Obsidian Wings

Kerry's Foreign Policy

The only thing I care about in Kerry's Speech is foreign policy. I think that ought to be the key question in this election, and I think it is important enough to trump almost anything else. (I say almost to forstall the more outrageous but not relevant hypotheticals).

I'm not as discouraged by what I see in his speech as I might be, but I'm not particularly encouraged either.

I know what we have to do in Iraq. I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

This is generally pretty discouraging. The focus is all wrong. The goal in Iraq is not to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer and reduce the risk to American soldiers. Those are laudable side effects of the goal, but they are not the goal. The goal is something along the lines of: set up and aid a regime in Iraq which in the long run can set a good example for the region and help deal with the problem of Islamist terrorism (through a large variety of different means.)

Also, the tepid response of our allies in the allegedly clear case of Afghanistan (including repeated and successful French obstruction in posting more NATO troops in Afghanistan) suggests that such allies are very unlikely to do much in the much less clear case of Iraq.

The last line I quoted is a bit odd. I agree with the sentiment that we need to get the terrorists before they get us, and that alliances will help that IF AVAILABLE. Maybe I'm parsing too closely, because it sounds like an IF/THEN statement which suggests that we can't get around to 'getting the terrorists before they get us' until we spend a lot of time rebuilding alliances.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct antiterrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.

I'm heartened by the 'more troops' and end the 'stop-loss'. I'm not encouraged by the "not in Iraq" phrase. When combined with the "get the job done and bring our troops home" phrase a bit further above, it gives the impression that we should be leaving Iraq soon. That is a very dangerous position. Believing that we should never have gone to Iraq is one thing. Believing that it all should have been handled differently is ok too. But believing that we can pull out now or any time in the near future is a totally different thing.

A good opposition can argue that Bush ought never have put us in this position. But we are in fact there. We cannot now leave Iraq to chaos--and that is exactly what would happen if we pulled out any time in the near term (and by that I mean 5-10 years minimum). So either Kerry is unrealistic about bringing the troops home, or he is unrealistic about the consequences of bringing them home.

In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.

We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to, not just feared.

We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation, to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.

We need a strong military. And we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

I like this rhetoric. It is absolutely correct. But when paired with the above quotes it creates a worrisome impression. I worry that he is confusing ends and means. Strong alliances are a great means to do something if they are available. They are a silly ends, and if they are not available you often must act anyway.

It is a question of balance. I will freely admit that in my estimation Bush has not been able to strike an ideal diplomatic balance between the utility of drawing support and the need to go alone if the support isn't forthcoming. But Kerry's history suggests that he strikes the balance too far in the other direction. He seems very unwilling to go it alone, so despite rhetoric to the contrary, it seems possible that the US could fall prey to UN vetos of vital action under Kerry. This worry is strengthened by Kerry's seemingly unrealistic expectations about how forthcoming European support would be under his administration and how much support could be available even if Europe were interested. Europe wasn't too interested in enforcing inspections in 1998 under Clinton. That forced Clinton to 'go it alone'. Does anyone think Kerry has more diplomatic skill than Clinton?

And the front lines of this battle are not just far away, they're right here on our shores. They're at our airports and potentially in any city or town. Today our national security begins with homeland security. The 9/11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans and the 9/11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate, I will immediately implement all the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting 95 percent of our container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.

And this is where I really worry. The problem is not that the ideas are bad. But the focus is awful. Nuclear and chemical plants cannot get enough protection. It isn't possible. We need to implement defensive measures, but we cannot rely on them. Defensive measures in reality are imperfect no matter how hard you try. The whole problem with terrorism is that in a free society (and possibly in any society) you can't construct a perfect defense, so whenever possible you have to catch or kill them before they attack.

I would feel a lot better about Kerry if that was his focus.

Brief stopping by...

My girlfriend is back from her weeklong engineering conference at San Jose, CA; regularly scheduled blogging will resume... later. In the meantime, everyone play nice and only call each other names in a fashion designed to reinforce group-bonding rituals, or to advance the plot, or both.

