Huntsman: Secret Liberal

Right after Obama was inaugurated in Feb of 09, Jon Huntsman Jr., governor of Utah, struck me as a totally reasonable conservative. It still seems true:

Obama's Speech.

It wasn't enough. It was too vague and didn't answer any of the specific questions I had -- I don't know that it actually said anything new that hasn't been said by other administration officials in the last few days. Maybe, I just now realize, this is because the administration itself doesn't HAVE any more specifics to give. If so this is really worrying. Lets hope it isn't.

To start. Some of the specific questions I have for Obama:

- What are the military's specific orders/goals?

- What happens if things go bad and the coalition or the opposition asks for a renewed American military involvement?

--

Going through the speech, my impressions:

First, it seems that the U.S. has taken sides in this civil war. It's not just a humanitarian mission:

- Obama says Clinton will meet with opposition leaders. We're not recognizing them yet, but is this a step in that direction? Clinton isn't meeting with Gaddafi representatives, I imagine.

- We will "assist" the opposition. What does that mean? Financially? Will we arm them? Political support?

- The coalition forces will keep the pressure on Gaddafi and protect civilians. But I wonder, when insurgents are not part of an organized army, how can we tell the difference between insurgent soldiers and civilians? Aren't insurgents just everyday people who are fed up and pick up guns agains Gaddafi's actual professional forces?

Second, the main reason in Obama's mind seems to be classic American exceptionalism:

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

This is the crux of the problem, it seems to me. I want to avoid mass slaughter, but am I prepared to act put my country reputation, finances, and lives and risk unexpected, murky results and possible getting trapped all for -- very noble -- altruistic reasons? Right now I think the answer is "no."

One reason that does give me pause is that doing this will help the gains in Egypt and Tunisia, and maybe even across all of the Middle East. We certainly DO want peaceful democracies to grow in those countries, and probably a Libyan nightmare would certainly hurt that.

Finally, one other reason why I think Obama did this: This is an example of how he thinks America should act militarily.

... [In cases like Libya] we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

We LEAD we don't dictate. We work with others to keep an international peace. We expect others to help out however they can. This is the anti-Iraq war.

Ok, some things that are ok. BUT still, there are big unanswered questions:
- what's the involvement of troops going forward?
- if there's more violence will we intervene? What happens if the opposition or coalition asks us to use our military again?
- we will "assist the opposition" HOW???

Why I Love Bob Gates.

On Meet the Press this morning:

DAVID GREGORY: Secretary Gates, is Libya in our vital interest as a country?

SECRETARY GATES: No. I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States...

It's always a bit of a shock to hear a government official say something so simply and directly.

In Egypt, Not The Army I Expected

The most striking thing about the amazing events in Egypt has to be the behavior of the army. I'm so used to armies, especially in autocratic countries, being reactionary, tools of the government, instantly seeking to impose martial law, etc. Yet in Egypt right now the army, while not actually fighting for the public, is providing cover for them and even advancing on the police, on occasion. It's quite an amazing thing to contemplate and to me makes it much more likely for Mubarak to resign -- how can he remain president with so little power over his country?

Obama: A Human Being.

A very quick thought on Obama and the Jared Loughner shooting. My impression is that the speech Obama gave on the shooting, besides consoling the country, can have some positive effect for Obama himself. Because it is so civil, so non-partisan, so full of intelligence and genuinely tries to wrestle with the tragedy the way many people are wrestling with it, the speech can remind the public, conservatives included, that Obama is not some far-left inhuman monster. That he is a human being like them and that maybe the picture that has been painted of him these last two years is just wrong. Going forward, the image of the president as reasonable leader, who is liberal, but not out to ruin the country, will hopefully re-emerge. Actually, now that I think about it. With these last two months of accomplishment, this has already begun.

Meaning vs. Experience

A nice explanation (from an astrophysicist of all people) of a Joseph Campbell quote I read long ago: "People don't want the meaning of life, they want the experience of life." This has always been one of the central truths in life that I can see. From the article:

Spirituality, at its best, points us away from easy codifications when it shows us how to immerse ourselves in the simple, inescapable act of being. Science at its root is also an expression of reverence and awe for the endless varied, resonantly beautiful experience we can find ourselves immersed in. So knowing the meaning of life as encoded in a religious creed on a page or an equation on a blackboard is not the issue. A deeper, richer experience of this one life: that is the issue!

So, can we stop thinking that discussions about science and religion have to focus on who has the best set of facts?

The Campbell quote is in the article. It's nice to see somebody mention him. He doesn't get enough recognition, in my opinion.

We don't know the facts yet.

This is the first post in quite a while. A lot of people have been reacting to tragic shooting of Congresswoman Giffords by pointing out the language of violence coming from the right for the past year or more. While I agree that it's reckless and the Limbaugh's and Palin's of the world don't seem to have any idea the kind of atmosphere they are creating, it's not clear how much Loughner was influenced by that atmosphere. From some of what we know he there are both right and left wing ideas in his life, and a former classmate knew him as "pretty left wing". We don't know the facts and my feeling is that some of the reactions are just a touch jumping to conclusions.