Letter 2 America for March 21, 2014

Dear America,

The United States has a persistent problem with its foreign policy.  I remember hearing a conversation decades ago about what should be done with regard to a socialist rebellion against a dictator, and one participant said that the United States should take the side of the rebels and help them in any way we could because their cause--ousting a dictator--was noble.  The other participant favored undermining the rebellion in any way we could because it was communist inspired...and while the national leader against whom the socialists were rebelling was a dictator, they were after all socialists aligned with Cuba and the Soviet Union, but the dictator was our dictator.  It was a variation on the old "whose ox is being gored" explanation for the variegation in what is right...depending on who is making that determination.  And here we are again in the middle of a rebellion occurring across the world, interjecting our values into the dispute...as we did in Vietnam, Korea, Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq...and on and on.  It's time we began asking what we can expect to get for our trouble, but do we? No. Never.

So here we are again facing off with Vladimir Putin in what looks more and more like two kids calling each other names in the school yard with each passing day.  We won't let some of the oligarchs who align themselves with Putin out of self-interest--which in that case is just a euphemism for kleptocratic greed--have visas so that they can come into this country, and Putin has now prohibited visas for Johns McCain and Boehner...as if either of them had any intention of going to Russia.  This exchange of attainders is like two members of the debate team lapsing into name calling because neither of them dares strike a physical blow, not that I would recommend combat in this instance.  But attainder is what is being exchanged, which is significant for two reasons.  First, as it is occurring now relative to the Crimea usurpation by Russia, except for the fact that it makes the news, it is meaningless.  None of the attainted parties cares, and the notion that you can sanction a country by declaring a few of its citizens personae non grata is absurd.  It's like putting them on notice that they won't be invited to The President's birthday party.  Conduct like this makes the dispute that underlies it seem as petty and puerile as the conduct itself, but the expropriation by one country of a whole region of another country is nothing of the sort.  But while the annexation of Crimea by Russia is a serious matter, it is no more our business than the independence movement in Puerto Rico is Russia's, which brings me to the second point.

Article One, Section 9 of our constitution prohibits our legislature from passing any "bill of attainder."  A bill of attainder is a law that effectively inflicts punishment on someone without the benefit of a judicial proceeding.  It is singling someone out for punishment just because he is who he is.  That is exactly what President Obama did to a few corrupt politicians from Russia because they had colluded with Putin in the expropriation of Crimea from Ukraine, not that Putin needs anyone's help to do what he has done.  He was elected, but in reality, he is the autocrat of Russia, and no one dares challenge him when he has made up his mind...which, as to Crimea, he obviously has.  Likewise, Putin has attainted a few American politicians who have taken to bragging about being singled out by such a scoundrel.  Attainder may not be against the principles that prevail in Russia, but it is against ours to the extent that it is forbidden as a matter of fundamental right, yet we are doing it anyway, and looking foolish in the process.  Some Russians can't come to Disneyland; so what.  But trivial as all this is, it has the potential to be a prelude to a future escalation of the emotions that are flying, and hence of the actions that ensue.  Why do we never learn.  We threatened Saddam Hussein, and when he didn't meet our impossible demands, the war in Iraq followed...lasting for years and costing thousands of lives and about a $1 trillion.  We demanded that the Taliban surrender Osama bin Laden, and when they refused we invaded.  Now, ten years later, we are still trying to get out of there after thousands more lives were sacrificed...and another $1 trillion by the way...so that we could accomplish what?  The Taliban is negotiating with the corrupt regime we installed in Afghanistan and the chaos in Iraq shows no sign of abating.  People continue to be killed in terrorist bombings there every week, and they  probably wonder if they're better off now than they were before we decided their fate for them.  And just to keep those two current failures of American superimposition of our values on other nations in perspective, we lost over 55,000 young people in Vietnam, and now they make many of our clothes for us.  Korea has a perpetual stalemate between its two halves, and we continue to send young people to Granada to be trained in their medical school.  The bottom line is this: we are not going to accomplish anything in Crimea on the course we are taking.  What we should do is this.  We should make it clear that we don't like what the Russians are doing, and we should tell them that we know we can't stop them, but we don't have to trade with them if we don't like what they do.  Then, we shouldn't trade with them...not now and not for as long as they occupy another country.  Then, instead of defending the right of a corrupt Ukrainian crony of Putin's to govern Crimea, as is implied by our condemnation of the Crimean secession, we should admit that Janukovich was no bargain, nor was the oligarchy that he was leading.  No wonder the people of Crimea didn't want to be Ukrainians anymore. And as far as that is concerned, good riddance to the old Ukrainian regime, and that should be the end of our involvement.  But is that likely to happen?  It never has before, has it.

Your friend,

Mike