The Coup that Isn't

President Obama is threatening Honduras with sanctions unless it brings its "president," Mel Zelaya, back. I believe the inverted commas are necessary because it's clear that Zelaya has committed a "high crime" in seeking to illegally jurry-rig the Honduran government for his own purposes. By doing so, he forfeits any claim to legitimacy.

The Honduran military did indeed send Zelaya into exile, but it did not a) dissolve the Congress, b) reconstitute the Supreme Court, or c) install a high-ranking general as "president." Thus, this hardly fits the usual profile of a "military coup."

In fact, it's even steeper than that. The Honduran Congress voted to remove Zelaya, and the Supreme Court ordered him to cease his efforts to hold his pet referendum. (See this helpful Q&A at the BBC.)

In all honesty, I think Obama's quick rush to condemn Honduras makes perfect sense, though not in light of Iran. Look at the American left's affinities for both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and it's at least clear that they're comfortable with strongmen running countries (provided they're leftist strongmen, of course). Here we have a chance to get one more, and it's not to be missed. Apparently.

Email Me

Insanity

The House of Representatives has passed the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-[Tax] bill.

Paul Krugman, in his typically detatched and rational way, says the no-voters have committed a kind of treason against the planet. Nevermind that the case for allegiance to the planet is difficult to make in legal terms (though certainly not so hard in Gaia-worshipping metaphysical terms--'can you harm the mother that bore you?!?') and that the last time the United States had gumption enough to actually try and convict someone of treason against the United States was in 1952 (Tomoya Kawakita). I daresay there's been a good deal of reasonably clear-cut treason to be found since then (the Rosenbergs were executed for espionage--which has a minor technical difference from treason), but the only indictment since then has been Adam Yahiye Gadahn (2006).

But Krugman's quick jump to the T-word reminds me of something Chesterton wrote in his great polemic, Orthodoxy:

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human.

Insane sentimentality has taken over if Krugman is any indication.

Meanwhile, even the famously nutty regimes in North Korea and Iran look sane in comparison to the irrationality that passes for American foreign policy these days. Apparently desperate to relieve the world of its worries about American proclivities for meaningful action, Obama has steadfastly kept the negotiating table clear and the chairs warm for Iran, even while the regime brutally crushes legitimate outrage over its blatantly fixed election. Well, it's clear that one facet of the policy at least worked: Iran isn't half so worried about the USA as it once was. The same goes for North Korea. Both of these bad actors share a peculiar rationality: they know what they want, and they know how to get it. America, however, knows what it wants (sort of) and goes about not getting any of it with great ingenuity.

While America may collectively be conflicted about projecting a strong image abroad, it is strength that the bad actors of the world respect. Cicero put it this way: "Oderint, dum metuant." [Let them hate so long as they fear.] When the regimes that threaten harm to their neighbors and to the interests of the United States no longer fear the world's lone superpower, they will seek without caution their own ends.

Email Me

Qualification

I have long been an adherent to the policy of 'put up or shut up'--it's a good way to avoid being misunderstood when serious questions need answering.

Foreign policy is one of those places where serious questions need careful answers because even ambiguity carries meaning. An amorphous policy can be colored either strong or weak depending on previous activity or intangibles such as the perceived character of a foreign policy team (headed in America by the President and the Secretary of State).

And so the USS John McCain tails the North Korean vessel...to what end? If the United States intends to do something concrete about making sure proliferators like North Korea can't get away with it, then the United States will have to buck up and take the risk of war (by boarding the Kang Nam).

With large-scale engagements still active in Iraq and Afghanistan, America hardly wants to open a war with North Korea--that's rational at least. But why half-heartedly attempt to curb North Korean proliferation?

To sum up: intercepting the Kang Nam is only a good decision if we intend to follow through and board the ship. If what North Korea has insisted is really true (that such a confrontation would be an act of war), it might start bombarding Seoul, yes. I doubt that North Korea will risk that, but if it does, the United States should respond with clear force on the really valuable military targets. We could start by bombing all of the known nuclear sites and missile launchers.

If all that sounds like a bit more than we're willing to manage, then trailing the Kang Nam isn't a good idea after all.

So we've got to ask ourselves: how badly do we want North Korea to stop threatening the world? Alternately, how much of a commitment problem do we have?

Email Me

Intercept!

In light of yesterday's post, I'd say this is a step in the right direction.

Email Me

North Korean Bluster

The putrid nonsense spewing from North Korea about 'thousandfold' retaliations if it is 'provoked' strike me as more than just meaningless babble. It's the sort of thing a child says when he's trying to figure out if the babysitter is up to the task of making him do his chores and go to bed on time.

