Beyond Negotiation

Old Gadfly:  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), In our last conversation, we discussed how the dominant progressive narrative is beyond engineering public sentiment.

           IM:  Yes.  To be blunt, we talked about strong evidence of disinformation.  The President’s pompous, trivial, and unpresidential speech today was another case of unadulterated disinformation; and the speech was enshrouded in a cloud of utter absurdity.  Patting himself on the back, Obama bragged about being the first American leader in over three decades to negotiate with his Iranian equivalent, in this case, Hasan Rouhani. 

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  By the way, if you want excellent analysis of Iran’s role regarding control and instability within the Middle East, read Dexter Filkins’ article, “The Shadow Commander,” in The New Yorker Magazine.  After reading the article, you’ll see how naïve the “American leader” is.  But, in terms of political theater, claiming a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran was a clever way to set the tone for the rest of the speech.

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama takes credit for being the first in over three decades to negotiate with an Iranian counterpart, while refusing to negotiate with House Republicans?

IM:  That’s the gist of it.  Obama will negotiate with a party that has trained and funded actual suicide bombers while refusing to negotiate with what a White House staffer (i.e., communications director Dan Pfeiffer) has called “suicide bombers” in the House.  Republicans are expected to compromise, while Obama has no intention of compromise.  Yet, in his speech, Obama accuses Republicans of grandstanding.  It takes two to tango, but only one dancer will be held accountable in this scenario, and it won’t be Obama.  Isn’t it grand to be king with an indentured press to repeat the king’s proclamations?  I guess we long ago lost the meaning of the Boston Tea Party.  And these great Americans were considered extremists by King George as well.

Old Gadfly:  Give some examples of disinformation in the speech.

IM:  The elephant in this room is Obamacare, a law that was passed without a single Republican vote.  Last week, the House, acting in concert with their constituents, forwarded a bill to the Senate that fully funds the government, but defunds Obamacare.  The Senate Democrats could compromise by agreeing to the House bill.  But, they will not because of the sacred cow, Obamacare.  Further, Obama claims the House leadership has been held hostage by the extremist Tea Party faction, as if this group represents a fringe minority in its opposition to fully implementing Obamacare, and other government expansion efforts.

Old Gadfly:  I did not hear Obama mention in the speech that the majority of the American people are opposed to implementing Obamacare.  Do the people not matter in this debate?

AM:  The people only matter when Obama can use them for human instruments, as in background props while giving speeches.  Obama’s tone and rhetoric have even compelled many Americans to react emotionally in regard to any mention of the Tea Party.  If you can even get one of these Copernican drones to engage in a conversation, they cannot explain what it is about the Tea Party that makes them so hateful.

Old Gadfly:  I know what you are getting at, AM.  Remind us about human instruments.

AM:  During the American Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote an essay, “The Contest in America,” to convince the British government not to intervene in order to keep cotton flowing in support of their textile-based economy.  Mill closed his set of arguments with this observation:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.[1]

Old Gadfly:  Do you think union leaders are starting to feel “degraded” after serving as human instruments in the service of a master? 

AM:  Yes.  Unions danced with the devil they thought they knew.  Now, union leaders are angry and becoming vocal as they learn what is in the bill that had to be passed before they could know what was in it. 

IM:  So, AM, it sounds like House Republicans are exerting themselves by fighting the increasingly apparent injustices of Obamacare. 

AM:  And, ultimately, the fight is against the threat progressivism poses.

IM:  Ironically, Orwell described the evolution of political power when the animals took over the farm in Animal Farm.  He described how the seven commandments devolved into only one commandment:  all animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.  Progressives in the White House and Congress are increasingly more aggressive in practicing this commandment.  When the President chooses which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not, we have another Orwellian Napoleon calling the shots with the help of Squealer (Dan Pfeiffer and/or a complicit press), but these American characters are not fictional. 

AM:  I guess this is what progressives mean by social justice—take from some to give to others.  In the end, those who are not part of the club end up being mere human instruments.   Then again, there appears to be a large swarm of Copernican drones, who drink the club Kool-Aid, being used as human instruments as well.  They represent a large portion of the grass roots organization.  The Organizing for Action website is pretty hypnotic.     

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to disinformation specifics in Obama’s speech.

