Skip to main content

Lest we forget to notice the consequences of American interventionism

A few tidbits:

Gang-style execution is now the leading cause of death in the Iraq we've reconstructed.

Afghanis have so grasped the concept of American-style democracy that mobs of them are lining up to stone women protesting the recently passed law requiring Shi'a women to submit to sex every four nights and have permission to leave the house.

In Pakistan the Taliban are now operating freely within less than sixty miles of Islamabad, the nation's capital.

Meanwhile, reacting to stories that Islamabad is turning over more and more control of the countryside to the SWAT Taliban, the Obama administration opined,

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the Obama administration believed that “solutions involving security in Pakistan don’t include less democracy and less human rights.”


... but apparently has no intention of connecting US aid--either military or civilian--to concrete performance on these issues in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The result of all this?

With so much long-term success from US interventionism abroad (measured however you like: death rates, living conditions, freedom, geo-political stability), it is somehow not surprising to find Senator Russ Feingold and others arguing that President Obama should follow up the dramatic success of our SEALs against the Somali pirates with ... more US interventionism:

WASHINGTON — President Obama basked in the success Monday of the naval operation that freed an American hostage from Somali pirates, and a key senator and several regional experts urged his administration to tackle piracy's root causes by helping Somalia's weak government gain control of its territory.

"A modest amount of assistance from the world community could do a great deal to help stabilize this government," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a leading voice in Congress on Africa. Feingold sent Obama a letter Monday urging him to call Somalia's president and commit to helping establish security.


Just so you know: it's not like Bushco wasn't already pouring money into that pit:

During the past two years, the U.S. has provided Somalia more than $350 million in humanitarian aid and $25 million to build courthouses, and give jobs to teenagers, according to government records.


That's about 7% of the Somali GDP.

And it's important to note that so far--so far--President Obama, SecDef Gates, and Admiral Mullen all have it right: the issue around the Horn of Africa is eliminating piracy, not rebuilding Somalia:

Obama said that he was resolved to halting the rise of piracy off the Horn of Africa. "We're going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, we have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise, and we have to ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes," he said.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ordered a review of options to address piracy, said his spokesman, Navy Capt. John Kirby.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said piracy will be a top priority. "I think we're going to end up spending a fair amount of time on this in the administration, seeing if there is a way to try and mitigate this problem of piracy," Gates said at the Marine Corps War College in Virginia.


It does not take nation-building in Somalia to end piracy in the region; it takes a multi-national naval presence to keep the shipping lanes open, and perhaps--finally--the common-sense realization that merchant vessels in dangerous seas should be allowed to be armed.

I only hope that President Obama will continue to keep at least this aspect of foreign policy limited to what we need to do rather than what it might be nice to do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...