Proof that David Horowitz is not the Devil

I’ve always been kind of intrigued by the response that David Horowitz always generates on this campus. It seems like the reaction is always very visceral, very passionate, and very negative. Which begs the question, “Why?” Surely a man that so many people not only dislike but despise must be saying some pretty terrible stuff. Yet after seeing him speak twice on campus and after having read several reactions to him in the Daily Tar Heel, I have yet to come across any sort of reasoned argument against the man.

Take his most recent campus visit as an example. After about 20 minutes into his speech, and before he had even said anything controversial, nearly every Muslim student (and a few other sympathizers) in the room walked out. Now, I know that several groups on campus, Hillel, the Muslim Students Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, etc., really despise Horowitz. But given their little performance at his speech the other night, I wonder if any of them have ever actually heard what he has to say, or if they are just being told that they should despise him. Personally, I was hoping for a little dialogue in the Q&A part of the talk, but apparently Mr. Horowitz’s opponents aren’t interested in debate. If he’s so obviously wrong, it shouldn’t be too hard to show that through a few thoughtful questions, right?

Judging by the responses to Horowitz in the Daily Tar Heel, one might be tempted to think that his opponents don’t want to debate him because they are unable to counter anything he says. It seems like the best they can do is to call him a “well-paid, fire-breathing provocateur,” accuse of him of “weav[ing] a tapestry of truth using tattered fragments of evidence,” and make rather ironic claims that “there is no space in our campus dialogue for generalizations and discrimination.” I suppose if you have no grounds on which to attack his actual arguments going for a character-assassination is the next best thing, but it’s not particularly persuasive. Of course, every now and then, a student (not a UNC student of course) will attempt to challenge Mr. Horowitz on his views. But before long, these students tend to find themselves in the rather awkward situation of endorsing well-known terrorist organizations, which might explain why they’re a little reluctant to engage in any sort of debate.

I’m not really an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, which is why I like to go to these sorts of events, to hear two sides hash out the issues. But when one side fails to show (or rather, just straight-up leaves), I’m inclined to favor the side that actually argued its position. If David Horowitz is such an evil hate-monger, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove that he’s wrong. Yet, I have yet to see anyone do that. Indeed, I haven’t even seen anyone prove he’s a hate-monger. It’s like there’s some sort of massive Group Think going on, where everyone just feels compelled to hate David Horowitz, but no one can explain why. If there’s any side that appears to be caught up in irrational emotion, it appears to be those who oppose Mr. Horowitz, and if they ever hope to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with them, they ought to work on formulating actual arguments.

In the Vicinity of Beijing's 4th Ring, or More Properly, What America Should be Shooting For

I think what was most disappointing was simply the quality of the questions students asked during the Q&A. The first one was “In your dealings with President Obama, what have you found to be his best quality?” And it was simply downhill from there. Now, if this man was addressing a group of third graders, that question might have been appropriate (maybe), but among a group of college students and academics it’s simply absurd. Consider the situation. Here you are, a college student (or professor, or whatever), with an opportunity to discuss anything, from the anemic job market, the depressed housing market, a rapidly nuclearizing Iran, a debt-to-GDP ratio north of 100%, or the impeding collapse of the post-World War II world order, and you essentially ask, “Why is the President soooooo awesome?” I think this little episode perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with American higher education today. Instead of thinking critically about events around it, the academy is so radically self-absorbed and out of touch and so obsessed with its own ideology, it’s simply laughable. Is this really all that the best and brightest of North Carolina is capable of? Maybe it was a fluke, or maybe some rogue from Duke snuck in, but it was kind of embarrassing.

