My Dick Cheney Ramblings

* Recently Dick Cheney has been interviewed by serious hosts, saying about the same thing each time--essentially that Barack Obama is responsible for declining American influence abroad, rising Muslim-Brotherhood power, Iran's progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon, inadequate economic recovery, perils of Israel, weakening of our military, deaths of our representatives in Benghazi, lying about it, exploding government debt--this from the architect and guiding hand of the administration that took the nation from unprecedented prosperity with budget surpluses to economic collapse with gratuitous budget deficits, that made no effort to thwart the 9/11 attacks despite warnings, that failed to destroy al-Qaida and much of the Taliban when the opportunity presented itself, that led us into a costly criminal war in Iraq.
* There isn't the slightest evidence that the Cheney administration would have led the world and guided our economy for the past 4 years better than did the Obama administration. The Republican counter-intuitive supply-side economic theory turned out to be wrong after all. Unfortunately this theory still dominates the economic conversation 4 years after the Cheney administration and 3 decades after Reagan embraced it. That's why Obama did not steer our monetary and fiscal policies further from the right and sooner.
* Cheney presents no convincing alternative to our light touch in the Arab-spring revolutions, though he implies that a more robust projection of our power could have influenced outcomes for the better (for whom?). In my opinion, we (Hillary Clinton) said too much in favor of the rebels, who may become our enemies, and too much against former leaders with whom we had previously been reconciled. Hosni Mubarak's government was more gentle and restrained than we would likely have been under comparable circumstances, and they shouldn't have been vilified or prosecuted as criminals. Some casualties are normal and expected in a mob uprising. We should have incentivized and facilitated the peaceful relinquishment of power and comfortable retirement of leaders after an honest election in those hot spots.
* It seems possible that mob uprisings may become the new norm in countries where expectations greatly exceed economic opportunities, perhaps soon most countries, now that social media and smart phones are ubiquitous. Some day we may discover a social/economic/governance system that better satisfies populations, but that will face many headwinds--deep flawed economic theories, tribalism, beneficiaries of status quo in a wealth/power vortex.

More Peace Please

Must international relations be as contentious as they have been throughout history? If not, then people of goodwill need to explore what revisions of human habits could bring about more international friendship and cooperation. National governments typically don't examine necessary and sufficient policies until all conventional ones have failed and crises have arrived. Are we there yet? It saddens me that US voters hold foreign-policy toughness and militancy in such high esteem.
What can be done about the tendency of heads of state to unify populaces or majorities by stirring up hatred or contempt for foreign peoples or minorities? Can such practices be exposed, ridiculed and curbed?
How should powerful nations like us regard prospective attacks by government-independent radicals? Would it suffice to treat them as criminal acts justifying intrusive international investigation and policing rather than war?
How should powerful nations like us regard suspected actions by unfriendly governments that appear to increase their capacity for mischief? Would containment, diplomacy and carrot/stick coercion suffice until an immediate existential danger is demonstrable?
Shouldn't "existential danger" be examined for definition? It may be that competition with large robust nations for resources is a bigger existential danger than overt attack by a small entity. Should foresighted adjustments of the American way of life be a policy - an internal existential shift?
We have spent >$200 billion (eventually >$400 billion) upsetting civil order in Iraq. What's the benefit? What else might we have done with that investment?
Ponder this. Why did we not use our influence to prevent expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory during recent decades? Weren't the consequences obvious?
Here's a plan that might have worked for the middle east about 4 decades ago. We, in cooperation with all wealthier peace-seeking countries, give every Palestinian adult a one-time gift of at least $10,000 of treasury bonds (of said countries and/or of Israel) or an index fund of stocks in international corporations doing business locally or local corporations (including those of Israel), the rule being that the securities cannot be traded or transfered but can be inherited equally among spouses and next-generation descendants. That would be an incentive to think well of the source nations or corporations or to treat them well regardless. It would also be an incentive to use birth control more responsibly. This plan might still be useful.
Before the Iraq war, we were hated by a minority of Muslims in several countries. As a result of that war, the US is held in contempt or hated by populations of most other countries, including our allies. It is reasonable to suspect that the war has made us less safe. My prewar plan for Iraq is described in Naive Iraq Plan.
In many countries we have a lot to answer for. We could start with apologies for meddling in various countries' politics, eg to Iran for interfering with their their election in the 1950s, to Argentina for assassinating their president, to Guatemala for overthrowing their leaders, etc.... We could lift embargoes and trade disadvantages based on political systems. We could continue by reconsidering those foreign-country characteristics of which we actively disapprove and reconsidering the methods by which we express disapproval. Do socialist governments deserve disapproval for that reason alone? I would propose female oppression and female genital mutilation as reasons for condemnation. I would propose gender equality and responsible family planning programs as reasons for praise and help.
The tools for expressing approval or condemnation need reconsideration. Trade policy, immigration policy and foreign aid might be used more effectively for this purpose. In general, it seems that less condemnation and a longer view would be in order. For example, Iran overall is neither the worst aspects of Iran today nor the worst moments of Iran's history; just as the US is neither the worst aspects of the US today nor the worst periods of US history.