travisthornton.net

Music? Quickly assessing current events, I see an Alinsky-like effort by the Obama Administration to marginalize and eventually end the war in Afghanistan, while not upsetting either their left-wing constituency, or the right-of-center America.  In fact, I see the Administration presenting a quick and easy three-step process on how to end a war, without actually ending a war, regardless of important decisions on troop strength.

1 – Dither.  No matter what your decision may be, the later, the better.  Tardiness distracts, and over time, desensitizes your detractors.  Specifically, have your hand-selected General present four plans for combat forces, and ostentatiously reject them all.  Go abroad (ie, to Asia) to forget about your troubles.  Demand health care and energy reform upon return.  Announce a troop strategy, and scurry to Copenhagen to talk about windmills before the White House Press Corps can catch you.

2 – Make history by having your Attorney General try the world’s worst war criminals, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a civilian court, preferably in traumatized New York City.  Doing so will effectively criminalize the war and confuse troops on which course of action to take with enemy combatants.  Are our troops at war, or are they a glorified police force, arresting and reading Miranda rights to the enemy?  Who cares?  Let them figure it out.  Most importantly, have the court proceedings put the previous Administration and the CIA on trial.  Blaming others will deflect attention from your own shortcomings while troops are quagmired.

3 – Capitalize on an event like the Fort Hood Massacre by ignoring facts, and instead ask questions like why Major Nidal Hasan would do such a thing.  Imply psychosis and “Second-Hand PTSD,” a term that does not exist, but hey, you’re the President, so feel free to make it up as you go.  By turning the former watchdog media into your lapdog, you can further support the terrorist by implicating soldiers on the ground of war crimes (see last night’s CNN Report, “Killings at the Canal.”)  This will most certainly kneecap the warfighting efforts, frightening troops from (gasp!) hurting the poor little terrorists in their sad little caves.

By these means, Mr. President, surging troops into Afghanistan won’t really matter at all.  40,000 troops?  Why not surge 200,000 troops?  You could even try out the draft to send every 18 to 25 year old male to war.  It won’t matter, after all; if the approach is incoherent, we will never win.  Your left-wing base will be content that our enemies aren’t getting hurt, and the center-right majority will be under the impression that “you’re doing all you can” to bring the enemy to justice, in New York City, or Chicago, or Houston, or Arlington, or anywhere.  Anywhere but GTMO, of course.

The judgment to bring KSM and Friends to a civilian court in New York City is a particularly peculiar case, transcending reason, as there is no judicial precedence for doing so.  If you missed Senator Lindsey Graham stumping our fearless Attorney General over this decision in a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, see video.  He speaks for me.

What I’m saying is this:  There are long-lasting effects of seemingly simple political decisions that troops on the ground will be forced to deal with.  If you think the message sent to the world to be bad - that we will treat attacks on civilian targets as criminal acts, and not acts of war – if you consider that bad posturing, what do you think the effects of our President kowtowing to every foreign dignitary he comes across might be?  What message does this send to other nations?

The President has no reason to apologize, bend, bow, or “recant American hegemony,” a position thrusted upon us, as the world’s only unilateral power that never strived to be a unilateral power.  The world has continually placed its bets on the United States of America, relying on us to bail them out over and over again.   Consequently, we dip our flag to nobody.  We’re not the Beta Dog here, rolling over to expose our throats to the Alpha Male, much less to the emperor of a country who’s Constitution we wrote, the first-born son of the man who engineered Pearl Harbor.  And if that’s right-wing hubris, so be it.

Stand upright, speak thy thoughts, declare

The truth thou hast, that all may share;

Be bold, proclaim it everywhere:

They only live who dare.

~ Voltaire

I concluded my last post with the idea that “Americans should no longer have to choose between Big Government at home, or Big Government abroad.”  In this post, I will address Big Government abroad, and refer to ideas expressed previously on this website.  This argument will carry with it an indictment of our current foreign policy, which means well, but has awakened broad disapproval from the American people, rendering a division with no foreseeable way of reconciling the differences between America’s Hawks and Doves.  Common ground must first be sought for it to be found. 