Secretary Donovan, when he wasn’t answering inane questions from the audience, also did a fair amount of pontificating. Apparently, the administration is convinced that we can educate ourselves out of this recession. If only we spend (a lot) more on higher education and push as many people as we can through the system, we’ll all be happy again. Color me a skeptic, but the plan he described, where the federal government subsidizes education through new tax credits, etc., guarantees low-interest loans for all comers, and then requires those borrowers to make only bare minimum payments on those loans, seems awfully similar to American housing policy circa 2008 (which incidentally, HUD bears a lot of responsibility for). I suppose if the idea is to create a giant education bubble, such that when it pops, everyone forgets about the housing problem because the education bubble is so much bigger, then this is a great idea. But if the idea is to generate genuine economic growth, this is certainly not the way to go.

And what’s a State of the Union talk without some mention of trains? Aren’t those things amazing? If only we had more of them, those pesky Chinese wouldn’t even be able to touch us. Actually, the best part of the Secretary’s little speech was when he was talking about China’s impressive infrastructure and how the Chinese are just light-years ahead of us in this regard. He clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. If he did know what he was talking about, he would know that, even in the (very crowded and polluted) major cities (i.e. places like Beijing), you can’t drink the tap water or flush toilet paper because the sewer systems are so old and so out of date. He would also know that electricity is also a problem, and that you actually have to buy surge protectors to insulate your electronic goods from regular power surges. Indeed, even China’s much lauded trains aren’t much to write home about. When they’re not falling off bridges, many of China’s trains are (very) overcrowded, smelly, and generally a very hellish experience. And their highway system isn’t anywhere nearly as well developed as ours. Now, don’t get me wrong, China’s quite a charming place, but the U.S. is definitely winning the infrastructure game.

Shiny!

There was also a fair amount of green energy hype. The Secretary informed us that while there might be a few Solyndras along the way (who doesn’t mind a little government corruption after all), we can’t expect the government to make the right choice every time when it comes to deciding which business to support. This, of course, is the whole point! The government can’t make these decisions, because they are infinitely complicated and not something that some bureaucrat hiding in the basement of a federal building can make. Such choices are properly left to the market, which is a better evaluator  of risk and profit than the government will ever be. When the government tries to make these decisions, you end up with Solyndra. Solyndra isn’t merely a side effect of government intervention in the market, it is its natural conclusion.

All in all, this event was pretty disappointing. The questions were childish, and we got the same old, same old from the administration. It’s simply too bad that what could have been a really interesting event on the future direction of the country devolved into a Why Barack Obama is the Greatest Thing Since Baked Bread event.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

However, it seems that somewhere along the lines, Congress got left out of the process in favor of the United Nations Security Council and “the court of international opinion.” While I’m sure the people at the Security Council and in the “court of international opinion” are all well-intentioned people, they have no accountability to the American people. The decision to commit American military forces to a conflict rightly lies within the sovereignty of the American people and, the whims of France and the UK should not trump that sovereignty.

The wisdom of engaging in this conflict is also highly debatable. Effectively what we have here is yet another African, tribal civil war. What strategic interests is the United States protecting by embroiling itself in this conflict? Why is this particular situation special, differentiating it from similar situations in other countries (e.g. Iran, Sudan, etc.)? In short, what’s our bone in this fight? Answering some of these questions might be a little easier if the President were capable of projecting some sort of leadership in this situation. It might be easier to agree or disagree with his decision if he at least said what his decision is. Right now, there appears to be no clear strategy and no clear goal. The best I can tell, Europe decided it doesn’t want Gaddafi killing people, and Obama kind of sort of agrees with them.

There’s also the fiscal issue. Our military forces are already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This by itself raises several questions. Does our military have the capability to successfully execute three different wars at the same time? War tends to be expensive, and with the highest annual budget deficits in history, will our military have the resources to put forth its best effort in all three conflicts? There’s also the human cost. While some defense systems are automated, you generally need to use real people to take out the bad guys. Does our military even have enough people to conduct these campaigns without producing an undue strain on our armed services? Considering that the vast majority of our armed services are real people and not robots, this is a question that deserves due consideration.

