Tag: soldiers

Pleistocene Politics

socialism, resolve, soldiers, America, freedom

Back in the Eocene — I mean the 1990s — Senator Chuck Schumer and President Bill Clinton and most other Democrats insisted that “healthcare” benefits not be distributed to “those who’ve entered the country illegally.” Now, the party is united behind the opposite notion, in which benefits — paid for by resident taxpayers — must be delivered generously to all comers.

This was most clearly demonstrated in 2019, during one of those huge panels of presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side, all raising their hands on whether they supported giving tax-funded medical assistance to illegal aliens.

Yesterday I quoted Rep. Maxine Waters (D‑Calif.) on how Democrats want to “save people.”

What I didn’t quote was the question she was asked — “Do Democrats want to prioritize the healthcare for illegal aliens over a government shutdown?” — or how she initially responded: “Excuse me; stop it right there. We’re not prioritizing; what we’re doing is saying, simply, we wanna keep the government open and we wanna work with the Republicans and have a bipartisan agreement to keep this government open and healthcare is at the top of our agenda.”

Whew. While denying she’s prioritizing what’s at “the top” of her “agenda” — what prioritization means — her desire for a “bipartisan agreement” is just as fake, for what she and her fellow Democrats demand is that the Republicans completely agree with their most extreme agendum: subsidized medical assistance for all comers.

That’s not “bipartisan.” There’s no compromise. It’s a tactic of intransigence.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote about this in terms of an “intransigent minority rule,” positing that in complex systems — such as societies, markets, or Congress — a small, highly committed minority (as little as 3 – 4 percent) can impose its preferences on a flexible majority due to an asymmetry of choice.

Meaning that the opponents of “limitless” subsidies (socialism) must become intransigent themselves to win.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags America, freedom, resolve, socialism, soldiers

Fourth Amendment rights national politics & policies The Draft

Rich Kids for Ransom

Elliot Ackerman, conscription, war, slavery, soldiers,

Elliot Ackerman wants peace so badly that he is willing to conscript our sons and daughters into the military in hopes of achieving it.

“From Somalia to Syria, American forces are engaged in combat,” the author and decorated Marine veteran writes in Time. “With recent military posturing against Iran, against North Korea, it is also easy to imagine our country sleepwalking into another major theater war.”

Mr. Ackerman is not arguing the draft would help in current or future combat operations, or appreciably improve the military. In answer to the obvious question, “Why would you degrade the finest fighting machine the world has ever known?” he replies, “[W]e must move the issues of war and peace from the periphery of our national discourse to its center.”

How?

Ackerman proposes a “reverse-engineered draft.”

His idea is to call up 65,000 young men and women by lottery for two-year terms of servitude. This would represent roughly 5 percent of the armed forces. “And no one could skip this draft,” he claims … though obviously not everyone sent a “Greetings” letter will be physically able to serve.

Lastly, he insists that “the only ones eligible” would be “those whose families fall into the top income tax bracket.”

In short, conscript the rich kids!

Of which Ackerman was one.*

Maybe his stance of theatrical class self-sacrifice distracted him from his proposal’s blatant violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

All this to stir up more angst from allegedly influential high-income earners by turning their children into political hostages.

Doesn’t make Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* In the 1990s, I served with Peter Ackerman, Elliot’s father, on the board of directors of U.S. Term Limits.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags conscription, Elliot Ackerman, slavery, soldiers, war

international affairs

Superpower Blues

soldiers, world police, war, peace, Syria, Kurds,

I don’t want the Turkish military to wipe out the Kurds.

I also don’t want the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan.

Nor do I want the Chinese totalitarians to violate the rights of Hongkongers.

Or for the Spanish government to slap long prison terms on peaceful Catalonian separatists.

Or tyrants in Nicaragua and Venezuela to torture and kill the people of those countries.

At the same time, I don’t want U.S. Marines landing on the beaches of Venezuela or Nicaragua or parachuting into Madrid or Kowloon … or for our military to endlessly occupy turf in Afghanistan and Syria.

There are limits even to superpower status. We cannot re-make the world in our image. By force. Everywhere at all times.

Except to some degree, by example. And regime change wars have not set a very good example.

The Iraq War destabilized the Middle East and handed Iran a major strategic victory. Leading from behind to help NATO overthrow the government of Libya has produced more chaos for northern Africa and Europe. Efforts at regime change in Syria have only worsened the suffering of millions of people.

U.S. troops remain in Iraq. After 17 years, we still have soldiers dying in Afghanistan. We can never leave. At least, not without any “gains” evaporating in a hurry.

And the president who finally ends military involvement in these “endless war” will get endless grief for abandoning allies* and ceding ground to Russia or some other bad actor. That’s what happened after 28 soldiers were pulled out of Syria.

