In the earliest days of the Libya attack, the Obama regime was quick to declare that a) this would be a short engagement, and b) it was not a war.

Well, according to new reports, U.S. officials are no longer talking about days or weeks with regard to military operations in LIbya… they are talking months.

So,  we have our military involved in what can only be classified as a war with no plan or strategy. There is also some big questions on who exactly has command over our military…

Sometimes I think Obama is just trying to use up all of his vacation time while he still has a job.

In light of events in Libya, I think it worthwhile to re-post an article I wrote back on February 2nd, 2010. We are caught now in a bind. Idiot foreign and military policy precedents are preventing us from even so much as thinking about doing what is right for American foreign policy. I propose a clean sweep, and an entirely new policy:

The two fundamental errors of American foreign policy over the past century have been reliance upon international bodies and engaging in un-declared warfare – both are related to each other and both strip away from the government (which is not just the President) the ability to set American foreign and military policy. These two errors first came about early in the 20th century – Wilson’s intervention in Mexico in 1916 followed by his attempt to bring us in to the League of Nations – but only took firm root in the post-WWII era.

It was under Truman where we became locked in to these two policy ideals: un-declared war and working within international bodies. When Truman decided to intervene in the Korean Civil War without reference to Congressional approval and in the name of the United Nations, we were hooked. Now, in my view, fighting in Korea was correct American policy – while it was not, as thought at the time, a precursor to a general policy of communist adventurism, it was vital that the United States not permit any further territorial gains for communism. Especially in the face of direct aggression. The problem was not the policy, but how we engaged in it.

Nations conduct their foreign affairs by a variety of means: diplomatic, economic and military. All three are inter-related and no valid foreign policy may be conducted without elements of all three means. Because war is part of foreign policy, it is vital that a nation set its foreign policy on the understanding that the nation’s young men (and, these days, women) may end up being sent to shed their blood in defense of the policy. People sent to war have a right to sacrifices only being required for the most vital of national interests and with the conviction that their orders are animated by a concrete, achievable policy.

What this means is that a nation must not set its policy in accordance with the supposed needs of the international community and if war is to be decided upon, it must be the whole government deliberating upon the step. Only a fully united nation – as expressed by the will of President and Congress combined – should go to war.

Unfortunately, American foreign policy hasn’t been like this at all. We’ve tied ourselves to nations the defense of which is not vital to our security. We’ve gone to war repeatedly without Congressional debate and official declaration of war. We’ve essentially subordinated American policy to what other nations prefer.

In hindsight, it is clear that if the United States was going to war in Korea – as I said, what I consider correct policy – then the President should have called Congress together and asked for a declaration of war against North Korea. Had we followed this course, our effort would not have been cursed with the title of “police action” and, additionally, China’s intervention – which turned a short, victorious war in to a drawn out, bloody stalemate – would have been far less likely. This is because they would have known, in advance, that intervention meant full scale war with the United States; this being something China was not at all prepared for and not at all wanted by the Chinese government. The ultimate end to such an action would have been a united Korea – not a half century stand off with a now nuclear armed North Korea being used as a cat’s paw by China.

Vietnam also stands out as a huge mistake in this light – though Congressional approval was sought for the war, it wasn’t an official declaration of war and it wasn’t, most importantly, a declaration of war against North Vietnam. The resultant twilight sort of quasi-war we wound up with was a nightmare we could have done without. If we were going to fight, might as well fight all the way. Once again, if US foreign policy is to wind up asking the noblest sacrifices of youth, it had better be for something more than just chasing an enemy around the jungle while his base of operations is partially off limits to counter action.

Fast forward to the War on Terrorism. Shortly after 9/11, it occurred to me that the key to winning was to take out the Saddamite regime in Baghdad. As we were fighting a war against a set of ideologies best described as Islamo-fascist, our interest was to take down the whole apparatus which supported the propagation of said ideology. The nations which had to come under US fire in this struggle were Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran – while the initial enemy attack originated in Afghanistan, neither that nation nor the al Qaeda terrorists harbored there were of decisive importance.

Had we not been stuck in a policy where we would wage war without a declaration and where we had to conform our actions, at least to an extent, to the demands of the international community (in this case, of course, the UN – the same UN where our enemies actually get a say in whether or not war will be waged against them!), we could have done much more, and more swiftly.

