Hasta La Gadget!

With President Barack Obama further tarnishing his Nobel Peace Prize by starting yet another Middle Eastern war, exuberant Neoconservatives claim their moment has arrived. And that was before Chuck Hagel, long the Neocon bête noire, was tossed underfoot. In fact, their moment has arrived, though not in the way they believe. The spectacle of Washington using the military in Iraq to destroy equipment provided by Washington in its last Iraq war illustrates the absurdity of the Neocons’ claim that war-mongering and nation-building serve America’s interests.

In 2001 President George W. Bush initiated what was supposed to be The Neocon Moment, projecting a swaggering global presence in which the U.S. would bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise intervene whenever and for whatever reason it chose. Autocrats would flee, candies would be tossed, enemies would be defeated, flowers would bloom, allies would comply, cakewalks would be held, democrats would flourish, and the lion would lie down with the lamb.

Alas, administration policy wrecked Iraq. Although President Bush never repudiated what he’d done, he appeared to lose his taste for war. Vice President Dick Cheney became a forlorn figure, pining for the old Bush. Washington still attempted to micro-manage the globe, but adopted a gentler tone and refrained from invading more countries.

Candidate Obama ran against the Bush presidency, but little changed U.S. foreign policy. President Obama followed his predecessor’s exit plan from Iraq, pursued the Bush program in Afghanistan with additional troops, promised even greater support to populous and prosperous Asian and European allies, launched deadly drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, increased military spending throughout his first term, promoted democracy in the Arab world (with similar results), and started two new wars. Rather like the chastened Bush, President Obama used a friendlier tone and seemed reluctant even when he was starting a war. But no one could mistake the latter as a peacenik libertarian.

Except, apparently, for the Neocons. Horrified by the isolationist backwater they believed America became under Obama, they now proclaim The Neocon Moment. Explained Matthew Continetti, “monsters [have been] brought forth by American retreat,” and “the threat of those monsters requires unilateral deadly force wherever necessary to kill our enemies and deter our foes.”

Retreat?

Admittedly, Obama could have done more from a Neoconservative standpoint. Bombing raids over Tehran and Damascus would have gladdened the hearts of ivory tower generalissimos everywhere. Deploying troops against the Russians in Ukraine would have been more fun than a collegiate game of Risk. Sending the 7th Fleet to safeguard Japan’s claim to the Senkakus would have created an exciting confrontation with China. Threatening Beijing over Hong Kong’s protests would have satisfied with sanctimonious chest-thumping.

Yet even Bush might not have obliged in these cases. He didn’t choose war with Iran, refused to challenge Moscow in its conflict with Georgia, and adopted a cooperative attitude toward Beijing. His end-of-term caution looked a lot like Obama’s approach today.

As well it should. More than a decade of foreign policy defined as “what Washington says goes” has been a bust. It would have been disastrous for a lesser nation. The good news for America is that when superpowers screw up, even badly, the greatest costs fall upon others. The bad news is that might change if the U.S. ever triggers a real war with a real adversary, one with nuclear weapons.

In fact, “The Neocon Moment” is distinguished by its failure. As evidence of the need for a return to swaggering interventionism Continetti offers a parade of horrors either created by Washington or well beyond its control. While we all know what John McCain & Co. would do in response to Continetti’s examples–bomb someone, anyone!–doing so would solve nothing.

There’s the Islamic State, which exists only because of the misguided Bush invasion of Iraq. Like modern liberals at home, neoconservatives use the ill consequences of their earlier wars to justify new wars. This one, argue Neoconservatives, justifies another round for ground troops.

There’s also Ukraine, a testament to what happens when one encourages one’s allies to be helpless dependents while facing an adversary with a far greater interest in the outcome of any confrontation. There are al-Qaeda affiliates in several countries, which arose in response to promiscuous U.S. meddling abroad and persisted in the midst of multiple wars even while under attack by Special Forces, drones, and more.

There’s Hamas, now contained by Israel, which won an election demanded by the Bush administration. There’s Iran, in which Islamists overthrew a U.S.-supported dictator who took power in a U.S.-supported coup. There’s the Taliban, which survived more than a dozen years of Washington’s efforts at nation-building. There’s China, in which the Communist Party demonstrated its determination to preserve power during the first Bush administration.

Neocons have no answer to any of these. They imagine a world of immaculate intervention, in which foreigners welcome being killed and never strike back. Washington should just bomb, invade, and occupy, never mind the enemies created or hostilities engendered. If there is blowback, the U.S. should double down and bomb, invade, and occupy some more.

In fact, terrorism is a common political tool, long used by the weak against the strong. Two Russian Czars and an Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke were felled in terrorist assaults. India, Sri Lanka, Israel, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and other states all suffered from terrorism. America was targeted for its actions, not its freedoms. Understanding consequences is to explain, not justify. The simple fact is the more Washington attempts to micro-manage the globe, the more likely it is to be attacked.

