Well said. I agree.

Purpleslog,

The most coherent explanation for Obama’s actions in Iran and Honduras is an attempt to remove the American brand from good actions, out of a fear of harm that brand may cause. So far events in Iran are continuing to go our way [1], and Honduras remains as it is, which is good for us.

Clinton/Gates have been so generally effective, I am hesitant to criticize Obama for a serious fault here.

[1] http://tehranbureau.com/grand-ayatollah-montazeris-fatwa/

Somebody isn’t getting invited to the Lind Family summer BBQ!

“The common theme (if this is true) in Iran and Honduras is baking away from our friends, out of fear of what an association might imply.”

I am not sure President Obama sees Honduras as a friend, at least not a firend to the America he may want.

Much more possible than direct military rule is a factionalized, fractured government with a Praetorian military holding an indirect (and generally unspoken) veto, and that’s still unlikely.

Another interesting perspective is from a retired Col. Daniel Smith, who in 2006 agreed with the “military is broken” thesis, but described it as essentially a moral failure. Citing General Zini, he then contends

“If Zini’s analysis is accurate, the “breaking” of the U.S. military is much more critical than the public realizes or policy-makers admit. Why? Because such self-interested careerism, once let loose in the one institution of a democracy that is the least democratic and the most potentially destructive organization of all, becomes the seedbed of plots, counterplots, cabals, and even coups. It is precisely to dampen unwarranted careerism without stifling initiative and the quest for professional excellence that potential officers are drilled in the doctrine of civilian control of the military and officers, when commissioned, swear their loyalty to the Constitution, not to an individual, an office, or one branch of the government to the exclusion of the other two.”

It’s easy, as outsider, to say “resign in protest.” It’s extremely hard to do. Losing the job not only means a hardship for your family, but to remove yourself from the process seems to remove any hope to make things better. But if your “loyalty to the Constitution” supersedes your loyalty to “an individual, an office, or one branch of the government” that may require, on occasion, telling the president to f*#k off.

Thanks for your comment.

I’m not sure the analogy fits, as in Honduras the President was removed by the Supreme Court, while Bill Lind has been calling for a naked military coup for some time now.

That’s the difference between constitutional government (Honduras) and the ravings of a bizarre Kaiserite hack good at getting invited to conferences (Lind).

The US has a strong tradition of military loyalty to civilian authority, and of staying out of politics. That can change. The military may find that it can’t remain apolitical–as various political factions try to co-opt it, and/or claim its support, and/or restructure the military for political gain. It is more likely to change when officers begin making regular distinctions between the Constitution, the government, and the particular people holding office. For an example of what this might look like, see this recent post by William Lind: “Is the Constitution Dead?” (http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2009/07/04/is-the-constitution-dead/) What happens when the defense of the Constitution (or the values it honors) is perceived to require the removal of some civilian authorities?

The common theme (if this is true) in Iran and Honduras is baking away from our friends, out of fear of what an association might imply.

[1] http://hiddenunities.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/thoughts-on-obama-honduras/

I suspect that if the other two branches of the American government were to act in this way against the (imperial) president, there would be Civil War. Whether the president kept his job would depend on the loyalties of the military.

I can’t think of an honest reason Obama has for opposing the removal in Honduras. There may be a legitimate, dishonest, reason, though…

[1] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/former-or-perhaps-still-current-honduran-abassador-to-us-speaks.html
[2] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/honduran-supreme-court-justice-speaks.html
[3] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/honduran-army-speaks.html
[4] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/article-239-of-the-honduran-constitution.html