Chutzpah!, or What Happened to theMonroe Doctrine

 

People in the U.S. and around the world are wondering "Why isn't the U.S. more involved in the human rights struggles in (pick a county)."

I have to wonder why were are involved at all.

If Ahmed and friends want to overthrow their government, what does it matter to me?

If Juan or Alexander want to force a regime change, why is this of interest to me?

OK, the obvious answer is the U.S. covets the county's resources.

But we HAVE most of the resources within our borders. We have oil and gas and we have technology - that should have been developed decades ago - to replace fossil fuels.

We seem to have forgotten a little bit of a speech issued in 1823 by a fellow named James Monroe.

Monroe was president of the U.S. at the time, and the snippet from the speech has come down to us as the Monroe Doctrine.

Basically the Monroe Doctrine told European governments to stay out of the U.S.' presumed sphere of influence - the "New World" and the U.S., in return, would refrain from meddling in European powers' activities.

But by extension, the Monroe Doctrine set up a "non-interference" rule for the U.S. government that we, less or more, followed for many years.

The Monroe Doctrine is a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Western Hemisphere was not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when many Latin American countries were on the verge of becoming independent from the Spanish Empire, and the United States, reflecting concerns raised by Great Britain[clarification needed], hoped to avoid having any European power take over Spain's colonies.

The US President, James Monroe, first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and others.

It would have been nearly impossible for Monroe to envision that its intent and impact would persist with only minor variations for almost two centuries. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control (thus ensuring US national security). The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.
Wikipedia, http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

There were some notable exceptions, the Boxer Rebellion being one. The World Wars presented a threat to the U.S. that justified entering those conflicts, while the rebellion in China is at best questionable.

So where does the U.S. get off telling, for example, Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi to head for the hills? Or, for that matter, to tell Fidel Castro and friends to quit Cuba? Did the U.S. tell Chairman Mao to move aside for Chang?

Who in the U.S. government has the chutzpah to tell Benny Netanyahu to order a halt to building in Israel or to promise to take away a part of a nation's capital - Jerusalem - and give it to that nation's sworn enemy?

What legitimate power invited the U.S. into Iraq? Or Afghanistan? If the U.S. was justified because these nations had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) why don't we invade other countries with WMDs? Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, all great examples.

Did we invade because the 9-11 (2001) terrorists came from, or were hiding out in Iran or Afghanistan? If that's the case, why doesn't the U.S. invade Morocco (where most of the attackers were born) or Saudia which allegedly funded the terrorists or Iran that provides their jihadist impetus?

There was a time when a U.S. action against al-Gaddafi was appropriate; then there was proof that he was involved in the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 in 1988. (Republican Ronald Regan was in the White House.)

There was a time when a U.S. action was appropriate against Iran - one was tried and botched during Democrat James Earl Carter, Jr.'s time in the Oval Office.

For me the bottom line is that the U.S. needs to revisit the Monroe Doctrine. It needs to stop interfering in people's lives; stop being the world's policeman.

The people of the U.S. threw off the British crown in 1776. It took a war to do it, but the people, with a little help from the French, managed.

The French managed to cast off their royalty without the U.S. military stepping in.

The Poles finally emerged from Russian rule; the only things the U.S. provided were unfulfilled promises.

When a people want to change the way things work, they somehow manage.

It might take time and it might take some surreptitious support from the U.S., but the U.S., in my mind, should not be telling any government to step down nor should it be selecting a replacement government.

That's not the U.S.' job and the U.S. should already know it usually doesn't do anything but give the U.S. a political black eye.

Egyptians forced Hosni Mubarak out.

Algerians forced the French to flee.

Jordanians convinced King Abdullah II to initiate government reforms.

These people succeeded sans U.S. interference.

The Libyans will succeed, if they do succeed, without U.S. interference or pronouncements from Washington D.C..

The Monroe Doctrine was good policy in 1823; it is good policy in 2011.

The U.S. needs to get, and keep, its own house in order and cease meddling in other people's affairs.

To the shores of TripoliSight ship, sink same

 

By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson after refusing to pay Tripoli's demand for immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000, ordered the frigates President, Essex, and Philadelphia and the sloop Enterprise, under Commodore Richard Dale, to patrol the North African coast and to bombard Tripoli." (FromU. S. has fought Islamic terrorism before - The Barbary Pirates at http://www.zianet.com/web/barbary.htm.