Neocons also imagine a world in which America automatically deters and only America deters. If the U.S. president raises his voice foreign autocrats will cringe. If he indicates his willingness to use military force Russia will retreat from Georgia and Ukraine. If his officials make a few appropriate threats China will abandon its claims to Taiwan and Pacific territories, and perhaps even Hong Kong. If American leaders offer the right incantations Iran and North Korea will abandon their nuke programs. No one would dare challenge Washington, at least it is exercises “leadership.”

In fact, countries with the most at stake will risk and spend more than their adversaries, as the U.S. demonstrated during the Cold War in Latin America. Russia and China are no different. Moreover, they are no less adept at playing the game of deterrence. Does the U.S. have anything at stake in Ukraine and the Senkakus which warrants the risk of war? Is Washington prepared to spend what is necessary to overcome Russian and Chinese deterrent capabilities? The answer is no in both cases.

Neocons imagine America is strongest when it keeps its allies dependent and weak. Of course, Washington wants them all to do more militarily, but only under its direction. Allies are not to speak unless spoken to, but always should feel reassured that America will do whatever is necessary to protect them. Thus, the U.S. must dominate whenever it is involved, which is always.

Yet governments, no less than individuals, respond to incentives. So long as Washington promises to defend allied states, irrespective of how prosperous or populous (for instance, South Korea enjoys a 40-1 economic and 2-1 population edge over North Korea), it discourages them from doing more on their own behalf. Indeed, even during the Cold War America’s Asian and European dependents routinely underinvested in defense and subsidized their adversaries while being shielded by the U.S. military. It is even worse today. Why should America be expected to risk Los Angeles to protect Seoul or Tokyo, Tallinn or Warsaw?

One doesn’t have to look far to see the wreckage left by today’s interventionist consensus, generally advanced by Neocons, nationalist hawks, and liberal interventionists. Washington has attempted to fix the Middle East and Central Asia for decades. The result? War, instability, autocracy, brutality, collapse. Which Neocon triumph is falling apart more spectacularly–Iraq, Libya, or Yemen? As the administration was upping its support for “moderate” Syrian rebels, an internal CIA study revealed that prior efforts to arm insurgents “had a minimal impact on the long-term outcome of a conflict.” The most successful program, in Afghanistan, resulted in bloody terrorist blowback against America on 9/11. U.S. officials consistently have demonstrated the reverse Midas touch, leaving Washington widely despised and American forces constantly at war responding to the unintended consequences of the previous military intervention.

The Balkans has turned out little better, with nationalist divisions still evident two decades after Washington imposed an artificial political settlement. Europe represents the globe’s greatest aggregation of economic power, but is not inclined to defend itself, preferring instead to rely on the U.S. while carping when Washington acts without the continent’s approval. European countries, including Germany, so long defended by American troops, refuse to place their own forces along Eastern Europe’s border with Russia. The Europeans were unwilling to act forcefully in Ukraine, Georgia, or even the Balkans. Determined for war in Libya, the same countries lacked enough missiles to take on Moammar Qaddafy’s military.

Every year the Vietnam War looks ever more foolish, as Hanoi moves toward America out of fear of China. Only now is Japan finally emerging from hiding behind the U.S.-imposed “peace constitution” to consider a more active military role. South Korea continues to subsidize the North even as American troops guarantee the former’s security. The Philippines hopes Washington will make up for Manila’s lack of a serious military in any confrontation with Beijing. With China’s future at stake, Washington is pushing that nation and Russia together.

There are many reasons to be skeptical of “The Libertarian Moment” advanced by some. Not because libertarian policies have failed. Few have been tried domestically. None are evident in America’s international relations. In fact, politicians of all partisan stripes naturally resist libertarian thinking. Almost all government officials like to use power. Especially overseas.

The world today is an unruly mess. But Neocons are more responsible than anyone else for America being stuck in the chaos. Embarrassed at the havoc they have wreaked, they blame President Obama for every problem big and small. However, he is a worthy successor to the Neocon-friendly Bush. If there’s anyone who can’t be blamed for the status quo, it is libertarians.

We are living in The Neocon Moment, a testament to the foolishness and arrogance of those who believe themselves to be engineers of peoples, societies, and nations. Yet Washington officials have yet to tire of America’s permanent state of war. Only when the American people insist that politicians make peace, not war, will The Libertarian Moment finally arrive.

This article was first posted at Forbes online.

