"It's for the Children" and Other Excuses for War-Making

I've long been a critic of humanitarian interventions:

These should not be confused with "humanitarian operations." Humanitarian operations

Refugee boat capsizing after escaping a the consequences of a humanitarian intervention

are approved by countries affected by some disaster or another, such as the aid rendered to the victims of the tsunami of December 2004 or other efforts to assist areas impacted by storms or earthquakes. In such cases, military forces may end up working with non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross or transnational entities like the UN and its disaster contractors. In such cases, the role of the military is usually logistical support.

By contrast, in a "humanitarian intervention" armed force is used directly to intervene in a sovereign nation's affairs even against the will of the sovereign of the invaded or attacked nation.

So it was with a great deal of interest I read David Bromwich's "The Roots of Hillary's Infatuation with War" in which he discusses the alter ego of "humanitarian intervention" - "smart power":

Smart power is supposed to widen the prospects of liberal society and assist the spread of human rights. Yet the term itself creates a puzzle. Hillary Clinton’s successful advocacy of violent regime change in Libya and her continuing call to support armed insurgents against the Assad government in Syria have been arguments for war, but arguments that claim a special exemption. For these wars—both the one we led and the one we should have led—were “humanitarian wars.” This last phrase Clinton has avoided using, just as she has avoided explaining her commitment to the internationalist program known as “Responsibility to Protect,” with its broad definition of genocide and multiple triggers for legitimate intervention. Instead, in a Democratic primary debate in October 2015, she chose to characterize the Libya war as “smart power at its best.”

Understanding the impulse to "protect" (couched as a "responsibility to protect") is important in examining political candidates for high office.

Not just in terms of the presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate who is the topic of Dr. Bromwich's piece, but also in thinking about how we get into messy situations abroad - like Kosovo (still not at peace and hello ISIS, Somalia ("Blackhawk Down"), and Libya (hello, ISIS). If I recall correctly there were some "red line" warnings to Assad in Syria that sounded in humanitarian concerns.

In any event, Dr. Bromwich is right in asking at what level of humanitarian concern is intervention acceptable to a candidate? Would the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields of Cambodia now qualify? Rwanda? What about Mao's China and its "cultural revolution?" Stalin starving the Ukraine?

I think you get the drift - putting U.S. forces into combat in defense of the U.S. is one thing. Using our forces to deliver aid after a disaster is another. But is intervening in another country's affairs "for the children" - a mission we ought to undertake?

Indeed, as Dr. Bromwich writes, "An incorrigible belief in the purity of one’s motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess."

My mother always quoted, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

It's a dangerous path.

The Groucho Marx State of the Union: "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?"

What happens when the President of the United States and the people of the country don't share the same vision of the path forward?

Finger pointing and blame, I gather.

As I read about the State of the Union speech, I can see that this President still doesn't think we, the majority of the American people, his ultimate bosses, "get it."

We've seen this before when he has blamed our reluctance to follow his path to his perceived socialist-lite heaven on a failure to properly communicate his message - his vision of where the U.S. ought to be.

Robert W. Merry at The National Interest in Obama’s Lecture Against Americans' Concerns writes:

But ultimately he blamed the American people for whatever concerns and fears they’re feeling. A president can only do so much, he said, without the people pulling their weight. Looking into the camera to the folks at home, he said, “It depends on you.” The grand vision he outlined “will only happen when the American people demand it.” By way of bringing the point home, he added that our form of government “is hard; it’s a lot easier to be cynical.”

What happens when the people don't support the President's vision? They elect members of the opposition to office in Congress in hopes of controlling the direction of country. As they did in the last election.

 If you are frustrated, you might well ponder that. Sure, it might be a failure of messaging, but it seems to me to be more likely that they are rejecting your desired path, over and over again. In short, the majority of the American people do not "demand" your vision but rather reject it. Reality keeps the majority grounded - they can see what is happening and they are not happy.

It doesn't help that the efforts to spin the achievements of your administration is so obvious that we are left with that Groucho Marx quote in the header to this post - a President asking "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?"

State of the Union Speech? No, thanks, I've got far better things to do with my time.

Real Kabuki Theater

Once again the current occupant of the White House will go before Congress to act out his final role in the political theater of the State of the Union address ("SOTU").

Count me among those who will not be watching.

Not the SOTU and especially not the inevitable gushing commentary that usually follows one of these things, except perhaps on Fox. Instead of political analysts it would serve us all better if the "reporters" and "political commentators" covering these things were replaced by drama critics.

Perhaps they already have been . . .

In recent years I have also abandoned watching things that have turned into political theater - awards shows, for example, in which "daring" people who get paid vast sums of money to pretend to be other people make "statements" most of which reflect a certain level of unreality that seems to have bled over from their acting roles.

I will probably read about the SOTU tomorrow.

Someone else will count applause interruptions and other things I don't care about. After all, the SOTU presentation has the nearly same level of reality as "The Bachelor."

Will there be more verbal assaults on the Supreme Court? Will the Court members attend again after their previous experience with this President? If so, what would motivate them to sit through a session in which response to his bullying is not allowed? If I were one of them, I'd stay home. Only a bully attacks people who are not in a position to answer back, and the current White House resident, in between his many straw man attacks, is a master of this "safe" attack. He does not like an honest debate. Not one bit.

Of course, if I were a Justice, instead of staying home I'd probably be at the office writing decisions trying to undo the harm done by this administration. Even if that meant just ordering the Executive Branch to respond to FOIA requests.

I doubt he will draw more "red lines" against North Korea, Iran, China or salafism because of a bad case of "paper tiger-ism" (except against domestic foes against whom he can deploy the secret power of the administrative agencies).

As it is, I will be doing other things of more interest to me.

You can let me know tomorrow how it all went. I suspect something like "Blah, blah, blah" - but that might just be me. So, if it turns out to be greatest speech ever given, let me know and I'll catch it on reruns.

On the other hand, I would really like to see another headline like this:

But, no, that might require honest reportage.

Things I have been waiting for: "Obama sex assault comments 'unlawful command influence'"

A recognition that the Commander in Chief is stacking the deck against fair trials. From Stars and Stripes: Judge: Obama sex assault comments 'unlawful command influence':

Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.

President Obama needs to learn to show some speech discipline.

BZ to Commander Fulton for having the guts to issue such a ruling.

Undue command influence is pernicious and this president has shown a repeated failure to restrain himself from commenting on things best left to the judiciary. However, he seems to have a never-ending need to pander to various interest groups.