We need another Jefferson.

The tv news today (22 February 2011) reported the deaths of four Americans at the hands of Somali pirates who boarded the American's boat somewhere between Yemen and Somalia. The LA Times has (had) a video from the US Navy at http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-0223-pirates-deaths-20110222,0,1194457.story.

It's time to stop being "politically correct" and to act like we care about our citizens.

This is not a case of sending thousands of soldiers a la Afghanistan or Iraq; this is a matter of sending a small fleet of warships - both surface and submarines - manned with strike forces (Marines, Seals) outfitted with the gear they need to safely do the job at hand, and that job is clearing the pirates from the sea.

Several months ago, when the pirates boarded another ship I suggested that naval vessels from the U.S. and other nations (including China and Russia which have a presence in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden) convoy commercial and private vessels past the infected areas.

Maybe Iran's warships, currently sailing down the Suez Canal, can join the forces facing the pirates; after all, they have the same mentality.

Similar to World War 2 materials convoys, merchant ships and non-commercial vessels would be staged at a point away from the threat, then escorted to a point beyond the threat.

It might not be politically correct - are the pirates "politically correct" - but it should be made clear to everyone in the area that ships not included in the convey will be sunk on sight.

The pirates captured today (22 February 2011) "surrendered" to the Navy and will be dealt with in a gentle manner, not the manner in which they dealt with their captives. These "brave" pirates, murderers of the sea, surrendered rather than die fighting.

We - the world at large - must stop dealing with pirates and others of their ilk - on OUR terms; in order to succeed, we must deal with these people on THEIR terms. They are not, and do not think like, "civilized Europeans" or politically correct Americans. It's time to stop saying "Naughty, naughty" and start taking these cretins out to the proverbial wood shed for a sound thrashing, and damn political correctness.

"But," the panty waists will whine, "if we do that to them, they'll do the same, or worse, to us."

Fools, they ALREADY are doing worse to us and they are getting away with it.

OK, Mr. Obama, you are Commander in Chief (despite your total lack of military experience, not unusual for recent political candidates - John McCain the exception), tell the legions under your command to do what they are trained and paid to do, to clear the waters of pirates that threaten American-flagged ships. If our forces happen to work well with other nations, that's good too, for us and for them.

The only way to put an end to the pirates is to deal with them on their terms - sight ship, sink ship.

What's the difference?

 

Iran is, if Israeli intelligence is to be believed (and I believe it), working hard to build a nuclear weapon.

US politicians are calling for sanctions against Iran. Military action is out of the question - unless, of course, if the US can convince Israel to do the job.

North Korea likely already HAS a nuke and, like the Iranians, at least mid-range delivery systems, a/k/a rockets.

But does anyone hear the US politicians calling for an international boycott of North Korea?

Who is crazier? Iran's ayatollahs - the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , does what the ayatollahs tell him, or North Korea's Kim dynasty?

Perhaps the difference is because the Kims are primarily a threat to South Korea and, to a lesser degree, Japan and the US Alaskan coast.

Iran, on the other hand, is a threat to much of Europe and many Islamic states that seek US protection when it suits them and encourage terror against the US when the threat is less likely.

I'm suddenly reminded of a couple of Rudyard Kipling ditties:

For God and the soldier we adore,
In time of danger, not before!
The danger passed, and all things righted,
God is forgotten and the soldier slighted."

When you're wounded out on Afghanistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And die like a good British soldier!

I suppose the latter lines lack "political correctness" but no apologies.

The world seems to be up in arms about Iran, but ignoring North Korea.

Perhaps because North Korea has China as its sponsor and China, unlike the "former USSR,", Iran's BFF, still has some clout.

Meanwhile, the US politicians are Twittering to Iranians to go into the streets a la Egypt.

Are the Iranians really that simple?

The ayatollahs will order the Republican Guards to shoot to kill - they are good at killing civilians despite their turn-and-run experience when they faced a real military power. Killing protesters has worked before in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Syrian-controlled Lebanon.

Unlike Egypt, where the army traditionally has been a friend - less or more - of the general populace, the armies of the afore mentioned countries have a very different reputation.

Where will the US politicians be if the locals do rise up against their masters?

Hiding under their beds as they did in 1956 when the Hungarians rose up against Russia, and later when the Czechoslovakians revolted in 1968. (For what its worth, both major US political parties share the blame for false promises.)