The time could not be more critical to find common ground; it’s a dangerous world out there.  Just look at the last two days of piracy off the Horn of Africa for confirmation.  Somali “pirates” – another word for “terrorists” – have seized a Saudi oil tanker, a Thai fishing vessel,  a British supertanker, and an Iranian cargo carrier.  In fact, there have been eight ships seized in the last twelve days.  The Saudi vessel is carrying 2 million barrels of oil and is three times larger than a US aircraft carrier.  We must go beyond asking how the Administration, or specific parties, deal with our problems, and instead start hammering out an American way forward.  Do we negotiate with terrorists?  We are the most powerful nation in the world, and as such, have some responsibility in setting a relational tone with other nations, to be emulated throughout the world.  How do we relate to tribes with which we share little similarities in mindset?

Ultimate resolution between our Hawks and Doves will necessitate a restructuring of our nation’s overall world view; this is the only way to save our nation from global misperception and subsequent attacks.  Attacks on America (and our interests) inevitably lead to a reaction.  Establishing an encompassing, general foreign policy mindset to face any threat is therefore the challenge facing this generation. 

Money, and specifically our economic relationships to other nations, remains the primary inhibitor to any coherence in foreign policy.  This troubling reality is sacrificing our national security for our economic interests.  Why do we treat China differently than we do Russia?  Why do we treat Saudi Arabia differently than we do Iran?  Follow the money.

These countries all have documented civil rights violations, on similar levels.  Civil liberties remain the pretext for freedom and self-reliance throughout a country.  We claim to fight for the advancement of freedom abroad, but turn a blind eye to a nation’s domestic policies if it behooves our foreign policy with them.  Free market principles should, in turn, promote the freedoms they are based upon; otherwise our economic partners are simply exploiting a system they have no interest in defending.

While we have a solemn responsibility throughout the world, we must determine whether or not we want to return to a Republic, or plummet into an Empire, which would ultimately fail.  Arguments against a strong national defense posture abound, and counter any impulse to expand our influence abroad.  Republicans, hesitant to break ranks on this issue, need to listen if they want to save their party.

Point: resisting hegemony

Those who have come before us have offered words of caution regarding these impulses towards hegemony.  Felix Morley, one of the founders of the conservative weekly publication Human Events, stated in his 1957 essay, “American Republic or American Empire,” “We are trying to make a federal republic do an imperial job, without honestly confronting the fact that our traditional institutions are specifically designed to prevent centralization of power… at some time, and at some point, however, this fundamental conflict between our institutions and our policies will have to be resolved.”

During World War II, the Republican Party’s chief idealogue, Senator Robert A. Taft, aka “Mr. Republican,” stated that, “Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.”  In their book, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, Robert Kirk and James McClellan wrote, “The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas has not been heartening, and the American Constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government.  Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption.”

Do these sentiments represent the same Republican Party of today?  Obviously not.  In my last post, I said, “The libertarian wing of the Republican Party has a stronger seat at the table today than it did before the election.”  Our incoherent foreign policy regretfully illustrates this notion.  The stifling of ideas from the wings has crippled the Republican Party.  I hate antiwar pacifism as much as the next guy, but these arguments within the GOP must be heard in order to stay afloat.  As John McCain said in his first appearance since his concession speech (on Jay Leno), “Our party has a lot of work to do.  We just got back from the woodshed.”

Congressman Ron Paul, in his 2008 manifesto, The Revolution, quips, “It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionalism, occupation, and nation-building.”  Personally, I remain restrained in the call for non-interventionalism, although I lend credence to these arguments, especially when delivered sensibly. 

