A Simple Change: Limiting U.S. Military Power

Greetings all!

This post comes on the last night prior to my school year starting, so I’ve decided to uptake a little something which I had originally created for academic purposes. I’m part of the Junior Statesmen of America, or JSA for short, a political debate organization across the nation’s high schools. The group has several conventions during the year, and for one such convention I prepared an amendment for debate. Ultimately, the amendment was denied in favor of a bill which had been prepared by one of my fellows, but that matters not within this context. This week’s quote comes from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American president during much of the Great Depression and WWII, and my personal second favorite among all presidents (Abraham Lincoln being in first place, of course).

The amendment I prepared for debate last year was one concerning U.S. military power and influence in the modern world. I have prepared the text of the amendment, so that you all know exactly what I’m talking about. So here it is:

An Amendment to Limit the Military Power of the United States

The United States government has authorized military interventions in countless nations in support of capitalism, freedom, and other similar monikers. However, these interventions have led to millions of deaths and have helped to put repressive dictatorships in power around the world, which not only worsen the condition for those directly affected, but also allow anti-American sentiments to burgeon. In order to prevent global suffering as well as to improve the United States’ image, the power and discretion of the U.S. government in deploying the military must be limited.

Be it amended by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, and upon approval of ¾ of the states, that:

Section 1. The ability of the president and Congress to deploy military forces anywhere not on U.S. soil be limited to usage only under these conditions:

           Subsection a. The foreign nation in question has directly attacked the United States in some way, shape or form. Offensive attempts will be treated as attacks, but threats will not be.

            Subsection b. The foreign nation in question has directly attacked an ally of the United States in some way, shape or form. Offensive attempts will be treated as attacks, but threats will not be.

            Subsection c. The United Nations has called upon the United States to engage in military action with the foreign nation in question. Calls made by NATO and other multinational bodies will be denied pending further review by the executive branch and the Congress.

            Subsection d. A majority of the populace of the foreign nation in question has asked specifically for intervention by the United States. Calls for foreign aid in general by the population in question will not be met unless other conditions here are met in kind.

            Subsection e. A humanitarian crisis is occurring in the foreign nation in question. A humanitarian crisis may be brought forth by genocide, direct and careless repression of citizens, widespread torture of civilians, or other qualifications met under United Nations classifications for humanitarian crises.

Section 2. The United States military forces may not be deployed outside the U.S. unless one or more of these conditions are met. Under no circumstances will the executive or legislative branches be allowed to use military force otherwise; including under previous justifications such as the protection of capitalism, democracy, freedom, or the disposal of leaders unfavorable to the United States’ interests, and those of its allies.

And so concludes my amendment, in all of its formality. Now, I’ll explain each part in order to make my case.

The introduction is obviously concerning U.S. military interventions during the Cold War. There are many that I could lay out, each with a deadly cost, although I’m sure many of us are familiar with at least a few of them. The most striking examples can be shown through the Korean and Vietnam Wars, both of which caused huge death tolls for little benefit. Let me stress this: we lost the Vietnam War. Our intention upon going in was to prevent the nation from unifying under communism, and in 1975 that was exactly what happened. We killed others, and we allowed others to kill us, in a fruitless endeavor. As for the Korean War, we were not at a complete loss of our intentions, although we did not fully succeed in our goals. North Korea still exists as a communist state today, and one that’s particularly angry at America at that. Due to the cost these wars and other interventions caused, it is only logical to at least put forth and effort to prevent these costs in the future.

I specify in section 1 both the Congress and the executive because both branches have the ability to use military force and have done so in the past, so an amendment limiting such powers must be extended to both branches. As for the first two subsections, I assume my reasoning is obvious and agreeable to most any party. The United States must be prepared to willingly fight back should it or its allies be attacked by other nations; this is a common tenet of sovereignty and alliances. When I say “offensive attempts”, this means any attempted attack on a nation, whether successful or not. For example, say a government sent a missile towards Washington, D.C., but missed and the missile simply went into the ocean. That would be treated as an attack, and the military could respond as such. However, I specify that threats cannot be acted upon because they give far too much leverage for military intervention. Because many things can be interpreted as threats, the leverage given to the government for military force would be too great. Attacks and attempted attacks, on the other hand, are clear to see and are not vague in definition.

