Monday Open Thread

"Cherokee" - Cat Power

I send this one out to Elizabeth Warren.  She can play it at her victory party over that contemptible frat boy from my home state. 

- This was an excellent piece in the New York Times dealing with -- and pretty much dismantling -- the "end of men" thesis. 

- I generally like much of what Freddie DeBoer has to say, but there is an arrogance to his holier than thou, leftier than liberal, pacifism that can really grate.  I am not cavalier about the use of war as an instrument of policy.  But I think one has to be awfully naive to think that the use of violence is ever going to cease as an instrument of statescraft.  Empirical evidence would seem to strongly suggest otherwise.  And the fact of the matter is that most of us -- even good lefties who do not want to see the reflexive use of force -- are not pacifists.  The vast majority of us do not believe in non-violence in all circumstances, which is pretty much Freddie's credo as far as I can tell.  Thus, the notion that a bunch of centrist liberals, like TBogg or the folks at LG&M are somehow betraying our liberal ideology by not condemning Obama for drone strikes seems to me to be based on a mistaken premise.  Unlike Freddie, Conor Friedersdorf, Glenn Greenwald, and the rest of the purity brigade, I actually take al Qaeda seriously as a threat.  I don't get all hysterical about it, I don't think that we should turn the world upside down to combat them, but I am pretty comfortable with the notion of hunting these people down and killing them after the series of violent attacks that they have perpetrated on Americans -- as well as the series of botched attempts that they and their sympathizers have made.  Drones actually present the least bad option in terms of accomplishing this ends.  Now, one can argue -- as I am sure Freddie would -- that there is no justification for killing the AQ people and certainly no justification for killing those who may be innocent bystanders who are in the area with them.  I just can't think of any nation-state that has allowed itself to be so completely hamstrung in the area of defense.  

The American people expect President Obama to try to protect them, including using reasonable force against those who would do us harm.  Were Obama to declare that he was simply taking the use of force off the table with respect to AQ, the electoral consequences would be profound. 

We vote for a president regarding his/her position on a vast array of issues.  One can certainly decide that there are issues or an issue that is make or break from one's point of view.  If drone attacks are that issue then by all means, go ahead and vote that way -- although do so knowing that a third party vote or a non-vote is a vote for Romney in this case.  But don't expect the rest of us to think you're correct in this analysis and seriously, don't think it makes you a better lefty than the rest of us.  I've devoted my life to working for the labor movement, my wife has devoted hers to the protection of reproductive rights and women's health -- don't come into our house and tell us that whether Obama or Romney wins makes no difference, unless you want a black eye.  (And that's before I even get involved.)   

Finally, contrary to what Freddie suggests, we don't hate him and Greenwald and the Firebaggers -- and we certainly don't feel more aggrieved by them than we do the right wingers.  I think what you hear reflected in the work of someone like TBogg, who has much the same tone as I would generally adopt, is the incredible frustration, borne of age, at the folly of purism when we have seen this movie too.  Whether it be people voting for Anderson in 1980 or pulling the lever for Nader in 2000 or simply deciding that the differences between Gore and Bush or Obama and Romney weren't enough to worry about.  It seems to me that politics is a pragmatic and utilitarian process in addition to being a moral one.  The need for purity is going to consign you to a pretty narrow place in the spectrum of a very large and very complicated country, where the need to garner majority support necessarily requires some degree of compromise, some recognition that gradualism is the best we can typically hope for. 

It's life and life only.    

Chime in.  Feel free to tell me I'm wrong as well.

Comments

[oddjob]

I am pretty comfortable with the notion of hunting these people down and killing them after the series of violent attacks that they have perpetrated on Americans -- as well as the series of botched attempts that they and their sympathizers have made.

Not to go all pacifist on you (I'm not), but I can't help pointing out that if 1 of every 4 drone strikes hits an innocent human being then I think if you lived in Pakistan you probably wouldn't be comfortable with this.

Not remembering that and not being troubled by it has led more than once in our past to foreign policy decisions we've later regretted.

[oddjob]

("...not remembering that sort of unpleasant detail and not being troubled by it....")

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I don't think we can realistically say that there will be no civilian deaths in these types of operations. I certainly think this needs to be weighed in the mix and that such operations can be counterproductive (and immoral)if there is not some great care given to this calculus.

I would ultimately like the U.S. to really lower its military profile in the Muslim world. I suspect that Obama would like to do so as well. But I can't see him letting AQ have the run of the place given the threat to Americans.