This is not to say we shouldn't take North Korean bluster seriously--it is very serious indeed. But it does go a good way toward explaining how ineffective Obama's approach to the basket-case nation really is.

Here's what Krauthammer had to say:

What I think is remarkable is that even though over the last 16 years in the Clinton and the Bush administrations we did not succeed in stopping, although we slightly slowed the nuclear program, look what's happened in the six months of the quote, unquote, "smart diplomacy" of the Obama administration?

Long-range missile tests, the explosion of a nuclear weapon probably a third the size of Hiroshima, the declaration that the plutonium the Bush administration had frozen will be weaponized entirely, the entire stock, and the declaration that the uranium program which the Bush administration talked about, which Democrats had said was an invention of the Bush administration, the uranium enrichment is going to start up. All of that and the seizure of two Americans.

The lesson to take away here is that Kim Jong Il doesn't care what American Presidents, Secretaries of State, or diplomats say; he cares what they do. And right now, the answer is 'sit on their hands'. The only real question in Kim's mind is how long Americans will continue to do so. Which explains his repeated provocations.

I'd say that North Korea isn't in any serious danger of 'being provoked'. Indeed, North Korea is provoking! Like the little kid with a new babysitter, Kim is pushing as hard as he possibly can and will continue to do so until he encounters concrete resistance. In short, Obama must do something to establish the bounds across which the backwards regime will not be permitted.

Today, it seems that North Korea is preparing to test a missile that might arc toward Hawaii sometime around the Fourth of July. Destroying it on the launchpad or in the air would be entirely justifiable, even if the improved Taepodong-2 can't manage the distance to Hawaii. Doing so would demonstrate defensive capabilities and at least a modicum of determination to contain the poisonous North Korean belligerence.

Of course, whenever North Korea threatens retaliation, it really means it'll slit the throat of its South Korean neighbor (and maybe lob a missile or two at Japan). Like any hostage situation, this gives responsible people a great deal of pause and more than a little squeamishness. But maybe it's time to push back anyway--but only with the understanding that Seoul is in grave danger and that a serious military response to a North Korean attack might be necessary.

But if North Korea is really the scheming little brat that I think it is, we might have less to lose than we think. We certainly have a lot to gain.

Email Me

Arabs Idiotically Skewer Selves

Obama sees signs of hope in the quest for Middle East peace after Netanyahu indicates that he is willing to accept a Palestinian state.

Oh wait. That was yesterday's--er, Sunday's--news! As usual, the brutal truth is that there have been no steps forward (or even backward). Middle East peace stands precisely where it has stood for more than a generation: at the question of Israel's existence. To wit, here's the Egyptian president's reaction to the Netanyahu speech (via the BBC):

"I have also told him loud and clear that the call for recognising Israel as a Jewish state would complicate matters and abort the chances of peace," the state-run Mena news agency quoted Mr Mubarak as telling military officials.

"I even warned him that this particular call would not be met by a favourable response from Egypt or beyond."

It's laughable. If Israel, by requiring that its existence be officially recognized, "ruins" the chances for peace, then I think it's safe to say that peace is not possible at present. Only someone determined not to see the fact could miss it. There are many more appropriate ways to label this, however. Israel didn't "ruin" anything that wasn't already in the garbage. Try this title instead:

Arabs Defeat Themselves In Quest For Palestine

That just about sums it up. Well, provided that the rest of the world doesn't follow Mubarak's lead and join the ranks of the insane.

There are few in Israel who oppose the existence of a Palestinian state--provided that it does not serve as a launching pad for the destruction of the Jewish state. This has been the case for so long it's easy to lose track of time. And you don't have to be a pro-Israel-radical to see the sense of requiring the recognition of Israel as a condition for a Palestinian state (or else the threshold of 'radicalism' is at a very low ebb).

So, I think it's fair to say Golda Maier got it right when she said: “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

Email Me

Inflation: it's coming

Our government has been fretting about deflation (which was indeed something of a problem), but inflation is now in the hot seat. This is always the danger when government tries to deal with complex economic issues--bureaucratic inertia prevents the kind of nimbleness that is necessary to start and stop doing the right things at the right times. Usually things start too late and persist too long. It's normal, yes, but the effect compounds with each government switch--which is later and overstays its welcome longer each time.

So much for my non-technical opinion. You really should read Arthur Laffer's warning...and note his pessimism.

The broad lesson to learn is that our choices are not usually between problems and solutions (which is how things often get cast, especially when the government is offering the solutions), but between problems and other problems. Deciding which problems we prefer requires being clear about which ones will occur.

On this, however, I'm not very hopeful. But I'll still be able to say 'I told you so' when inflation gets going. Not that it'll make my savings account any happier, of course.

Email Me