These sentiments are saturated in Thomas Jefferson, highly idealistic, and do not seem practical for our current situation.  While non-interventionalism could be a final goal of sorts, it should be recognized that it may not be achievable in the next fifty years, if at all.  I’d like to cite the root of my hesitation with some personal references.  As Patrick Henry said in his famous 1775 speech, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.  I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

Counterpoint: promoting liberty

I toured the National Holocaust Museum with my wife the weekend before the election, just to get my mind right.  I would contend this shocking reminder was somewhat of a catalyst in my decision to book a flight home in order to vote.  My absentee ballot had been denied due to an administrative error, so I made a lot of phone calls the day before the election, and was registered to vote over the phone with the Texas Secretary of State’s office.  I kept coming back to the claims of Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden:  “Mark my words… It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama… Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy… gird your loins…”

I also remember my last day on watch as the Officer of the Deck on the USS Gonzalez in the Persian Gulf in July 2005.  My ship was transiting the Straits of Hormuz when a Iranian Coastal Patrol Craft cut us off in a show of force, with their crew manning the rail, standing at attention.  Was this sheer stupidity?  We had ten times the fire power as them.  Was this bravado?  I recognized a strong sense of national pride present among the Iranians.  This truth was reinforced thirty minutes later, when an Iranian P3 flew over our ship, taking pictures of us.  I, in turn, got a few pictures of them.

Iran is perhaps the largest benefactor from our Iraqi invasion; let’s face it, we are much less likely to invade another Middle Eastern country, no matter what the costs, and the Shiites profitted greatly from regime change in Iraq.  So considering their added strength and our diminished authority in the region, when the Iranian President professes his desire to “wipe Israel off the face of the map,” we should pay attention.  Almost five years passed between the time Hitler invaded Poland (1939) and the American invasion of Normandy (1944); the Nazis began killing the Jews in 1938, during “The Night of the Broken Glass,”  before the War even started.  Consider these facts:  jihad does not mean holy war, it means “to struggle;” Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison, which is German for “my struggle;” how long should we disregard the words of those who might – might – do us harm?  How long do we haggle and horsetrade with these people for oil, which has become a security crutch for Americans, while we sacrifice individual freedoms, along with our reputation and credibility around the world?  Contrary to the bumper sticker, peace is NOT progress, specifically when built upon a loss of freedoms.

I also learned from my experience overseas that not all Iranians want to “wipe Israel off the map” or consider it a “stinking corpse.”  I met some Iranians in Dubai who were as “Western” as any American:  free market capitalists, classically liberal, not religiously/ideologically driven.  When offered a higher level of individual freedoms, most humans will natually take advantage of them.  We have to sell freedom around the world, not force it; otherwise, it’s not freedom.  We have to understand the global Muslim community has much to offer America, when working in coordination with America’s interests, and not against them, but stored in our minds, the caution of Thomas Jefferson:  “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”

2008 and Beyond

So now we are left with a conflict of interests – eternal vigilance to fight for freedom, and the need to resist “nation building” around the world.  Political parties must work together to forge ahead in the Post-9/11, Post-Iraq world.  In the wake of the 2008 presidential election, it is worth noting the high volume of international saber-rattling from the likes of China (nuclear submarine spotted trailing USS George Washington, an aircraft carrier), Russia (threatening to move missiles to the border of Poland to counter US Missile Defense), North Korea (closing the border with South Korea), and Iran (testing missiles near the Iraqi border).  Guiding principles must be established to work with these nations, as Hans Morgenthau stated, to “bend, not break” the will of our international partners (as discussed in my (R)enaissance series, Part 2).

When we don’t have an overarching mindset for approaching international relations, we render well-meaning folks who want to get out of Iraq, as they feel our invasion was uncalled for, but would like to enter Sudan, to stop the genocide in Darfur, although the Sudanese government warns the United Nations against any intervention.  A legitimate argument could be made for or against either invasion, based on the “Point” and “Counterpoint” above; the problem now lies in a lack of principles. 

