US Politics - From barbarism to decadence

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

I'd love to know why the Congolese military needs US dollars to phase out (not immedieately eleminate) the use of children as Soldiers. This isn't something Congo can accomplish on its own?

[Shryke]

Shryke,

I'd love to know why the Congolese military needs US dollars to phase out (not immedieately eleminate) the use of children as Soldiers. This isn't something Congo can accomplish on its own?

Hell if I know.

Off the top of my head, I'd say more money could mean the government or whoever has more cash to pay soldiers, which makes it easier to rely on real professional soldiers instead of having to recruit children. That's the first thing that came to my mind.

[TerraPrime]

Hell if I know.

Off the top of my head, I'd say more money could mean the government or whoever has more cash to pay soldiers, which makes it easier to rely on real professional soldiers instead of having to recruit children. That's the first thing that came to my mind.

More like it's a bribe to the petty warlords to stop using kids as canon fodder.

[TrueMetis]

More like it's a bribe to the petty warlords to stop using kids as canon fodder.

Better than sending people in to kill the petty warlords only to have new ones appear the next day. If it stops the use of child soldiers it seems worth it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP, Thor,

Okay, if these States know the U.S. will keep giving me money despite the fact that I still have children as soldiers whats the incentive to stop? They can keep claiming they are working to correct the problem like they are right now. Giving them money now seems before they've changed their practices seems... shortsighted.

[Guest Raidne]

I don't think the purpose of exercising the exemption is to stop the conscription of minors, Scott. That was the purpose of the bill. All that happened is that the administration decided that we had interests that outweighed our desire to end the involuntary conscription of persons under 18 or the voluntary conscription of persons under 16.

Nothing in the coverage of the story really tells us what kind of aid is being offered, how much, for what purpose, etc., with the exception of that small blurb in the Post.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

It still sucks that we are providing aid to States that are conscripting children. That's hard to stomach.

[Guest Raidne]

For me, it really depends on what that aid is, what purpose it's serving, and to what extent that purpose is actually being served. All crucial bits of information that appear to be totally unavailable and absent from this discussion.

[Altherion]

For me, it really depends on what that aid is, what purpose it's serving, and to what extent that purpose is actually being served. All crucial bits of information that appear to be totally unavailable and absent from this discussion.

It's military aid so the number of things it can be is fairly small. Barring something bizarre, it's a combination of arms, training and/or funding to provide either of the two. The purpose is even less ambiguous: we almost always want some military group in the region to suppress other military and paramilitary groups.

[Guest Raidne]

How do we know it's military aid?

Here is the waiver from the President:

SUBJECT: Presidential Determination with Respect to Section 404© of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, pursuant to section 404© of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA), title IV of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 457), I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA.

You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, along with the accompanying memorandum of justification, and to publish it in the Federal Register.

And here is the relevant section of the bill:

(d) Letter to Congress- Not later than June 15 of each year for 10 years following the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives--

(1) a list of the countries receiving notification that they are in violation of the standards of this Act;

(2) a list of any waivers or exceptions exercised under this Act;

(3) justification for those waivers and exceptions; and

(4) a description of any assistance provided pursuant to this Act.

And also:

(1) WAIVER- The President may waive the application to a country of the prohibition in subsection (a) if the President determines that such waiver is in the interest of the United States.

(2) PUBLICATION AND NOTIFICATION- The President shall publish each waiver granted under paragraph (1) in the Federal Register and shall notify the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives of each such waiver, including the justification for the waiver, in accordance with the regular notification procedures of such Committees.

It is not in any way clear to me that we're not talking about the funds spent by USAID that provide humanitarian assistance in Chad or the annual $200 million contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Congo.

In fact, I'm pretty sure we are talking about those funds.

[Altherion]

How do we know it's military aid?

Tormund's link said:

President Obama has granted a waiver allowing four countries to continue receiving U.S. military aid even though they use child soldiers, officials said Wednesday.

If the Washington Post is wrong and it is in fact humanitarian rather than military aid, then I agree with you.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, what would a donation to a UN peacekeeping force be tagged as? Additionally, we have tens of millions of dollars earmarked right out of the foreign military financing program (FMF) for stablization and immediate protection of civilians in conflict.