The world of professional gaming is in a bit of an upheaval, with multiple professional Counter-Strike players finding themselves banned after being discovered cheating. The spat is said to have started when the E-Sports Entertainment Association’s tools banned Simon “smn” Beck for cheating. This caught the attention of Valve, which then received details from the ESEA and used that to … Continue reading

Doh! We missed Super Smash Bros. for Wii U in last week’s listings, but we hope you and your family have time to play a round during any holiday get-togethers this week. Of course, we’ll be getting ready for the fall finale of The Walking Dead…

Mike was a mensch. He was the wittiest man I ever broke bread with, and he was a quiet philanthropist who saved lives while he was influencing “the American century.” He improved the quality of life of countless men and women, many of whom died, but many of whom, gratefully, live on.

1991 was a dark time. The gay community, the arts community, was decimated. We needed comfort, we needed hope, and we needed a beautiful space to come together and celebrate life as we struggled to maintain it.

The brilliant tributes to Mike that have flooded the media over the last few days capture the extraordinary gifts his talents brought to film, theater, television, comedy and the American consciousness as it has evolved over the last 60 years. What hasn’t been said is that Mike not only changed lives; he saved them. Back then, in 1991, when Cynthia “Cy” O’Neal told Mike about her idea for a pragmatic spiritual crisis center for people affected by AIDS, Mike immediately said, “I’ve been looking for something to do, and this is it.” Cy’s vision needed Mike’s magic touch — his ability to pick up the phone and call just about anybody. Together they created Friends in Deed: The Crisis Center for Life-Threatening Illness.

Mike was the founding chairman. For 13 years he headed up an eclectic board of creative and powerful people who wanted to serve with Mike because anything done with Mike was as much fun as it was work. Board meetings could be tough, but they were also illuminated by his wit and contagious good will. We had a blast creating brilliant fundraisers: Picture Mike and Elaine May performing some of their classic routines with Simon & Garfunkel (reunited for the first time in over a decade) as their opening act in an intimate Broadway theater; Whoopi Goldberg recreating the one-woman show that Mike had directed for her (after typically recognizing an unusual talent); Mike and Steve Martin performing in a loft for a fortunate few one night; and so many other brilliant evenings that only Mike could have made happen — and he did, for Friends in Deed, for the clients. Mike was not only a force when it came to fundraising; he was a part of the community. Mike attended many a Tuesday-night Big Group. I can picture Mike’s stunning wife, Diane Sawyer, singing Christmas carols by the piano at the annual holiday parties that were lavishly catered with food that they had quietly sent ahead. Clients were not “other”; they were friends.

A former client wrote to me last week, “I probably wouldn’t be where I am today if it weren’t for Mike Nichols and Cy O’Neal…and everyone who has made Friends In Deed what it has become….”

The work continues. Mike became Chairman Emeritus, and Hamilton South and I succeeded him as Chairman (it took two of us to fill his shoes), and today Andy Cohen heads up a vibrant board that supports Cy and the wonderful staff and volunteers. Mike’s deed still provides comfort and safety.

Friends in Deed serves men and women dealing with any life-threatening physical illness, grief and bereavement, and caregiving at its center in Soho, as well as in groups in Harlem and Westchester County, New York. For more information, visit friendsindeed.org.

All of the Benghazi conspiracy theories have now been completely debunked. Again. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence just publicly released its report, which systematically knocks down pretty much every paranoid theory over the tragedy which happened in Benghazi, Libya and what happened immediately afterwards. For those of you who are counting, this is the seventh such report that has come to exactly the same conclusions. The House committee was led by a Republican, but the report itself was a bipartisan effort.

That we have had seven thorough investigations of this tragedy is apparently not enough for some folks, since an eighth investigation was recently launched by House Republicans. They refuse to accept the conclusions of these prior investigations — all seven of them — that there simply was no nefarious plot from the White House to “spin” the tragedy for political gain. In fact, the mere existence of seven investigations (with the eighth already underway) should indicate to the objective observer that only one party is “playing politics” with the Benghazi tragedy — and it is not President Obama’s party who is doing so.

The new House report repeatedly asserts that it should be seen as the “definitive” report on Benghazi. Here is the concluding paragraph, for example:

This report is the result of nearly two years of intensive investigation. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, notes, and emails; held 20 Committee events and hearings; and conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials and eyewitnesses to the attacks, including eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. Members and Staff spent thousands of hours intensively looking at every aspect of the tragedy. The report is therefore meant to serve as the definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans. Despite the highly sensitive nature of these activities, the report has endeavored to make the facts and conclusions within this report widely and publicly available so that the American public can separate actual fact from rumor and unsupported innuendo. Only with a full accounting of the facts can we ensure that tragedies like this one never happen again.

The report contains 17 “findings,” each of which might be summarized as: “That thing you heard about on Fox News? It didn’t actually happen, because we fully investigated and debunked that theory.” Think this is cynically overstating the case? Here is “Finding #16” in full, addressing a specific instance of all that “rumor and unsupported innuendo” (emphasis in original):

Finding #16: There is no evidence that the CIA conducted any unusual polygraph exams related to Benghazi.

