Stop The Spirit Of Zossen

The Imperial City And The World

You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for January 2011

Archives for January 2011

Max Boot And Company Lament British Realism

By 4 Comments

The days of British military power appear to be ending” Max Boot lamented in the Wall Street Journal. Another columnist at The Economist weighed in that Great Britain is at best managing its “relative decline

That was likely not the reception that U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government was hoping their new National Security Strategy would receive from such traditionally conservative outlets when it was released Oct. 18. Coupled with the Security and Comprehensive Spending Review released days later, the critics worried that these documents were merely written justifications of the end of Britain’s military footprint in the world.

Yet it is odd that a conservative government was lashed by fellow travelers for the very reason of making strategic decisions based on realism. That is, the security strategy, titled “A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty,” can be read as a realistic blueprint for tough times, reflecting the priorities of a new government — chastened by what it says is the overreaching of its predecessors, but which nonetheless continues to endorse a global role for the U.K.

Even more, the documents may have some lessons for leaders on the other side of the Trans-Atlantic “special relationship.” As Cameron noted, “We have inherited a defense and security structure that is woefully unsuitable for the world we live in today. We are determined to learn from those mistakes, and make the changes needed.” Cameron’s statement was more than just putting a brave face on grim news. It was an illustration of what a government sometimes has to do when facing tough circumstances. And, given current circumstances and trends for the U.S., the British document may well provide some inkling for how an American president and defense secretary, Democratic or Republican, will likely respond in 2013 and beyond as the U.S. wrestles with its own “age of austerity” (emphasis added).

The rest.

Obama On Giffords: More Is Needed Beyond Words

By 6 Comments

Obama delivered a powerful speech. Senior Movement people tell us tonight they acknowledge the moment’s impact. He’s at his best in these circumstances. He hit the right tone at the right time.

To be blunt? By tomorrow? It’s not enough. Gone. More fleeting feelings and words.

Obama, to have a real impact beyond the next 3 news cycles, must lead purposeful, concrete political action. He must do what he said tonight we all must never do — engage in the dirty retail business of politics, acting to create incentives and exact penalties. Actual politics will change America. A conversation is a whisper on the wind. Even if you say things nicely and try and ‘heal instead of wound’.

He gave a stirring speech. No doubt. We get it. But he’s got this bizarre notion that politics — in general — somehow is the problem. And that this problem can only be overcome by emotional or empathetic purity. He abandons the very notion of politics as the philosophical fundamental sense of ‘things concerning the polis‘ at the origins of Western civilization. This stance is emblematic of his presidency 2008-2010. Obama again rejects ‘dirty usual politics’ and calls us to float with him serenely in his bubble of detached empathy. That’s frankly an irresponsible abdication.

How bizarre that both Obama and the Movement rush to call this moment apolitical. To the solemn approval of cable heads.

Obama said ‘I want an America that [insert some warm fuzzy nice future thing here]’. Great. We all do. But ‘a conversational’ bubble of detached empathy once it moves into concrete specifics soon pops. Worse, the proposed specifics are actually chasing phantoms. Consider gun policy. Like Matthew’s obsession with the word ‘gun’ that powerfully political issue is the problem’s abstract manifestation, not its essence.

There are it seems two separate completely politics tracks that Obama must deign to recognize and address. The first? Something his own administration helps propagate — the American predicament of perpetual ambient mobilization designed to destabilize domestic political foundations with agitated fear, threat and force. The second is the issue we all have been discussing for years – the Movement’s ideological and philosophical core. When seen by this bifurcated prism, guns, Confederate re-habilitation, ‘national security’ as the unassailable American version of Bourbon raison d’etat and so on are manifestations of that underlying reality. Does Obama really think the Movement will dissolve itself and jettison its undeniably successful reality for a hug? That the Pentagon, Community and vertical integration of local LEOs with DHS will all cheerfully surrender budgets, prestige and careers?

It’d be nice if the world could be changed by a stirring speech. Or a hug. Both are necessary but not sufficient.

Gabrielle Giffords And Rightist Murderous Rage

By 31 Comments

Prayers for her and all those killed and wounded. We’ve been lucky. It’s taken this long for one (as of this writing) from the fringe to act out. They’ve been given the dog whistle green light since at least February 2009.

It’s wrong for most commentators to blame the fringe alone, or talk radio, a few cable talking heads or Palin’s unfortunate web graphics. The urge to violence and its accompanying eliminationist impulses are a major fuel rod of the Movement’s nuclear reactor. Grover, for example, asked at this year’s televised RNC Chair candidate debates to each candidate, ‘Do you own guns?’ and they detailed how yes and how many. Galvanizing violent activity is the sub rosa Movement political life blood — from Newt’s calls for ‘destroying’ , ‘revolution’ and abolishing in 1994-1995 through 2009-2010’s behind the expulsion of all sources of cognitive dissonance into an illegitimate Other as way station to remorseless destruction. (Forget Carlson’s frat boy stupidity re Vick, that’s just dumb privileged white idiocy).

Obama’s flinching, weakness, caving and refusal to engage the Movement imposes another cost. His speech today fine for the moment. But he must create a national tone that imposes and *exacts* real political cost for Movement extremism. You’d think of all people the Boy King would see the need. They brought assault rifles to his own events. We doubt in the end he has the balls for setting tonal barriers necessary to exact a cost for extremism peddling, let alone understanding the fundamental need. Moments of silence are a necessary but woefully insignificant step.