To advance the cause of freedom, respect sovereignty, and improve our image abroad, all arguments must be heard in the most transparent of ways.  I believe it is worth spelling out a list of principles we all agree upon (however short that might be), and then going from there.  Within this framework, our Hawks can serve as a deterrent globally, and the Doves act as an intentional impedement to conflict.  This is why I favored John McCain for President in today’s world; he would be the proverbial dog on a leash, held back by the very liberally Democratic 111th Congress.  We instead now have a unified government behind a shockingly new however very inspirational President.  We will see how the Obama Administration handles crises as they arise. 

This beckons a final thought:  what constitutes Obama’s guiding principles in foreign policy?  Let’s turn to the heads of media, as their job is to investigate and report.  On the Charlie Rose Show, the Friday before the election, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw – two of the most respected members of the media – were quoted as follows:

ROSE:  I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW:  There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

BROKAW:  No, I don’t either.

ROSE:  I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW:  We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE:  I don’t really know.  And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW:  You know that’s an interesting question.

ROSE:  He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches, two of them.

BROKAW:  I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE:  What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

I guess we are left with Obama’s mantra – hope – to get us through the next four years.  The prayers and hopes of America are backing President-elect Obama, with, as he calls them, “righteous” winds of change in America’s sails.  I look forward to living through these times with all of you, whether conservative or liberal, headstrong and determined, as a fellow American in a fallen world.

My grandfather recently told me a story from his childhood, when in the wake of Pearl Harbor, his father silently retreated to his Houston backyard, and began turning up the soil in December 1941.  Although puzzling, his intentions were simple:  plant vegetables.  He later built a coop and a pen, bought pigs and chickens, and soon, his family was self-sufficient.  In an age of minimal networking, most didn’t know where Pearl Harbor was, as the Wikipedia history lessons weren’t readily available as they are today.  He only knew the Japanese had bombed American territory, and in case of enemy invasion, he would be ready. 

The actions of my father’s father’s father are telling.  They embody a level of commitment and a realization that, yes, we are at war.  He also decided to “eat locally;” today, our food travels an average of 1500 miles before hitting our plates.  Inflated food prices are at their highest in 18 years.  Ethanol mandates receive a lot of the blame for this.  According to the US Department of Agriculture last week, however, food prices have only risen 3% due to the President’s mandate to produce 30 million more barrels of ethanol.  In actuality, due to the high gas prices, it costs more to put that food on your plate than it did yesterday.  Gas prices have caused across-the-board inflation.  Today, we don’t even realize we’re at war. 

So let’s look at some of the facts at hand.  Since 9/11, oil prices have more than quintupled.  It’s not hard to conceive, however, when you look at the roster of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries, an opaque list of dictatorships and kingdoms known as OPEC:  Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.  Obviously, some of these countries are bigger players than the others, but when you look for the cause of our woes, consider the source. 

These select countries collectively set the price of oil, based on… well, not supply and demand in the United States.  Global oil production is up, and US demand dropped 0.8 percent since last year, so the price should have gone down.  However, since international demand has risen due to India and China’s growing impact, prices have risen due to speculation and global fear.  The past year should be an indication of the direction we are heading:  for the first time in history, more cars were purchased in Asia than in the United States.

I remember paying 85 cents a gallon for gas in high school (in the Nineties) and “driving around” all night.  It was possible to fill your gas tank then for ten dollars or less.  Today, it may cost $300 a month or more just to drive back-and-forth to work.  It is now feasible to pay less a month for your car than you do for the gasoline you put in it. 

We are being held hostage by a handful of foreign countries. 

We are literally being held over a barrel. 

