Former Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski gave an interesting interview: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a.html.  On one level, I certainly agree with him. While I think the Israelis are correct to say that all options, including military, should remain on the table, that does not make it the right option or the only option for right now. Far from it. If Israel intended to prematurely (as in not giving negotiations any chance) attack Iran's nuclear sites and do so without consultation with or approval from the U.S., we would be well within our rights to prevent them from doing so. This is not simply a matter of saying that Israel should defer to its American patron when using American-supplied military equipment. Under the status of forces agreement (SOFA) and other agreements the U.S. has serious legal obligations to Iraq, as well as other neighboring allies--obligations which should not be taken lightly.    None of this should be taken lightly, that is the idea that we would intentionally take deadly military action against a friendly state, but unfortunately war and its nastier relative politics are hell. What made me wince was Brezezinski's closing statement that "No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse." I'm a little baffled. In spite of what some may think, the Liberty was an accident, for which Israel apologized (which I understand is little solace to the victims). In such an imagined scenario, if we were to shoot down Israel jets, we would be well within our rights, but it would be no accident. I'm a little surprised that someone as knowledgeable as Brzezinski could make this mistake. I'm also concerned that it give ammunition to the conspiracy theorists--those same people who would excuse the USS Stark incident, Iran Air Flight 655, the NATO gondola cable incident, and countless other tragic acts of fratricide and collateral damage (and are still looking for the second shooter on the grassy knoll and digging around Ground Zero looking for 9/11 Truth).    Some may argue that Brezezinski, like Carter, is anti-Israel and/or an anti-Semite. But I say, that those accusations of prejudice and the people who make them are just as silly as those conspiracy theorists who peddle tales of Israel intentionally attacking the one state that keeps it alive. To the conspiracy theorists I cite Ocham's Razor and Murphy's law: in the case of the Liberty, the simplest explanation (accident) is the most likely, in conjunction with the idea that when something can go wrong it will go wrong as is the case in war when imperfect decisions are made in uncertain circumstances (the fog of war). As for the Carter is an anti-Semite crowd, what other evidence do you have than his criticism of Israel? Few no as much about Israel, Arabs and peace and this man is entitled to his well-informed opinions (even if I don't agree) and people should not be afraid to criticize very questionable Israeli policies for fear of being called anti-Semitic.   As far Brezezinski, be careful what you say. I don't want to see you in the news, throwing your good name and reputation down the toilet like Ramsey Clark. Et tu Zbigniew? I sure hope not. 

The difference of course is the bucket. As a little kid I found this joke hilarious and Gadhafi was the only Middle Eastern dictator I knew by name and sight. His reputation was infamous, his behavior was an odd mixture of violent anti-American defiance, anti-western rejectionism & random weirdness. More significantly, he was a supporter of Palestinian militants and a murderer of American citizens and servicemen. It was the latter behavior that got him bombed by the U.S. a few times and led to a nearly decade and a half boycott and other intrigue.

After 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Libya started to slowly open itself to the U.S. and others, abandoned its WMD programs, cooperated with American counter-terrorism operations and paid financial settlements to victims of its long history of state-sponsored terrorism. Ever the opportunist, Gadhafi turned his back on the old, longing for western investment in its decrepit oil infrastructure and also looking for western assistance against the common threat of Al-Qaeda-inspired religious militants.

And what was wrong with this?

According to the U.S. officials, Gadhafi abandoned his WMD programs and was a strong ally in counter-terrorism efforts. Sure, Libya was no Sweden, but is that really realistic? Look how effective we've been in lobbying for openness in our close allies (like Egypt or Saudi Arabia), or how great a job we've done through democratization by the barrel of the gun in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But now Gadhafi is a villain back in the news. The Pan Am 103 mastermind Al-Megrahi has been released from a Scottish prison by a Scottish court due to his failing health. I'm trying to see how this is Gadhafi's fault. True, it was insensitive to hold a hero's welcome for him, but this is more about Libyan domestic politics then offending the American and British victims' families. Besides, there is no doubt that Megrahi's status as someone who stood up against the Americans (no matter that he cowardly killed hundreds of innocents) is that of a national hero. Snubbing him probably would have made Gadhafi look like a western stooge at home. Blame this on the Scots, who also suffered from this act of terrorism- though I give them credit for moving beyond emotion and looking at facts, even if I ultimately disagree with their ruling.

I bring this incident up because it's symptomatic of a problem that government and elected officials, as well as the American public suffer from. We are too stuck in the past. We use bitter emotional arguments and painful past incidents to dictate the terms of the future and sometimes, to deliberately derail any effort at change or reform.