IM:  Obama also bragged about the most aggressive reductions in deficits since the Second World War.  The highest deficit in the Bush Administration was less than half a trillion.  The lowest deficit in Obama’s Administration was $973 billion—more than twice the largest deficit recorded under the Bush Administration.  The other four years under Obama ranged from $1.1 to $1.4 trillion.  But what these figures do not tell you is that the cost of government is still growing, not receding.  And despite Obama’s rhetoric to the contrary, taxes have gone up.  While fewer Americans actually pay federal income tax, that minority is paying even more.  Without the increased tax revenue, there would be no deficit reduction.  Here’s the data from the Fiscal Year 2014 Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Table 1.1:

    

AM:  As I recall from an earlier conversation, the cost of the federal government in 1933 was about $600 per person.  Today, when adjusting for inflation so that we are using constant dollars, the cost of the federal government is now $12,000 per person.  This is 20 times greater.  Yet, poverty is as high as ever, median incomes are decreasing, and record numbers are on food stamps and disability.

Old Gadfly:  Am I missing something?  Obama wants the public to think he’s reducing deficits, which should reduce our overall debt.  Yet, did he not put Republicans on notice that they better increase the debt ceiling next month?

IM:  You did not miss anything, Gadfly.  This is a patent example of disinformation.  While deficits contribute to our national debt, it is the debt that puts our economy at risk because it can eventually exceed our capacity to generate the wealth from which tax revenue is drawn.  Obama wants the public to think the government is spending less by exaggerating deficit reductions . . . but our government is growing and so is the national debt.

Old Gadfly:  IM, does the government data indicate any statistical relationships between party affiliation in the House (where the power of the purse resides) and the size of government?

IM:  Absolutely.  Between 1981 and 2012, there is a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between House party affiliation and full-time equivalent positions in the federal government, where r = -.70, p = .000.  This means that as political power shifts to the left (Democrat), full-time equivalents increases significantly.  As the power shifts to the right (Republican), full-time equivalents decrease significantly.

AM:  This may explain why the federal bureaucracy is so heavily unionized.  Democrats like big government, and those who make up the government have champions in the Congress, with union dues helping to finance reelection campaigns.

IM:  What aggravates this dynamic is that there is also a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between full-time equivalent positions in the federal government and percent employed in the private sector, where r = -.64, p = .000.  This means that as federal jobs increase, jobs in the private sector decrease, and vice versa.  The balance between the cost of government and the capacity of the private sector to produce the wealth that is needed to sustain the cost of government is critical.

Old Gadfly:  What did Obama have to say in today’s speech about the economy?

IM:  He said, the Republicans are about to “throw a wrench into the gears of our economy at a time when those gears have gained some traction.”

AM:  What traction?  In our last conversation, we talked about how bad the job situation is. Here is what I said:  “The percent of our working population actually employed is at 63.2% (as of August 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the lowest in over 30 years.  And many who are ‘employed’ are in less than 40-hour a week jobs.”  Here’s the graphic to illustrate how significant this situation is.

Old Gadfly:  Can any of these circumstances be directly attributed to Obamacare?

IM:  Absolutely.  We already talked about union leader concerns.  Further, analysts for Investor’s Business Daily have conducted research that indicates jobs have been significantly affected by Obamacare.  According to IBD, “In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.  As of Sept. 25, our ObamaCare scorecard included 313 employers.”  This only represents what is currently known.

AM:  Let’s summarize.

·         There are obvious issues with Obamacare.

·         Obamacare has already adversely affected jobs.

·         The majority of Americans do not want Obamacare.

·         Republicans are willing to fund government functions with the exception of Obamacare.

·         Obama wants all of a growing government funded to include Obamacare.

·         Republicans want to fix a bad situation on behalf of their constituents.

·         Wouldn’t an intelligent person be willing to negotiate based on these circumstances?

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  However, Obama is an intellectual, who is dogmatically locked into the progressive ideology that he plans to impose upon all Americans as part of his agenda to transform America.  This notion was evident in his March 22, 2009 victory speech on the passage of Obamacare.  Despite the majority of Americans still not in favor of the comprehensive bill known as The Affordable Care Act, midway into his speech (6 minutes and 7 seconds), Obama looked into the camera and into the homes of every American watching, and said, “This is what change looks like.”  Yes, from day one, Obama has assumed the mantle of a modern Grand Inquisitor and has had no intention of negotiating. 