Where is the encouragement of the North Korean to rise up against the Kims and the army. Where, I wonder, does the North Korean army stand? Loyal to the Kims?

The bottom line: Why do US politicians think Iran is a greater threat than North Korea?

How is it possible?

I have AvMed's Medicare Advantage plan.

It costs me a few cents less than $100-a-month (we have not had "pennies" since the Brits went home in 1776).

My Primary Care Physician (PCP) co-pay is $0 - zip, nada, effis. I pay $5 for visits to specialists. My medicines are free to me.

How is it then that if I had "original" Medicare I would have to pay more - a great deal more?

On one of my visits to a specialist in January I asked how much would I have to pay if I was using my Medicare card. The Sweet Young Thing did the math and came up with a figure close to $150. I paid $5.

Each month I get three prescriptions refilled at a nearby Target. Cost to me: $0. A one time prescription for special eye drops at CVS was, likewise, $0. My monthly bill at Target for 90-day supplies was, pre-AvMed, $30.

The question is: If AvMed and other private insurers can get me into the PCP for no dollars from my pocket, and if AvMed and other private insurers can get me my prescriptions for zero dollars, why can't Medicare do the same thing?

Medicare gets my $100-a-month and pays it out to AvMed.

Somehow AvMed managed to turn a profit. It did so well it managed (in the face of competition) to lower it's specialist co-pay from $25 to $5.

Back to the prescriptions. In order to have prescription coverage - which I found out is a requirement - there is an ADDITIONAL change by Medicare . . . and if you fail to sign up for (I think) Part D prescription coverage when first eligible, Medicare penalizes you - forever.

The current CEO of the U.S. proposes an omnibus health plan that will "control costs." If Medicare is any example of how the government will control costs, please - I can't afford it.

We DO need universal health care and we DO need to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves.

FOR THE RECORD: I have no interest in AvMed other than being an AvMed Medicare Advantage customer. I cite AvMed only because I know how it works for me.

G-d, miskan, & timing

 

The other day, between minhah and araveet the rabbi noted that G-d didn't ask that a home be prepared for Him until after we created the golden calf.

He gave a couple of reasons for the timing, but none satisfy me.

I believe that G-d told us to build the miskan (tabernacle) because He realized that we needed something physical to look at to give us a "warm, fuzzy" feeling that He was (still) with us.

He also needed to leave us something to cling to after Moses a"h was taken away.

If you can remember back to your childhood, try to recall if your mother or father gave you a trinket or other "souvenir" of their presence when they went off somewhere. Maybe it was just a photograph.

You could touch the trinket or look at the photo and "know" that mom or dad soon would return. The "warm, fuzzy" that the miskan gave us in the wilderness.

Granted, many of us were adults when gold was collected for the idol, but consider that our mentality was that of at best a pre-teen. We had been in Egypt for centuries and slaves for a good part of that time.

Slavery may be onerous, but slaves get housing, food, and clothing from their masters - remember that there were those among us who wanted to return to the "flesh pots of Egypt."

Unlike Yetro, we witnessed the wonders in Egypt and in the wilderness, and we knew Moses a"h had a unique relationship with HaShem, but despite all that we still lacked the maturity to understand that we did not need something physical to feel close to HaShem. Yetro, on the other hand, had maturity sufficient to accept an invisible god based solely on exploits Moses related to him.

When Moses failed to return at what we perceived to be the "appointed hour" we did the equivalent of curling into the fetal position and crying with anguish and fear of abandonment. We had not yet given our trust to HaShem.

HaShem must have thrown up His "hands" and thought: "They are just children; let them have their physical reminder of Me."

Torah wasn't enough. Two tablets were insufficient. As children - at least with a child's mentality - we needed something concrete. The miskan was that physical thing.

Egypt's future

 

I watched a video this morning by way of Israel's independent Channel 2.

Two people were given a sound bite and both said essentially the same things:

  1. Mubarak must go.

  2. Israel is the enemy.

After 30 years of relative peace between Israel and Egypt the men and women of the street still consider Israel the enemy.

Egypt under Mubarak - indeed under Farouk and all that followed - is like the former Soviet Union under strong dictators; dissent and intolerance were not tolerated unless, of course, it was to the government's benefit.