As for the third subsection, I specify that only calls by the U.N. to action shall be met immediately due to certain ideas around the world concerning NATO and other organizations. Many people consider NATO to be an ideological organization that acts on the whim of Western interests rather than in a non-partisan way, and so I exclude it from an immediate list of groups to listen to. However, I also provide a system for such requests to be met; I allow both Congress and the executive branch a chance to debate and decide whether or not to listen to such calls to action. This way, such requests can be determined as either ideological or not, and responded to as such. The U.N. on the other hand is viewed in generally a good light and is enshrined as a place for all nations to come together and solve issues, and as such is considered to be a good source for calls to action. The U.N. does not have a huge record of being an ideological organization or as being one that is reactionary, and so it is given special privileges when seeking U.S. military force. However, the U.S. government still reserves the right to deny such requests if the circumstances call for such inaction; you’ll notice I never specify that the U.S. must comply with U.N. calls to action.

As for the fourth subsection, it is the vaguest, and for that I am sorry. It was originally struck from the amendment, but I decided to include it here so I could at least give my opinion. This subsection was written with the crisis in Syria in mind, which at the time had not been as severe or old as it is now. I noted that much of the Syrian rebel movement was calling for outside help. However, I also thought that unless the majority (at least over 50%) of the nation all wanted the same thing, it would be unfair to the remainder of the country to take action on minority request. The vague part I accidentally left out was how such a statistic would be determined. Countries in crisis generally are hard places to gather stats from, and such is the biggest issue with this subsection, and it’s one I don’t have an answer for. Should anyone be able to think of a way to wrangle out this issue, please let me know. I specify “calls for foreign aid in general” due to both the Syrian crisis and the Libyan revolution, both of which had the opposition crying out for general help from any willing nation. Since these groups were not asking specifically for our help, I felt it could be risky to intervene without knowing the particulars of the situation. Rebel movements may resent our presence and help, and as such I believe we cannot move in without knowing what we’re getting into if at all possible. As such, I try to give these movements the best possible chance by introducing a portion which allows intervention should any other subsection requirement be met.

The last subsection was created as I pondered the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The people of the region cried out for long, and many suffered, yet few did anything to help. This last subsection is intended to counter such situations, by allowing unilateral intervention on the basis of a humanitarian crisis as defined by the U.N., whose definition is generally viewed as fair and universal. It would appear to give us significant leeway in making interventions, however this is why I specify the use of a U.N. definition. Without that, we could invade on many more grounds which would be at fault. Because there are guidelines, the military is still restricted on a reasonable level.

The final section is intended to erase former excuses for interventions as possible future excuses. That way, we no longer make the mistakes of our past. It also keeps a tight grip on the military capabilities of Congress and the president, ensuring that neither can act without meeting correct conditions.

That is my reasoning for the amendment, and should it or something like it make it to Congress or the states, I would be more than happy. If you find any holes other than the one I already pointed out in subsection d, please let me know so that I may change the amendment to suit its needs. If you have any other responses to the amendment, I’d be more than happy to hear them.

That’s all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided a good sample of reasoning as to why I believe this amendment should be applied to our Constitution. If you have feedback of any kind, please feel encouraged to comment here or send me an email at zerospintop@live.com. You can also contact me through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, and Steam. Goodnight, and this is KnoFear, signing off.

The Pink Tide: Moving Forward In South America

Greetings all!

This week’s post comes a little late, mostly due to laziness and anxiety over the end of my summer vacation. With the start of my school schedule, I am certain that my blog posts will become more regularly on Sundays into the future. Anyway, this post concerns South America, a continent comprising of twelve countries and rich with history and culture. I always pay close attention to the politics of the continent, mostly because I see many of its countries as rising powers on the world stage. I intend to suggest what these countries need to and should do to increase their influence without neglecting their populace in the process. Namely, I intend to declare my support of the pink tide, which I’ll discuss shortly. This week’s quote comes from Nelson Mandela, the former leader of South Africa in the post-apartheid era and a highly influential politician who I admire strongly.

Anyway, the pink tide is a phrase used to describe trends in modern Latin American politics. Namely, the phrase symbolizes the increasing acceptance and implementation of leftist politics in Latin American governments. Because red is typically seen as the color of communism, pink can be used as the “color of socialism” and other far left movements which are not quite as extreme as communism. It’s quite an important change in current regional politics, and has swept several nations in Latin America. For this post, I will only be covering South America, but I assure you the pink tide has also affected several Central American nations. The current pink tide leaders include: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina, Jose Mujica in Uruguay, Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Ollanta Humala in Peru, and Fernando Lugo in Paraguay up until recently.

