Ron Paul’s Credibility: A Wrap-Up

In December 2011 or a little earlier, on the occasion of the Republican presidential primary debates, I began monitoring seriously Congressman Ron Paul’s statements. I did it because I am small-government Republican, someone who could be a libertarian, (but not easily.) For those who follow us from a foreign country: Mr Paul is a long-time Representative from Texas. He is running to be the Republican presidential candidate.He is favored by libertarian elements within the Republican Party and by many members of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party does not seem to have a candidate of its own in this round of presidential election.

BY THE WAY, IF A DEMAND WERE EXPRESSED FOR EXPLANATIONS OF AMERICAN POLITICS, OR OF AMERICAN LIFE IN GENERAL BY NON-AMERICAN READERS LIVING ELSEWHERE THAN THE US, I WOULD BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO IT ONCE IN A WHILE. JUST SPEAK UP.

Following Paul’severy word, I soon discovered that there was almost (see below) no debate when Mr Paul didn’t make some strangely false declaration. I am not referring here to the usual politicians’ exaggerations or to spontaneous ridiculous answers to unexpected gotcha questions. I mean false information volunteered by Mr Paul that happened to support his quite consistent line of reasoning, his doctrine, in other words. I have reported periodically on some of Mr Paul’s misstatements. Paul followers have responded. My comments and the responses, all unedited, of course, are available on this blog, arranged by date. If you want to look for yourself you might also conduct a search of my postings using the key words “Ron Paul.” The comments are appended to each relevant essay. Below I review the Paul statements to which I took exceptions and I summarize what I think are the replies or explanations by Paul followers. Some responders/commentators will complain that I betray their thought. It’s all there for anyone to judge.

Here is a little political introduction: I generally agree with the congressman’s ideas regarding domestic policies. However, I think Dr Paul would be a foreign policy disaster on the scale of an President Obama or worse, if he ever became president. His isolationist ideas on foreign policy, I think, are based on false perceptions and tightly chained to adherence to a libertarian doctrine hardly troubled by simple facts. Incidentally, I know well that Dr Paul and mainstream libertarians object to being described as “isolationists.” I don’t mind that they mind. Let me admit, also incidentally, that I do not dispute the general libertarian analysis on the disastrous consequences that war has for the autonomy of civil society, for individual freedom from state oppression. However, this recognition does not require that I close my eyes and shut my ears to the nature of the world I which I live. Neither does this consciousness command suicide.

In brief, as I have said repeatedly, I believe Mr Paul listens to a different drummer. Or rather, he hears a whole bunch of drummers in his mind that no one else can hear. The mainstream press ignores his many failed grapplings with reality because it thinks (correctly) that Mr Paul will not be president, no matter what. Mr Paul’s followers don’t mind his missteps either. Some are too busy or too ill-informed to notice. Many, I suspect, don’t want to notice because the Paul group is largely (not completely) a cult. Some of his embarrassed rational followers cite his age (my age, as it happens) as an excuse for his missteps. That is, they argue implicitly that a man too old to avoid talking nonsense at debates is young enough to have his hand on the button. Congressman’s Paul’s followers are simply not inclined to look too closely into his pronouncements; I mean, the way I look into every single presidential candidates’ statements, for example, and no mercy given. After all, if I have my way, one of them will have his index finger on the same red button. Better I give each of them the middle finger first.

Dec 31st 2011

Below is a paraphrase, not an exact quote from Mr Paul. The number though is exact.

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not only very wasteful, they are stupidly wasteful. So, for example, the US armed forces spend 20 billion dollars each year in those war theaters on air-conditioning alone.

The number if absurd on its face. One frequent critic of mine affirms that he proved right the figure or the statement in which it was embedded. I have no idea what he means. Someone else referenced a general that may well have been Paul’s source, if he had a source. Read the general and decide what he, the general, is up to. Ask yourself if you have ever heard of anyone doing cost accounting the way the general does.

January 8, 2012

Paul said that (American) minorities suffered more in war than whites. That’s not true. In current wars, since Vietnam, they die less, and they get wounded less often. Whatever else could “suffering” mean, lower pay raises?

In connection with Pres. Obama’s then-recent speech on cutting the US military budget, Paul also said clearly that those are cuts in increases to military expenditures, not absolute cuts. As one who has been reading the Wall Street Journal for the past thirty years and also for the past thirty days, I tell you that this is not true. I think it sounded good at the time so, the Congressman just said it, irresponsibly.

In rare form that day, Paul also said in New Hampshire that if the Straight of Hormuz were closed (by the Iranians or, presumably, by anyone), Eastern Europe would be “de-stabilized.” Makes no sense at all. Why Eastern Europe? He gives the impression that he knows something we don’t. Not in this case, for sure.

