Why US Involvment in the Syrian Civil War is Foolish

The following is taken from a discussion of US Military and Diplomatic Policy on my personal Facebook Wall:

Without even considering the state of our (military) forces, getting involved in Syria is ill-advised for several diplomatic reasons. The first and foremost diplomatic consideration here is that the Jihadi's have already beaten us to the punch. The type of people who do not like us are well represented on the side of the rebels and will likely have a large influence on any post-Assad government. I mean, what are we supposed to do? Purge the rebels of people we don't like? You can't really do that and claim to believe in freedom. The second consideration is the fact that this will become a proxy conflict between US and Iran, or worse, US and Russia. I'd like to believe that the Russians wouldn't be dumb enough to start World War III over a civil war in a relatively small Middle Eastern country, but history warns that crazier shit has happened. Some guy named Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, starting some conflict that was known at the time as "The Great War." You may have heard of it. Sarcasm aside, It is diplomatically unwise to poke a Totalitarian-Ascendant Russia with a stick. We might not have had this concern with Pre-Putin Russia, but if wishes were poppy we'd all be dreaming.

So combine our war-weary army with a diplomatic powderkeg and you get a situation that is, understating it, really bad. If we lose, we lose. But if we win in our current situation, we are likely to paradoxically lose even more. I'm afraid that there is no moral and diplomatically expedient way for America to be an agent of good here. Afraid, too, I am that we would be better off leaving Syria alone just as we left Iran alone when it was in its own time of civil unrest. And then there's the civil unrest in Turkey right now. The Turks have been one of our biggest traditional allies in the Middle East. Erdogan is becoming a tyrant and his people are also starting to rebel, this is another situation we are best to let take its course. The imperialist excesses of the Bush years have made me somewhat of an isolationist.

There are times when it is morally correct for a nation that is capable to stand up for oppressed of another nation. But in the situation where one tyrant may just as easily be replaced with another, I fear the more honorable thing to do is to not get involved. It may be selfish to say, but I believe that before all other diplomatic considerations, we have a responsibility to our own. There are bigger fish to fry within our own borders before we start taking on the problems within the borders of others.

Scandalgate, Facts, and What We Choose To Believe

I have to take a point from Chris Hayes, who has referred to the events that have come to a head this week collectively as "Scandalgate." Everyone on the right has been so eager compare any of the events of the past week as similar to the Nixon Watergate scandal. One of the comparisons that this commentate used is that these 3 scandals are similar to the child's story, "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." And the manner of which this comparison works is this: There is a "scandal" here which is a scandal in name only, the one that is "Too Cold." There is a scandal here that is being covered as such, but the root of this "Too Hot" scandal is much different from what the corporate media and conservative politicians would have you believe. And, finally, there is one scandal here that is "Just Right," and worthy of the most attention and scrutiny.

The non-scandal which is "Too Cold" is, in fact, Benghazi. I have said that blaming the Obama Administration, including Hillary Clinton, on the tragedy at the Benghazi consulate is as foolish as trying to blame 9/11 on the Bush Administration. My friend, Joel, wrote an interesting piece on how chief neoconservative of the Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, had said that Benghazi is the worst incident he had ever seen. How selective his memory is. Dick could be seen as trying to mend fences with the Tea Party that the policies of the Bush Administration unwittingly resulted in the creation of, but that's a topic for it's own essay. The re-ignition of the Benghazi faux-Scandal was fueled by an ABC report claiming to have direct quotes from inter-department e-mails damning the State Department for changing Sunday Morning Interview talking points. As the e-mails in question were released to the general public and news media later this week, it was discovered that ABC had, in fact, been quoting from a source who had access to the e-mails and not directly from the e-mails themselves as it had originally claimed. The alleged parts of the e-mails that ABC had reported on were summarized in such a way as to support the Republican interpretation of what happened when, in fact, the full text of the e-mails did not support that interpretation. My understanding is that the full text of the e-mails put the change of the talking points as a request of the Patraeus CIA, which had a vested interest in not bringing too much scrutiny to ongoing investigations into the incident. It was, therefore, the CIA that didn't want the Talking Points to mention Terrorism in an investigation into the Benghazi attack which was ongoing at the time. It is also believed that the Benghazi Consulate was actually a cover for a CIA operation based on the same property. And so, hindsight being 20-20 in all tragedies great and small, why are we arguing over talking points?