I also think that if the Pakistani government wanted to protect its citizens, it could undertake actions against these terrorist strongholds. It deliberately chooses not to do so -- and as seen by their reaction to OBL's demise, it seems to be affirmatively opposed to such efforts.

Finally, when one looks at the deaths of innocent civilians in the Muslim world, the U.S. is at best a bit player under Obama. Every day in Syria is like the entirety of the drone program.

[oddjob]

I can't see him letting AQ have the run of the place given the threat to Americans.

Nor can I.

[oddjob]

There's a report out there that big money GOP donors are beginning to abandon Romney in favor of down ticket races.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

I don't get all hysterical about it, I don't think that we should turn the world upside down to combat them, but I am pretty comfortable with the notion of hunting these people down and killing them after the series of violent attacks that they have perpetrated on Americans

So why not drop bombs on New York or Denver in the hopes of catching an Al Qaeda sleeper cell? Maybe you can round up and shoot people on an American street in the hopes of hunting down Al Qaeda? What's wrong with nuking the entire continental United States - there *must* be an Al Qaeda member in there somewhere?

Or is it more acceptable to murder untold innocent brown-skinned Muslims with funny names under the term "collateral damage" because, you know, they're not quite as *human* as actual Americans?

While you're stroking your chin and talking about "realistically" accepting civilian deaths and "weighing them in the mix", can you please just come out and admit to yourself and us that you're engaging in a justification for murdering innocents that you wouldn't find remotely acceptable if your government or another applied it to Americans.

[big bad wolf]

phoenician, you are clearly a DOD front. no one could be that obvious.

[beckya57]

I voted for Anderson in 1980. My excuse is that I was 23 years old at the time. I did not vote for Nader in 2000; I voted for Gore. Reason? I grew up.

[Sir Charles]

P iato R,

So let me ask you this. It's 1864, do you vote for Lincoln, who has recently unleashed Sherman's devastation of the southern countryside in an attempt to starve and terrorize the civilian population, or McClellan?

Or maybe you don't vote for Lincoln because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion, leaving those in Kentucky in bondage. Clearly a worthless trimmer.

It's 1944 and FDR has interned the Japanese in the U.S. and green lighted the fire bombing of Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians -- do you vote for him or Dewey?

It's 1948 and Truman has dropped not one, but two atomic bombs, once again killing hundreds of thousands of civilians -- are you going for Dewey?

One can go on and on.

Wielding power is complicated, having responsibility for matters of life and death is huge, and no one who does it comes out innocent.

It's easy to be innocent on the sidelines, it's easy to have no responsibility for anything and to throw stones. But it's a cop out.

And to pretend that what Obama is doing is somehow uniquely horrible is ridiculous and ahistorical in the extreme.

[beckya57]

My answer to these folks is: do you think Romney will be better on these issues? All of the available information suggests he will be worse; for starters he's itching for a war with Iran. Plus he's desperate to please the right-wing nationalists in his party. So if you really care about this stuff, helping Romney win the election makes no sense. Help Obama get re-elected, and then pressure him in any way you can to change his policies in this area (and I agree that there's room for criticism here).

[beckya57]

Totally off the subject, but I'm enjoying the hell out of watching the Bears embarrass the Cowboys on MNF. I wish the camera would show us Jerry Jones' face. Couldn't happen to a nicer creep.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

So let me ask you this. It's 1864, do you vote for Lincoln, who has recently unleashed Sherman's devastation of the southern countryside in an attempt to starve and terrorize the civilian population, or McClellan?

Interesting. I pointed out you were rationalising murder - looking at the logic you applied in accepting your country killing people for being non-American and in the general vicinity possibly of some other people who may or may not be bad - and you immediately segue into voting for the lesser of two evils.

Wielding power is complicated, having responsibility for matters of life and death is huge, and no one who does it comes out innocent.

This is completely true. Once again, I ask you - can you please just come out and admit to yourself and us that you're engaging in a justification for murdering innocents that you wouldn't find remotely acceptable if your government or another applied it to Americans.

(BTW, in 1864, I'd be more interested in the Invasion of the Waikato, for which my government took 132 years to admit it was wrong)

[big bad wolf]

phoencian, how did you stay up on things in 1864? i mean a person of your exquisite qualities would obviously be on the right side of every issue no matter when you lived, but what media did you use? or did you just have an unerring sense of justice whether or not you were aware of events that occurred far away from you.

me, i was in favor of waikato and of dropping the bomb on ft. sumter.