January 17^th 2012

In the Republican presidential debate that took place January 17^th or 16th in South Carolina, Ron Paul said, “We are still in Iraq.” Don’t bother to check, he said it, with exactly those words. Only one problem: “We” are not there unless you decide that contractors are “us.” Most people would think he meant “our military is still in Iraq.” It, the military, was already not in Iraq at the time the statement was made. This is at least a grossly misleading statement. misleading in a direction that happens to promote his isolationism.

January 2th^d 2012

Ron Paul did it again at the Tampa debate on Monday night 1/23/12 or 1/22/12. I mean he spread some information that only he, Congressman Paul, is privy to. Mr Paul declared clearly, under his own power, with no prompting whatsoever, that this country, the United States of America, is presently conducting a blockade against Iran. He used the word four times at least, both as a noun and as a verb. And, no, he was not speaking prospectively ( “If we conduct a blockade, in the future ….”) but declaratively and in the present tense. There was no blockade, there is no blockade, except in Mr Paul’s mind.

On February 07 2012, I challenged the Ron Paul website by email to give the source of declaration of Dr Paul’s about the Mossad, the Israeli CIA. Dr Paul had stated that the head of the Mossad had declared that an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose no “existential threat” to Israel. I received no answer from his campaign. Instead, a reader guided me to an interview by the same head of Mossad.

The head of the Mossad did say what Congressman Paul had reported he said. I was wrong to doubt it. I WAS WRONG. It was all my fault. I did not think long enough about the word: existential threat. See my mea culpa and explanation following on Feb 14th.

February 16th, 2012

A quaint statement issued by the candidate himself that he, Ron Paul, received more money contributions from the military than other Rep. candidates lead to a striking demonstration of the absurdity of the figures on which the claim is based. It highlighted the shocking lack of criticality of his shock troops. No one is watching; the candidate is allowed to run wild, quite wild if in his quiet way.

February 22^nd 2012

Dr Paul pointed out that Iran was “surrounded” by “forty-five bases.” I assume he meant American military bases. This “surrounding,” I understood the Congressman to argue, would justify Iran’s nervousness and therefore its apparent bellicosity. I protested that the encirclement statement was pure invention.

In response, Paul supporters produced, first and second, a map showing patently false information. Of course, this fact in itself, re-enforces my impression that Paul supporters are not serious about facts. It’s not difficult to eye-check a map, after all. Following this false start, there was much back and forth. And then, I agreed that the Paul statement was not false and not an invention if you only stretched the meaning of the word “base,” of the word “military, “and, especially, of the word “surrounded.” (There was no need to stretch the meaning of the word “American,” fortunately.)

Looking back on the exchange, I am inclined to take back my admission. There is a kind of Bermuda triangle logical problem involved: How far does the alleged triangle extend? How far can you go and still declare that a base contributes to “surrounding” Iran? One Paul supporter included Djibouti. Why not the much more significant military bases in Germany, I ask? And how about military installations in New Jersey?

I will agree though that the Paul “surrounded” statement is probably more true than I thought it was at first. This discovery makes me more optimistic about the future, from a military standpoint, than I used to be.

On Feb 29^th 2012 in the Michigan primary. Paul said two memorable things :

1 The wars we have had for ten years, he said (I assume he means Iraq and Afghanistan), have added four trillion dollars to the US national debt ($4,000,000,000,000). The statement surprised me only moderately. (It amounts to about $13,000 per American. )My problem is that again, I have no idea where the information comes from. I even doubt the contribution of the wars to the national debt can be calculated. Yet, I would be happy if this figure were merely a pretty good approximation. I would say it’s fine even if the order of magnitude were right. How demanding is this? At any rate, I sure hope this large amount included the 20 billion dollars per year just air-conditioning American forces in the two relevant countries Paul said it cost. (See above!)

2 The congressman announced that there was a “transfer of wealth from the middle class” to the rich. That’s not a surprising statement since it’s also the basis of the Obama class war. What is surprising is the way this transfer takes place, according to the congressman. It is through the erosion of the currency, the US dollar’s value, says Dr Paul. I don’t know how this could be. I have no quarrel with the idea that the US dollar has lost much value in say, 20 years, relative to something, to gold in particular. What I don’t know is how what is lost by the “middle-class” through loss of value of the currency (whatever that is) comes to accrue to the benefit of “the rich.” Here again, I am open-minded. Please, help.

There was no response to my second question, the question regarding the transfer of wealth. Another Paul dream, I guess, a nightmare, in this case.

Libertarian economist Fred Folvary of NotesOnLiberty suggested an interesting answer to my question regarding the origin of the Paul figure about the cost of the wars. He referred me to Paul Stiglitz, Nobel winner and idol to the American Left. I have not read the Stiglitz book of reference and Prof. Stiglitz’s status with leftists does not make his calculations wrong. (I did read another one of his books which convinced me  never to read another one because it contained so much intellectual dishonesty. But that’s a subjective personal response, of course.) Why am not surprised that Mr Paul gets some of his information from left-wing sources? (Does not make the info false, again.)