President Bush did hit upon just what it was we were fighting and in turning his attention to the Saddamite regime, he identified one of the correct targets. He also sought Congressional approval but, once again, it wasn’t an official declaration of war. At bottom, is was an appropriations bill – President Bush got permission to use funds to support military operations against Iraq. No fault to President Bush for not being able to break out of decades of terrible policy precedents, but that doesn’t change the fact that we were locked in to a bad system.

After 9/11, we had to decide just what our policy would be. We could do a lot of things from surrendering all the way to flattening the entire middle east. In my view, the correct policy was to dismantle the socio-political system which allowed Islamo-fascism to flourish. But if we are to decide upon that course – and, essentially, that is what President Bush did decide – then we have to be free from subordination to the desires of others and very clear on what we’re going to do.

Unfortunately, the barnacles of prior, bad policy hampered us. We were, for instance, committed to the defense of Saudi Arabia – a nation which funded a lot of enemy action (even if not officially) and which had a vested interest in not changing the socio-political dynamic (antique, corrupt oligarchies like that which run Saudi Arabia are not noted for the desire to change things). We were committed to going through the United Nations – where our outright enemies got to work against us, and some supposed “friends” had vested interests in hamstringing our actions…and, to cap it off, we were (and are) committed to the military defense of some of those false friends! In such a morass of conflicting interests developing a coherent American policy and carrying it forward with vigor proved impossible.

Absent such things, we could have declared war against Afghanistan (didn’t need to fight there, but foreign policy must also take in to consideration domestic political desires – the immediate enemy came from there and the American people wanted them taken out), and then against Iraq. And, at need, against Syria, Libya and Iran, as that proved necessary. And if they declared war against us because they figured we were coming for them in the by and by, so much the better – as it was better for us in WWII that Hitler declared war on us rather than wait for us to put him on the target list.

A new, American foreign must free itself from the shackles of the past and be made only in accordance with American interests. Treaties are not meant – and never were meant – to be forever. They are expedients designed to take care of a particular issue and their reason for being evaporates once the reason for their creation vanishes (thus NATO has no point – it was built to confront the USSR, which no longer exists). No more UN, no more NATO, no more of any treaty which has outlived its usefulness – just America, working with or against nations in the world based upon the needs of American policy.

In my view, American foreign policy requires the following:

1. That the United States set itself as the opponent, all the time and everywhere, against non-democratic nations.

2. That the United States never allow a free nation to fall to non-democratic aggression.

3. That the superb American military only be deployed to fight wars, and only after an official declaration of same by Congress.

4. That international trade agreements, if they are to be made, only be made with democratic nations.

5. The most important thing for America (to be explained below).

America, like it or not, stands as the bulwark of liberty in the world and unless we one day wish to find ourselves alone against an unfree world united against us, we must offer succor to any threatened free nation. This does not mean we have to go to war each time a free nation feels merely threatened or has to engage in some armed conflict, but it must be made clear to all unfree nations that any attempt to subjugate a free nation will result in war with the United States.

Unfree nations are a standing threat to the United States – always have been, always will be. Oil and water are more akin than the United States and any unfree nation. We have no national interest in having anything other than the minimum relations required with such nations. Any relations other than those necessary to ensure swift and accurate communication between nations is detrimental to the United States as it lends legitimacy to illegitimate governments (as Americans, we either hold to the Declaration’s assertion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, or we’re no longer Americans. Period.) as well as allowing them access to our ability to build wealth and power. Dealing with tyrannical regimes is just selling them the rope with which they hope to hang us.

Our military must always be maintained at a level second to none – not in numbers (because bulk doesn’t necessarily mean a strong military), but in the ability to swiftly project power all around the globe. Coupled with which power-projection ability, there must be the most lethal force imaginable. Our military must be of the sort not just to fight a war, but to utterly destroy an enemy who dares challenge us – and once deployed, our military must never be held short of absolute and crushing victory. Only once an enemy begs for peace at any price should our military be called off. This force must only be used when absolutely necessary and not as a police force designed to provide assurance to allies. Allies are fine, for certain efforts, but they must understand that the primary defense in the initial stages of a fight, must come from them. We’ll be along swiftly, but they must – if they feel threatened and thus want an alliance with us – keep a military at a fever pitch of readiness. No more free rides on the back of the United States military.