The reason I choose to examine the pink tide is due to the fact that it is a relatively new and promising movement. In the past, South American politics were largely dominated by military dictatorships and centrist leaders. If you’ve read my blog in the past, you likely already know why I despise what occurred. If you haven’t, let me summarize briefly: death, torture, repression, and suffering. Some of the world’s most brutal regimes existed in 20^th century South America, but things have changed since then. No longer do dictatorships mar the governments down south, and no longer do people die or suffer without governments trying to solve the problems. As such, I view the pink tide as a natural effect. South America is a highly diverse continent with a grievous past, which will seek to prevent its mistakes and promote change into the present. In order to expand the benefits of democracy and economic success to the poor and disenfranchised, it is undeniable that South American governments will turn towards the left in their efforts. We can be certain the right will not perform in that aspect.

There are many criticisms of the pink tide, mostly stemming from global conservatives. Some issues are of legitimate concern, however. I speak namely of the less-than-democratic means some leftist leaders have taken to promote socialism and the left in their native countries. The two most obvious examples of this are Venezuela and Bolivia. In Venezuela, Chavez led a Bolivarian Revolution from 1999 onwards which expanded his powers and abilities as president greatly, along with altering the constitution to fit a more leftist perspective. My biggest issue with the latter portion is that Chavez did not allow proper debate over the inclusion of leftist principles into the constitution; should he have allowed it, I’m certain Venezuelans may have agreed with him anyway. As for the former issue, I’m not a huge fan of Chavez; while I view him as important as a global influence against conservative strides, he does not rule in a way which benefits the people most. I would very much like to see fresh socialist and communist leaders take his place, initiating a more democratic move towards the left. However, I do realize that his position cannot fall to other opponents from the right and center. Venezuela controls significant amounts of oil; if they wish to preserve their sovereignty and prevent exploitation by oil companies and oil-obsessed governments, they must remain stable and unwilling to budge on certain oil policies they currently have.

Bolivia is a separate case. Bolivia’s past is dominated by several military regimes, along with CIA involvement against leftist insurgency (most notably the assassination of Che Guevara in 1986). In 2005, Morales and his party were elected with a full majority. Morales is also the first president of the nation to not be a descendant of Europeans. I’m more partial towards Morales than I am towards Chavez. Morales was elected democratically (both times), and has provided mostly successful policies. His presidency has been marked by good economic growth and a modest decrease in inequality. Bolivia is also now considered one of few South American countries to be “illiteracy-free”. My one major quip with Morales is over his process of constitutional approval. When the new constitution was being drafted, he changed the requirement for a two-thirds approval vote towards a simple majority vote, decreasing the democratic needs of a nation plagued by inequality and troubles. I would have preferred that he left the rule as it was originally and let the chips fall where they may; perhaps the protests in eastern Bolivia would not have occurred.

Other than these two leaders, I whole-heartedly support pink tide presidents/prime ministers. The indigenous population of South America has been neglected and pushed aside, and the left is responsible for ensuring their equality. It is our duty to preserve diverse and equal societies as simple and basic tenets of democracy. Seeing countries like Chile having income inequality that is worse than our own is disheartening, to say the least. However, socialist leaders have the opportunity to change the direction of countries. As the political importance and influence of South America grows into the remainder of the 21^st century, these countries cannot allow themselves to become nations which allow capitalism to run rampant on the masses as we did. We suffer now for it; let’s hope it doesn’t occur anywhere else.

That is all for this post, and I hope I’ve provided a strong and clear opinion on the issue at hand. Once again, your feedback is encouraged. If you have questions or comments, please leave them here. You can also contact me through my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or DeviantArt accounts. I also now have a Steam account by the name of KnoFearMLP (because someone had the gall to take KnoFear before I did), so feel free to contact me there as well. That’s all for this week, and this is KnoFear signing off. 

Power vs. Freedom: Authoritarianism and Libertarianism

Greetings all!

This post comes a little earlier than normal because I will be heading to Atlantic City on Monday, and I felt that it would be best to create my work before things got too hectic. My school year will be starting shortly, so expect my posting to become more regular due to a set schedule during the coming months. In this post, I intend to take a look at the two sides to power which governments exercise. As a precursor to this, I must denote the fact that authoritarianism and libertarianism are aspects of ideology that are independent of the left or the right. Either side of the political spectrum can exhibit characteristics of both, and governments past and present have done both. I only plan on examining both and providing my stance on which I believe is better, using both facts and opinions. This week’s quote comes from Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the former socialist prime minister of Spain. While I’m quite critical of some of his economic measures, I see eye to eye with him on some issues, and admire that he legalized same-sex marriage.

Moving on, I’ll be starting with authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the federal entity is very strong and often large, exerting significant control over smaller governmental bodies and citizens. Authoritarian governments typically exhibit few democratic rights, and are generally devoid of much political debate due to repression of the opposition. However, authoritarian governments can react much more quickly to problems (as there is no need for debate over what the solution will be), and can often ensure stability for nations that would split and suffer under more liberalized regimes.