I am fair: On January 27^th 2012, I stated:

I am glad to report that during the second Florida Republican presidential debate, I did not hear Ron Paul make a single patently false, invented statement.

Maybe, by that time, I had got to him after all!

Now, of course, there remains the really important issue of whether Congressman Paul ever accused the Bush administration or parts thereof of being complicit in 9/11. I keep dismissing this allegation in my mind and forgetting it but it keeps coming up and don’t mean coming up through liberals or “progressives.” A couple of weeks ago, a local talk-show host in my area of Santa Cruz, California ,brought it up again. I have listened at least to 500 hours of this man’s show and I have never found him in significant error about anything important. He is a small-government conservative I know to be scrupulous with facts.

The apparent origin of this suspicion is that one of Congressman’s Paul’s former staffers accused him squarely of having been a “truther.” Dr Paul denied the whole things just as squarely:

“That’s complete nonsense … I never bought into that stuff and I never talked about it,” Paul said of the accusation made by former staffer Eric Dondero, who wrote in a blog post last week that Paul “engaged in conspiracy theories” surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

From Post Politics retrieved 03/29/12, here is part of the post:

“Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.”

Paul also denied the same assertion unambiguously in Wikipedia.

Real Clear Politics of December 27^th 2011 describes how incomplete and unsatisfactory the Paul denials are on this matter.

Me, I understand the idea of a “disgruntled employee” trying to do harm and it’s not absurd, not by a long shot. But an evil little voice keeps whispering in a corner of my suspicious mind: Why did the disgruntled employee attack Paul on this issue rather than on the many others probably available to him as a former aide?

Why is my mind “suspicious” about this almost certainly good man? Several reasons. Here is one, a concrete and tangible reason. It’s something undebatably authored by Congressman Paul, not a rumor, not an indirect report, not spur-of- the- moment fallible ejaculation.

Shortly after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced a piece of legislation he called: the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.” Look it up; read a few lines of it. Reflect on the concept of a “letter of marque” applied to 21^st century conditions. You are not going to believe what you read. Then, wonder why Paul’s followers did not call him on it. As I said, no one is watching the Paul farm. And why would that be?

And, if you believe the “Act” is a serious defense proposal, please write me a note. I am willing to learn but it’s not going to be easy.

Muslims, Arabs: Speak Up Here

I have readers from mostly Muslim countries, including several Arab countries. I wish they would say what they think about my several blogs concerning Syria and other Middle-Eastern issues.

If you are one such reader, please, use “Comment” in connection with any of my blogs. If you wish me to publish what you say as an essay in its own right, just say so. I would be glad to give you a voice here.

Of course, I don’t expect you to take risks that I cannot even assess.

Colonialism and Democracy (updated 3/28/12 and 4/8/12)

Update: 3/8/12.  The slaughter continues in Syria. It’s completely mysterious why any sensible person puts any faith in the UN. Recently, that hapless organization has given the butcher Assad more time to murder his fellow citizens. At the heart of the problem is the assumption underlying the very existence of the UN that all members are kind of nice, more or less imperfect versions of Finland. This is revolting.

A second assumption is that the UN is ineffectual but our only option.  As the successful recent intervention in Libya, that is simply not true.

According to certain isolationists who call themselves “libertarian” ( and who will maintain that they are in no way isolationists) much or most of the political horrors one observes in the developing world can be blamed on colonialism. Thus, the ongoing massacre in Syria would be owed to the French mandate over that country exercised between 1919 and 1946. Using some fairly mysterious logic the said isolationists use the alleged past sins of colonialisms to oppose any Western intervention in Syria that would seek to undermine the Assad, Baath regime ‘s ability to slaughter the civilian population.

As if to underscore the brilliance of this analysis, Afghanistan peacefully elected a new president yesterday in a hotly contested election. The transfer of power was accomplished without any disturbance. As everyone knows, Afghanistan was never colonized, never submitted to a foreign yoke.

In the meantime, in the former French colony of Senegal in West Africa, rival groups keep slaughtering one another in an effort to achieve domination by force of arms where the custom of holding elections never did take root. The French colonized Senegal in depth from the late 18^th century until 1962. The French colonization was so deep that some Senegalese were voting in French elections – in a simulacrum of democracy – starting in 1850. Deep colonization there as elsewhere and more than one hundred and fifty years of complete domination by a colonial power led to a horribly distorted society.

Wait a minute, wait a minute! Wrong again. It’s in Senegal that there was a peaceful democratic transfer of power yesterday and it’s in colonialistically virginal Afghanistan that the citizens keep assassinating one another. I will be damned! Got it backward!