Crisis Evolving 

To date, sixty-five percent of our oil is imported.  Consider the fact that (on May 21, 2008) gas is $3.70 a gallon in America, while in Venezuela, it is 12 cents, in Iran, 40 cents, in Saudi Arabia, 45 cents, and in Libya, 50 cents.  Among these countries, only Saudi Arabia is considered a real ally; more on that later.  Europeans pay more than we do for gas, averaging eight dollars a gallon.  Which raises the question:  would we pay eight dollars for a gallon of gasoline?  I guess it depends on how far you drive to work.  At some point, you will see negative returns on commuting to work.  Let’s suppose OPEC continues to ratchet the price: what would happen when gas costs five, or ten, or twenty dollars a gallon?  Would we pay twenty dollars for a gallon of gasoline?  Hopefully, we won’t someday look back fondly at these days, when gas was less than four dollars a gallon, or wish we could simply get gasoline at all.   

What happens when OPEC says oil is no longer for sale?  What if we reach “peak oil” with our remaining economic allies?  It’s enough to pontificate starting a strategic reserve of your very own.  A gasoline outage wouldn’t just affect your driving, though.  Food prices would skyrocket.  Cross country shipments would come to a screeching halt.  Planes would be grounded.  Work and production nationwide would cease; what would happen to the Stock Market?  Are we seeing these effects now?  If it were to become unavailable, what would people do just for a gallon of gasoline? 

Friends Like These 

Some claim Big Oil is responsible for the high price of gasoline.  According to the Department of Energy data from March 2008, 12% of what you pay at the pump goes to taxes, 16% goes to oil companies for refining, distribution, and service stations, while 72% pays for the crude oil.  That variable is set by OPEC.   

Where does our imported oil come from?  Most comes from Canada.  Saudi Arabia is by far the largest known supply of oil in the world.  Roughly seventeen percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Behind Canada’s twenty-six percent contribution, Saudi Arabia is the major supplier of American oil.  Without Canada, our silent partner and consequently the second largest known supply of oil in the world, we would be putty in the hands of the Middle East.  We currently have a discordant foreign policy in place throughout the entire region due to oil economy.  Instead of basing our relations on human rights, the foundation of freedom, we lay our money down for the Saudi regime.

It’s no mystery that we have a rocky relationship with Saudi Arabia.  Since their discovery of oil, we have sought business with the regime.  After the death of King Fahd in 2005, half-brother Crown Prince Abdullah advanced to the throne.  This position was sought after by half-brother Prince Nayef, now the Interior Minister, who is seen as the heir apparent of the crown.  As King Abdullah is now 84 and Prince Nayef is 75, this shift could happen sooner rather than later. 

So who is Prince Nayef, and how is he different from King Abdullah?  To peel this onion is to reveal a certain “Saudi paradox.”  King Abdullah is a proponent of rapprochement between Muslims and Non-Muslims, known in Arabic as “taqarub.”  He is an ardent supporter of the theory of “Great Capitalist Peace,” in which free market drives foreign policy.  Prince Nayef, on the other hand, is closer to the Wahhabi than King Abdullah, and as Interior Minister oversees the funding of worldwide extremist political groups like Hamas, and various madrassahs, or schools, throughout Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and various parts of the world, including Gibraltar, shown below.  Put simply, Salafists teach hatred for the West to young children.  From an early age, children are taught that jihadi martyrdom is divine.  From all this, you can deduce that while we are engaged in a Global War on Terror, we are funding both sides of the war. 

Let me include a couple of historical examples to personify Prince Nayef.  As Interior Minister, he is head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), or as we would call it, the Religious Police.  The CPVPC walk the streets and carry sticks to flog those not praying at proper times, as they are responsible for enforcing Islamic law in Saudi Arabia.  On March 11, 2002, a dormitory at a girl’s school in Mecca caught fire, and the Religious Police beat back schoolgirls as they tried to leave without their proper Islamic headdress.  More than a dozen girls died as a result, an act which Prince Nayef defended, saying the CPCPV prevented “mistreatment” of the girls.  In June 2007, the Religious Police beat a man to death in front of his family on suspicions he possessed alcohol. 