The Scandal in this trifecta that is too hot has connections to a pet interest of mine: Campaign Finance Reform. I am, of course, referring to the IRS Tea Party Discrimination Scandal. Reports would have you believe that the IRS discriminated against the Tea Party and that this is the end of the story. The story is that, for a period of time, the IRS was flagging applications for 501(c)(4) Tax Exemption Status for greater scrutiny. And the story is true. But the story that only liberal news outlets seem to be covering is that 501(c)(4) Tax Exemption Status is supposed to be reserved for organizations that are exclusively dedicated to Social Welfare. They are not supposed to have any political connections whatsoever. The Tax Man is not supposed to exempt organizations that run political ads from being taxed, even if their ads are ostensibly related to Social Issues. In recent years, and in connection with the Citizens United ruling which fraked up campaign finance law, the expectation that 501(c)(4) organizations should be exclusively devoted to charity, education, or recreation related to the social welfare of a community has changed. The CIA now enforces this law on the basis that 51% of an organization's funding should go to social welfare purposes while 49% can go to whatever political ads or activities that the organization may please. The CIA interpretation of the law has gone from 501(c)(4)'s being exclusively Social Welfare Organizations to them being primarily Social Welfare Organizations. There is a world of difference between the definition of the word "Exclusively" and the word "Primarily," as several independent liberal media commentators and corporate liberal media commentators are eager to point out. 501(c)(4) Tax Excemption Status also allows all donations to such an organization to be done anonymously. Super PACs have used this privilege to get around the need to disclose the names of donors under current Campaign Finance Law, using the 501(c)(4) organization as a sort of political money laundering organization. The real scandal here is that any political organization right, left, or center can get 501(c)(4) status at all. All Tea Party organizations that were flagged for extra scrutiny ultimately got their Tax Exempt Status, while 3 liberal organizations that had applied for the same status at the same time of this discrimination were denied. The scandal is not that the Tea Party was unfairly targeted here, the scandal is that all political organizations were not targeted and denied 501(c)(4) status. And I will take this as another reason why the current tax code is a decrepit failure which should be burned and remade from the ground up.

We are left with the scandal that is "Just Right." And that is the AP phone tapping scandal. Governments should be afraid of their people, it has been said. All of the AP's confidential sources are likely afraid that their confidentiality cannot be maintained. The AP has been damaged in a way that likely can never be made right. It's freedoms and the sacred trust of those who it has consulted have been violated. Of the trifecta, here is a proper Scandal. The Government, here, has truly overstepped its bounds. But whether a person sees it that way depends on what he or she values most. Is it Safety? Is it Liberty? Is it both in equal measure? Is it possible to have both in equal measure? Or do these questions and these truths mentioned throughout this essay matter in the least? Will we all believe what we want despite facts? I, for one, certainly hope not.

The Occupy Movement For Conservatives

To some on the Conservative end of the spectrum, the whole concept of protest is simply beyond them. Even when the powers that be are grinding our gears, most of us are lackadaisical enough to simply wait for election day to get rid of perceived defective politicians. Bearing this in mind, how am I supposed to explain the demands and expectations of the Occupy Wall St movement to people who generally believe that protest doesn't work?

