Category Archives: War

On Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Old Right, Reason, The State, War

By now, my thinking on conspiracy theories should be known; they are the refuge of the weak-minded. Remember Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil? Reality is bad enough; there is no need to look beyond it. That is tantamount to conjecture and fantasy. As I said in the introduction to my book, the state presides over the disintegration of civil society, but it does so reflexively, rather than as a matter of collusion and conspiracy.

The premise for imputing conspiracies to garden variety government evils is this: government generally does what is good for us (NOT), so when it strays, we must look beyond the facts—for something far more sinister, as if government’s natural venality and quest for power were not enough to explain events. For example, why would one need to search for the “real reason” for an unjust, unscrupulous war, unless one believed government would never prosecute an unjust war. History belies that delusion.

Conspiracy is not congruent with a view of government as fundamentally antagonistic to the individual and to civil society, a position I hold. I see most of what the behemoth does nowadays as contrary to the good of the individual, and aimed reflexively at increasing its own power and size. Even if government embarked on a just war, it would find ways to prolong it, since this involves the consolidation of fiefdoms. Soldiers don’t benefit, but their superiors—those “generals” everyone reveres so—do. Our government, given its size, reach, and many usurpations, is a destructive and warring entity. It is natural for such an entity to pursue war for war’s sake. The constituent elements of the behemoth continuously work to increase their spheres of control. This is why we must curtail the state’s powers.

Propensity for conspiracy is yet another facet paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians share with the hard-left. I pointed out in “Deriding Dershowitz,” and elsewhere, that the far-out right has made common cause with the far left on quite a number of fronts. That’s a shame. You’ll find no such incongruities in my thinking. By way of example, my anti-war sentiments have never strayed into these murky precincts—don’t look for any war-for-oil-&-Israel kookiness here.

Presidential Politics: Immigration Vs. War

Politics, War

Citing a “National Academy of Sciences study,” Patrick Buchanan notes that “The average immigrant comes to this country much poorer and far less educated than Americans and consumes far more per capita in public services…each immigrant who comes with less than a high school education costs taxpayers $90,000 net over his or her lifetime.” Considering that immigration policy has been predicated mostly on family unification and on allowing millions upon millions of unskilled illegals to enter the country undisturbed, the assessment sounds about right.

When thousands of non-voting illegal aliens poured into the streets to demand their positive “rights,” their elected officials and El Presidente (Bush) came up with a bill that will grant the protesters their wish.

Adding to the “union” each year the equivalent of one New Jersey, powered by identity-politics, and consisting predominantly of tax consumers seeking to indenture taxpayers —how better to accelerate wealth distribution and the death of the republic?

As a libertarian who wrote her first op-ed in opposition to the invasion of Iraq in September 2002, I do not mean to diminish the centrality of this war in the presidential race. However, the neoconservative “idea” of preemptive wars or wars for democracy is as dead as a doornail. Can you imagine a candidate running on that plank? I didn’t think so. However, the notion of dissolving the people and electing another, to paraphrase Bertold Brecht—that’s very much alive in the minds of the political caste.

I’d say, then, that immigration is the central issue in the next elections.

Updated: If Americans Were More Like Israelis…

Bush, Israel, War

If Americans were more like Israelis, Bush’s popularity at the polls would be at…0 percent. That’s where Ehud Olmert’s approval rate is among Israelis, said CNN today. Olmert’s position at the polls had hovered between 2 and 3 percent, before bottoming out.

The anger is over the Second Lebanon War last year. Israelis are furious not only over the execution of the war, but over the fact that it had been prosecuted at all. Whereas large segments of the fantasy-based community in the US see great benefits to the destabilization of Iraq, or at least so they say—Israelis in overwhelming numbers believe leveling Lebanon was a horrible thing to do. Oddly enough, here at home, harpies for Bush continue to talk up the Second Lebanon War, even though Israelis have long since disowned it and the president who prosecuted it. “You’ve failed; go home” is the rallying cry across Israel.