PS Both countries are near 100% Muslim, both Sunni.

Update 3/28/12:  A Senegalese person I know well tells me that there were 11 people killed in the demonstrations against the outgoing president. Presumably they would have been killed by violent actions by the police. If this were true, it would be contrary to the relatively peaceful image I give of the recent power transition in Senegal.

I am skeptical for two reasons: 1  Human Rights Watch silence. I have always found this organization to be alert and its reports trustworthy.

2  The second reason for my skepticism is my Senegalese acquaintance failure to give specific references in support of her assertions. She mentioned imprecisely several press organs, including a branch of Le Monde. I Googled it and found in it a report that immediately  triggered my sense of disbelief. The item mentioned several deaths caused by police actions, including shooting “blank bullets” (“balles a blanc”). First, there is no such thing (bullet?). Then, when you shoot blanks at people nothing comes out of the gun barrel. It’s hard to see how it can hurt anyone.

Small details like this matter. Either people know what they are talking about or they don’t. That Le Monde correspondent does not and Le Monde editors don’t care enough to do something about it. They don’t deserve my attention.

I asked my Senegalese acquaintance to give me more precise references. Some readers might. I will update this piece as needed.

Un adolescent noir assassiné! (mise a jour le 27/3/1 et de nouveau, le 13/4/12).2)

Gros tumulte mediatique partout aux Etats-Unis à cause d’un homicide. En Floride, un jeune adulte tue un adolescent, un cas de légitime defense selon le tireur. Il n’ y pas de témoin. La victime est un jeune Noir.

Il y a scandale parce que la police locale n’a pas arrêté le tireur. Ce fait ne constitute en rien une décision de la police de considerer le tireur comme innocent. La police fait son enquête et donne ses observations au procureur (“District Attorney”) qui décide ou non de poursuivre. Pour le moment, il n’y a pas vice de forme, Cela n’empêche pas l’opinion de gauche de s’émouvoir en masse et de crier à l’injustice, et d’accuser la police locale de racisme . (“Vous avez assassiné un jeune Noir? Pas de problème.”)

Si vous avez lu jusqu’ ici vous vous êtes surement déjà representé le tireur comme un homme blanc parceque, étant francophone, vous avez été nourri de films imbéciles sur l’Amérique. De plus, si vous êtes exclusivement francophone, il y a de bonnes chances pour que vous soyiez chroniquement mal informé. (Désolé, mais j’annonce la couleur telle que je la vois.

En fait, le tireur est ce qu’on appelle “hispanique” et de surcroît, Juif. “Hispanique” est une catégorie ignare, sociologiquement parlant mais c’est une catégorie légalement valide. En gros, il s’agi de tous ceux dont un parent au moins a un nom espagnol, sauf les Philippins .(Je n’invente rien!) Les “hispaniques,” à l’instar des Noirs jouissent d’un régime juridique protégé spécifique tant en ce qui concerne l’état fédéral que l’état de Floride. Ce sont des “minorités.”

Pour retourner à l’homicide en question: Cela devait arriver: un membre d’une minorité opprimée opprime un membre d’une autre minoritée opprimée en le tuant.

Les minorités raciales et autres groupes opprimés jouissant d’un statut spécial constituent largement plus de 100% de la population américaine. Ils comprennent, en plus des Noirs et des Hispaniques, les Asiatiques, mais seulement ceux qui ont les yeux bridés (donc, pas les Indiens de l’Inde ou les Levantins), les Amérindiens, les femmes (50+% de la population totale), les handicappés, les homosexuels, les trans-sexuels, les hommes de plus de cinquante ans. Et j’en passe!

En fait, la police prend toujours un risque en relaxant un suspect d’homicide. On la critique quoiqu’elle fasse. Personellement, je pense qu’il y aura une enquête honnête et compétente. Je suis certain qu’il y en aurait une même si le Président avait su fermer sa grande gueule. Il n’a rien à faire dans cette affaire. Il s’agit d’un crime, si crime il y a, dépendant entièrement de la juridiction de l’état de Floride. Qu’il ait fait le moindre commentaire relève déjà de l’abus de pouvoir, (encore un). Je ne lui en veux pas. Contrairement à la plupart des conservateurs américains, je suis persuadé que le président Obama n’est pas foncièrement mauvais mais plutôt massivement ignorant, y compris de notre constitution.

Entre temps, comme d’habitude, je fais un détour vers ce qu’on devrait voir mais qui reste absent de nos écrans de radar. Il est vrai que se déroule un massacre de jeune hommes noirs sans fin et qui fait des milliers de victime par an. Il s’agit des jeunes hommes noirs anonymement assassinés par d’autres jeunes Noirs dans leurs propres quartiers. La population noire, qui constitue moins de 20% de la population totale, fournit la moitié des victimes d’homicide. A peu près 94% des victimes noires semblent être tuées par des Noirs. (Statistiques du FBI.) Comme le massacre se déroule presqu’ intégralement dans des municipalités Démocrates fermement tenues en main par des conseils municipaux noirs, on n’en parle pas, ou plus. Agir autrement ferait mauvaise impression, après tout.