AM:  So, we can choose to be human instruments in the service of a master, or we can fight for liberty and justice.  You know where we stand, Gadfly.

---

[1] John Stuart Mill, “The Contest in America,” Fraser’s Magazine, April 1862. This essay is in the public domain and available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5123/pg5123.txt

Beyond Engineering Sentiment

Old Gadfly:  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), I received your email.  What do you mean by the public narrative appears to be beyond engineering sentiment?

IM:  With Putin’s offer to control Syria’s chemical weapons, I did a little digging and found some interesting, yet frightening material.

Old Gadfly:  I’m listening.

IM:  First, two days ago, watching Secretary Kerry testify before the House Armed Services Committee was like déjà vu.  On April 22, 1971, I vividly recall a long-haired reserve lieutenant in the US Navy Reserve, dressed in fatigues, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 

 

Kerry gave an emotional plea regarding American atrocities in Vietnam.  Here is one of the more moving segments of his speech:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry referred to a Detroit investigation, called it the “Winter Soldier Investigation,” a poetic reference to Thomas Paine’s summer soldier metaphor.  Jane Fonda (pictured below with the North Vietnamese Army next to an anti-aircraft gun in 1972) played a role in funding and supporting the effort.  To this very day, the veracity of the “Winter Soldier Investigation” and its grave allegations remain controversial.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  While Lieutenant Kerry seemed eager to invoke the moral high ground in his idealist and quixotic testimony in 1971, according to CBS Reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, today’s Secretary Kerry will not let Benghazi survivors testify before Congress.

Old Gadfly:  An excellent observation, AM.  Does it represent hypocrisy or intellectual maturity?   I suspect the former.  At any rate, I’d like to get back to IM’s assertion that the public narrative is beyond engineering sentiment.

IM:  Bluntly, I’m talking about disinformation.  Disinformation is false information intended to deceive or mislead according to Dictionary.com.

Old Gadfly:  Isn’t disinformation what Democrats accused George W. Bush of conducting?

IM:  Absolutely.  Democrat accusations are part of the actual disinformation campaign being conducted.

Old Gadfly:  How do you justify your judgment?

IM:  People like Senator Durbin like to frame the Syrian situation with Bush’s Iraq:  with Syria involving actual weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq involving Bush-manufactured claims of WMD.  Durbin is two-faced about WMD in Iraq and has done a good job of covering his tail.  But, one of the true benefits of the Internet is that it contains A LOT of information.  In building support for an attack of Iraq in 1998, Senator Durbin issued a press release justifying the attack because of WMD.  His staff has since purged this evidence from his Senatorial website.  Amazingly, Snopes.com, the organization that debunks myths and “urban legends,” verified that Democrats vigorously claimed Saddam Hussein pursued and maintained WMD.  Some of those who hypocritically demonize Bush in this narrative are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman.

AM:  IM, this is all interesting, but I suspect that what you found to be frightening has yet to be introduced into the discussion.

IM:  You are right, AM.  What I found to be frightening was an article, entitled, “Ex-Spy Fingers Russians on WMD.”

Old Gadfly:  Was this a recent article, stemming from the Syria issue?

IM:  No.  It was published on April 4, 2005, to explain why Russia was tampering with the American intervention in Iraq.

AM:  Who wrote it?

IM:  Romanian Lieutenant General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer to defect from the former Soviet bloc.

Old Gadfly:  What did General Pacepa say in the article?

IM:  There were several key points.  The first is that Pacepa unequivocally asserted Russia assisted Saddam Hussein eliminate his stockpile of WMD prior to the US attack in 2003.  There is a New York Times article based on other key Iraqi officials that also indirectly supports this claim.  The second point is that Pacepa claimed such elimination of WMD was part of Russia’s “Sarindar” plan.  Pacepa further claimed that he personally implemented this plan in Libya. 

AM:  Related to Pacepa’s article, is a book by Pacepa and coauthor, Professor Ronald Rychlak, entitled, Disinformation.  Politico.com provided a synopsis of the book and its implications: 

By its very nature, a disinformation campaign can work only if the seemingly independent Western press accepts intentionally fabricated lies and presents them to the public as truth. Thus, Pacepa and Rychlak also document how the U.S. "mainstream media's" enduring sympathy for all things liberal-left has made it vulnerable to--indeed, the prime carrier of--civilization-transforming campaigns of lying, defamation and historical revisionism that turn reality on its head.