It was - is - to Egypt's benefit to co-exist with Israel. It's also to Israel's benefit to co-exist with its neighbors that are willing to recognize it (Egypt and Jordan).

The prevailing wisdom is that if Egypt has free elections, democratic elections, extremist Islamists will take control as they did in Gaza and as they did in Iran. These extremists won an election in Algeria; the Algerian army over-ruled the electorate and the incumbent dictator remained in place.

Yoni ben Menachem, described as an expert on Arab afairs and a commentator on Israel Broadcasting Authority's (IBA) daily news in English noted that "Islam and democracy do not go together." The recent "elections" in Iran support his position.

Israel finds itself caught between the hammer and the anvil (a/k/a rock and a hard spot). It knows that Mubarak has lost any popularity he might once have had with Egyptian masses, yet it also knows that if Mubarak goes, co-existance with Egypt is jeopardized. The US, with Hillary at the helm, already is rapidly distancing itself from Mubarak. The problem for the US is that despite its massive aid to Egypt, the average Egyptian sees neither aid nor benefit from the US; it is Israel's friend (and therefore their enemy) and supported Mubarak for lo these 30 years.

What's interesting was another comment by Ben Menachem that Egypt, Iran, and Syria all have different Moslem factions as their majorities. Inter-faction strife is common within Islam so I wonder if the differences will keep Israel's neighbors at bay or will they put aside their differences and aim all their anger at the common enemy, Israel.

In the north, Bashar al-Assad allegedly told the Wall Street Journal that his government is safe from an Egypt-like uprising; he's in touch with his pople. As al-Assad was talking with the WSJ, the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism's Neon Tommy is reporting (http://tinyurl.com/4eznjrv) that "Opposition groups in Syria have begun organizing a popular protest against incumbent President Bashar al-Assad to take place Saturday, following in the wake of mass uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere across the Arab world."

If Ben Menachem's comment that "Islam and democracy do not go together" I have to wonder how much longer several governments in Europe will survive. Turkey's excperiment with democracy seems to be in its final throes.

Obama-care

 

I fancy myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

My general outlook is, conservatively, conservative; somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan. Meir Kahane and Shamai are preferred over Israel's first premier and Hillel.

When I first heard that Obama wanted to require everyone to have health insurance I was against the idea. The mere fact that we - Americans - are being told to pay for something or accept something we didn't volunteer to pay for or accept seemed downright un-American.

But now, after giving it some thought . . .

I believe we need some form of universal health care for all American citizens. I am specifically excluding illegal aliens and tourists. (When I go overseas, I have to pay for my health care, so why should a tourist get a free ride here? The exception being if the tourist is the victim of a crime on our soil.)

Given that, I've come around to accepting the principle that universal health care should be funded universally.

That does not mean that I am forced to buy a specific insurance plan, but it does mean that insurers - private and government - must offer affordable plans. It means that, as usual, government - that's you and me - must fund health care for indigents, people who are unable to work. People who are able but unwilling to work are another matter.

Today, 31 January 2011, the Florida court struck down Obama care's requirement to force everyone to have health care insurance as unconstitutional.

If making people pay for health insurance is unconstitutional then maybe Social Security - a forced tax - is unconstitutional. Likewise taxes to support health care facilities such as indigent care facilities in "county" hospitals.

Granted, I went to primary school many years ago, but I don't recall anything in the U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments that stated we have to pay into Social Security - originally established as a voluntary tax or Medi-something, or any social responsibility taxes, although remember I am a social liberal who believes we need to care for those who can't care for themselves.

I lived in Israel with its socialized medicine. I'm not the greatest fan of the system, but once you get past the primary care physician things are pretty good - and there always remains the private doctor waiting to take your cash. As a Medicare Advantage client, my HMO is pretty good (except when dealing with member services); call it "semi-socialized" health care.

We already pay for "semi-socialized" health care with every Medicare deduction from our pay checks.

The bottom line is I fail to see how the payment part of Obamacare is so onerous; why it is more objectionable than Medicare, Social Security, library and school taxes, and similar.

While I consider the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue unworthy of the office, the financial part of the health care plan tossed out by the Florida court seems to make sense.

Admittedly the way the bill was pushed down our throats is contemptible, but at least this one portion seems reasonable, at least to me.

הריני מקבל עלי מצוה עשה של ואהבת לרעך כמוך, והריני אוהב כל אחד מבני ישראל כנפשי ומאודי