The United States does not need any particular trading partner. The stark fact is that no one nation out there has anything the United States may not obtain internally, or elsewhere. Trading with the United States must be treated by the United States government as a valuable privilege, only to be granted in light of American foreign policy needs. Right now, for instance, it is not in our interests to provide export earnings to China, and so we should not be allowing Chinese goods in to the United States. On the flip side, the growing threat of China to America’s position in the world does make it in our interests to build up nations such as India, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan – and one of the best things we can do to help in this matter is to allow such nations easy access to our markets. Its really quite simple – do we want to buy our cheap, manufactured goods from a potential enemy, or from a potential friend? Do we want the Chinese government to use our money to buy weapons which may one day be turned on our soldiers, or would we prefer our money to go towards the arming of the Indians, who may one day fight along side us against China?

Romantic notions about the world all coming together must be set aside. So must sentimental attachments, such as our alliance with nations like Germany and France. Policy must be set in light of what we need or might need in order to carry out policy. Our goal must be to ensure that no nation out there – or combination of nations – will ever have the power to enforce their desires upon us. What advances this policy is what we should do – what is detrimental to such policy must not be done.

Underlying such a policy prescription is, also, what is most important for the United States of America – that our policy be conducted so that it is irreproachable from a moral point of view. To make deals with dictators or allow our policy to be hamstrung by the demands of corrupt foreign governments lowers America. It debases our greatness and cheats us of the position the sacrifices of our forefathers gained for us. We must do what is right – and if we free ourselves from defending dictators, consorting with corrupt international bodies and allowing people to loaf on the backs of our soldiers, we will be once again free to do what is right, and thus what is in our best interest.

From The Republic:

Backers of a constitutional amendment to abolish North Dakota property taxes believe they have enough petition signatures to put the idea on the ballot…

…The amendment bars the state and local governments from levying any property tax, beginning Jan. 1. It says the Legislature must use other revenue sources, such as taxes on sales, income and energy, to decide how to replace the revenue that local governments will lose…

As the backers of the initiative point out, as long as the government can take your property for failure to pay taxes, you never really own your property. I heartily agree – property ownership is something which should not be trifled with. Once a person or a family owns a bit of land, it should be theirs until they voluntarily relinquish it by sale or gift. The only time a person should ever be dispossessed of their property is when government needs it for strictly government purposes – no transferring it to someone else who promises to pay more taxes (and, of course, even then only after paying fair market value for it).

At the core of economic life is the ability of a person to create or earn wealth. In a properly functioning, just society each person should be able to make enough – by working hard and living frugally – to obtain property; especially land and a home upon that land. And this property must be unalienable except by voluntary action. It should never, ever be able to be taken away by a person or government for any reason whatsoever. The only way to really have a free and just society in the long term is to ensuring the widest possible ownership of property by the bulk of the population. Such property ownership encourages work, savings and sobriety. It tends to a conservative economic and moral viewpoint. It works towards sanity.

I’ve not come across a proposal I’ve ever more heartily agreed with. I wish the backers of this amendment the best of luck in their efforts, and I hope it spreads around the nation.

HAT TIP: Mish’s

From Boston.com:

A Massachusetts employment organization has canceled its annual job fair because not enough companies have come forward to offer jobs.

Richard Shafer, chairman of the Taunton Employment Task Force, says 20 to 25 employers are needed for the fair scheduled for April 6, but just 10 tables had been reserved. One table was reserved by a nonprofit that offers human services to job seekers, and three by temporary employment agencies…

Remain calm, all is well. Remember, Little Timmy Geithner, good old Ben Bernanke and The One, Barack Obama, are on the case…and they have assured us that we’re in recovery, moving in the right direction, everything is just freaking peachy.

And because of this stellar economic leadership, we’re all just feeling great about the economy. Oh, wait…

From the PJ Tatler:

[The following arrived unsolicited in The Tatler mailbox. We have no way of substantiating it immediately, but apparently something did go on at the Bill Nelson fundraiser in Florida.]

An incident at a Florida Democratic political fundraiser this week should be front page news in every paper in the country, and the lead story on TV newscasts, but it has been virtually buried…. until now

Here are the details.