D’ailleurs, seules les vcitimes d’homicide commis par les autres sont vraiment mortes. Les victimes noires de tueurs noirs font simplement semblant.

Mise a jour le 27 Mars:  Le tireur n’a toujours pas ete place en garde a vue. Une organisation noire fasciste a mis publiquement sa tete a prix. Deux temoins affirment que le tireur avait ete effectivement physiquement agresse par la victime. Moi, je n’ai pas d ‘opinion quant a la culpabilite du tireur.

Mise à jour le 13/4/12

Tandis que le tireur se cachait parce qu’il craignait pour sa vie, un grand cinéaste noir a offert une prix en argent, une récompense pour on ne sait pas trop quoi appartenant au tireur (pas sa tête, explicitement, l’offre était vague). Le cinéaste n’a pas été inquieté par les autorités.

La victime, que la presse avait d’abord presenté comme un pré-adolescent un peu joufflu, mesurait plus d’un mètre quatre-vingt dix. Le tireur est beaucoup plus petit.

Une grande chaîne de télévision a été prise la main dans le sac à triturer une bande enregistrée pour faire faussement apparaitre que le tireur avait proféré des insulted raciales vis-a-vis de la victime. Ceci ne pouvait qu’enflammer encore l’opinion en accréditant la thèse de l’agression raciale gratuite de la part du tireur. La direction de la chaîne a déclaré qu’il s’agissait d’une erreur malheureuse d’un sous-fifre qu’elle a d’ailleurs congedié. (Pourquoi congédier quelqu’un pour une simple erreur, je me demande?)

Le procureur local élu dont c’est normalement la fonction de décider comment traiter les homicides de toutes sortes s’est récusé, toujours sans avoir inculpé le tireur. Le Gouverneur de l’état de Floride a aussitôt nommé un procureur spécial pour traiter de l’affaire. Ce procureur spécial, une femme, a déclaré immédiatement qu’elle s’appuirait sur une procédure exceptionelle dans cette affaire. Normalement, le procureur présente les preuves contre le suspect a un “Grand Jury” représentatif de la localité où a eu lieu le crime potentiel. C’est le Grand Jury qui décide si les preuves sont suffisantes pour inculper ou non, et de quoi. (Ne pas confondre ce “Grand Jury” avec un jury ordinaire qui décide au bout d’un procès si le prévenu est coupable. Les deux sortes de “juries” proviennent du même pool de population mais leurs roles sont différents et on les recrute séparément.)

Ce qu’a décidé le procureur dans ce cas n’est pas illégal mais c’est exceptionnel. Et j’ai souvent du mal à distinguer procédure exceptionnelle et procédure d’exception.

Le tireur a été placé en garde à vue hier et aussitot inculpé d’homicide involontaire, pas de meurtre ou assassinat. Intéressant! Entre temps, je n’ai toujours aucune opinion sur ce qui s’est passé le soir de la mort du jeune homme. Je suis peut-être le seul dans ce cas. J’en tire fierté. A suivre.

Mise a jour vers le 10 Decembre 2012: Le prevenu est en liberte conditionnelle. La police a rendu publiques les photos prises lors de son arrestation. Elle lui montrent un visage tres amoche. Ce fait tend a confirmer, bien sur la these de la defense legitime. Bien sur aussi, les sceptiques comme moi se demandent pourquoi il aura faullu si longtemps pour montrer ces photos.

The Massacres in France

 4/21/12   It looks like I got that one right ahead of nearly all commentators.

In less than two weeks, there were several murders by a stranger (or maybe strangers) in the same small area of southwestern France. The victims were a seemingly disparate group: There were three soldiers and more recently, a teacher and three children from a Jewish school. Based on pictures from many surveillance camera, and, on more recent ballistic tests, the French police says it thinks the two sets of crimes have the same perpetrator.

The crimes happen in a hot pre-election period when the two main parties – one of which will have its candidate become president for five years – are losing voters. Pres. Sarkozy’s right of center formation and its main adversary, the French Socialist Party, are both losing voters to the rightist, nationalistic Front National. The Front National used to be frankly racist and anti-Semitic.

The party’s new leadership, headed by the daughter of its founder, has explicitly, unambiguously denounced those aspects of the party’s past. This denunciation has made the party much more acceptable to angry decent people from both Sarkozy’s party and from the Socialist Party and, especially for the latter, as you might guess.