What is lacking in this whole situation is any sense of leadership from Obama. He has left dozens of questions about this conflict unanswered and seems to have made this decision on the spur of the moment. He hasn’t even attempted to rally the American people behind his decision largely because he hasn’t really made one. This is a rather inauspicious start to a war that seems likely to devolve into a very sticky situation.

1. I’ve been looking for an excuse to use that title, and I think I just found it.

2. I’ve also seen an interesting thought kicked around the Internet the last few days. Does anyone find it the least bit ironic that the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize (i.e. BHO) just threw a big party for the oppressor (and jailer) of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner? While I’m not calling for complete disengagement with the Chinese, it does seem a bit inappropriate for our government to be hosting official state dinners with a regime that is still imprisoning political dissidents. For a presidency that is so concerned with maintaining the moral high ground in foreign relations, O’s reception of Hu does seem a bit hypocritical.

For about the last eight years, the U.S. force in Afghanistan has basically been maintaining a holding action. Recently that has changed with a series of offensives, notably including the battle for Marjah.

Marjah is, according to the geopolitical experts at STRATFOR.com, “perhaps the quintessential example of a good location from which to base.” It’s in the heart of Taliban-dominated Helmand province and very close to Kandahar, Afghanistan’s “second city.” It’s also a religious center and the birthplace of the Taliban.

Some soldiers in Afghanistan cavalierly refer to enemy combatants as "Hadji," the character (above) from the sixties cartoon Jonny Quest. These soldiers are mistaken, however, as Hadji is, in fact, from India, not Afghanistan.

Not to mention the heroin: Helmand province produces more heroin than any country on the planet. Some experts estimate that the heroin trade in Marjah supplies the Taliban with around $200,000 per month.

In terms of overall strategy (with the long-term goal of changing the conditions in the country to make a stable democratic government possible), the battle for Marjah is consistent with two main U.S. goals.

The first is to deny the Taliban control of poppy farming communities and large population centers, and the second is to oversee the implementation of a civilian government opposed to the Taliban.
The success or failure of the American experiment in Afghanistan is far from certain; indeed, as Bokhari, Zeihan, and Hughes wrote back in February, “the only measure that matters cannot be judged until the Afghans are left to themselves.”

In any case, whether you think we should be there or not, whether a stable, democratic Afghanistan ultimately succeeds or fails, we ought to remember and be thankful for our brave men and women who are fighting the bad guys out in some of the most remote and inhospitable areas of the world.

Semper fidelis, blessed countrymen. You are not forgotten.

Update: According to Urban Dictionary, the term “hadji,” interchangeable with “haji” and “hajji,” has its origins in “al-haj,” the traditional Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Someone who has gone on the pilgrimage is given the deferential title “hajji,” although in army slang the term has been vulgarized to refer to all middle easterners. Special thanks to “panzodanzo,” frequent commenter on this blog, for this update.

As has been reported on these pages previously, the events that occurred in Honduras cannot be described as a coup.  It was in line with the Honduran constitution.

So the question is why is President  Obama continuing to support the expansion of Chavez-esque dictatorships throughout Latin America? Taken in conjunction with his de-funding of democratic forces across the globe, it seems like he is either attempting to curry favor with the street urchins of the world (i.e. Iran, Venezuela, et cetera) or returning to the Communist-apologia stance of “Okay, maybe the West has ‘political rights,’ but the East has ‘social rights’” (although in this case “East” would refer to any tin-pot dictator).

Either way, this does not bode well for the future of our foreign policy. This time, we are supporting the protesters (as opposed to our policy in Iran), but they’re not protesting a totalitarian government, but a democratic government who deposed of their last leader through democratic means to prevent the creation of a dictatorship. We’re allowing chaos to ensue which undermines the legitimacy of the government. Surprisingly or not, most Hondurans do not accept former President Zelaya’s claims as they understand that it was a legal removal of the president, not unknown in democracies.  Further, stability is absolutely essential for the democratic institutions in Honduras to take root and flourish, so President Obama is only further impairing Hondura’s democratic maturation.