The Winograd Report on that war, unparalleled in the US, has placed “the primary responsibility for these failures on the Prime Minister, the minister of defense and the (outgoing) Chief of Staff. All three made a decisive personal contribution to these decisions and the way in which they were made.” What simple, clear truths, the kind that evade us in the US.

The preamble to the Winograd Report states:

“We believe Israeli society has great strength and resilience, with a robust sense of the justice of its being and of its achievements.”

I have to agree—all the more so given that four years hence and most Americans still refuse to process what Bush wrought by invading Iraq and how corrupt that endeavor was.

Update: Bush vetoed the Iraq War Supplemental today. I think it’s his first veto in office. He blamed “members of the House and the Senate” for passing “a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. Contrast that with the Israeli Winograd Report which accused Olmert of “acting in effect as a rubber stamp for the army.” Funny that. In Israel they think the people, represented (allegedly) by the government and parliament, ought to make decisions; in the US we think it’s the generals (who, face it, give dumb a new meaning, if to judge by their acumen thus far).

Update II: The footage of 100,000 Israelis—of the left, right and center; religious and irreligious—gathered at Rabin Square to call on the government to resign warms the cockles. Author Meir Shalev derided the government thus:

“We do not seek compensation, not even remorse for your sins of lack of judgment, your arrogance. You ran headfirst into battle with the gaiety of fresh recruits, without a plan or an objective. You squandered Israel’s power of deterrence, you squandered our chances of bringing back the captives and worst of all – you squandered the lives of soldiers and civilians.”

They mention civilians! What will it take for conservative in this country to mention the poor, dying people of Iraq, upon which we’ve unleashed death and destruction, and who will probably never know peace again.

Anyone who has lived in, or visited, Israel knows that it is a country of independent-minded, anti-authoritarian, critical and demanding people. What can I say? Jews! Anyone who conflates the common American neocon with the regular Israeli has never encountered that odd creature, the Sabra, that prickly pair.

The assorted Hebrew signs read: “Failures, Go Home!”, “Elections Now!” These are all very tame, but things are sure to heat up…if I know Israel.

Updated: The Mummified McCain

Elections 2008, John McCain, Politics, Republicans, War

From Crooks and Liars.com:

“John McCain told Wolf Blitzer that he needs to ‘get up to speed’ and stop reporting three-month-old news from Iraq. According to McCain, the surge is working! And the streets of Baghdad are safe for Americans to go strolling down. The only problem? Michael Ware, who is, ya know, in Baghdad, says McCain hasn’t a clue—
Michael Ware: ‘I don’t know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad —Honestly, Wolf, you’ll barely last twenty minutes out there. I don’t know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.'”

I’ve been watching Ware for years now, and he is without a doubt the finest reporter around. He’s tough (when the girl, Anderson Cooper, interviews him, he doesn’t know how to react to his, “How did it make you feel” fluff) and courageous. He’s a war-time reporter in the old mold. One could only wish the Shrub possessed Ware’s understanding and knowledge of the geopolitical terrain in Iraq.

Update: Mummy McCain visited Iraq. Michael Ware practically lives there. He dared to heckle the Sainted One during the surprise visit McCain made to an undisclosed holiday resort in Iraq. McCain is thinking of buying a bed and breakfast in Baghdad. Drudge reports:

“During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct ‘outrageous,’ saying, ‘here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments.'”

No, the two privileged protected senators are not —giving first-hand reports — on life in Bagdad; Ware does that daily.

Because Ware failed to show reverence to the pampered duo that popped in for a visit, the Bush press machine has shifted into smear gear. It’s trying to discredit the tough Ware’s first-rate reporting, citing an incident where Ware referred to this war as a “train wreck.” Omigod! I’ll never listen to his reports in the same way! The guy’s reality testing is shot!

(Ware, by the way, was also briefly held captive by al Qaida.)