So, don’t be surprised if the French media – which is no more saintly than ours – comes to a tacit agreement that the assassin must be a member or a follower of the Front National. Such an agreement would be a blessing for both major parties, obviously. And this speculation may turn out to be correct. I am not denying that it’s a possibility.

There is another speculation (still a speculation) that is at least as intriguing. The last set of victims were Jews. Two of the first three military victims had Muslims names. Now, a technical note is in order: Almost all French Muslims come from Black Africa or from North Africa. Muslims from North Africa are mostly white but people who have practice can often guess from appearance and demeanor alone what French people have origins in North Africa and are therefore, presumably, Muslims.

Now, a violent jihadist would be interested in murdering Jews because that is the jihadists’ custom. A violent jihadist would also be interested in murdering fellow Muslims who serve in the French armed forces. He might want to do it to punish them (the French still have several thousand men in Afghanistan though not for long), or to intimidate young French Muslims from joining the armed forces (which they presently do in large numbers.)

I think the near future will tell us soon which speculation is correct, or maybe there is a third explanation but I doubt it. In the meantime, keep in mind that pointing the finger at the third largest party in France is in the interest of the two largest parties.

And, in case you are curious, the answer is “No,” I am not a supporter of the Front National. If I voted in the French elections, I would not vote for any of its candidates, at any level. The main reason is that that party has a strong isolationist economic platform.

Update: The perpetrator was a Muslim, presumably a jihadist because there is no sign he was trying to steal anything or to extract revenge from his victims.

Algeria: a sparse memory

      In 1962, France and the Algerian nationalists came to an agreement about Algerian independence. That was after 130 years of French colonization and eight years of brutal war including war against civilians. I participated in the evacuation of large number of French civilians from the country as a little sailor. The number who wanted to leave was much greater than anyone expected. It was too bad that they left in such large numbers. It was a pity for all concerned. The events were a double tragedy or a tragedy leading to a tragedy. The Algerian independence fighters who had prevailed by shedding quantities of their blood were not (not)  Islamists. In most respects, intellectually and otherwise, they were a lot like me.

     The true revolutionaries were soon replaced however by professional soldiers that I think of as a classical but fairly moderate fascists. I went back to Algeria six years after independence. I was warmly received and I liked the people there. People invited me to lunch; I shared with them the fish I caught and a baby camel tried to browse  my hair in a cafe.

     I  still think the nationalists were on the right side of the argument but I miss Algeria nevertheless. It’s like a divorce that should not have happened. And I am very sorry about where French incompetence and rigidity led everyone, especially the Algerians who keep migrating to France in huge numbers because they can’t find what they need at home.

Syria: American Military Intervention?

The number of victims in Syria has topped 8,000 according to independent observers and to the UN. I will become skeptical when an independent organization such as Human Rights Watch tells me otherwise. Here is a rule of thumb: You don’t allow journalists in; you lose the information battle.

In proportion to the size of the Syrian population, it’s like a massacre of 100,000 Americans (approximately). I think we should intervene to stop the on-going massacre. We, Americans, should do it, first because all human beings are our brothers and sisters and, in addition, because we can do it at little risk to ourselves.

We should further attack the Assad regime, make its functioning difficult or impossible because it’s a terrorist organization with much American blood on its hands. It’s never too late to convince others that helping kill Americans is a dangerous endeavor, that it gives rise to a bill you may have to pay at any time. Creating and maintaining such an impression is conducive to peace. It saves lives in the long run, including the lives of our enemies’ subjects. It’s an indirect act of mercy. Nothing excites the fanatics more than the appearance of helplessness. Nothing helps them keep their cool like the spectacle of iron strength.

Finally, the US should also attack the Assad regime because it’s the quickest and the cheapest way to undermine the hostile and aggressive Iranian theocracy right now. It seems clear as I write (3/16/12) that a confrontation is likely in order to stop Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons. It would be an advantage to deprive that country in advance of a friendly base that is also its only outlet to the Mediterranean. Assad’s Syria is that friendly base.

Obviously, I am not heeding here the opinions of that small fraction of the American public that maintains that there is nothing to fear from Iran, nuclear or not, that Iran is developing nuclear power for peaceful purpose only, that even if it has atomic bombs, it won’t use them, that the threats against its neighbors are just bombastic but basically innocent adolescent talk, that the ayatollahs are sweethearts deep down. This proposal also does not address the notion that others’ defensive posture is precisely what excites Iran’s regime bellicosity because that country is “surrounded.”

Now, there is an apparent issue of the legality of such action. It’s convenient to divide the question into two parts: Legality with respect to our traditions. Legality, or rather legitimacy, from an international perspective. I am of the opinion that there is no “international law” because there is no legitimate world law-making body. Treaties between nation-states are a substitute of sort. I begin with the first issue.