Or you could talk about this, which sounds like a damn ood precaution to take.

The Apocalypse is coming.

Bush just taped an appearance on Dr. Phil. (Via K-Lo of the Corner.)

This is your weekend open thread (looks like the others are getting a bit crowded).

Pointy Sticks and Vampires

It seems to me that Stuart Buck has a point, and a good one at that.

As evidence that he approaches matters of war in a more "nuanced" fashion than Bush, John Kerry noted that "[s]aying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so." True! says Buck:

For example, Saddam didn't have WMDs merely because John Kerry said this in March 2003 on NPR:

Senator JOHN KERRY (Presidential Candidate): I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.

Nor did Saddam have WMDs because Kerry said so in February 2003 (quoted in USA Today):

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts chides the administration for waiting too long to make the case for invasion and do "the hard diplomatic work" of enlisting allies. But he says leaving Saddam Hussein "unfettered with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable."

Stuart has much, much more, of course.

Open Kerry Acceptance Speech Thread

Seeing as I'm the only person up, apparently.

Moe

PS: My own take? (Shrug) Well, it wasn't as if anybody really expected him to make a speech designed to convince people like me, anyway.

Bermuda Triangles

When I first heard it, I dismissed as fantasy TNR's and Josh Marshall's breathless report of a secret "deal" between the Bush Administration and Pakistan to capture a high-level al Queda operative during the Democratic convention. If it was a fantasy, though, what to make of this?

Off By 20 Years

Saw "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" the other night. Tackling the whoredom that passes as mainstream media these days, Director Robert Kane Pappas assembles an impressive cast of media experts (including a priceless 1980 interview with Peter Mitchelmore, the New York Post's former editor, on his way out...to say he was candid is a gross understatement).

The most convincing indictments of the media came from Charles Lewis, the former 60 Minutes producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity. When he outlines how the mainstream media runs with personal/petty political scandals they uncover, but don't even bother with the corporate scandals, you really start to get a sense of the bread-and-circus diet they're offering.

The film also walks you through the selling of a few political agendas, showing just how Orwellian our spinmeisters have become. One that really stood out for me, because I had been suckered by the rhetoric too, was the "Death Tax" Bush worked to repeal. Now, I don't want to debate that particular effort here, that's been done to, er, death. What's interesting is the way it was sold.

Here's how it works:

1. First come up with an Orwellian name. Call it something your opponents would sound stupid supporting. Something evil-sounding if you can get away with it. (Or something nice sounding if it's actually an evil idea)
   
2. Then make it sound like it's everyone's problem/solution. This is done by oversimplifying the rationale and omitting the details of who will be affected.
   
3. Then repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.
   
4. Finally, the masses buy your salepitch.

Example:
In the film, Independent Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders tells the story of a constituent who confronted him in the street after he voted against the repeal of the Estate Tax (its real name, if you were unaware). The constituent was all upset because he had worked very hard to put aside $20,000 to leave to his heirs and he didn't understand why Bernie would want to give the government any of that.

And, again, without initiating a debate on the tax, let me explain for context that I didn't pay much attention to the Estate Tax debate, but I thought I had some clue. Still I was surprised to learn that this man's $20,000 is totally safe, 100% untouched, by the Estate Tax. He was all upset over something that would not affect him. In fact, unless you're worth more than $7 million, the Estate Tax does not affect you. Who knew? And why didn't we know? Why didn't President Bush mention this fact when he argued for the repeal? More importantly, why didn't the Media make a bigger deal out of the fact? Perhaps they did and I missed it. I didn't miss the President's message though. I heard it again and again and again. Me and this Vermonter bought the salespitch.

It's still arguable whether the media is complicit in this, but why they would be is made rather clear in the film. The central argument of the film is the media is sucking up to those in power so they'll deregulate the laws preventing them from gobbling up every outlet in sight. Michael Powell comes off as a real villian in this movie and I'm not at all sure he doesn't deserve to:

“I have no idea who is celebrating our decision [deregulation of media concentration rules].”

