Return of the Hambaker Humbugs

They’re baaack, Mr. Bones: better run for the hills!

The bipartisan community of Responsible Nonwithdrawal artists have translated their politics and knavish tricks into an inferior grade of PowerPoint® for the convenience of Barák Husáyn XLIV (prolonged be His shadow!):

[A] President Obama should consider: [A1] Meeting in his first months in office with top Iraqi leaders to underline his support for the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and his commitment to supporting Iraqi institutions, so long as they meet reasonable expectations. [A2] Ensuring that high-level Iraq-related positions in the U.S. government remain filled without gaps. [A3] Making it clear that he is prepared to follow through on the 12-month withdrawal commitment in the SOFA if the July 2009 popular referendum on the SOFA fails.

To think of Judge Baker and Congresscritter Hamilton and all the lesser Hambaker bozos of the world leaves me feeling no holiday cheer worth mentioning. Nevertheless, as thee can see, Mr. Bones, from the alphanumerical apparatus that I have added to make them look a bit more pentagonny than they really are, they at least manage not to put themselves absolutely first: the Great Job Quest appears as only the second item.

The Great Job Quest being of scant interest to anybody musch beyond the circles of mothers-in-law and perp-school roommates, let us turn at once to [A1], and worry about exactly what the Heroes of Terror mean when they speak of their neocolonial clients "meeting reasonable expectations." Hambaker-class expectations of reasonable behaviour, naturally, but what are those?

A general disquisition on the Hambaker-CFR-Brookings-USIP criteria of rationality would be useful to have, but I cannot (reasonably) be expected to write one up from scratch ad hoc, now, can I? When they are feeling especially self-narcissistic -- which is to say, most of the time -- the Hambaker gentry pride themselves on their ‘realism’ and then stand there waiting for the applause of lesser beings to end. Could that notorious Realism of theirs be the same as their reasonableness? It will do no harm for us to assume so, I think: we can always start over if we hid a contradictio in adjecto, after all.

But I notice that I am being intellectually sloppy, Mr. Bones. Sorry. Before we discuss the materia of [A1], we ought to consider it formaliter, just as The Philosopher advised us. There appear to be two major formal considerations, one about the Form of the SOFA and the other about the Form of Commitment. So, then,

(A1a) Since the SOFA is very pointedly and proclaimedly not in the Form of a treaty, it must, I suppose, be more or less in the Form of an executive agreement, though presumably in a post-Cheneyite Form thereof, some Form which is inconsistent with the Fedguv Constitution as interpreted before the neocomrade invasionites turned up. Hence BHO can just cancel it if he likes, which would be an excellent idea, and not merely because a casual repudiation would shock the casablanca out of the Hambaker gentry. The International Zone neorégime might be taken aback a little also, though I do not see that Hannibal II of Da‘wa, or his quasiministers, or the I. Z. quasideputies, or anybody else at New Baghdád that comes to mind, has any standing to object to Uncle Sam complying with United States law for a change. I understand that Mr. Madison’s rules of procedure can cause foreigners a certain amount of inconvenience from time to time, yet if we are willing to put up with them when they take the trouble to act correctly and constitutionally, we may reasonably (?) expect them to return the favor.

Hambakerite Realismus will no doubt think I just said something especially fatuous, for I have solemnly pretended that the International Zone neorégime is exactly on a par with the world's One Indispensable Nation and Sole Remainin’ Hyperpower -- which is absurd. Hannibal II is a mere client and must do as his patrons direct, nicht wahr? Everybody understands what is really goin’ on. Even thee and I understand the ‘real’ correlation of farces, actually. We cannot, however, abandon our minds to Hambakerite Realismus without abandoning Aristotle as well, and that is a higher price than I care to pay for the dubious bipartisan mess of pottage in question. If one is not to be allowed to think of war and diplomacy and aggression and occupation as questions of Form primarily, there is not much to think about them materially except how best to grab what one happens to want to grab. Yuck. [1]

Sir? . . . No, I certainly do not think the Responsible Nonwithdrawal gentry want BHO "to underline his support for the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)" in an exaggerated spirit of pacta sunt servanda, binding himself to save even bad pacts entered into by a bad Boy and Dynasty and Party and Ideology. You are just being silly, Mr. Bones. The gentry want BHO to support the Crawfordite SOFA because they themselves like it. They like it so well that they do not want to give the President-Elect any radical ideas about possible repudiation. I do not mean that they are against Rulalaw or against Mr. Madison and the Gang of ’87 "on principle," for the great point about Hambakerite gentry is that their Realismus prevents them from ever doing anything "on principle." Far exalted are they above such vulgar behaviour!

I see you've been reading ahead, sir. Well, it's no again -- I do not agree that slogans like "Restore U.S. credibility, prestige and capacity to act worldwide" have anything significant to do with "on principle" when deployed by Hambakerites. I daresay thee might dress up "U. S. credibility" verbally so as to make it look a bit like a genuine brand-name Principle® such as pacta sunt servanda, but thee is just wasting thee's time if thee expect to pull the wool over my eyes that easily. Slogans of that sort belong in Executive Summaries such as the one which thee pulled it out of, sir.