[Bill H]

Yes, beckya, I'm enjoying that almost as much as watching the New Orleans Criminals go to 0-4 on Sunday. Perhaps taking payment to deliberately injure players on the opposing team was not the best policy after all, especially when you file a lwasuit to claim that you should not be punished for it.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

BBW, you seem to be displaying cognitive dissonance. I never claimed to be infallible, nor is this about me. Your attempt to avoid the point I raised is telling.

Sir Charles stated "I don't think we can realistically say that there will be no civilian deaths in these types of operations. I certainly think this needs to be weighed in the mix and that such operations can be counterproductive (and immoral)if there is not some great care given to this calculus. "

This is a justification for murdering civilians - in a country with which you are not at war - in the pursuit of national goals, and dubiously so at that. I am pointing out that this would not be acceptable applied to Americans - Charles would never accept American police killing off a bystander for every criminal they shot at, nor would he accept the Cuban government killing Americans in car bombing militant exiles on American soil.

And yet, strangely, it is acceptable to murder hundreds of civilians - wedding parties, mourners at funerals, medics trying to help those already shot up by American guns - when these people are Pakistanis or Afghans.

Why do you not apply that logic to Americans? And why are you not facing up to the fact of that justification?

[low-tech cyclist]

Another comparison: our drone program has killed hundreds of innocent civilians, which is nothing to be proud of.

The Iraq War resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Who knows how many innocent civilians would perish if we were to try to bomb Iran's nuclear program into oblivion? 'Hundreds' would only be the start.

Now, tell me: which candidate has a policy crew around him that's more eager to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

Like it or not, there is a difference here.

There is a political path for people who think we need to get the hell out of that part of the world. First, get Obama re-elected, and do what you can to fight for a Democratic Congress.

Then protest this Administration from the left. Just don't do it between now and November, when pressure from the left moves the country right.

[low-tech cyclist]

Interesting. I pointed out you were rationalising murder...and you immediately segue into voting for the lesser of two evils.

Remember Alice? The song's about Alice!

Seriously, that's what SC's post was about - the moral necessity of having to choose the lesser of two evils, and the reality that a pose of being above such a choice is a cop-out.

A refusal to choose is still a choice, and it comes with consequences just like any other choice.

[oddjob]

Finally, when one looks at the deaths of innocent civilians in the Muslim world, the U.S. is at best a bit player under Obama. Every day in Syria is like the entirety of the drone program.

I thought about this last night. I suspect if Sir C. were Pakistani he'd find this assertion offensive because it's a non-sequitur. It's a comparison of apples to oranges.

[kathy a.]

open thread -- a report on last night's debate between warren and brown. from the pieces i saw, warren continues to answer thoughtfully and advance reasons she would better represent the commonwealth.

brown said that justice scalia is his ideal SCOTUS justice -- then realized his mistake and started backpedaling. yep, mr. moderate...

[kathy a.]

also -- i am amazed that brown continues to hammer on warren's native american heritage. what a doofus.

[kathy a.]

the PA voter ID laws will not be enforced for this november election.

[oddjob]

i am amazed that brown continues to hammer on warren's native american heritage.

When he first started that my immediate thought was, "If that's the best he's got, what he's got is pretty thin gruel."

[low-tech cyclist]

It's an unfortunate but enduring reality that for pretty much all of the post-WWII era, the USA has basically believed it has the right to intervene anywhere in the world that it damned well pleased, in ways that we'd unhesitatingly rise up in armed rebellion against if anyone was ever in a position to turn the tables.

The only thing I can really say about this that might convince someone like Phoenician is that, at least since LBJ left office, the Dems have construed this mandate far more narrowly than the GOP has - and it's hard to see that this will change anytime soon.

So if you want less of this shit rather than more, vote Democrat.

[oddjob]

the PA voter ID laws will not be enforced for this november election.

Whew!

[oddjob]

@low-tech cyclist | October 02, 2012 at 12:57 PM

My thoughts as well.

[nancy]

Drone attacks tilt the combatant equation into territory that's too troubling afaic. We know that intelligence information is often less than perfect. And antiseptic doesn't quite get it -- putting Seal Team 6 on Bin Laden's trail left open the slim possibility of capture. Better that. That said, I'd agree both with l-t c @12:57 on this, as well as this argument from Steve M. :*Dear Freddie: Politics doesn't happen once every four years. Politics happens every day.* Yes it does.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

Seriously, that's what SC's post was about - the moral necessity of having to choose the lesser of two evils,

And in the process he advanced an apologia for the lesser of those two evils that he would reject outright if it was applied against his own country.