CIA witnesses consistently testified that they had not undergone a polygraph examination following the Benghazi attacks. CIA confirmed that it had not conducted a polygraph examination of any officer following their assignments in Benghazi.

That’s just a sample. The biggest conspiracy theories that were debunked (again) by this report: the White House did not exert any political influence over the talking points Susan Rice used in her Sunday interviews; the C.I.A. made the “substantive changes” to the talking points, not anyone in the White House; there was no “stand down” order given at any time during the attacks; there was no air support available; and there was no “coverup” after the fact. In other words, all those incredible theories the right wing has been pushing ever since are simply not true. And this, mind you, is from a Republican-led House committee.

This report was released just before Congress left for one of their extended holiday vacations, right when President Obama was making news on immigration policy. The timing of the release pretty much guaranteed that few in the media would notice it or adequately report on it. For all the thousands of breathless Benghazi news stories we’ve been subjected to over the past two years, there were few reporters interested in standing up before a camera to now say: “All that stuff we hyped previously was just flat-out wrong, folks. Sorry about that.”

Congress has spent untold millions of dollars of taxpayer money to reach the same conclusions the first six definitive reports on the tragedy reached. The House of Representatives continues to spend millions on an eighth investigation, because Republicans cannot accept reality. The questions have all been asked, repeatedly. They have all been answered, each and every time. But the answers aren’t what the Republicans want to hear (again), so they are charging into yet another investigation. They cannot believe that anything involving the nexus of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Islamic terrorists, and Susan Rice could not have some nefarious Democratic plot buried deep within it. They keep searching for smoke to prove the fire in their imagination, and they will likely keep this fervid search up right through Hillary Clinton’s expected run for the presidency. The process of investigation has taken on a life of its own, out of all proportion to the fact that nothing — that’s not one single thing, folks — has been uncovered so far which would prove the looniest of the Republicans’ theories. There is no smoke to be seen, but that’s not going to stop them from looking, once again.

The Benghazi attacks were a tragedy. Four brave Americans died, including a United States ambassador. In saner and more normal times, any investigation into this tragedy would focus almost completely on what went wrong with the security, and how that could be improved in the future so such an attack never happens again. This has been almost completely lost in the partisan witchhunt.

This is the seventh report to come to the same conclusion: all the conspiracy theories are just plain wrong. The eighth investigation is now underway. This all shows, with crystal clarity, that there indeed has been manipulation of this tragedy for crass partisan purposes. The public has indeed been misled, often by governmental officials who should really know better. But this misleading didn’t come from the White House, or from the Democrats. Only one political party has shamelessly exploited this tragedy — over and over again — in nothing more than an attempt to score cheap political points.

But I guess, somehow, that’s not newsworthy these days. I’m still waiting to see a mainstream media headline which finally tells the public the unvarnished truth: “Republican Benghazi Conspiracy Theories All Debunked — Again.” Or maybe just: “Wrong All Along.”

[Note: The full declassified House committee report is available in PDF format on the committee’s website. I encourage everyone interested in Benghazi to read it in full (it is only 36 pages long). Because some people don’t like dealing with PDF files, I have reproduced below the entire two-page “Executive Summary” which prefaces the rest of the report. This overview shows the breadth of the investigation, and how every single conspiracy theory they looked at proved to be completely and utterly wrong.]

Executive Summary

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI” or “the Committee”) conducted a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation into the tragic attacks against two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. The nearly two-year investigation focused on the activities of the Intelligence Community (“IC”) before, during, and after the attacks. During the course of thousands of hours of detailed investigation, HPSCI reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, notes, and emails; held 20 Committee events and hearings; and conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials and eyewitnesses to the attacks, including eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night.

This report details the findings and conclusions of HPSCI’s investigation. In summary, the Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks. Their actions saved lives. Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support. The Committee, however, received evidence that the State Department security personnel, resources, and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required CIA assistance.

Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al-Qa’ida, participated in the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, although the Committee finds that the intelligence was and remains conflicting about the identities, affiliations, and motivations of the attackers.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the [Obama] Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA’s initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for — and which were used for Ambassador Rice’s public appearances — was flawed. HPSCI asked for the talking points solely to aid [Committee] Members’ ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time, and mistakes were made in the process of how those talking points were developed.

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.

This report, and the nearly two years of intensive investigation it reflects, is meant to serve as the definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during, and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans. Despite the highly sensitive nature of these activities, the report has endeavored to make the facts and conclusions within this report widely and publicly available so that the American public can separate the actual facts from the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations. Only with a full accounting of the facts can we ensure that tragedies like the one that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty never happen again.

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post