On Wednesday morning, Vice President Joe Biden attended a fundraiser for Democratic Senator Bill Nelson…

The Orlando Sentinel assigned longtime reporter Scott Powers to cover the event. But when he arrived, Biden staffers decided they didn’t want him mingling with the 150 guests who had forked over $500 to meet Biden, so they locked him in a closet! A member of the Biden advance team even stood guard outside the door to prevent Powers from escaping…

Drudge has it, too. We’ll have to see how much corroboration there is for this, but it does appear, as Tatler noted, that something happened…and something clearly designed to prevent a reporter from finding out what was going on.

We’ve seen all sorts of bullying of the press by the Obama Administration – most of it taken lying down by the MSM because they are, after all, loyal lapdogs of their liberal masters, when push comes to shove. But I do wonder how long they can keep it up – taking abuse from those you love can, at times, lead to quite an explosion.

Interesting book review in the Wall Street Journal:

Joseph Lelyveld has written a generally admiring book about Mohandas Gandhi, the man credited with leading India to independence from Britain in 1947. Yet “Great Soul” also obligingly gives readers more than enough information to discern that he was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist—one who was often downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi was therefore the archetypal 20th-century progressive intellectual, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually despising people as individuals…

Which pretty much anyone could see if they for a moment left off the propaganda about Gandhi. After all, if the independence of India was secured by non-violent protest, then why did the Indians immediately set upon each other when independence was secured? Millions of people were murdered as the Indians woke to the fact that the British would no longer be in charge and the horrible notion of coming under Moslem rule (for Hindus) or Hindu rule (for Moslems) became a reality.

What really happened is that the effects of the two World Wars utterly exhausted Britain’s ability and inclination to hold on. By 1947, it was just a matter of getting out as gracefully as possible…and power was handed off to the most vocal group of British-educated lawyers in both the Moslem and Hindu communities. No thought was given to what the people, themselves, might have wanted…but a clue to that is found in the effort 10 years later of the Indian government to determine how the common folk felt about the end of British rule. The effort was abandoned when it was found that most of them never knew that British rule had started. Very light was the touch of the British imperialist in India…who mostly ruled through locally-staffed agencies and governments.

It is good that myths be brought down to earth. Gandhi, for good or ill, is a figure of genuine historical importance, but we shouldn’t be walking around in awe of the man. He was, after all, just a man and we should just learn what he said and did – all of it, good and bad – and then make our own judgments about it. This book seems a first step in that direction.

This took a lot of courage and complete faith in Our Lord – from The Catholic Spirit:

…In mid February, Tim (Roach), got a call from his local union with the news every laid off worker longs to hear — a job offer.

It couldn’t have come at a better time. Tim’s unemployment benefits were about to run out. He could hardly believe what the voice on the other end was presenting to him — an offer to be a job foreman for at least 11 months, with a salary of $65,000 to $70,000 a year.

Perfect, Tim thought. Then came the bad news — he would be working on construction of a new Planned Parent­hood Clinic in St. Paul on University Avenue. The highest of highs became the lowest of lows as he quickly turned down the offer…

…Shortly after making his decision, Tim’s story was sent out via e-mail. It landed on the computer of Father Erik Lundgren, associate pastor of Divine Mercy, who parlayed it into one of his homilies. In the Gospel reading for that Sunday, Jesus tells his disciples that they can’t serve both God and money.

”I just thought it was an inspiring example to everyone in our parish, in the zeal that’s necessary for us Catholics to take into the pro-life debate, the pro-life struggle,” Father Lundgren said. “It’s inspiring to me as a priest. Here at Divine Mercy, the words, ‘Jesus, I trust in you’ are written on our baptismal font, and that’s what it’s all about.”…

Indeed, it is. And rare is this sort of courage in today’s world. And it will be rewarded, of that you can be certain.

In a dark and ruined world, a ray of light shines forth. Just a small thing – a man with a family makes a decision. Happens a million times. But what a choice – my prayers will be with Mr. Roach and his family. I hope that someone offers him a job – and I hope all of us show 1/10th the courage when faced with similar decisions.

HAT TIP: The American Catholic

Well, at least he’s being clear about it – and, also, bringing the whole concept of legalized abortion to its logical conclusion. From Life News:

…Lautenberg appeared with about 100 supporters who wore pink shirts and stood in front of a pink-colored bus Planned Parenthood has been driving around the country in order to build up support for receiving tens of millions in taxpayer dollars to support what is the biggest abortion business in the country.