Doesn't sound like he's uniquely qualified for his job now, does it? Then again, perhaps Michael gets his deregulation news from the same source I got mine about the Estate Tax.

Law Blogging

Taking brief relief from my burdens, I came upon Professor Bainbridge's comments regarding a recent Ninth Circuit decision:

The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a corporation can acquire a "racial identity" and therefore have standing to sue in its own name and right under federal civil rights laws on grounds that it was unlawfully discriminated against. This is, of course, just nuts.

The Ninth Circuit's approach reifies the corporation, In other words, the court treats the corporation as an entity — or, more precisely, as a person — separate from its various constituents. Yet, there is no such thing as a corporate person. The corporation is simply a legal fiction - albeit a very useful one - by which we describe a complex set of contracts having as their nexus a board of directors.

Hmm. Without delving too far into the law, the Ninth Circuit's decision does seem quite nuts -- though perhaps not for the reason that Bainbridge cites. In fact, the notion of that a corporate entity is a legal "person" greater than its constituent contracts is well-established in law. A recent Supreme Court case involving a claim against Don King for racketeering makes the point:

This Court does not quarrel with the basic principle that to establish liability under §1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a “person”; and (2) an “enterprise” that is not simply the same “person” referred to by a different name. Nonetheless, the Court disagrees with the appellate court’s application of that “distinctness” principle to the present circumstances, in which a corporate employee, acting within the scope of his authority, allegedly conducts the corporation’s affairs in a RICO-forbidden way. The corporate owner/employee [Here, Don King], a natural person, is distinct from the corporation itself [Don King's wholly-owned corporation], a legally different entity with different rights and responsibilities due to its different legal status. The Court can find nothing in RICO that requires more “separateness” than that. ... And, linguistically speaking, the employee and the corporation are different “persons,” even where the employee is the corporation’s sole owner. Incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legal entity distinct from those natural individuals who created the corporation, who own it, or whom it employs.

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King et al. (Syllabus).

Professor Bainbridge's model of the corporation -- a complex set of contracts having as their nexus a board of directors ownership -- seems very useful in describing how the various component parts of a corporation interrelate. But a corporation has always been held in the law to be something more than its constituent contractual relationships. It is the "sum of the parts is greater than the parts" view that the Ninth Circuit applied in its decision, and, in my view (and the Supreme's view) it was right to do so.

So, though it may be true that the Ninth Circuit's decision is nuts (I'll reserve judgment for the moment, but I was not favorably impressed in my brief perusal of the Ninth Circuit's opinion) -- it's probably not nuts for the reason Professor Bainbridge posits.

Oh, just admit it: lighter blogging for me.

Nothing earthshattering: I've got a creative deadline* looming, non-blogging creative work piling up - and to be honest most of my posts this week have been a bit of a stretch anyway. I'll no doubt be caught up by the weekend.

Moe

*Commemorative poem for my old SCA Barony. I was expecting it to be done by now. I was expecting it to be started by now.

Terrorists In Iraq

I'm not sure if anyone other than Michael Moore is confused about the nature of the Iraqi insurgents, but today's car bomb ought to dispell any remaining doubts about whether they are fundamentally 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists'.

A suicide car bomb exploded on a busy downtown boulevard in Baqouba on Wednesday, shredding a bus full of passengers and nearby shops and killing at least 68 people _ almost all Iraqi civilians _ in one of the deadliest single insurgent attacks since the U.S. invasion.

Dozens of burned bodies lay strewn across the street and piled on curbsides, and vehicles, fruit stalls and shops were turned into a bloody tangle of twisted metal after the blast, which targeted Iraqis lined up outside a police recruiting station.

This attack wasn't against the United States. This attack was against the people of Iraq. These terrorists don't want a free government in Iraq. These terrorists don't want a civil society in Iraq. They don't even pretend to attack the US anymore. They want to sow chaos so they reap tyranny.