Well, lets start with a quote from Conservative Fox News Host and Commentator, Sean Hannity: "The average American tax-payer knows that by the end of the day they are going to be on the hook for the trillion and trillions of dollars that we are using to bail out these companies, some of whom have been irresponsible--and they are expressing their frustration, which I think is quintessentially American." Several journalists sympathetic to the “Occupiers” would call this a succinct explanation of one of the reasons why the protesters are, well, protesting. What is amusing is that this is not a quotation about the Occupy Movement at all. This is a quotation about the Tea Party Movement. Hannity actually finds the Occupiers to be un-American. Disapproval of the corporate bailouts is a point of commonality between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement, but this is not the only grievance of the Occupiers just as it isn't the only complaint of the Tea Party.

After hearing this, you may think that the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement have some common ground in thinking that banks and corporations on the verge of bankruptcy deserved no government hand-outs to prevent their demise. The Occupiers do understand that corporations are the engines of job creation as much as any staunch conservative does. The Occupier does not necessarily disagree with all bailouts, only the unjust manner in which the recent ones are perceived to have been carried out. Liberals I have talked to see a domino effect of job loss on the economy if the bailed out corporations had been allowed to fail. The hard-line conservative would allowed these banks and companies to fail, would have allowed the people employed by said companies to lose their jobs, and sincerely believe that the free market system would right itself on its own. The liberal and most Occupiers want to see these failing businesses propped up with TARP and the other bailouts in order to avoid a true “depression” in the manner of the stock crash of '29. The Occupiers want their fellow Citizen to avoid incredible hardships brought on by losing their jobs. The Occupiers also want to prevent the domino effect of hardship on other average American Citizens who would suffer as a result of the domino effect caused by banks defaulting on loans in the financial sector and the loss of production capacity in the corporate sector. It's a matter of the interconnectedness of things. If auto makers are allowed to go under, then that effects people in other industries who manufacture the pieces that go into the automobile. I would describe this as the reverse of Trickle-down Reaganomics. When several giants of manufacturing fail, all the other companies that contribute components to that manufacture also suffer. This can manifest in further job loss for Citizens employed by those contributing companies.

Does this make the Occupiers seem like walking contradictions? It might, but the truth of the matter is that they know they need these corporations. Average American Citizens need corporations for jobs, but the occupiers believe that banks and corporations need to be held to strict standards that would prevent the misuse of bailout money on personal excesses of already executives. And so, my fellow conservatives, we arrive at the missing ingredient that the Occupiers wanted in these bailouts that has made them so indignant: Regulation. The Occupier sees that these companies were bailed out of necessity to prevent low and middle class job holders from experiencing hardships, they see that there was no accountability: They believe that this federal bailout money should only be used to benefit the rank and file employee and the future sustainability of the corporation itself. But it was not. And “savings,” as it were, was passed on to the common taxpayer.

Over here at Camp Conservative, “Regulation” is a dirty word. Yet we have a problem where compromise will be necessary. Where right meets left, rich meets poor, and have nots meets haves, strict demonization of the other simply doesn't provide an orderly path to fixing the problem. As a moderate, I believe that compromise is the only way that the two party system will work without the entire American political system grinding to a halt. Where that compromise should come from is a matter of opinion, however. I believe that the people in the Occupy Movement have legitimate grievances about the misappropriation of bailout and TARP funds. I don't believe you can just let big corporations fail anymore nor do I believe that the system, left alone, will right itself in a timely and painless manner. I don't believe the average Citizen should be made to suffer when there are alternatives. It simply is not practical to roll back the clock to a time of deregulation, I fact I believe worthy of its own article. The bailouts have already happened. Those who took advantage of taxpayer money for purposes other than securing the future prosperity of our America should be punished. Future bailouts of faltering American mega-corporations will be a topic for future presidents and legislatures of the United States to decide upon. However, I believe that in the future, even a hard-line conservative president would choose bailouts over risking a full collapse of the national economy.

Next week, I hope to talk about deregulation and the rights of corporations.

I hope for comments and conflicting viewpoints. All I ask is that you stated in respectful terms. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." This is a quotation by Aristotle. If you can't abide by it, you will be deleted.