Old Gadfly:  Did not Obama claim he would transform America?

IM:  Yes.  There are numerous video clips that recorded this intention.

Old Gadfly:  In his Tuesday evening speech, Obama referred to America as a “constitutional democracy” instead of a “constitutional republic.”  This subtle, yet profound distinction is consistent with Woodrow Wilson’s idea of transforming America into a statist administration, run by political elite.  Obama also talked about a war-weary nation and that he spent the past four and a half years to end two wars, implying Bush got us into a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet, as we discussed in our last conversation, Bush inherited bipartisan political momentum to complete regime change in Iraq.  Bush's involvement in Afghanistan was focused on Osama bin Laden.  Did Obama not declare that while Iraq was a war of choice by Bush, Obama's war in Afghanistan was a necessity?

AM:  Absolutely.  One of the venues for declaring this superior judgment was during presidential campaign debates with John McCain.  And the results of his superior judgment are that 73% of the American casualties in Afghanistan have occurred under his command.  And besides the battlefield execution of bin Laden that took place in Pakistan (without their knowledge or approval), I am not aware of any tactical or strategic successes in Afghanistan.

IM:  And bin Laden’s demise has not deterred the ideology that attracts other jihadists, as we witnessed in Benghazi and are barely acknowledging in Syria and Egypt, and North Africa, and many other places as well.

AM:  And, if we further examine Obama’s vision to fundamentally transform America, let’s document what he has achieved so far:

·         Our national debt is now $16.9 trillion, an increase of over $7.3 trillion dollars since the Bush era.

·         Gas prices have been significantly higher since Bush handed the reins over to Obama.  When Bush left office, the price was $1.74.  The prices steadily climbed to sustained prices well over $3.50 per gallon directly related to Obama policies .

·         There have been numerous green energy bankruptcies following billions of federal subsidies, while coal and oil production is curtailed.

·         The percent of our working population actually employed is at 63.2% (as of August 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the lowest in over 30 years.  And many who are “employed” are in less than 40-hour a week jobs.

·         There are now 8,786,049 Americans on disability.  That number relative to the number of Americans who actually work is four times greater than 45 years ago.

·         As of December 2012, 47,791,996 people in America are on food stamps.  This is what Senator Sessions had to say about the situation:

Despite this fountain of federal funds [about a trillion annually], 1 in 3 children still live in poverty in our nation’s capital. Two in three children live in single parent homes. In nearby Baltimore--another city governed by liberal policies for decades--1 in 3 residents are on food stamps and 1 in 3 youth live in poverty. Americans are committed to helping our sisters and brothers who are struggling, but we are seeing the damaging human consequences of our broken welfare state.

We spend a trillion dollars each year on federal poverty programs. That’s more than the budget for Social Security or Defense. But poverty seems only to increase. Something is wrong. Compassion demands that we change.

·         Then of course, we have Frankenstein’s monster, that is, Obamacare, ready to take residence and to wreak havoc in our communities.  Even though many joked about it, Pelosi’s prophesy is coming true:  we had to pass it before we could know what was in it.  And, the closer we get to fully understanding what is in it, our economy further contracts because the costs far exceed any marginal benefits.

Old Gadfly:   This is all pretty gloomy.  And, despite Pacepa and Rychlak’s warning about “transforming campaigns of lying, defamation and historical revisionism,” is there not one good thing that has resulted from Obama’s vision to fundamentally transform America?

IM:  Well, the “hope” part so far has fallen short for the 8 million or so who have dropped out of the work force and for the many more millions that depend upon the government for food, housing, and healthcare, with no hope of getting beyond these circumstances.

AM:  Yes, but Obama has kept his word about change.  He just never explained in detail what this change entailed.  Unfortunately, as more Americans begin to realize what they unleashed with their vote, they may regret also knowing it is difficult, if not impossible, to put the genie back in the bottle.

Old Gadfly:  Excellent analysis, AM and IM.  IM’s opening observation is supported by very strong evidence.  What we see happening is well beyond engineering sentiment—it is disinformation in full display for those among us who are not Copernican drones.      