My comment was pointing out that apologia, and asking him to acknowledge it.

and the reality that a pose of being above such a choice is a cop-out.

I'm not commenting on the choice. I'm conflicted, and I've commented on that choice elsewhere.

I'm pointing out that in the process of discussing the choice he advanced such an apologia, and I am asking him to acknowledge that he wouldn't accept it if we were talking about Americans rather than Pakistanis.

[kathy a.]

yes, nancy.

phoenician -- i don't know what you have commented elsewhere, and you don't provide links or anything. i appreciate that you are conflicted -- i would guess that to some extent or another, all of us are.

there are a bunch of terrible things that our own governments, states and feds, do to our own people -- and i disagree with many of those things. but my power to have any influence at all comes from participating in and hoping to change the system we have. not holding my breath until the system i wish for arrives.

the arc of history bends toward justice. it bends; it does not pop up fresh one day. i need to be putting my weight behind what helps it bend.

[Sir Charles]

P iato R,

First, I think you've mischaracterized my position by suggesting that I find it acceptable that foreign innocents are killed by virtue of their foreignness. I would like to think it is obvious that I don't believe such a thing.

What I am suggesting is that the death of several thousand civilian innocents in the U.S., as well as in Spain, England, and East Africa justifies a military response against Al Qaeda. The drone campaign seems to me to fall into the just war category -- it is an act of self-defense that is proportionate in nature. Being proportionate, however, doesn't make it perfect. I am admitting that such a military action, however carefully calibrated and carried out, is likely to cost some innocent lives. I don't like this and I can see that some people would simply reject it out of hand as Freddie does.

In other words, I am conflicted as well, but I do not think that the President has that luxury. He can act or not. Americans entrust their protection to the President and were he to simply throw up his hands and say there is nothing I can do, because our enemies choose to live among innocents, I suspect the American people would react badly.

I also dislike the notion that choosing in politics is somehow always a lesser of two evils. I don't think Obama is evil. I think he is a good, but flawed person (as are we all) undertaking a Herculean task. Is he as liberal as I would like him to be. Not really, but I am pretty sure that anyone who fit that bill could not be elected president.

Again, I think politics is about choices and that one can essentially engage the system that we have -- and the fact that our 300 million plus fellow citizens have a lot of different opinions and priorities. I get impatient with the likes of Freddie and Greenwald and others who don't even begin to acknowledge that 1) the U.S. is justified in responding militarily to AQ and 2) that their views on these matters are not held by many people in the country. The fact that the President is trying to respond to the concerns of what I suspect is a pretty large majority of the country does not make him a contemptible figure.

oddjob,

My comment regarding the violence against civilians in Syria, as well as in places like Pakistan and Iran, was in response to the alleged sleeplessness that Freddie is feeling over the death of innocent Muslims. It seems to me that this is a selective emotion, one largely calculated to aggrandize the writer rather than being a serious assessment of carnage in the Muslim world.

[low-tech cyclist]

One group that should (but almost never does) feel conflicted and troubled about the carnage we cause in other lands is those Christians who conflate God with America.

I think it's obvious that even in a cause (like tracking down AQ) that's justifiable from a national-interest POV, we're going to wind up killing some people that God didn't particularly want killed. In some instances (the Iraq war, Vietnam, etc.) we either directly kill, or unleash previously restrained forces that kill, many thousands of people. And frequently it's all for nothing in the end. But America is always right in their eyes, unless of course it has the wrong sort of President. And even then its sin in their eyes, in the larger world, is in not being sufficiently tough and belligerent. Because who would Jesus bomb, I guess.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

First, I think you've mischaracterized my position by suggesting that I find it acceptable that foreign innocents are killed by virtue of their foreignness. I would like to think it is obvious that I don't believe such a thing.

I have suggested a thought experiment. Imagine that the Cuban government decided to take action against the militant exiles (who represent a clear danger to their regime including, for that matter, the bombing of airliners) by exploding car bombs on the streets of Miami, incidentally killing numerous American civilians.

Would you accept their logic that they were only hunting these people down, and that the Americans killed represented regrettable but acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of this goal?

How exactly would this differ from your apologia for the death of innocent Pakistanis and Afghans at the hands of remote controlled explosives delivered by American drones?

And that doesn't even address the likelihood that your assumptions are, in themselves, wrong - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report

The drone campaign seems to me to fall into the just war category -- it is an act of self-defense that is proportionate in nature.

