Rorschach Mask

[inibo]

Some people will look at the top one and say, yep. They'll look at the bottom and say how dare you. On the other hand, some people will do just the opposite. What do you see? Truth or offensiveness?

Comments

[inibo]

You may be right, but based on the presence of Rahm Emanuel, Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski in his circle of advisors I would say belief that there will be any fundamental change in US foreign policy under Barack Obama is purely speculative as well.

I will admit to hyperbole in posting that image, and as I have said elsewhere, if I'm wrong I will be the first to eat my words and I will give him the props he will have earned. I have to admit some of the noises I am beginning to hear on some executive orders and investigation of executive department criminality are encouraging, but action is what counts.

When I start seeing troops removed from Korea, Japan, Germany, England, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and roughly 150 other countries (and by removed I mean all of the troops, not just "combat" forces, and their bases shut down), when we no longer have thirteen carrier task forces patrolling the world, then I will say my speculation is wrong and yours is right. With the exception of Iraq I have heard nothing to indicate any of our basic policy toward the rest of the world is going to change in any way other than style.

From where I stand the burden of proof is on your speculation not mine.

[kitten_goddess]

If he closes Gitmo OR ends this mess in Iraq, that's good enough for me. And he did not pick a batty dominionist for his running mate.

[inibo]

I think you would agree that for Barack Obama to face off with John McCain on military issues during the campaign would have been foolhardy

More than a few times recently I've been hearing people say that Obama is practicing some sort of stealth policy where he has to say one thing in order to placate the Washington establishment, when in his heart of hearts he is actually planning on implementing some radical departure from the status quo, e,g, that he voted for FISA in order to remove it as a talking point for the right during the campaign, or that he voted for the bailout so he could not be accused of letting the economy collapse when in reality he is going to change the way things are done in DC and somehow become a raging populist when it actually comes to implementing policy. I suspect that is wishful thinking. To address your specific point, the way he distinguished himself in during the nominating process was as a peace candidate and it was a successful strategy, but as soon as he secured the nomination he moved further to the center visiting AIPAC and talking about not allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even though IAEA and the US intelligence community have indicated that there is not indication that Iran is pursing them, and, as I said above, the presence of Emanuel, Albright and Brzezinski among his advisor makes me very skeptical.

And while I hardly expect the drastic level of troop withdrawals that you do (nor would I necessarily agree with them on a case-by case basis)

Well, you and I obviously disagree about the role of the US in international affairs. Exactly were do you think the US should maintain our military presence?

I do expect that he will get us out of Iraq, stabilize our withered military and re-solidify many (if not all) of our broken international alliances.

As to Iraq, I agree. As I've said, that that is a bright spot, but considering that we should never have been there in the first place he is only doing what's right. However, that he implies, along with many Democrats, that is was simply a bungled policy not a war crime and a blatant violation of international law makes me think he is going to do everything in his power to maintain the empire by doing it the right way rather than dismantling it.

From where I sit, the burden of proof is on President Obama, and I am willing to give the man a chance. How about you?

I am giving him a chance. I'm just holding his feet to the fire in the process. My point is that on those things he has done, his actual votes on real policy issues and his choice of advisors, I see little to encourage me. Over the course of the next few years one of is going to be eating crow. I hope it's me, but I suspect it's you.

BTW, if you haven't been, I would suggest you start reading Glenn Greenwald. Even though I disagree with him on many issues, he is doing his job by keeping the focus where it belongs.

[inibo]

You seem to be unaware (or forgetful) of the fact that I've never been an Obama cheerleader, i.e. I've focused my time and effort this election season almost exclusively on keeping McCain out of the White House.

Yes, but mostly pishposh :)

You are a politically aware person who writes about it and you know as well as I do the part of the reason for writing like this is, for want of a better term, troll bait. Well not real trolls because he rarely come out of his little enclave of cascading irrelevance. You know what I mean, though, sometimes you're just itching for a tussle and, sorry to say, or not, you happened to wander into my sights on this one.

If you can't take the heat get off the pot. :P

South Korea, Italy, Spain, the U.K., Japan and Turkey
Why? Every one of those country is perfectly capable of providing for their own defense. They all enjoy a form of social democracy that we subsidize with a military budget greater than all the rest of the world combined.

With the possible exception of South Korea none of the countries even faces a substantial military threat. Even Turkey's "troubles" are not really more than deadly nuisances and as long as they keep fucking with the Kurds the the Israelis fuck with the Palestinians they're getting what they've got coming.

Do not think I'm advocating isolationism. Far from it. The US should be deeply engaged--diplomatically, culturally and commercially. Our constitution was devised to "provide for the common defense." Nothing going on in any of the countries you mentioned poses any military threat to the United States. There is no legal foundation for military deployment outside the United States except a formal declaration of war.

On top of all that WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We throw a trillion dollar shit load of money down a rat hole every year and it buys us nothing but enmity, corrupt reciprocity and guaranteed retirement benefits for our vassals in exchange for acquiescing to our warped strategic vision. This country is currently facing nearly sixty trillion dollars in future liabilities. Name me one successful empire, a single one that did not either collapse under its own economic profligacy or experience destruction at the hands of the "barbarians" they empowered.

A well-equipped fleet of carriers and subs "patrolling" international waters.

Yes, but certainly not thirteen carrier groups. Two or three would be enough to devastate any continent on this planet.

That and naval and marine special forces to deal with piracy.

We are so far from what we could be. And the thing that really torques me is that there are actually people who think it really matters weather Democrats or Republicans control the the White House or Congress.

The great political division in this society is not conservative vs. liberal, or even Republican vs. Democrat. The great division is between a small group of plutocrats on one side, and the rest of the population on the other.

Neither party is going to touch that with a ten foot pole except for the fringe candidates like Gravel, Kucinich and Ron Paul because they are all members of that club, it is their bread and butter. Why on earth would either side want to change a thing? Why on earth do people keep voting for them?

Like me, he was against the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, and has promised to get us out. I'll take him at his word. For now.

I know that. I will be honest I didn't pay much attention to him early on. Did he oppose it on moral, legal and constitutional grounds calling it criminal or did he oppose it as bad policy? There is a world of difference. There is never any justification in initiating military action
except to defend against ongoing or immanent attack. Our military is not and was never intended to be an instrument of political calculation. It is there to protect our lives, liberties and property. Period.

And yes, I'm very familiar with Greenwald (and a fan).

I figured you might be.

[inibo]

So who, exactly, is the one setting "troll bait" and/or itching for a "tussle" here?

I though I was pretty clear say it was me on both counts.

So, are we done now... or do you want to subject me to some more of your "heat"? :)

I'm done for now.