What Difference Will It Make?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, with the current news cycle buzz about Syria, I ask, “What difference will it make?”

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  That’s a clever play on Hillary’s surrender to mendacity with her statement, “What difference does it make?”

Old Gadfly:  You both are thinking on a high plane.  The segue between (a) Hillary’s stand that accountability is irrelevant in the Benghazi incident and (b) Obama’s “decision” to apply military action in Syria is an important measure of the apparent recklessness of this Administration.  IM’s question is important:  What difference will US military action in Syria make?

 

IM:  Context is essential for understanding what is at stake.  Remember, the most recent issue dealt with funding the federal government.  That issue reaches a climax on September 30—exactly three weeks after Congress reconvenes.  With all the debate about Congressional authorization to attack Syria, there may be little time to debate a continuing resolution, let alone address the looming monster that threatens our domestic economy—Obamacare.  In our conversation on August 17, we strongly advocated not funding Obamacare and allowing a shutdown of the government, if Obama vetoed such an approach.

Old Gadfly:  Good point, IM.  It will be very difficult for America to help in other parts of the world if we lose our own economic security. 

IM:  Let’s look at the broader context.  Despite over 100,000 civilian casualties, and the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordon, not to mention those who have traveled further north into Europe, since Obama’s red line was declared over a year ago in August 2012, he now “decides” for military action and “decides” to seek Congressional authorization for the military action he has already “decided” to carry out.  Sounds pretty “decisive” to me.

AM:  Despite the glib rhetoric, Obama’s posturing is nothing but pure political theater to draw attention away from other unresolved issues here in America.  Besides Obamacare and Benghazi, we still have not resolved the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the Department of Justice harassment of journalists and news organizations, and other issues that are being slow-rolled by the “most transparent Administration” in the history of America.

Old Gadfly:  Yet, Obama frames an attack on Syria as a moral imperative because chemical weapons were used in violation of international norms.  This sounds logical, does it not?

AM:  Not surprisingly, Obama gets a pass on his own violations of international norms by “deciding” to allow a battlefield execution of bin Laden and “deciding” to assassinate American citizens with drones and without due process.  These actions have little to do with justice.  They are actions on behalf of an individual who is demonstrating the corruptness of near absolute power.

IM:  Obama is also surrounded by loyal lieutenants.  To generate public sentiment in support of Obama’s “decision” to strike Syria, Robert Gibbs amazingly advanced a false narrative that went unchallenged this morning on Meet the Press.  He celebrated Obama’s “decision” on Syria in comparison to Bush’s decision to use military force in Iraq.  According to Gibbs, Obama’s decision was “deliberate” and supported by “rationale,” unlike Bush’s, which by implication was not deliberate and lacked rationale.  Gibbs also claimed that, unlike Bush, Obama is seeking a “united front” and “strength in a broad collation.”

AM:  Let’s examine more closely Gibbs’ unchallenged assertions.  First, Bush’s decision was very deliberate and clearly justified by rationale.  While there is some debate whether Hussein gassed Kurds during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, he did possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and he used them.  Yet, Bush is criticized for using WMD as a justification for the use of military force.  Second, Kerry presented a case for military action in Syria based only on WMD.  Sound familiar?  In Syria, Assad is accused of killing 1,400 people with WMD.  While there is evidence of WMD, it is still unclear who was responsible for its actual use.  Which case is more compelling?  I’ll tell you which one:  the one advanced by the club to which one is a member.    

IM:  Gadfly, didn’t you spend some time in the Middle East?

Old Gadfly:  In late December 1990, I deployed to Saudi Arabia as a senior officer in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later to Turkey in support of Operation Provide Comfort (saving Kurdish refugees in the northern Iraqi mountains, pushed there by Hussein’s military forces).  During the flight to Saudi, I read a book by Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf.  The authors, one from The New York Times and the other a professor at Harvard, presented a heavily documented account of Hussein’s efforts to produce WMD, to brutalize the Iraqi people, and to establish hegemony in the Middle East.  Later, when running the Air Force Operations Center at the Pentagon in the mid-1990s, I daily watched and reported Hussein’s defiant actions, heavily constrained by expensive no fly zones in the north and the south—this expensive effort lasted for over a decade with no end in sight.