In some American libertarian circles and among leftists, there is great concern about “undeclared wars.” Personally, I don’t think the Constitution requires that Congress declare war in exactly those words. It seems to me that stating loudly and clearly that we will do military damage to Assad’s government and to the military forces faithful to him whenever we please so long as the slaughter of civilians continues should satisfy our constitutional requirement. Still, I would prefer that Congress pronounce the words. Yet, I remember that Congress can always de-fund any military action it dislikes or comes to dislike and thus bring it to a halt.

Then, there is presumed to be an international issue. The fact that the victims that need help depend on, that they are subjects of, a specific nation-state, be it Libya yesterday, or the Sudan and Syria today, leaves me indifferent. Nation-states are often historical accidents. Syria isn’t even that. It was created deliberately by the French under a mandate of the defunct and impotent League of Nations, the hapless predecessor to the United Nations.

There is little that is sacred about nation-states in general. There is nothing that is sacred about Syria, in particular. Unlike the US, for example, it is not the result of a compact between reasonable people who are thinking about what they are doing. Since, shortly after 1963 when the Baath Party took over (with the best of intentions), the country has been kept in a state of underdevelopment by a military mafia drawn from a minority religious group. Incidentally, it’s not even completely clear what are the basic beliefs of this minority religious group, the Alawites. They are secret. Some Muslims don’t believe Alawites are even Muslims at all. And the Alawites sure aren’t Christians or Jews. I don’t care myself, one way or the other. I am only speaking to the probable legitimacy of the Alawite mafia around Assad in a part of the world where religion still confers legitimacy (a fact I regret but cannot deny).

It is true that the dictator Assad, has posed as protector of other minorities, including Christian minorities. Two comments about this. First, once the oppressor of all is gone, different groups can arrive at their own less artificial arrangement to live together or not. I can’t bring myself to believe that tyrants are the only possible protection for minorities. And if some groups cannot get along that ‘s still no a reason to countenance massacres, as we are doing now. There would be more peace,worldwide if there were more secessions. Again, nation-states are not sacred and neither are their borders.

My second comment is that if protecting the few is a sufficient justification for remaining in a position to kill the many then, every bloodthirsty tyrant who takes that precaution automatically receives immunity. In 1945, when the gig was up, Hitler could have said sincerely, “Listen, guys; you have to leave me alone because I protect the Sorbs.” (Look up “Sorb,” and no, I don’t mean “Serb.”) And then, Adolph would have been safe.

The lack of UN approval for a military intervention, I see as a blessing in disguise. The UN is revealing anew its true essential nature right now: We are asked to believe that a military intervention in Libya would be more legitimate if it had the approval of the gangster Putin’s regime in Russia and of the admittedly successful fascist so -called “People’s,” so-called “Republic “ of China. If only ridicule could kill!

The truth is that the UN is not a world government, that it is neither a world executive nor a world parliament. Even less is it a world supreme court. The UN is largely a sinister circus with no ability to confer moral legitimacy on a volunteer dog-catching outfit.

I believe we should interfere with the on-going massacre by Assad’s army by utilizing the abundant military resources we have in the region, especially resources currently afloat in the Mediterranean. From what I understand, we could cause significant mischief by directing drone attacks on tanks operating against residential areas and by sending the occasional cruise missile to”cruise” over military camps and military concentrations. There would be no need to issue specific warnings nor to comment after the fact. The opposition to the Assad regime is large enough and numerous enough to prevail if tanks are not reliably in the equation. Similarly, our forces could shoot down Syrian armed forces airplanes and helicopters, after a single “no-fly” warning.” That would be just to even out the game. And, it is not true that “if you break it you own it,” as the political general Colin Powell once said. There is no need to repeat the difficult experiences of Iraq, and especially of Afghanistan, where we became involved more or less mindlessly in nation-state building. We could break things and kill killers in Syria until Assad and his clique are gone and then, let the Syrians pick up the pieces as they like. They are an ancient and sophisticated people who have been kept in a state of artificial immaturity by a succession of tyrants. They would grow up soon if no one were shooting them in the head and bayoneting their children.

There is even a chance our actions would shame others in the region and elsewhere to lend a hand and to straighten themselves out to some extent. But we should not count on it. The United States should do the right thing irrespective of the actions and inaction of others. Our honor and our humanity are precious in their own right. When their preservation corresponds to our collective interest, there is no excuse for passivity.

 

 

 

 

Syrians Are Still Dying

A year ago, prudent voices in this country, the US, were warning us of the sure high cost in American lives of any military intervention in Libya on the side of humanity and common decency. They even urged us to spare our “sons and daughters.” Today, the same voices, on the Left and in conventional libertarian circles, are issuing the same solemn warnings as the horrors increase in Syria while the civilized world stands obscenely aside.