“Planned Parenthood is under attack by Tea Party Republicans who have put their extremist ideology above women’s health,” Lautenberg said while pro-life advocates who counterprotested shouted, “Shame on you, Lautenberg.”

The pro-abortion New Jersey senator fired back: “These people (referring to the pro-life advocates) don’t deserve the freedoms in the Constitution.”…

If you want, you can let Lautenberg know how you feel about this right here. Remember, keep it clean and respectful…even Lautenberg deserves the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. We’re not like they are.

This is just the way it is. If you start by thinking that the right to live only applies some of the time, then you’re bound to eventually figure that all human rights are contingent upon the usefulness of the person to yourself. Pro-life people are of no more use to someone like Lautenberg than an unborn child is…and as he’s already denied the rights of the unborn child, while not deny the rights of the pro-lifers? Makes sense…liberal sense, at any rate.

From the Washington Times:

Some lawmakers and market analysts are expressing rising concerns that a demand for capital by earthquake-ravaged Japan could lead it to sell off some of its huge holdings of U.S.-issued debt, leaving the federal government in an even tighter financial pinch.

Others say a major debt sell-off by Tokyo is unlikely, but noted that the mere fact that questions are being raised speaks volumes about the risks involved in relying so heavily on foreign investors to fund U.S. debt…

I don’t foresee a big sell off of US debt by the Japanese – after all, the debt they hold is generating revenue for them while a sudden, large liquidation of US debt would cause all sorts of financial problems which would gravely impact the global financial system, thus harming Japan (the thing about our debt is that it only makes it seem like our bond holders have us over a barrel…really, its quite the other way ’round: they can’t afford anything bad to happen to us…we really are “too big to fail”). The more realistic worry is that Japan simply won’t buy as much of our debt as they normally do – and this would be natural: having a high bill to pay for reconstruction, the Japanese will just spend their money rather than “save” it by purchasing US bonds. This, though, will greatly lower demand for our bonds and that would force us to pay higher interest to sell them, thus putting a definite crimp in our already strained finances.

It must be remember that the entire financial system of the world is insolvent. The entire thing is underpinned by debt which simply cannot be repaid. My earlier piece about Portugal’s problem just starkly illustrates it – how are 10 million people to repay $99 billion in debt while also finding the wherewithal to cover all their other expenses? It just isn’t possible. Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain are all in the same boat…with the UK and France right behind them. Right now, with our debt still slightly less than our GDP we can barely manage it…but add another 5 or 10 trillion dollars to the load and we will not be able to do it. Some calculations already have it that the total debt – including the unfunded mandates of SS and Medicare – exceed all the dollar-denominated wealth in the world. Be that as it may, there comes a time when you have far too much debt to discharge. You go bankrupt, as it were – unless you pull back in time. Given the trouble we’re having in passing a mere $60 billion in cuts, we’re not at all pulling back.

The fact that an earthquake in Japan has awakened such existential concerns about the ability of the United States to finance itself tells the tale: financially, we are doomed if we keep going as we are. I’ve lived 46 years and have witnessed all manner of natural disaster hit the world. This is the first time I’ve seen one come close to knocking the whole world in to a Depression – and it is easy to see how just one more might do it. We must change, and we must change right away. We’ve only got a few years left before complete disaster.

Here’s an illustration:

California is a State with 37 million people living in it. California has a “gross domestic product” of approximately $1.85 trillion. Right now, California is in acute economic crisis as the government tries to bridge a $26 billion budget deficit – in short, if we were to bail out California, it would cost us $26 billion dollars.

Portugal is a nation with 10.6 million people living it it – somewhat less than one third of California’s population. Portugal’s GDP is about $235 billion, a figure equal to around 13% of California’s GDP. Portugal is also involved in an acute economic crisis…but their shortfall is about $99 billion.

This is just one small nation in the Eurozone – not all that important an economic player by any stretch of the imagination and just to keep it afloat will cost Europe $99 billion. And that is just to keep the wolf from the door – the money will still have to be paid back by Portugal some how. And the problems of Spain and Italy dwarf those of Portugal by many times over.

The European Union and the European central bank say they can keep all this going…that they’ve got the plan to fix it all. So, no worries.

Exit question: do you believe them?