It’s astonishing how fast things can change. In one year, we go from one extreme, of Wilsonianism wrapped in a conservative package in the form of democratic realism, to President Obama where democracy is off the list. Or in the words of Hillary Clinton responding to a question on how we can support re-admitting Cuba to the OAS (for after all, Cuba isn’t a democracy):

The United States, under the Obama administration, is committed to reengaging in Latin America, to working with all countries, and we have begun doing that. We believe that lifting people out of poverty in our hemisphere, narrowing the intolerable income gap that exists between the rich and the poor in our hemisphere, working for greater social inclusion, improved education and health care — these are our goals.

We’re back to a view where political rights aren’t that important, “human rights” are good too. The West can have its right to free speech, right to property, but the third-world can have its right to a job, right to food…; they’re equal; it doesn’t matter.

But then, one is reminded of Jeane Kirkpatrick’s retort to that formulation when she said it’s amazing how those who lack the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, and so on, also tend to lack food, shelter, and health…

Not such a bright future for American foreign policy.

Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya was attempting to hold a national referendum to create an assembly to amend the constitution, in order to remove term limits on the president. Currently, Honduran presidents can only serve one 4-year term, and Zelaya’s term is set to expire early next year. Taking a page from the playbook of his friend Hugo Chavez on how to gradually abolish democracy, Zelaya wanted this gone.

The problem is, Article 373 of the Honduran constitution says that the section on term limits cannot be amended. What’s more, all amendments to the Constitution must come from Congress, not by referendum. In fact, under article 42, promoting a president’s re-election or an extension of his term is grounds for the courts to strip that person of their citizenship.

The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya’s referendum was illegal and ordered the ballots seized. The military is in charge of running elections and securing polling places in Honduras, and Zelaya tried to fire the commander of the military for refusing to carry out his orders. The Supreme Court then ruled that Zelaya could not fire the commander  for refusing to carry out an illegal order.

Zelaya then gathered together a force of armed followers, broke into a military base where his ballots were being held under police guard, stole them and planned to hold his referendum anyways. Congress moved to remove him from office with strong support fro Zelaya’s own party, but the Honduran constitution lacks a clear impeachment clause. At this point, the Supreme Court stepped in again, and ordered that Zelaya be arrested.

The military carried out the order, raided Zelaya’s house, seized him and put him on a one-way plane trip to Costa Rica. A legal succession was quickly established. The Vice President had resigned last December in order to run for the Presidency, so President of Congress Roberto Micheletti (who is of the same party as Zelaya) assumed power in accordance with Article 242 of the constitution.

Having the military remove the president from power is obviously not the ideal situation for any country to face, however, there is not much else that Honduras could have done. Their president was engaging in flagrantly illegal behavior and had been given repeated opportunities to cease this behavior. He persisted. The Honduran Supreme Court, Congress and military were left with the choice of either sitting by and watching Zelaya dismantle Honduran democracy, or taking drastic action.

Despite this, most Latin American nations have condemned Zelaya’s removal. Predictably, his leftist-socialist allies such as Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega were quick to condemn, with Chavez even promising military action to return Zelaya to power. The Organization of American States has given Honduras 3 days to return Zelaya to power or be suspended from the organization, and the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the new Honduran government.

The Obama administration has joined them. According to Obama, “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections. The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. … We don’t want to go back to a dark past.”

While it is certainly true that Central America has had many military coups in its past, Obama doesn’t seem concerned about President Zelaya’s threat to Honduran democratic traditions. While this method of changing the government may not be the wisest thing to have legally available, it apparently is legal under Honduran law.

This incident raises some disturbing questions about Obama’s foreign policy in Latin America.