IM:  So, it appears that you have first-hand impressions of the threat Hussein posed.

Old Gadfly:  While WMD is the threat that appeared to resonate in the public narrative leading up to our use of military force in 2003, the threat of alleged WMD represented only one of 12 justifications (or rationale) for the use of force in a bipartisan Congressional  Joint Resolution that was approved before any commitment of military forces.  The Joint Resolution is known as Public Law 107-243, “Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”  In the House, 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted in favor of while six Republicans and 126 Democrats (including Congresswoman Pelosi) voted against the legislation.  In the Senate, 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats (including Senator Reid) voted in favor of while one Republican and 22 Democrats voted against the legislation.  In other words, the resolution passed by a significant majority of bipartisan votes. Thus, after being armed with a bipartisan Joint Resolution of Congress to use military force in Iraq, Bush acted to remove a tyrant who was far more brutal than Libya’s Gaddafi, an action done without Congressional authorization.

AM:  Further, the momentum for ousting Hussein was far from a George W. Bush initiative.  Here is a March 2, 2000 speech by Senator John Kerry, documented in the Congressional Record:

Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues an issue that is not being raised in the otherwise informative presidential primary campaigns. It is not a theoretical issue, nor is it an issue concerning budgetary decisions.

Rather, it is an issue which sends American pilots on combat missions almost daily. It is an issue which throughout the last decade has cost the lives of hundreds of American and thousands of soldiers and civilians of other nationalities. It is an issue which threatens the peace and security of some of our closest allies, and which, if not solved, could threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction. It is an issue which starves and holds captive twenty-two million people in conditions of unparalleled terror of their government. It is an issue which we have failed to deal with decisively, and that failure calls into question our dedication to the freedom we prize so highly for ourselves.

The issue is the continuing rule of Saddam Hussein. Nine years after the United States led a coalition to eject Iraqi forces and liberate Kuwait, Saddam continues to brutalize his people, threaten his neighbors, and develop weapons of mass destruction--earlier versions of which he used on neighboring states, on Israel, and on his own people. The good news is that sanctions have weakened his military, and his political support base has shrunk to his immediate family. All of mountainous northern Iraq and large swathes of southern Iraq are free of his control. Nonetheless, he continues to rule the central part of the country and, as Jim Hoagland pointed out in today's Washington Post, Saddam is likely to outlast yet another American President. (p. S1150)

Old Gadfly:  Thank you, AM.  As I recall, Kerry was not an isolated advocate for regime change.  Many elected officials, Democrat and Republican, were concerned about Hussein’s hegemonic intentions and WMD efforts.  So, G. W. Bush “inherited” momentum to accomplish regime change in Iraq.

AM:  Yes, even under the Clinton Administration, there was a Joint Resolution of Congress to carry out regime change in Iraq.  Public Law 105-338, known as the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998,” was signed into law by President Clinton on October 31, 1998.  The legislation was a bipartisan effort with 360 (202 Republicans, 157 Democrats) in favor of and 38 (nine Republicans, 29 Democrats) against in the House of Representatives; the Senate provided unanimous consent. 

AM:  And when Bush “decided” to attack Hussein, did he “go it alone”?

Old Gadfly:  No.  Under Bush’s leadership, 25 other nations joined the effort to oust Hussein.  Obama, on the other hand, is willing to “go it alone.”  So far, the United Nations and no other country (with the possible exception of France) have expressed a willingness to be part of a coalition.  Also, unlike the minority 42% who support military action in Syria, Gallup indicated a 70% approval rating for Bush’s decision to attack Hussein.  Incidentally, following the 9/11 attack, Bush also had approval ratings at 90%. 

IM:  As the Iraq war drug on, however, Bush found himself fighting a two-front war:  on one side were the jihadist insurgents; and on the home front was the American political opposition.  While Bush deliberately commenced actions based on solid rationale and bipartisan Congressional support, strong public support, and a broad coalition, public sentiment was masterfully reengineered between 2003 and 2006 by progressive factions (politicians, media, academia, and Hollywood) for political objectives.  This accounted for the major sea change in both houses of Congress during the 2006 elections.  During this period, Copernican drones were so powerfully trained how to think that today most Americans still blame Bush for today’s economic woes, despite strong empirical evidence to the contrary:  recall our conversations on August 16, 2012 and August 27, 2012. 