We turn a blind eye to the actions of an evil regime to get that oil, and while these actions vilify Nayef on the home front, his interference in the Global War on Terror makes him a more immediate threat to the United States.  Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  In November 2002, he absolved the hijackers of all responsibility, and instead blamed Israel of a conspiracy to rouse the Zionist-Crusader Alliance against the Muslim world.  This is the future of U.S.-Saudi relations. 

Maybe last week we saw the beginning of the end.  With impending out-of-control gas prices, the Department of Energy halted sending oil to the nation’s Petroleum Strategic Reserve, located along the Gulf Coast (in great places like Winnie, Texas), to begin in July and to remain in effect through the rest of 2008.  Experts say this action could lower gas prices as much as twenty-four cents.  Earlier that day, President Bush met with his Saudi friends, including King Abdullah, and asked for an increase in production from the Saudis, which would provide some relief at the pump here in the U.S.  The answer was no.  Our economic ally drew a proverbial line in the desert sand.   

Energy Dependence 

We can have our own opinions, but we can’t have our own facts.  One fact is no new oil refineries have been built in this country since 1976.  Years ago, some in Congress suggested oil companies stalled construction to build up their profits.  Congress does not help in this matter, though, while the oil companies debate the sensibility of investing in new refineries and cite ethanol or other alternative fuels as reasons why not to build them. 

This back-and-forth between Congress and Big Oil is not new.  It came to a head today in a Senate Judiciary Hearing as oil representatives testified on Capitol Hill.  Senator Dick Durbin charged the executives, saying, “You have to sense what you’re doing to us.  We’re on the precipice here, about to fall into recession.  Does it trouble any one of you, the costs you’re imposing on families on small businesses, on truckers?”  The President of Shell Oil retorted that federal restrictions on drilling have caused the problems, stating, “If the nation set a goal of increasing domestic production by two to three million barrels a day by opening up new sources of exploration and production, we could demonstrate to the world that we are in control of our own destiny.” 

The fact I submit is this:  as we search for ways forward, any barrier to energy security of any kind is now a national security issue.  With friends like the Saudis, no additional chokepoints are needed.  To protect America and guarantee our foreign policy is not tainted by our energy needs; we must break our dependence.  We are addicted to oil, and we compromise our values in order to get it.  We cannot gain energy independence overnight, though.  Experts project it would take years to render results from new sources.  As we pay over $200 million dollars a minute on foreign oil, and borrow nearly $500 billion a year to pay for it, we import more than 9 million barrels a day, making up twenty-seven percent of the world’s energy demand.  Ninety-seven percent of our transportation infrastructure depends on oil.  These facts add up to show how extremely vulnerable we are.  

Declaring Independence 

What sacrifices have we really made during this war?  Our dependence on foreign oil has steadily grown, and debate over environmental issues has bitterly sharpened.  To advocate raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards brands you a hippie.  Consider the fact that doubling our vehicle efficiency would reduce oil consumption by 3.6 million barrels of oil per day; we import 2 million barrels per day from the entire Middle East.  The somewhat bipartisan cap-and-trade proposal by Senators Warner and Lieberman focuses on climate, and is a start to negotiating a path forward, but are not the absolute answer.  However, when coupled with Senator Domenici’s plan to increase production of oil within the United States, it seems Congress is beginning to realize the dire straits into which we stare.

I believe Americans should be able to judge their own transportation needs, and do what they feel they should do.  More than half a century ago, my great-grandfather found it necessary to produce his own food; that American spirit of sacrifice should be within all of us now.  I think when tackled deliberately, fuel economy can be raised without punishing Americans through tax burdens or through employment woes.  It will take a certain amount of understanding on the part of the American people.  Ultimately, a public and determined deliberation will be necessary between private industry, our government bodies, and the people they serve.  I just hope it happens before it’s too late.