Really? How exactly is it proportionate to drop explosives on the territory of a sovereign, non-enemy nation, killing its innocent citizens, in pursuit of an open-ended, ever-expanding goal when your own analysts tell you you are hurting not enhancing your nation's security?

Are the Cubans entitled to blow up car bombs in Miami in pursuit of exiles? Can the British blow up buses in Boston to kill IRA fund-raisers? Is Iran entitled to start bombing the US to kill the people calling for war against it, just as the US bombed Anwar al-Awlaki for the crime of preaching (not participating in) jihad?

I believe that, whether you face it or not, you do hold such a belief, applying a justification to actions by your government that kill foreigners that you would never accept as legitimate if applied to justify actions killing Americans. I invite you to consider this carefully, even if it is painful.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

phoenician -- i don't know what you have commented elsewhere, and you don't provide links or anything. i appreciate that you are conflicted -- i would guess that to some extent or another, all of us are.

See here - http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/06/19/which-side-are-you-on-3/#comment-3361902

[Sir Charles]

P iato R,

I think you raise a couple of distinct points that need to be unpacked:

1. Re: Just War -- I think that attacking al Qaeda, when they find refuge in states that refuse to dislodge them is in fact a justifiable act of self defense. I think that if the United States was serving as a refuge for a group of terrorists who were actively engaged in violent acts in, let's say, Canada -- and the U.S. government was offering this group sanctuary in its territory and refused to act to expel or stop them -- that the Canadians would be justified in attacking U.S. soil.

(I've avoided the Cuban example because we then get into complicated questions regarding the legitimacy of violence against a dictatorial regime.)

The Brits, by the way, did have a few incursions into the Republic of Ireland during its anti-IRA campaigns.

2. Helping or hurting national security -- I think it is possible that there is a point at which drone attacks become counterproductive, where taking out one more AQ member is not worth the violence and backlash that such strikes provoke. We may well be at that point, although I don't know enough to agree that this is a given. This, however, is more of a pragmatic rather than a moral argument.

3. I don't think your assumption that al-Awlaki was only engaging in speech is necessarily correct. It appears that he may have been involved with both the Ft. Hood shooter and the "underpants bomber" -- whose exploits would not be so amusing had he succeeded. You're acting like he was writing Op-Eds for the jihadist equivalent of the Wall Street Journal rather than being neck deep in terrorist associations.

4. I don't think fund raising would rise to the level of cause for invoking just war.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

I think that if the United States was serving as a refuge for a group of terrorists who were actively engaged in violent acts in, let's say, Canada -- and the U.S. government was offering this group sanctuary in its territory and refused to act to expel or stop them -- that the Canadians would be justified in attacking U.S. soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuban_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles#Panama:_Arrest.2C_conviction_and_release_.282000.E2.80.932004.29

(I've avoided the Cuban example because we then get into complicated questions regarding the legitimacy of violence against a dictatorial regime.)

Pardon me, but this is irrelevant - would you accept the same apologia you have applied to justify US collateral damage in Pakistan if they were advanced to justify Cuban collateral damage in America? The status of the Cuban government is not important - I am asking about the consistency of YOUR logic

Just asking - in your comment "the Canadians would be justified in attacking U.S. soil", how many innocent American civilians would you accept the Canadians murdering as they went after the Inuit Liberation Front on the streets of Seattle?

[Sir Charles]

I don't think the United States should permit people to launch violent attacks on other nations and find refuge on our soil (including those attacking Cuba). I think a nation state that permits such a thing is inviting legitimate retaliation.

I don't think that as an American I would like it just as I don't think Pakistanis like the drone program. But that is a different question than whether such an action was justifiable.

[kathy a.]

scoot over, pollsters: results of the cookie contest are in. "We should probably go through with the election for the sake of formality, but this thing is essentially over." [h/t baloon juice.]

[big bad wolf]

phoenician, logic is a tool, one sometimes helpful to humans. if one starts with an appropriate premise, one can, with logic, get to the desired result. all sorts of improbable things, in the hands of one skilled at setting up logic puzzles, can be made to seem inevitable.much of this can occur through the false equations that logic, moving inexorably though its steps, may not recognize.

as SC said the question is whether the drone actions are justifiable. answering that that requires a lot more than just logic. it's a varied, contingent, violent world out there beyond our keyboards.

i think the drone program should be cut way back. i think we have made serious errors with very regrettable consequences. i do not think that there is a real world answer that a drone could never be used. one can claim that as a principle and i am sure that it is sincerely held, but imposing even high-minded principles can, the world has repeatedly taught us, have ill effects.