal dictator, like Bashar Al Assad, to establish that order in Syria, his own country, threatens not only his own subjects but also the freedom of Americans and others to travel to that country for whatever peaceful reason, including reporting on civil war there. Helping an incompetent ruler to establish that order, at least by eliminating a ruthless element from the opposition to his established central government, may override America’s interest in seeing that any foreign government does not brutally rule or violate the human rights of its own residents.
Choosing to take such a step and crafting a reasonable strategy to do it, in terms of its objectives and costs, both human and material, is the duty of America’s leader. It is also his duty to conform to the statutory requirements for consultation with and approval of Congress in implementing that policy. These are only a few of the challenges that Barack Obama and his administration face in the closing years of his Presidency. Dealing with this one successfully or not could be emblematic of Mr. Obama’s ability to perform the tasks assigned to him with such hope by the American electorate twice over the last six years.
In fact, it is only since the U.S. has become the world’s single most powerful state that its citizens have come to believe that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that its Constitution guarantees against actions by the American government are guaranteed by the Constitution to be enforced by their government across the globe. This is particularly problematic when it comes to practitioners of professions such as journalism, who often assume dangerous risks in the performance of their tasks.
A world at peace and maintained in order is definitely in the long-term interest of the American (and all other) people. The inability of a brutal dictator, like Bashar Al Assad, to establish that order in Syria, his own country, threatens not only his own subjects but also the freedom of Americans and others to travel to that country for whatever peaceful reason, including reporting on civil war there. Helping an incompetent ruler to establish that order, at least by eliminating a ruthless element from the opposition to his established central government, may override America’s interest in seeing that any foreign government does not brutally rule or violate the human rights of its own residents.
Choosing to take such a step and crafting a reasonable strategy to do it, in terms of its objectives and costs, both human and material, is the duty of America’s leader. It is also his duty to conform to the statutory requirements for consultation with and approval of Congress in implementing that policy. These are only a few of the challenges that Barack Obama and his administration face in the closing years of his Presidency. Dealing with this one successfully or not could be emblematic of Mr. Obama’s ability to perform the tasks assigned to him with such hope by the American electorate twice over the last six years.
17 March 2014
The Point of ObamaCare
The Point of ObamaCare
Instead of Affordable Care Act, the law that set up ObamaCare ought to have been named More Affordable Care Act. By the ACA’s definition the cancelled privately offered plans that supposedly force people to resort to ACA exchanges, after all, are worse than the exchange-offered plans, with their exception for preexisting conditions, their referral requirements, etc.
Was the point of ObamaCare the destruction of insurance companies? Oh, come on! Insurance companies will figure out a way to make money under the new rules—otherwise they don’t deserve to be in business. They’re smart. It’s only politicians who believe the voting public is dumb enough not to know that.
If you want a voluntary insurance market, there will be costs involved. Health care is an area that justifies a single-payer model. Everyone needs medical attention sooner or later—there will be no choice in the matter. Universal health care is a human right and it is up to health care providers to satisfy that need first, and to provide high-quality care if and when they can. But the absence of high-quality care does not result in “poor-quality” care.
Instead of Affordable Care Act, the law that set up ObamaCare ought to have been named More Affordable Care Act. By the ACA’s definition the cancelled privately offered plans that supposedly force people to resort to ACA exchanges, after all, are worse than the exchange-offered plans, with their exception for preexisting conditions, their referral requirements, etc.
Was the point of ObamaCare the destruction of insurance companies? Oh, come on! Insurance companies will figure out a way to make money under the new rules—otherwise they don’t deserve to be in business. They’re smart. It’s only politicians who believe the voting public is dumb enough not to know that.
If you want a voluntary insurance market, there will be costs involved. Health care is an area that justifies a single-payer model. Everyone needs medical attention sooner or later—there will be no choice in the matter. Universal health care is a human right and it is up to health care providers to satisfy that need first, and to provide high-quality care if and when they can. But the absence of high-quality care does not result in “poor-quality” care.
24 February 2014
Who’s At Fault for Climate Change? It Doesn’t Matter.
There are many ways that the world’s richest communities can react to even the observed (as opposed to the modelled) warming of our global climate. We can diminish our habits that pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can invest in finding less harmful substitutes for those technologies. We can learn to live with the consequences.
But refraining from restricting the consumption of fossil fuels by the world’s poorest countries because it deprives them of the benefit of hydrocarbon-fueled economic growth is a red herring. As we in advanced economies increasingly rely on alternative energy sources which cause less environmental damage, we can make them affordable for the nations that need them to spur their development.
It’s all a matter of cost. Regardless whether climate change is man-made, cyclical, or caused by factors we don’t yet understand, it will be expensive to deal with if we want to preserve an ever-improving future. The piper has to be paid so we can keep dancing.
There are many ways that the world’s richest communities can react to even the observed (as opposed to the modelled) warming of our global climate. We can diminish our habits that pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can invest in finding less harmful substitutes for those technologies. We can learn to live with the consequences.