Since his election, Obama has greatly improved relations with Hugo Chavez. Perhaps sensing that the new American president is more ideologically amenable to populist socialism, Chavez has toned down his anti-American rhetoric and has even said that he wants to be Obama’s friend.

Obama sees it has his mission to restore America’s image in the world, an image that he believes Bush tarnished. As a result, he wants to build friendly relations with the governments of other countries, regardless of who is in charge. This means he will be steadfastly opposed to “regime changes”, because it is hard to build friendly relations with governments that think you are trying to undermine them.

In practice, this means Obama will support proto-dictators such as Chavez and Zelaya, and even bloody-handed killers such as Raul Castro and Daniel Ortega. He will ignore or even oppose pro-democracy movements, for these are sometimes a threat to the corrupt establishment that Obama wants to befriend.

Sometimes, supporting a dictatorial regime is an unfortunate necessity, such as our alliance with the Soviet Union during World War II. However, in this case, we have a clear choice which is not being influenced by other major geopolitical factors such as a more immediately threatening tyranny.

In the past, the left has justifiably criticized the US in the past for supporting dictatorial governments in Latin America. Now, Obama is doing the same thing, all in the name of re-building America’s respect. Instead, it will lead to America being respected by the wrong people. Rather than restoring America’s image, this will lead to the moral decline of American leadership in the world.

By drawing this line in the sand, Khamenei was casting the protesters not simply as the losing party, but as enemies of God himself. As a result, the situation escalated. Iran erupted in an explosion of pent-up rage against the regime. Protesters rioted in and clashed with government paramilitaries. People were gunned down in the streets. The death toll is still unclear, with numbers running between 19 and 150. A few days before, the cries in the streets were asking “where is my vote?” Last weekend, they were screaming “Death to Khamenei!”

The Iranian regime appeared weak, but predictions of an overthrow were premature. Protesters getting shot in the streets is nothing new in the Middle East. Power in the Middle Easts resides with the gun. Since the Supreme Leader was refusing to budge, the only way the protesters were going to get their way was if the military took their side. For a while, it was possible that this could happen. Rumors were flying that some Army officers were refusing orders to suppress the demonstrations. By relying on loyalist paramilitaries to suppress the protesters, Khameni bypassed a possible showdown with the military, which remained on the sidelines. Some protests continue, but they are not on the scale of hundreds of thousands that were seen last week. At the same time, the response by the authorities has gotten more and more violent.

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s grip on power seems secure, for now. But Iran will never be the same. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, the Supreme Leaders of Iran have always claimed divine sanction for their actions. Now, the people of Iran view these actions as wrong and Khamenei’s proclamations of divine guidance as false. The regime’s pillar of legitimacy – that the Supreme Leader has a special pipeline to the Almighty – is gone.

Historically, when a regime loses its ideological basis, its response is to govern by the gun, relying on fear alone to enforce obedience. Thus, the Iranian regime will likely move to destroy the last vestiges of Iranian democracy and replace Iran’s authoritarian regime with a totalitarian one.

This is already happening. Opposition leaders have been arrested, including family members of leading Guardian Council figures such as Ali Rafsanjani. Hundreds of others have been arrested. Four Iranian soccer players that wore green armbands in protest of the election received lifetime bans from Iranian soccer. Those who have been arrested will be tried before a special court created especially to make an example of them. The court is run by prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi, a brutal regime apparatchik who in 2003 was involved in beating, torturing, raping and murdering Canadian photographer Zahra Kazemi while she was in custody.

However, the clearest hallmark of Iran’s emerging status as a totalitarian state is the way the regime is beginning to take on an Orwellian sense of truth. George Orwell’s classic depiction of totalitarianism, 1984, describes a government which simply asserts whatever it wants to be true, and expects the people to believe it.  The Iranian government started down this road when they declared Ahmadinejad the landslide winner two hours after the polls closed. The foreign minister has claimed that the protests were orchestrated by British intelligence agents who flew into the country in several planeloads prior to the election. A government ‘investigation’ has tried to justify the killing of protester Neda Agha-Soltan by saying that the paramilitary sniper that shot her in cold blood “had mistaken her for the sister” of a deceased Iranian Marxist terrorist leader from the group Mujahedin-e-khalq.