An example of what not to do? More mewling from Eugene Robinson that the Movement and Republican leaders ‘must renounce and marginalize’ those calling for violence as the right thing to do. Or what? Worse than his usual banal cliches.

The DoD Sham Budget Dog And Pony Show

By 6 Comments

The Obama Administration’s apparent agreement to shield current DoD bloat at essentially a 1% annual level while proclaiming dramatic cuts is chutzpah even for them. Given our general fiscal collapse, Obama’s proposed budget is actually just a pre-emptive token for political optics. This budget preserves intact the perpetual militarization launched by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Obama ironically really *is* Sovietizing America in this regard.

Smoke, Mirrors And The Out Year Fiscal Fantasies

It’s a proposal. So we shouldn’t get too worked up just yet. Why? Whenever anyone talks about ‘out year savings’ or ‘projected fiscal year savings’ they’re babbling for political cover. DoD budgets are approved annually, as you know. Authorizers and appropriators alike always have rejected budget reform proposals like two-year budgets to improve management and savings. This Tea Party crowd reading Gilberts ConLaw to each other won’t cede any of that annual power to the illegitimate Obama. Plus, neither party got worked up over running two wars off the books. Out year projections like statistics are often fibs.

Second, a rational government would link DoD budgets to U.S foreign policy and security goals. Obama’s vaunted new look foreign policy? Offers tone and tenor differences from Bush. Welcome. What’s jarring — but predictable — about this Administration DoD proposed budget? It enshrines the essential irrational global militarization of 2001-2008. Obama also doesn’t threaten any major rice bowls. Existing political-economic constituencies may complain but they escape largely unscathed. Bush Lite. It’s classic Obama Goldilocks Syndrome — go for lukewarm pudding. Adams in the NYT may say ‘I think the floor under defense spending has now gone soft’. If he means unchecked irrational growth is over, he might have a point. Nonetheless, when we cut through all the smoke and mirrors, Obama proposes an aggregate overall package concealing about 1% actual real growth or at worse a steady state. Some floor.

How ‘Republicans’ and the Movement factions reconcile their fiscal and security memes among themselves remains unknown. 2008-2010 tells us that Obama and Democrats are incapable of bold conceptual initiatives. The worst outcome for America and the world? To fudge the hard questions and ‘muddle through’ on tactical politics of the moment. The Tweetyverse applauds Obama for saying tax reform will regain his mojo. That’s our point. The responsible play for America and history (what Obama claims to value) is to do the hard work and re-evaluate American strategic interests first in our new incarnation. Then reconfigure the purpose of American power and its budget accordingly.

Consider the British experience post-1918. Seemingly a victor of the Great War, Great Britain was already no longer ‘great’ even by 1920. Nonetheless, successive governments left unchanged her Imperial commitments. Meanwhile, her actual outlays fluctuated according to disassociated tactical domestic and internal political-economic logic. Her ‘ends means gap’ between her global commitments and what she was able to do? A significant contributor to 50 million people dying 1939-45.

[Read more…]

99ers The New Tea Party?

By 13 Comments

Abe Sauer thinks it’s a real possibility.

. . . 99ers are organizing and beginning to look a lot like the Tea Party did so many moons ago.

In case the new Congress doesn’t fully understand this, being unemployed is not like some giant line at Shake Shack, where you get in the back and, eventually after a lot of waiting, you get your burger. The irony of not having a job for nearly two years is that it becomes increasingly difficult to find a job the longer one is unemployed. Department of Labor data shows that people who have been unemployed fewer than five weeks face a re-employment rate of 31 percent. Unemployed for more than a year? There’s just a 9 percent chance you’ll find work. Of course, part of the reason for this is that not all jobs and employees are equal, with, say, construction workers being out of work longer and thus faced with a more difficult work search. (All the more reason for promoting employment training along with a benefits extension.)

Another insulting reality of being a 99er is that your very existence was erased after the 99th week. Only beginning Jan. 1 did the Bureau of Labor Statistics begin counting the unemployed whose benefits have expired. The BLS site explains “Starting with data for January 2011, respondents will be able to report unemployment durations of up to 5 years,” adding, one assumes dryly, “This change will likely affect estimates of average (mean) duration of unemployment . . .

It might also behoove the politicians involved to remember that, despite common misconceptions, homeless people can vote. And if there is an answer to the political power, and camera-friendly anger, of the Tea Party, it may be the 99ers. Many in this population have already begun to loosely organize, mostly online, but also off line. The American 99ers Union already boasts a host of Tea-Party-like badges growing under its umbrella, including 99ersUnited, The Layoff List, Jobless Unite, Unemployed Workers Action Group, United, Angry, Voters and the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, amongst others. In their grassroots amateurishness, stars and stripes iconography, anti-DC posturing and angry American rhetoric, the sites look exactly like their Tea Party counterparts.

The movement already has a snappy, media-friendly name.

Unfortunately, we think Sauer overestimates their chances. Under oligarchical social structures, the average subject er, citizen doesn’t have multi-million dollar astro-turf entities standing by to fund, support and create meme currency for attention-deficit-disorder America.
After two years of this Administration, it’s frighteningly clear to the Non-Gilded/Non-Security State Nomenklatura: we’re all on our own.