Old Gadfly:  And, unlike the politically expedient execution of bin Laden, Saddam Hussein was eventually captured, arrested, and tried in a court of law, consisting of his citizen-peers. 

IM:  I think Washington’s current cohort of politicians seem especially cautious about the notion of regime change.  This is why Obama claims an attack will be limited and does not involve regime change.

Old Gadfly:  Then, what can be gained by military action in Syria?

AM:  What I understand is that air and cruise missile attacks would focus on Syria’s military forces, such as aircraft, air defense, logistics, and so forth in an attempt to level the playing field between the Syrian military and the rebels.

Old Gadfly:  So, more killing would take place, with equal casualties on both sides?

IM:  I suppose that is inevitable.

Old Gadfly:  Then what?  What eventual outcome might Obama expect?

AM:  The cynic in me suspects this is a necessary and sufficient distraction to get progressives through the 2014 election cycle.

Old Gadfly:  What about Syria and the Middle East?  What are the potential unintended consequences of military action?

AM:  Remember, it only took one bullet from a Serb radical to precipitate the First World War, and arguably America’s aviation gas, steel, and iron embargo against Japan led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Regarding outcomes of military action in Syria, here are some possibilities from my perspective:

·         Russia and Iran become more aggressively involved with the possibility of escalating proxy wars;

·         Other Arab nations are bound by regional proximity to align themselves with ideological similarities (i.e., Islamist ideology); but this gets complicated because,

o   while Saudi Arabia might support US action in Syria, it is because Saudis are Sunnis and Iranians are Shiites;

o   the Hezbollah faction in Syria and Lebanon has ties to Iran;

o   it also appears the rebel forces in Syria are predominantly jihadists, to include al Qaeda members, who also are Sunnis

o   If Hamas gets involved, their roots are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood

·         Israel is a potentially stabilizing force for regional governments, given the reality it will defend itself with nuclear weapons if necessary;

·         Israel is a potentially destabilizing force for jihadists wanting further instability in the region;

·         Middle East oil will become a critical strategic lever--there will be a huge price for access with major ripple effects in the international economy

·         Second, third, and fourth order effects will represent the cascading failures and impact of a regional and then an international system that rapidly moves from its relative equilibrium to chaos.

Old Gadfly:  Most of those outcomes are not constructive.  What would you recommend?

AM:  Unilateral military action is ludicrous at this point in time for two major reasons.  First, there is no direct and compelling national vital interest in Syria.  Second, the conditions are not right.  This situation requires adult leadership and the coup d’oeil that comes only from solid, relevant experience and training.  Community organizing is a quantum leap from the high stakes of geopolitics.  Obama’s focus has always been to centralize political power, not to use political power for a greater good.  Obamacare is a classic example.  Boasted as a banner achievement, Obamacare is nothing more than a very costly means for centralizing power.  

IM:  I find it ironic that the face Obama is parading around DC and the Sunday talk shows to drum up support for military action is his Secretary of State.  Where is the Secretary of Defense? 

AM:  Once a decision was made to commit military forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld, as the Secretary of Defense, was the face parading around DC and the talk shows.  Rumsfeld was also successfully targeted, frozen, personalized, and polarized as a component of reengineering public sentiment (see our past discussion on Saul Alinksy’s Rule number 13).  I think the picture of Kerry advocating military action is characteristic of an incompetent and amateurish Administration.  An entire year has passed when more diplomatic efforts on the part of Kerry’s predecessor would have better prepared the United States to deal with current circumstances.  Of course, such diplomatic efforts would have been a logical extension of a reasoned foreign policy vision on behalf of the President and Commander-in-Chief.  Unfortunately, Obama has no foreign policy vision.  Elliott Abrams provided support for such a claim with his brilliant analysis of Obama’s foreign policy in Commentary Magazine.

IM:  There seemed little interest in achieving accountability after Benghazi, a visible foreign policy failure.  Hillary eulogized the four dead Americans with:  what difference does it make?  A year later with over 100,000 Syrian casualties and over a million refugees, it’s now time to make a difference?

Old Gadfly:  Even though there is no clearly defined outcome for US military action in Syria, unless things change, such action will make a political difference—it will keep Americans distracted from numerous scandals that remain unsettled under this Administration.