Of course, the idea that a country can count tens of millions of paper ballots in 2 hours, or that planeloads of MI6 agents could suddenly fly into Iraq and organize mass protests, or that Iranian snipers were specifically looking out for siblings of long-dead members of now-defunct terrorist organizations in the huge crowds that engulfed Tehran, are all patently ridiculous, and Iranians know it. But these claims are asserted to be true in a totalitarian state because the state forces people to believe them. Everyone knows the truth, but anyone who speaks it gets killed.

Iran’s transformation into a totalitarian police state should throw a wrench into Obama’s plans to engage the Iranian government in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Obama’s strategy was contingent on recognizing the Iranian regime’s legitimacy as an elected institution. With that legitimacy gone, Obama could abandon negotiations and strongly oppose the new government. Or, he could pretend that nothing has happened and and continue negotiations with a totalitarian regime, thereby legitimizing it. The trouble is, as attempted negotiations with North Korea have shown, negotiating with a totalitarian regime is impossible, because a regime which is used to asserting whatever it wants to be true as truth cannot be a trusted partner in negotiations.

While Obama’s approach might have worked prior to June 12th, it will not work afterwards. Iran has been changed forever, and Iran’s relationship with American cannot help but also be changed. Obama has a choice between taking a stand for what’s right, or legitimizing a regime of tyrants and killers. Will he make the right choice? And will the American people let him get away with it if he doesn’t?

Basically, this is what Obama did.  Facing increasing opposition to dispersing Guantanamo prisoners to other nations (especially in Europe, where I thought he was supposed to solve all our problems…), he worked directly with Bermudan Premier Ewart Brown to arrange for the transfer of four Uighur prisoners to Bermuda. One slight problem- Bermuda is soverign British territory.  They are a one of fourteen British terrorities spread across the globe.  So while they have self-rule, all foreign policy and security matters are handled by Her Majesty’s Government back in London.

As the Telegraph puts it:

“Late on Wednesday night, British officials received a telephone call from the Obama administration informing them that four Uighurs – Chinese Muslims – were about to board a plane at Guantanamo Bay bound for Bermuda.

It was a fait accompli, arranged directly between the Obama administration and Ewart Brown, the Bermudan premier. The UK had no choice – it was too late for any debate about the issue. The Uighurs (lucky them, for the alternative was Albania) would be on Bermudan soil by Thursday morning.”

The British quickly responded:

“David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, had called Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, immediately to protest.

‘The Foreign Secretary registered his surprise. It was a regrettable mistake. Bermuda, the UK and the US now need to work together to fix it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.’”

What Obama did would be analogous to Raul Castro negotiating with Puerto Rico over transfer of political prisoners to Puerto Rican soil.  And what does this say about our special relationship with Britain going back to FDR and Winston Churchill?  Coupled with existing tensions with Germany, not such a great record on establishing good relations with our European allies…

Now the tables have turned.  The Washington Post reports that “tensions” exist between President Obama and Chancellor Merkel:

“Since he moved into the White House, Obama has encountered a string of rebukes and lectures from Chancellor Angela Merkel and German lawmakers, who have irritated Washington by refusing to provide more help in fighting the Afghan war or closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, among other disputes.”

And further that:

“The sorest point has been over how to respond to the economic crisis, with Merkel and some of her ministers warning darkly that U.S. fiscal and monetary policies have been reckless and will trigger a global wave of inflation.”

Given that Merkel also refused a previous invitation to the White House, President Obama seems to be beating President Bush’s record of two years to alienate our European allies.  Yet something seems to be lacking here.  Where’s the constant harping by the media on how we’re hurting the relationships with our allies?  Strangely missing…