I myself am highly critical of authoritarianism. There are certainly benefits to a government that exercises a strong arm, but that’s exactly it; these benefits rarely extend to the populace. I’m especially critical of military authoritarianism, the kind of government which is run by an armed establishment, void of any politics at all. These kinds of governments don’t even have ideological issues; there is only power, and those who wish to tear it down. I know that some of you may be confused; many of you likely think that because I’m a communist and therefore a supporter of big government, I should love authoritarianism. This is a false stereotype among leftists. Not all of us are fans of authoritarian governments, and as a Trotskyist I can definitely say that I prefer libertarian establishments. Most leftists believe in some form of mass democracy, and this belief runs strong especially among communists. Authoritarian governments on either side of the political spectrum can have problems, and I can be critical of both.

It’s fairly easy for me to attack authoritarian right-wing governments. These systems subjugate people in huge numbers, and destroy any sense of democracy in a flash. The most recognizable example of a government like this is Nazi Germany. We all know the terrible things that occurred under such a government, and why they were horrible. We know why the system crumbled as well. Nazism essentially called for endless war and conquering of territory in order to support itself, and once Germany hit a wall invading Russia the war machine began to falter. Pretty soon, there were people starving on the street, and there were Soviet soldiers taking Berlin. If you need more of an example of why Nazism and fascism were terrible ideas, see my previous post explaining it in careful detail here: http://superjewmclovin.blogspot.com/2012/05/worst-how-fascism-destroys-societies.html.

As for authoritarian left-wing governments, the case is a little different. It’s not necessarily harder to rail against these systems, but it must be taken at a different angle due to the way things are run. The clearest example of a leftist authoritarian government would be the Soviet Union under Stalin, one that I’m sure anyone born during the Cold War will know about. Stalin ruled the USSR without much question from the time of Lenin’s death in 1924 until his own in 1953. Certain things about his rule were incredibly poor; his collectivization programs forced peasants to rapidly industrialize an agrarian economy, leading to famine and suffering all over. The Great Purges severely put down opposition, ending any chance of moving towards a democratic model of communism. However, at the same time it was Stalin’s heavy hand and unwillingness to falter which allowed Russia to survive the German invasion during WWII, completing the goals of the Allies in the Eastern Front. It’s possible that had the Soviet Union been forced to deal with democratic process and debate over the war, the Germans could have entrenched themselves further, possibly making the war a lot more deadly or even creating the chance for Nazism to have won. Don’t get me wrong, I would have more than loved if Trotsky had become the Soviet leader after Lenin, and I don’t doubt he would have handled the war effectively, but we can’t know exact results when it comes to alternate history. Based on this model, I find that authoritarian left-wing governments can have some merit to them, but pale in comparison to more libertarian regimes.

And now I will move on to a look at libertarianism. Libertarian governments give more choice to their citizens and generally are quite decentralized, with full democratic processes. However, this can lead to issues over preserving sovereignty and in some cases political gridlock can occur. At an extreme, some libertarian governments suffer from the fact that without enough power to wield, government becomes useless and weak. These are the first signs of a failed state, and are particularly difficult to counteract.

Libertarian right-wing governments contain inherent flaws due to certain aspects of ideology versus control. For example, conservative ideology typically favors large scale spending on and support of national defense. This is ostensibly to serve as a buffer to threats and as a powerful tool for crafting international politics based on military strength. However, a libertarian regime will have trouble getting this kind of thing together due to decentralization of the state. Because the state cannot force money into the military by virtue of its own weakness, it must betray certain values of its ideological base simply to exist. A libertarian economy is also inherently faulty when combined with conservatism; laissez-faire policies have been proven to fail when imposed on a national scale (my example being the Great Depression: http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html). As such, I do not support libertarian right-wing governments; the notion that a society where a government should do so little for its people is simply wrong in my eyes.

I won’t be elaborating too much about why I support libertarian left-wing governments. I have done it before in previous posts, and I already intend on delving further into my own ideology in my next post. I wouldn’t want to spoil the fun of that, of course. I can say this: my main reason for supporting a leftist libertarian system is because it gives people freedom, along with all the benefits that leftism strives to guarantee. From universal healthcare to marriage equality, the ideology and the power structure fit well together. This is the cornerstone of my beliefs. Once people realize how much good the left can do, they will choose to side with it. I will say this: there is a limit to how libertarian a government should be. No matter how in line a government is with leftist doctrine, if it has no power then its goals will never be accomplished. This can create a failed state quite easily, so the government must be allocated enough power that it can enact laws without trouble.