For example, this Gadhafi incident was even used as a way to attack John McCain by a TPM poster.  http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/noblecommentdecider/2009/08/stephanopoulos-grovels-before.php#comments 

There are many good reasons to attack McCain, but this is not one of them. Should our relations with Libya have been stalled forever because because their autocratic leader ruthlessly blew up Pan Am 103? No. And it's a good thing that even the Bush administration saw fit to restore relations after certain conditions were met.

It comes as no surprise that McCain would go to Libya. After many years as a POW in Vietnam he was one of the first (along with Kerry) to return there and advocate for normalization of relations. One only has to hear him speak to know that his feelings about Vietnam, his captors and the war haven't changed much, but it is the promise of the future that is more important.

Unfortunately, this type of kneejerk reaction is all too common in U.S. foreign policy circles and discussions. Talk about the loosening and ending the U.S. embargo against Cuba and you are coddling Castro, appeasing communism and consenting the oppression of the Cuban populace. Ironically, McCain is also a critic of the Cuba policy.

Don't even suggest negotiating with Hamas or else that means you think it's OK to talk with terrorists. OK so what? The PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel, some good that did during the Second Intifada. Israel still talks to them, just as it "talks" to Hamas through Egypt. Yes, Hamas is horrible, but that's not the point.

Most baffling was President Obama's statement after the Iranian election that for the U.S. there was little difference between Ahmadinejad & Mousavi. He reminded us that Mousavi was a pillar of the Khomeini revolution and no friend of the U.S. Very true--30 years ago!!! Read the reports now to see how wrong our President's statement is about Mousavi as he tries to fight the system. Obama thought he was giving intelligenct commentary on the issue, but in reality it was an answer colored by emotional and historical memories (Iran embassy siege & terrorism, Mousavi a strong part of it, so is also bad; people and interests don't change; nothing different from past.)

And Menachem Begin was a bloodthirsty Irgun terrorist who 30 years later made peace with his Egyptian archenemies. Do you think Begin and Sadat didn't know each other's histories, or do you think they thought it was more important to look ahead and make peace. Are the Israelis and Egyptians better off now, or should they have continued to argue over the events of '48, '56, '67 & '73?

If we're stuck in the emotional narratives of the past, how can we do what's best for us in the future?

In the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings 241 American servicemembers were brutally and senselessly slaughtered by Hezbollah and Iran. I don't forgive this offense and never will. But is talking to either in order to avoid more bloodshed and build a more positive future worth it? I think so.

Gadhafi is still no better than excrement, but who cares? I'd rather do business him, secure his help in stoping violent Islamic extremists and building a relationship that could evolve into something better for both Libya and the U.S. once Gadhafi is gone.

Don't forgive, don't forget, but do move on.

Vick was recently released after serving 18 months (he got out 5 months early for good behavior) and signed with the Philadelphia Eagles.

Plaxico Burress recently agreed to 2 years for illegal possession of a handgun in NY state and for clumsily shooting himself with it.

Lots of public outrage, but why!? In Vick's case, he did the crime and served the time (unlike other celebrities and athletes).

Some are outraged that he has returned to the NFL and is making a good salary (though not nearly as good as before). Well, unlike convicted doctors, lawyers and others in positions of public trust bound by professional ethical codes, there is no such constraint on Vick and the NFL. Pro sports has a major ethical problem and it's a hell of a lot bigger than Vick & Burress. Would we feel better if instead of playing football he was homeless or committing crimes. I'm not sure he has any marketable skills other than football. The man did his time, now allow him an escape valve back into society.

After watching his apology, some complain that Vick isn't really sorry, he's just posturing. How could you really know this? And in any case, how much does it matter? Vick says he's going to work with youth and on animal cruelty issues--who better to speak out on these issues then somebody who is well known and willing to admit they were wrong. If after raising millions for charities and talking to thousands of at-risk youth, will it matter how sorry Vick is deep down? Will the charities and youth not be better off for his substantial advocacy, whether genuine or not?

The Burress issue is even more baffling because he could end up serving more time than Vick. How is that possible? Burress didn't slaughter countless animals over a long period of time and engage in a massive criminal enterprise.  He was exercising his right to protect himself, albeit against the laws of the most gun-strict state in the U.S. Like the fool he is, and so many other fools across the country including a DEA Agent giving a gun safety course, he shot himself. (Yes, he could have hurt others, but there was no intent and we prosecute actual crimes, not hypothetical.)

So why such strict sentences and the outrage that Vick may rejoin society as a productive member?

I might be wading into somewhat unfamiliar territory here and muddling some of the terms and categorizations, but I hope that won't take away from the discussion.

Justice? Burress broke a law, but I don't find much that is morally offensive in his case. Vick is a different story. Unfortunately, law generally treats animals as property and not as living, feeling organisms. True, a crime against a dog is not as bad as one against a human, but the scope and magnitude of Vick's abuses were totally shocking and disgusting. I hope that 18 months was enough to answer for those abuses. I could see how it could have been more.

Retribution? Burress' infraction was a victimless crime, except for himself. He was parodied in the media and will forever be known as that genius that shot himself. He will do his time and pay his fine. In Vick's case, many dogs were killed; they had no family or owners. His diminished assets were used to pay for the care of the surviving animals. He has done his time and paid his fine.

Proportionality, Fairness? I don't understand how Burress could potentially get more time than Vick. It makes no sense. I think Burress' punishment is way too heavy for the crime. Vick's I suppose could have been stricter. Also, did I mention they were both first time violators (yes, I think they had some minor raps, no different than anyone else in the NBA or NFL). Another important factor to consider is how their punishments compare to similar cases, something I am unable to evaluate, but suspect they were treated somewhat more harshly.

Threat to and Impact on Society? Burress is more of a threat to himself than anyone else. By the laws of Darwin he'd probably shoot himself fatally next time. With Vick, I'm pretty certain he's out of the dogfighting business for life. I think it is pretty safe to say that both men have a larger than ever spotlight on them in the future and they will be very careful about how they conduct themselves. Both if used smartly, could help raise money for animal rights/gunshot victims and educate youth about these issues. Their celebrity/money should not keep them out of prison, but we should also consider how best they can pay for their crimes and help society.

One hypothesis I have is that as celebrities they did get special treatment--they were treated more harshly. Remember years back that sheriff that said due to media exposure Paris Hilton was getting more jail time than an ordinary person that committed the same crime. In the case of celebrities the money can buy them the best lawyers but it doesn't protect them from a resentful public, an omnipresent media and opportunistic prosecutors and judges looking to make a name for themselves.

Another question is when does the punishment for a crime end? Vick went to jail and paid the fine. He will be a convicted felon for the rest of his life and who will ever forget what he did. If he slips up again, his past record will result in even harsher penalties. But now that he's out shouldn't we make it easier for him to start living his life the right way? I've never understood how convicted felons are denied financial aid for college. On top of that many employers won't hire them. Knowing this it hardly comes as a surprise that many return to crime. We have to find some kind of balance between punishing people for what they did wrong and enabling them so they can do right. 

Newsflash: The U.S. already operates bases or "Forward Operating Locations" in
El Salvador and Curacao and has a large presence in Honduras too. Moreover, the
U.S. counter-narcotics surveillance effort had operated at Manta air base in
Ecuador since 1999 without incident. Ecuador, recently decided it didn't want
U.S. forces on its soil anymore--that is their decision to make and the Yanquis
have obligingly gone home.

The only problem is that the loss of Manta has left a gap in the counter-narcotics
surveillance blanket over the northern part of South America which must be filled.
Long-time U.S. ally Colombia has stepped forward of its own free will to offer the
U.S. the right to fly surveillance missions out of its own sovereign territory.
The rules of the proposed agreement stipulated that their would be no U.S. flags,
no sovereignty, no lethal equipment, no use of force and no control over the bases.
This is pretty harmless stuff.

Plus, looking at the bigger picture, U.S.-Colombia military relations regarding
the number of forces permitted and the rules of engagement, etc. are strictly
regulated by both countries. To top it off, the U.S. Congress keeps a close eye on
Colombia and is so unforgiving it won't even give a free trade agreement to its
best ally in South America.

So what's the big deal?

Venzuela's Chávez: "[T]he winds of war are blowing."
Bolvia's Morales: Colombia needs to be "rescued" from the  U.S.
Argentina's Kirchner: This development is "belligerent."
Cuba's Castro: This move will "block social change."

Even Brazil's moderate President Lula has been highly critical of the proposal, while
acknowledging Colombia's right to do with its sovereign territory as it sees fit.

What's going on here?

For Chavez and company, things are not going well in their countries. They don't like
Colombia or Uribe, they still don't like the U.S. even as its face is that of Obama
and no longer Bush. This is a chance to stick it in the eye of the U.S. and Colombia.

Look a little further and there's been some strong evidence that Venezuela and Ecuador
have provided support to Colombia's FARC rebels. Also, since Chavez came into officer,  powerful elements in Caracas have gotten extremely rich off the drug trade. By weakening the
drug surveillance effort, Chavez's cronies will get richer and the FARC will have an easier
time funding its so-called war.

Chavez also fears that the increased U.S. presence in Colombia could eventually be used
against his FARC comrades. The U.S. Congress has strictly prohibited this, but the fact
that some in Colombia may envision this should come as no surprise. While Colombia fought
a bloody war against this disgusting collection of warlords, narcotraffickers and political opportunists, most of South America stood idly by while one of its neighbors (Venezuela) actively supported the FARC while the other (Ecuador) did little to stop them from using its soil as a safehaven.

What about the irony and hypocrisy?

Chavez has allowed Russian warships to visit Venezuelan ports and has invited Russia to
station strategic bombers in its country. Was there any outrage then?

If Chavez's leftist block was so worried about U.S. meddling then he should have encouraged
Ecuador to keep the U.S. operation in Manta. At least then its scope/mission would have been severely limited and under a very watchful eye (remember: keep your friends close and your enemies closer).

Meanwhile over in the supposedly anti-American Arab and Muslim worlds over 200,000 heavily armed U.S. military personnel operate bases in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the Persian Gulf with the official blessing of the host nations and the international community.

The Arabs don't necessarily like the Americans, but they realize how useful it is to have them
in the Gulf keeping commerce going, cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq, and watching Iran.

What to do?

I expect Chavez & co. to complain about anything the U.S. or Colombia does. But countries with reasonable leaders, like Brazil, Argentina, Peru, etc. need to stand up to their version of the birther/town hall protest movement, i.e. Chavez & friends. Tell them, 'mind your matters in your own country, let the gringos try to stop the drugs because the narcos hurt all of us. And, while you're worrying about everyone you think is looking for a fight, why does Venezuela have the highest arms spending in South America? What do you need all these tanks and heavy weapons for?'

I never liked Robert Novak, and I'm not going to start saying nice things about him because he died, but I'm also not going to spew the type of nasty and outrageous things that are common fare on blogs on both the right and left.  (Just do a Google search and you'll see what I mean.)

Even a far rightwinger like Lucianne Goldberg has remarked that if something happened to the President or if Ted Kennedy died she would have to immediately take her site offline in order to prevent the celebrations and nasty rhetoric that would surely result. Such a state of affairs is a sad truth, and she is embarrassed by it as am I and anyone else yearning for a return to civility.

According to those that knew and worked with Novak, he was a good man and valued friend. He served his country in the Army, was a family man, married for 47 years, and was even once a respected journalist.

But to say he died a journalist is a joke. He was nothing more than a commentator, or even worse, a pundit. Journalists are generally objective--Novak was not. I watched him denigrate many fine American patriots like Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Amb. Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, while lionizing Augusto Pinochet and others.

Sure, he opposed the Iraq War (even a broken clock is twice right). The reason he opposed it--because he supports 1930's era Republican isolationalism--was quite startling. Though as much as he opposed it, he sought to shelter the Republican Party and conservatives from the fallout. That is how he became involved in the Plame affair. 

When Joe Wilson disclosed that the Niger-yellowcake tale was a total lie, Novak sprang into action at the behest of Bush administration officials. In spite of the truth of what Wilson said, Novak assisted in the 'ignore the message (and wider question) and shoot the messenger' strategy. Suddenly, Wilson was no longer a respected non-partisan diplomat, Africa expert and American hero--he became a Democratic lackey sent because of his wife. Unknown to the world at that time, Valerie Plame had built her career as covert CIA operative, infiltrating foreign proliferation networks and recruiting sources at great danger to them and herself. By disclosing her affiliation, Novak put at risk all those she had worked with in the past through her former secret identity. I've always had a hard time believing that Novak was too smart to not know what he was doing, but we also shouldn't underestimate the ruthlessness and manipulative abilities of Rove, Libby, Addington and their minions. Novak served their purpose quite well and gained more recognition, ratings and notoriety in the process.

Which gets back to the question of journalist vs. commentator. A journalist uncovers facts. Novak's partisan article manufactured 'facts.' Worse yet, he relied on anonymous sources in order to engage in partisan character assassination and disclose national security information (whether intentionally or not). His article was intended to protect the administration, attack its critics and silence the whistleblowers. (Just compare Deep Throat to those that disclosed Plame's identity.) Luckily, it failed on all accounts. It also brought up some interesting debates about the ethical use of anonymous sources and the conflict between press confidentiality and national security--questions that still need to be answered.   

My conclusion: Novak should not be celebrated as a great journalist or even a valuable commentator. He's left ruin in his wake. However, I will say that I'm sorry to see someone so beloved by those close to him pass, but that doesn't mean I forgive his ideological vitriol,  partisanship and abuse of press liberties. I intend to call it how it is.