Well, it’s not too early to compute the cost in American lives of last year’s successful intervention in Libya. Here is an easy way to remember it: As many Americans died over Libya as Japanese died from radiation exposure in and around Fukushima.

3/26/12  Someone pointed out to me recently that many people imgine that thousands died of radiation in and around the Fukushima nuclear plant. So, let me be obvious: No one, not a single person died because of radiation emitted by the Fukushima nuclear plant accident. And the number of American military who perished  in the intervention in Libya is also zero.

PS   I now know I have readers in the Middle East. I wish we would hear from them. Of course, I don’t know if it’s safe for them to comment on this blog. I don’t expect them to go to jail or worse just so they can express an opinion on my blog.

Addendum, March 26 2012. The massacre continues. If Assad prevails there will be no forgiveness. If anyone knows of a way to send money to the opposition, give it. I will publish it here. Yes, I know that the recipient might be Islamists who dream of blowing me up. It’s worth it anyway

Le gouvernement…

Le gouvernement fédéral (donc sous le président Obama) vient de mettre entrave à la tentative de l’état du Texas d’exiger que les votants présentent une pièce d’identité avec photo au bureau de vote pour être autorisés à voter. Motif: Cette mesure derait discriminatoire vis-à-vis des membres des minorités noire et latine.Vous croyez que j’invente?

Monday morning notions

I am not holding my breath awaiting an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear sites. I think Israel will not bomb them without having first disposed of the threat of Hezbollah on its norther frontier and cowed Hamas right next door.

US domestic culture wars: American Libertarians and conservatives are taxing 30-year old law student Sandra Fluke with hypocrisy because she presumable does not want the government to interfere with her right to abortion but she wants someone other than herself to pay for her contraception expenses. I may be old-fashioned but I, personally, would look to her partner or partner to share the costs. When you are poor, your rely on pot-luck dinners.

Some of us are guessing that ultimately, Ms Fluke thinks the government must pay for her expenses although she did not say that in her testimony. I have already expressed myself on this. (http://factsmatter.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/contraception-and-perversions-dr-ds-brutal-reminders/) . Personally, I am willing to pay for ms Fluke’s entertainment but I admit that my position is unprincipled.

I suspect our expressions of anger about this assumption of government mandate are all in vain. It’s just a suspicion. Ms Fluke belongs to a generation of Americans that has only known government care, that only thinks of the state as a nanny. We who generally believe things should be otherwise have been impressively unsuccessful. We have not been able to promote the following simple idea: The government does not have any money but what it takes from some people or from all people. This simple idea has no traction among many people I know well. They treat it as propaganda without even trying to counter it with: “Yes, but….” I speculate (again, only speculate) that they feel no need to even think about this simple truth because they believe that somewhere, there are many rich people who are not paying their” fair share,” people who could be made to disgorge if only a little energy were applied. We have been mostly successful at transmitting our skepticism about government but not in this particular respect. We have bred cynicism without a will for reform.

One of my recent readers is surprised that I “bash” Congressman Ron Paul who is competing in the official Republican primary. I have explained my opposition to Congressman Paul several times in extensive essays. (To find them, simply search this blog for titles with the words: “Ron Paul.”) One reason is that I think he is not a Republican all, that he is merely using the Republican Party to serve his nefarious purposes. I suspect that when the time comes, he will give the election to President Obama. Some of his supporters are saying it openly. Many, (I don’t know how many) openly and radically despise democracy. Here is something on the moderate side of Ronpaulism I caught on Facebook on 3/9/12. It’s reproduced exactly.

(I don’t know about the underscore. I don’t know how to remove it. It has no meaning.)

Kelly L. Norman

Taken off Facebook circa3/10/12

“If two thugs came up to my door and told me, “One of us is going to beat, rape and rob you. But you have to vote for the one you want to do that”, and I said no, and one of them beat, raped and robbed me anyway, you wouldn’t tell me I had no right to complain about it “because you didn’t vote.” So why do you think I should vote for one of these idiots running and re-running for president? And that I can’t complain if I don’t? If a miracle occurs and Paul gets the nod, I will vote for president. Otherwise, fuggetaboudit.”

Word Press, the outfit that published my blog, recently added a feature that I like a lot: It tells you with a map about readers in different countries. Or rather, it tells you about people in different countries who open specific postings. It’s annoying that one does not ever know how many of those actually read. I wish there were a way to give them a quiz or something!

While most of my putative readers are in the US, as expected, my blog is read pretty much around the clock. I have readers in Hong-Kong, Australia, Japan, and Bangladesh. (I am pretty sure I know one reader in Japan and one in Australia but I have several readers in both countries.) I would be pleased if readers outside the US told me something of themselves. They would not have to identify themselves, of course. Writing is a lonely art. Knowing anything about readers is astonishingly pleasing and encouraging.