But refraining from restricting the consumption of fossil fuels by the world’s poorest countries because it deprives them of the benefit of hydrocarbon-fueled economic growth is a red herring. As we in advanced economies increasingly rely on alternative energy sources which cause less environmental damage, we can make them affordable for the nations that need them to spur their development.
It’s all a matter of cost. Regardless whether climate change is man-made, cyclical, or caused by factors we don’t yet understand, it will be expensive to deal with if we want to preserve an ever-improving future. The piper has to be paid so we can keep dancing.
07 February 2014
Apres Moi Le Deluge
Apres Moi Le Deluge
Like Louis XV, Saddam Hussein and the George W. Bush Administration knew
that without their respective costly repressions of dissent and
sectarian strife, French and Iraqi societies would descend into chaos.
But that doesn't mean that violent suppression is justified.
Stephen J. Hadley was wrong to imply in the January 31, 2014, WSJ, that
the credibility of the U.S. and U.N. depends on their instilling fear
that they will intervene militarily when they believe their interests
are threatened (even in an ersatz nation created by a deluded colonial
power following WWI). A slower, more painstaking process of
community-building would be longer-lasting. Perhaps the disassembly of
Yugoslavia in the nineties can serve as a model for bringing peace to
this troubled region of the world.
Like Louis XV, Saddam Hussein and the George W. Bush Administration knew
that without their respective costly repressions of dissent and
sectarian strife, French and Iraqi societies would descend into chaos.
But that doesn't mean that violent suppression is justified.
Stephen J. Hadley was wrong to imply in the January 31, 2014, WSJ, that
the credibility of the U.S. and U.N. depends on their instilling fear
that they will intervene militarily when they believe their interests
are threatened (even in an ersatz nation created by a deluded colonial
power following WWI). A slower, more painstaking process of
community-building would be longer-lasting. Perhaps the disassembly of
Yugoslavia in the nineties can serve as a model for bringing peace to
this troubled region of the world.
06 December 2013
ObamaCare's Promises
Tevi Troy’s article in the 12.01.13 Commentary, “The Three Failed Promises of ObamaCare,” is an enlightened discussion of the issues that bedevil ObamaCare, but its objective of measuring the efficacy of the law against its stated goals is only an evaluation of its marketing strategy (admittedly wrong), not of its efficacy, which I believe will prove satisfactory. As attributed to Liberals by the author, they are embarrassed that we’ve waited this long to make the effort to make basic healthcare available to everyone in our rich society. However, the three points Mr. Troy makes require the following comments:
1) First, Mr. Troy’s point that ObamaCare did not anticipate the Great Recession is well-taken. Inevitably, that made it all the more likely that some employed people would lose their current health coverage
2) The $2500 reduction in the cost of healthcare predicted by Obama is not simply Washington Speak, but an unspoken reduction from what all the benefits of the new program would have cost if the law had not been adopted. Of course, universal healthcare costs more than care for the health only of those who can afford it. Moreover, ObamaCare cannot be blamed for the American tendency to spend more on healthcare that derives from the belief that “we deserve it” or simply because a new therapy has been developed.
3) It was a gaff to say that you could keep your old healthcare plan if you liked it—that plan had to stay In existence for that assurance to be valid. Moreover, ObamaCare makes the common, and faulty, assumption that healthcare has a flat-line objective. It really strives to achieve continually more perfect states of physical (and mental) well-being as new discoveries in pharmacology and medical procedures are made—at increasing expense.
The differences between Liberals and Conservatives will unavoidably result in clashing takes on ObamaCare. Its implementation will certainly result in less choice and wealth for everyone, but also in a better general state of health.
Tevi Troy’s article in the 12.01.13 Commentary, “The Three Failed Promises of ObamaCare,” is an enlightened discussion of the issues that bedevil ObamaCare, but its objective of measuring the efficacy of the law against its stated goals is only an evaluation of its marketing strategy (admittedly wrong), not of its efficacy, which I believe will prove satisfactory. As attributed to Liberals by the author, they are embarrassed that we’ve waited this long to make the effort to make basic healthcare available to everyone in our rich society. However, the three points Mr. Troy makes require the following comments:
1) First, Mr. Troy’s point that ObamaCare did not anticipate the Great Recession is well-taken. Inevitably, that made it all the more likely that some employed people would lose their current health coverage
2) The $2500 reduction in the cost of healthcare predicted by Obama is not simply Washington Speak, but an unspoken reduction from what all the benefits of the new program would have cost if the law had not been adopted. Of course, universal healthcare costs more than care for the health only of those who can afford it. Moreover, ObamaCare cannot be blamed for the American tendency to spend more on healthcare that derives from the belief that “we deserve it” or simply because a new therapy has been developed.
3) It was a gaff to say that you could keep your old healthcare plan if you liked it—that plan had to stay In existence for that assurance to be valid. Moreover, ObamaCare makes the common, and faulty, assumption that healthcare has a flat-line objective. It really strives to achieve continually more perfect states of physical (and mental) well-being as new discoveries in pharmacology and medical procedures are made—at increasing expense.
The differences between Liberals and Conservatives will unavoidably result in clashing takes on ObamaCare. Its implementation will certainly result in less choice and wealth for everyone, but also in a better general state of health.