Being a superpower isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Beacon of freedom seems a better gig.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* This is not an argument for being a bad ally ourselves. For starters, I think we ought to welcome Kurdish refugees who wish to immigrate to the U.S.

From a photo by: Lance Cpl. Christian Cachola

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags peace, soldiers, Syria, war, world police

folly ideological culture

War Lust Flags

soldiers, foreign policy, war, peace, Syria, Afghanistan

A new poll shows that a narrow majority of Americans would support the President were he to pull troops out of Afghanistan. Less than a quarter of those polled said they would oppose it.

“The survey also indicates Americans remain unconvinced that the United States has a clear purpose in Afghanistan,” explains the January 10 press release of the Charles Koch Institute, which commissioned the poll. “Almost half of respondents, 45 percent, said the United States has no strategic objective, while only 21 percent said it does. About one-third (34 percent) said they did not know.”

However you slice the public opinion data, the wars in the Mid-East are not gaining in popularity. A plurality of Americans polled want out of Syria, too — no matter “whether the conflict was framed around the Syrian civil war or to counter-ISIS.”

Lucy Steigerwald, writing at Reason, highlights the incoherence in the White House and Pentagon: “no one seems to know what the hell is going on.” Which just shows how far we have come, after all these years. “The long life of the Afghan war makes it hard to remember how popular it was when it began.”

But back then it all seemed so clear: get Osama bin Laden, destroy his training camps, and punish the Taliban for harboring him.

All that was accomplished long ago. Now our leaders fear pulling out because … we haven’t established a western democracy there?

That was never going to happen.

It is foolish — even immoral — to keep a war going with impossible and incoherent goals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tags foreign policy, peace, soldiers, Syria, war

ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

The Great Diversion

Nazi, Civil War, soldiers, dead soldiers, Charlottesville, antifa

Though the breakdown of civil debate seems new, the subjects are old. We are actually talking about Nazis, again. Nazi death counts. And the Confederacy. The former defeated by my father’s generation, the latter defeated several generations earlier.

Why?

Because talking about the future would require actual thought. It’s easier to fight over the past, over symbols of the past.

That is why there was a Charlottesville debacle. It is about a statue, a monument to dead soldiers featuring the Confederacy’s General Robert E. Lee. And what it means. The “Unite the Right” rally was set in Charlottesville because of the city council’s decision to remove it.

It is interesting, though, that the event did not unite “the Right.” Conservative and even many alleged “alt-right” groups refused to participate.

But “the Left” seems more united than before. If you focus on past racism and the persistence of Nazi and Confederate symbology, it’s pretty easy to agree. I agree.

And yet, I take a step back, and remember that those monuments do not have the univocal racist meaning attributed to them. They were intended to heal wounds.*

Now they open up old ones.

And yet this is all a diversion. We are facing a major set of crises that could lead to war, depression, chaos, and (possibly) worse. But we are not now handling them because we are fighting over symbols of the past.

This may be a very human thing to do.

But it is not smart.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* At least 350,000 young American men died wearing Confederate uniforms in the Civil War, and half a million Union soldiers are believed to have died directly from their war wounds. Today’s population is ten times greater, so adjusted for today it would be eight million deaths. That is a lot of searing wounds.

PDF for printing

Tags Antifa, Charlottesville, Civil War, dead soldiers, Nazi, soldiers

Accountability folly moral hazard national politics & policies

Hotel Afghanistan

Afghanistan, soldiers, treaty, war, politics, peace

“You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

Is Afghanistan becoming the Hotel California?

Back in 2014, Obama declared victory — well, he called it “over.” We even informed our enemies ahead of time that we were leaving, to show good manners.

But as wars are known to do, it keeps not stopping. That is, bullets whiz by and bombs explode … and our American military hasn’t left.

Obama feared that if we pulled out completely from the longest war in our history, the Afghan government would soon collapse and the Taliban would rush back to power. Last year the Taliban controlled more of the country than at anytime since 2001, when we first … “won.”

Now President Trump, the purported isolationist, stares at a report from military commanders on what to do. Their answer, according to the Washington Post, is to send “at least 3,000” more soldiers to Afghanistan, in addition to the 8,500 currently stationed there. And to allow US troops to engage in greater combat.

“The plan would also increase spending on Afghanistan’s troubled government,” the Post reported. But more money won’t un-corrupt the system.

Afghanistan expert Andrew Wilder with the U.S. Institute of Peace predicts that, “the U.S. is going to send more troops, but it’s not to achieve a forever military victory. Rather, it’s to try to bring about a negotiated end to this conflict.”

Will American soldiers be laying down their lives merely to better the odds for negotiating an improbable “good deal” with the Taliban?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF