Bajíos y Honduras: Gradual Emergence

The AP reports that the government of El Salvador is set to officially recognize the elected government of Honduras. It is a thing most fervently to be hoped that other nations in the region will soon follow suit. Might one even posit that the current American Administration will at last execute a quiet little pivot in its thus far reprehensible treatment of the lawful, relatively orderly, and altogether geopolitically inoffensive internal affairs of the sovereign nation of Honduras?  Shall we soon see a "well, alright; we still don't like what you did, but here's your aid and visas back. But we've got our eye on you" from Hillary's! State Department?

May be so. But it is fair to say that the Honduran government will have due pause before trusting many of its ostensible allies for the foreseeable future. And if the language with which the Honduran affair is described does not change with some alacrity, they would be all-too well justified in such caution:

Some Latin American nations do not recognize Lobo's victory in November elections, because the vote was held under the interim government that replaced Zelaya.

A leader of Honduras' congress says lawmakers will start considering a bill on Tuesday to grant an amnesty to those involved in the June 28 coup that removed Zelaya.

 Say it with me yet again, bretheren "It. Was. Not. A. Fracking. Coup."

Bajíos y Honduras: Democracy In The Crosshairs

From the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal comes this devastating piece on the Obama State Department's escalating and depressingly wrong-headed behavior with regard to the Honduran government's lawful ouster of a President who had made numerous attempts to subvert the Honduran constitution and lay the groundwork for installing himself as President-For-Life. Or, as the Obama Administration, the Castro Brothers, Hugo Chavez, et. al. insist on referring to it: the "Coup."

I have really tried to comprehend the thinking of this Administration on this matter. I have noted that the manner of the Honduran warrant's execution was over the top, bearing an uncomfortable (though only superficial) resemblance to Central American Coups of yore. But that's really all I can come up with as far as justification for the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department's unremitting hostility toward the interim government in Tegucigalpa.

I have tried most studiously to avoid the more partisan and histrionic interpretations of this response. Contrary to how it might seem at times, I am not an Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferer; I would like nothing more than to sit down to a bounteous repast of my own words about this Administration's actions (since that would mean I judged that the Nation was being comprehensively well-served by it). There's all kinds of crazy-talk about how Obama is trying to develop alliances with Leftist dictators since they are in synch with his own plans for the US. Really, some people believe that. I am not one of them.

Still, I am deeply concerned about stories like what the US is doing in Honduras, or this tidbit about the de-funding --at the request of Leftist president Morales-- of USAID programs in Bolivia which promote democracy by, among other things, training local leaders in its implementation at the local and municipal levels. This seems as benign a program as you could hope for, yet Morales feels that it is some kind of conspiracy to support his opposition, and wants it pulled. So pull it we have. Why?

My personal suspicion is that the Obama Administration is aiming to present a reasonable face to intransigent anti-American regimes, and so to de-legitimize their narratives of Yankee Imperialism. He is making concessions and overtures in an effort to bring some of these bad actors to the table, save them some face, and so make it politically possible for them to meet us partway. The reasoning may be that they can never appear so weak as to give the Americans even a sliver of what they want, else they would appear to be lap-dogs of Washington. So, if Washington is seen as recognizing the legitimacy of their administrations/regimes, then they can play the munificent internationalists and give some ground, themselves.

Sounds lovely.

Trouble is that it assumes a level of reasonableness and good faith which it is not reasonable to expect. When a leader is willing to break faith with his own people, to oppress them and stifle their freedoms, and aggrandize himself at their expense, then how does it follow that they would be willing to act in ways which they have defined to be contrary to their own interests for the sake of international amity? The math just doesn't work out, any more than it does that paying off a protection racket with a courteous smile will make them think highly enough of you that they'll lower your rates.

The proper response to sociopathy (individual or collective) is strength and structure and a consistently demonstrated resistance to getting bullied or outfoxed. Now, I am in no way advocating for some sort of military intervention, or ham-fisted attempts at diplomatic intimidation in Central America. We've had more than enough of that. But is it too much to ask that we refrain from empowering the enemies of liberty at the expense of the downtrodden? Is it out of line to hope that the US would pick its battles with rather more care for the messages they send to those who are continually probing for opportunities to subvert their laws and hoard power at home and abroad? Is it wing-nuttery for me to demand that this Administration align and ally itself with the better angels of this planet's polities?

Alas, I'm not liking the answers to these questions. Gosh, does that make me a racist?

Bajíos y Honduras, Parte Dos (Updated) (UPDATED again, now with 50% More Stupidity!)

Thank goodness for Hot Air, for finding this bit of news about the situation in Honduras, given how quietly yet comprehensively it has fallen from the radar screen since shortly after I last addressed it.

Seems the Honduran Supreme Court has had the temerity to hold fast to its own ruling regarding the underhanded and unconstitutional efforts of erstwhile Presidente Zelaya to ignore and ultimately overturn the laws of his nation and set the stage for his ascension to the office of Chavez-Lite. Thus have they unconditionally rejected the so-called "compromise" offered by the apparently well-meaning but sadly off-target president of Costa Rica, which would have had Zelaya re-installed to the Honduran Presidency until the elections in November. The Organization of American States (OAS) had been waiting for this compromise, in order to restore aid to Honduras and declare an end to this whole nasty business (have you heard that they consider it a "Coup?" I seem to recall a few news outlets referring to it as such...).

Muchisimos Kudos to the Honduran legislature and judiciary for standing fast in the face of withering international hassles and ruinous financial coercion. Now the stage is set for the Honduran Constitution to do its stuff --interrupted neither by local proto-tyrants, nor by scheming international pressure groups. Micheletti has no plans to run for the presidency, and Zelaya has an express ticket to the pokey if he so much as plants a toe in Tegucigalpa. That leaves a clear field for the Honduran people truly to put an end to this: by voting for President according to the laws which the fellow they last elected came within a hair's breadth of nullifying for his personal aggrandizement.

I can only hope that this situation will act as a spur to the Honduran people to make their government accountable for the sad state of their economy, and to work toward greater autonomy from future blackmail-through-aid. If ever there was a country which knew who its friends were (and weren't), it's Honduras today. I do also hope that there is some accounting for the arguably extralegal manner in which the legal warrant against Zelaya was served. It really was over the top, and did nothing to dispel the PR machine which has so enthusiastically striven to paint this as just another Cavendish Coup.

In the meantime, I'll be adding some Honduran coffee and cigars to my shopping list.

UPDATE: Memo to Obama Administration: When you find yourself in a hole, it is best to stop digging. As ever, I expect this advice to be ignored. Smart power, indeed.

UPDATED AGAIN: Gosh, just when you think this Administration has reached the limit of its jaw-dropping, facepalming, abject, drooling fatuity and breathtaking arrogance on this matter, they up and double down. I am simply speechless. Yeah, why not punish a whole lot of poor people because their impudent government has elected to obey its own laws, and not the august decree of the One and his fellow-travelers. Abominable.

The Pretext of Principles

[by Mr.Hengist]

There’s a piece in the WSJ, "The Case for Inhumane Intervention” which takes a mercifully brief look at how former SecState Madeleine Albright objected to the policy decisions of then-POTUS Bush and defended those of ex-POTUS Clinton. Well, sure she does, as surely does the sun rise – every morning! What’s interesting to me is that she did it on the basis of an overall principle rather than weighing and judging their respective policies based on their unique circumstances. The piece ends by saying, “Albright's position is simply incoherent.”

That’s not exactly true. Her positions are coherent but the principles invoked are in conflict. The Liberal penchant for framing an argument on the basis of principle appears to be a common approach to Democrat arguments, and what makes it particularly amusing is how the principles invoked are dependent upon the policies pursued. That is to say, policy guides principle, rather than the reverse, but they make a show of standing on principle. Federal deficit spending is outrageously bad, usually; dissent against government policy is patriotic, except when it's not; filibusters are obstructionist, or the fullest expression of open democratic dialogue, depending. Such arguments posturing on principled ground cannot be wholly reconciled one with another but for the common ground on which they all stand.

Their overarching and unspoken aim is to portray the Republicans as always wrong, whereas Democrat policy is sound and justifiable, i.e., it's wrong when Republicans do something but OK for Democrats. Democrats start from this assumption yet they must somehow circle that square and justify their positions by other means, and situational principles are their go-to tool for doing just that. Logical conflict often arises when these principles clash from one situation to the next. Let my try to illustrate this with a couple of examples:

During the height of the Iraq war a handful of retired generals, less than a half-dozen of them of the over six thousand who are retired and still amongst the living, had criticized the Bush policies of the war in one way or another, and the Right was admonished to “Listen to the Generals” – that was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi right around the time that Gen. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as the U.S. Forces Commander in Iraq, and it was an imploration echoed by Liberals everywhere. The message was clear: The Executive Branch should take the advice of its experienced military leaders.

It’s a sound principle, but it became problematical later as the situation changed. When Lt.Gen. Sanchez made his criticisms at a gathering of Military Reporters and Editors (in Arlington, VA, Oct 2007). Sanchez spent the first half of his speech criticizing the deplorable reporting by the MSM, but this went unreported by the NYTimes and AP, and received only scant mention in the front-page article in the WaPo. Can we therefore conclude that the Left believes that Generals should be listened to except when they criticize the Liberal MSM for their shoddy reporting and partisanship, in which case nobody needs hear of it? Not at all; that would be to extrapolate a coherent principle from their varied positions, but that's not necessary for Liberals. Taking the idea of Liberal principles too seriously leads to cognitive dissonance - there isn't necessarily any coherence in their arguments when taking them at face value, for these are only useful cudgels couched in the pretext of principles. To illustrate this more fully, when General Petraeus returned stateside to report progress and improvements in Iraq, he was snubbed and insulted by Democrats.

The comments of General Sanchez were useful to the Left only insofar as they echoed what Liberals and Democrats were saying. His comments on the press were not useful or flattering to the Left and so they were ignored. In contrast, the report by General Petraeus was not helpful at all to the Left because they wanted to end the Iraq war as soon as possible, whereas General Petraeus told us that the Iraq war was very much winnable. What he said in open Congressional testimony could hardly be ignored, and therefore his character was attacked by the Left, from the children of Kos, MoveOn and Think Progress to the top clown Democrat leadership, including, amongst others, Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton. Some and only some of the comments of Gen. Sanchez were useful to the Left as a cudgel, whereas the report of Gen. Petraeus undercut their position so thoroughly that he was accused of being a tool of the Bush Administration.

This brings us to the Obama Administration; in late June of 2009, National Security Advisor Jim Jones met with commanders in Afghanistan and to say: "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops," he told them. The WaPo describes the key part of that meeting as follows:

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?" Nicholson and his colonels -- all or nearly all veterans of Iraq -- seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get.

The message is clear and wholly inappropriate. The role of the Executive Branch is to task the military with a desired outcome, after which the military presents a set of options for achieving that outcome, each of which has an estimate of probable success, cost, and risk. The Executive Branch must not, however, both decide military tactics for their objectives and assign resources; to do so is a reflection of deep ignorance and arrogance. I’m reminded of episodes of Star Trek (The Original Series), in which Captain Kirk would bark orders at Scotty or Spock, telling them to fix a problem after he’s been told it’s impossible to do so; he would then order them to do so anyway, i.e., pull a rabbit out a hat. In reality, the role of a commander is to be advised of facts and presented with options. One of the few Hollywood productions to get this right was “Apollo 13”, in which Flight Director Gene Kranz polls the team for reports on status and advice on options, and upon the basis of the information he’s received he makes decisions on which course of action to pursue.

As of this writing there is a crisis in Honduras which very well illustrates this pretext of principles. Only last month POTUS Obama declared that he would take pains not to be perceived as “meddling” in the affairs of Iran or other nations, only expressing admonitions about how Iran should not brutalize their citizens for rioting in protest of their sham democracy. The principle of not meddling does not apply to the government of Honduras after they legally ousted their Chavista protégé President; in that crisis, the Hondurans have been punished by the withholding of OAS funds on the basis of the principle of upholding democracy.

In contrast, Iranian elections under the Mullahs have always been a sham, and thus any claim of "democracy" in that country is a hollow lie. Surely the principles of upholding democracy are more urgently in need of support for Iran than Honduras. It appears to be a contradiction that the support of democracy is cited as the reason for meddling in Honduras whereas democracy-free Iran is not held to the that standard, and it is. The key to understanding this contradiction is that for Liberals and Democrats the principles they cite are entirely situational. What we’re left with is speculation as to their real motives. With the treatment of Iran vs. Honduras, I think POTUS Obama is eager to “hit the reset button” with our enemies because he believes that the poor relations between our countries are really the fault of past, mostly the Republican Administrations, whereas he casts a gimlet eye on any allies who had good relations with same. Further elucidation on POTUS Obama's motives are better explained by Noocyte in this post, and I am in agreement with the good points he makes.

Where we disagree is that Noocyte does POTUS Obama the courtesy of taking his words at face value, and concludes that the Obama policy is flawed on the basis of these principles in conflict. On the contrary, those principles are pretext and are therefore irrelevant, except insofar as they should be thrown back in the faces of the Liberals who hoist those high-minded banners to justify their policy choices.

Bajíos y Honduras

Handy thing about being bilingual: double the puns.

"Honduras" means "depths," or "deep waters." All the more ironic, given the shallows ("bajíos") in which the thinking and coverage (such as it's been) of this country have languished.

When leftist President Manuel Zelaya defied the judgment of his country's supreme court and pushed for a referendum on changing the constitution to allow for the removal of term limits, it was a gambit right out of the Hugo Chavez playbook. The law of the land had been pronounced, and the Executive of those laws was choosing to ignore it. Further, when the head of the military refused to participate in distributing that referendum's ballots, Zelaya just up and fired him. None of this boded especially well for Zelaya's respect for democratic institutions, an opinion which was shared by the Honduran legislature, which voted to have Zelaya removed from office for violating the trust which had been placed in him by the Honduran people.

If the execution of that ouster was handled in a needlessly ham-handed and arguably itself illegal fashion (military personnel rousting the villain from bed and shuffling his pajama-clad carcass onto a plane for Costa Rica in the dead of night, ferchrissakes), this does not take away from the fact that the aforementioned military immediately handed power back to the civilian leadership. Further, that leadership has even offered to consider holding elections early, rather than declare some sort of "emergency" and clutch onto its newly-wrested power.

Some "coup."

Then we get Barack "I won't meddle in the affairs of other nations" Obama coming out, promptly and strongly, for the "restoration of democracy" in Honduras, and suspending aid until the power-grabbing Chavista in question is restored to his office...the one which the other branches of Honduran government had acted within their laws and declared him unfit to occupy. Naturally, then, the near-universal media consensus coalesced around the cries of Zelaya supporters demanding their guy back, drawing sickening parallels to the brutal oppression of demonstrators in Iran after the outright theft of the election there by theocratic thugs. Shortly thereafter the Organization of American States and the UN (those bastions of democratic ideals and justice around the globe) declared that Honduras will be on their mierda list until the status quo ante is restored. The government of Honduras just as promptly told these bodies to pound fine white sand. Gutsy move, that, since Honduras can scarcely afford to lose the aid, but the only one which preserves Honduran national sovereignty from erosions external and internal. And they seem to be putting their money where their mouth is.

As wrong-headed and dangerous as I perceive many policies of the Obama Administration to be, they have generally made a certain kind of sense to me. This one had me scratching my head. Why on earth would the POTUS see our nation as having a dog in this fight? It's not as if Zelaya exactly had clean hands in his purported championing of the downtrodden. The idea that this was some sort of tactic to curry favor with Chavez, ahead of some overture to come, seemed a bit too pat and partisan for my tastes (though I haven't ruled it out altogether). The whole "masked soldiers in the dead of night" thing rightly arouses discomfort, but every other aspect of the ouster struck just the right tone of lawfulness to get out most of the stain. So what gives?

It was this post from the Huffpo which brought it together for me:

A democratically elected president has been ousted by a military strongly supported and trained by the US government as apparent punishment for his adoption of progressive ideals. Where is the outrage, or at the least, the intrigue? Where are the solidarity movements?

Well, here are all the ingredients: mistrust of anything touched by the US military, check. Reflexive sympathy for even a transparently illegitimate regime, so long as it adheres to "Progressive," statist ideals, check. Concomitant repudiation of any government which lives even close to the center (let alone the Right), checkarooney. Throw in a dose of untenable moral equivalence, and the formula is complete.

Look, I get that Obama and his supporters believe in consolidating the business of a nation in the operations of its central government, rather than in the hurly-burly of free markets and federalism. I understand that there will tend to be a measure of sympathy for governments which operate along similar sets of values, and will even grant the good intentions of those who yearn for social justice (even as I recoil from the redistributionist policies which flow from those intentions).

But this is one which the Obama Administration has gotten flat-out dead Wrong. It is an epic fail, borne of the most superficial reading of a sloppy and unappealingly handled but ultimately lawful execution of a sovereign nation's governance. It can very defensibly be said to have been none of our business. However, if one were inclined to "meddle," then it should have been in the opposite direction. After all, as Krauthammer put it: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro Twins, you ought to re-examine your assumptions."