That is all for this week’s post, and I hope I’ve provided all that is necessary for you to understand my point. If you have questions or comments, I encourage you to put them down right here. If you prefer to contact me otherwise, I would suggest doing so through my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or DeviantArt accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Tradition, Part 2: Good vs. Evil

Greetings all!

This post comes as the conclusion to my two-part ending for July (albeit a little late, perhaps). In this post, I intend to take on a notion which is widespread in the United States, but is also found in just about any country. We like to think of everything within the bounds of black and white, good and evil, and nothing more. There are innate problems with this system, and the very fact that we let it exist obstructs much of our policy efforts. This week’s quote comes from Bettino Craxi, the socialist prime minister of Italy during a good portion of the 1980’s. He helped to ratchet up Italian debt levels, but also made Italy into an economic powerhouse with excellent standards of living, health, and education, so I look to him with good grace.

As stated, we like to see politics through a lens of “this is either one thing, or the other, and nothing in between.” We can see it in many of our mantras: if you’re not with us you’re against us, we do not negotiate with terrorists, etc. We enjoy the simple nature of having to choose between two options; this allows us to avoid having scary things like complex situations arise. The biggest problem with this is that the world does not work this way. Things are not so black and white, and in fact there is far more gray than either extreme. And often, it is when we are presented with multiple choices that we make the best and most informed decisions.

I’ll make elections my first example. In America, we allow for third parties, and yet in every election the only parties which receive anything more than a negligible amount of the votes cast are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are two main reasons for this, and the first is a systematic disposition towards two-party elections. Because our constitution and election rules force parties to receive fairly large followings, it’s quite easy for our nation to settle into the swing between two opposing political groups. Since we fell into that pattern a long time ago, it’s a very hard one to break. But the secondary reason why third parties receive so few votes is because we do not want them to exist. Often, whenever third parties make an issue known, people will simply ask that one of the two major parties absorb that issue, and the third party is then moot. I’ll take the Green Party of the United States as my prime subject here: http://www.gp.org/index.php. While the Green Party itself has developed a full platform by now with an excellent candidate, most people view the party as simply existing to advance the environmentalism movement. This couldn’t be further from the truth, although the party was founded on such principles. However, we refuse to acknowledge them beyond their roots.

Now let me explain why this hurts us. A democracy flourishes with more ideas having representation in government and during election cycles. While this doesn’t mean a country should have tons of political parties, this does mean that a country with three or four typically ends up more vibrant than one with only two parties. Look at Israel, for example. Israel is the strongest democracy in the Middle East, and it has a multi-party system. From the extreme-right Likud party to the leftist Labor, Israel has formed a flourishing nation which does quite well for itself despite being strapped for resources and close to dangerous enemies. We consistently praise Israel for its democratic successes, and in many ways we are right to do so from time to time. Meanwhile we are stuck having our two main parties battle it out over all the issues, forcing both parties to adopt opposite stances or risk looking like “sell-outs”. This effectively filters moderates out of both parties, causing extreme partisan rifts that most Americans have decried. This, after all, is our prime reason for disapproval of Congress: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html. Having multiple parties means that members of each party can have views that do not all fall in line exactly, but still leaves them electable and important.

Another example of the poor effects of seeing things through black and white is our foreign policy, and this is one that several countries are guilty of beyond just us. In his 2002 State of the Union address, former president Bush declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be part of an “axis of evil” (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html). This notion that we as America are the great hero in an American story, and that these other countries are just evil villains, is foolish. This is what led us and the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq, causing a huge sectarian mess that we’re still paying for today. Yes, these countries aren’t the best places to be. That does not mean that we can decry them in their entirety, effectively ending any chance at diplomacy in a time of peace that most people would like to keep up. Take a look at this through the eyes of a citizen of one of the “axis” nations. Here you are, just trying to make a life for yourself, and one of the most powerful and important world leaders has basically just called you and everyone you know evil. How would you feel? The thing to remember is that just because people live in Iran, that does not mean everyone is allied with the current government system. Not all Iranians are extreme religious conservatives, and many are likely apathetic about politics in general just as long as their daily lives don’t get altered too heavily. A good lot of Americans could care less about politics; what makes us think that citizens of other nations are any different?

That is all for this two-part post, and I hope I’ve made my point in full. If you have questions or comments of any kind, I encourage you to post them right here. My email at zerospintop@live.com is still open, along with my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and DeviantArt accounts. And this is KnoFear, signing off.