Looking over the info on wiki, however, Chad is not listed as a country that receives aid through this program, although the Sundan is, having requested $100K; Congo is, having requested $600,000 in 2008.

Yemen apparently gets an amount worth talking about: $4.7 million.

Regarding the Washington Post's label, I have no idea where it came from. In the article, is says Obama granted a waiver for military aid, but reading over his memo, that looks like a waiver for any aid, as required by the text of the act, to me. There is no source for anything else, except for "officials." These officials apparently focused on fighting terrorism - no surprise given that Yemen gets more 10x more funds than everyone else - and reforming abusive armies.

A more thing - the quote by Jessie Eaves at the end of the article?

Jesse Eaves, policy adviser on children's issues for the humanitarian group World Vision, noted that the law did not mandate a cutoff of all forms of military assistance for offenders. For example, they could have still gotten help in eliminating their use of child soldiers.

"That kind of assistance is still allowed under the law without invoking the waiver. That's why this is a disturbing step," he said.

No, there is a clause that provides for that, but with a two-year limitation.

The media just sucks, liberal or conservative. *sigh*

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

For me, it really depends on what that aid is, what purpose it's serving, and to what extent that purpose is actually being served. All crucial bits of information that appear to be totally unavailable and absent from this discussion.

I agree. If conscripting someone who is 16 or 17 might help protect innocent people from slaughter at the hand of militias or goon squads, I'm not so sure the moral choice is that clear. I don't know if that is the case here, but I think more facts are required before condemning the waiver. Lord knows I'm not fan of the President, but I can't imagine he'd do this without at least a reasonable basis.

[Shryke]

Tormund, this one is for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907404.html

From the contemptible David Broder:

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

Yup, that's right. The economy is in the shitter. Let's start a war with Iran to fix it.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Tormund, this one is for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907404.html

From the contemptible David Broder:

Yup, that's right. The economy is in the shitter. Let's start a war with Iran to fix it.

Holy shit. Not only is this just plain evil, it is so grossly ignorant of the economic realities of war that I don't even know where to start.

I guess 350.00/bbl oil is also good for the economy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Holy shit. Not only is this just plain evil, it is so grossly ignorant of the economic realities of war that I don't even know where to start.

I guess 350.00/bbl oil is also good for the economy.

That article appears to be pure speculation on Broder's part, and is just asinine to boot. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how warfare has changed since WW2, for starters. And I don't know of anyone of significance who advocates getting in a ground war with Iran anyway.

[Horza]

I mean it's not like the US is currently in two wars at the moment...

[Shryke]

Holy shit. Not only is this just plain evil, it is so grossly ignorant of the economic realities of war that I don't even know where to start.

I guess 350.00/bbl oil is also good for the economy.

I knew you'd love it.

For those not familiar, David Broder is the origin of the term Broderism (the worship of bipartisanship for it's own sake and "cluck, cluck"ing at anyone who dares say one side or another might have terrible ideas) and is a fucking celebrated, pulitzer-prize winning member of the permanent Washington-based press.

Generally known outside The Village for being a complete idiot.

[TerraPrime]

It still sucks that we are providing aid to States that are conscripting children. That's hard to stomach.

Just so.

But as Raidne points out, we really don't know the full picture. It's possible that the alternative to not supplying aid to them is worse. Sometimes, the two choices you can make are both bad, because people are shitheads. :dunno:

[Shryke]

As we all know, the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign begins on Wednesday.

But, slightly unexpectedly, the GOP's #1 enemy is not Barack Obama:

Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44449.html#ixzz142qhbZf1

There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting.

Many of these establishment figures argue in not-for-attribution comments that Palin’s nomination would ensure President Barack Obama’s reelection, as the deficiencies that marked her 2008 debut as a vice presidential nominee — an intensely polarizing political style and often halting and superficial answers when pressed on policy — have shown little sign of abating in the past two years.

"There is a determined, focused establishment effort … to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her."

This sentiment was a nearly constant refrain in POLITICO interviews with top advisers to the candidates most frequently mentioned as running in 2012 and a diverse assortment of other top GOP officials.

Nearly all of these interviewees insisted on keeping their views on background, fearing the wrath of conservative grass-roots activists who are enthralled with the former Alaska governor and who have made plain that the establishment’s disdain for Palin and her devotees is mutually reciprocated.