It is true that the gentry do seem to be slightly worried at [A3] that BHO might insist on hanging around in the former al-‘Iráq even after a plebescite begs him to go away. But thee must consider that that scenario, contingent in any event, is more than a whole Friedman unit off at the moment. The gentry will have plenty of time to change their minds about it when the time comes, and the odds are excellent that that is exactly what they will do. By a happy coincidence, this illustrates the unprincipled nature of "U. S. credibility": the Hambakerites can claim in December 2008 that poor Sam’s credibility will be diminished if we do not keep unconstitutional AEI-GOP-USIP-WSJ-EiB (&c.) promises to the I. Z. neorégime, but a year from now they will have changed their lyrics slightly and be singing in chorus that a premature and irresponsible withdrawal from ex-‘Iráq would do even worse damage to credibility. [2] There is not really any ‘there’ there at Credibility Barracks, sir. Kindly consider theeself so caveated.

In context, [A3] looks to me like a quid pro quo offered by paleface Realismus to the native and local I. Z. pols, whose political I.Q. the Hambakerites underestimate. They will promise to comply with a plebescite that is not going to happen and would not come out against them if it did, and in return, Hannibal II promises to do nothing that might be considered ‘unreasonable’ at Hambaker House. The gentry have not the slightest intention of spelling out their notions of rationality for the benefit of poor M. al-Málikí, however, since it will be much more satisfactory if he must ask permission before doing pretty well anything of the smallest significance to bipartisan invasionism. That makes for a lousy bargain as viewed from the ex-‘Iráqí side, but what with the celebrated Realismus and all, how could the bargain be very different? And of course it is not at all that the Hambakerites aspire to dictate every single little detail of administration and tactics to their hapless client: all they want is a veto, really. Only a veto -- but it must be their veto, for who can trust any native or local to decide what does or does not impair "U.S. credibility, prestige and capacity to act worldwide"?

(...)

No for a third time. Hambakerism is a strictly subphilosophical affair, sir, the gentry cannot possibly possess any formal or axiomatic definition of ‘unreasonable’ as "imparing the credibility or prestige or capacity of the Heimatland Gottes." They simply do not think like that, sir. Hambakerites are simply incapable of offering any general account of what it would be ‘unreasonable’ for Hannibal II of Da‘wa to do or omit. They are not just pretending that they cannot do that trick, they genuinely can't. But like Mr. Justice Whowuzzit with ‘obscenity,’ they will be able to tell you about any particular violation in thirty seconds or less from the moment they learn of it. Ergo the I. Z. collaborationist pols must always ask in advance to save unnecessary embarrassment all around. Though obviously subphilosophical, this nifty racket "makes sense" in a rough-and-ready way, does it not?


(A1b) Now as to the Form of Commitment, there is (A1b-1), the commitment of B. Husáyn Obáma, to be considered, but also (A1b-2), the commitment of the I. Z. collaborationists. Ideally this would involve two instantiations of one and the same Form, but in light of the celebrated Realismus at Hambaker House, we are not likely to see that. Deals between silly geese and virile ganders must involve a certain degree of asymmetry, commitmentwise: Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi..

And strictly de facto, the I. Z. pols need Sam lots more than Sam needs them. Everybody knows that. To elaborately pretend not to know it by expatiating on the Four Pillars of Piffle about the former al-‘Iráq -- her Sovereignty and Independence and Constitutionalism and Democracy -- can avail nothing against the celebrated Realismus. Either get serious or just leave the Hambakerite invasionites alone, wouldja please?


___
[1] I daresay there exists a Form of Opportunism, though, like that Form of Mud or Filth that Plato was forced at one point to worry about a little. If we were to start talking about that, Mr. Bones, would not the Hambakerite gentry fail to notice that we are talking about them at all?

'And would you be undecided also about ideas of which the mention will, perhaps, appear laughable: of hair, mud, filth, and other things which are base and vile?' 'No, Parmenides; visible things like these are, as I believe, only what they appear to be: though I am sometimes disposed to imagine that there is nothing without an idea; but I repress any such notion, from a fear of falling into an abyss of nonsense.' 'You are young, Socrates, and therefore naturally regard the opinions of men; the time will come when philosophy will have a firmer hold of you, and you will not despise even the meanest things. But tell me, is your meaning that things become like by partaking of likeness, great by partaking of greatness, just and beautiful by partaking of justice and beauty, and so of other ideas?'

Parmenides


[2] The famous Realismus takes for granted, I expect, that the Hannibal of Da‘wa will make sure that the wrong side does not win such a plebescite, should it even happen at all. Hardly any neorégime in history since that of General N. Buonoparte first discovered the plebescite shtyk has failed to get across that pons asinorum.