Brutal Dictators—Brutal Mathematics

Displaying

  Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives. It’s not their money, of course they’ll waste it.

     Wherein we see that brutal dictators are sometimes better than their absence.

Trump praises former dictator Saddam Hussein: ‘He killed terrorists. He did that so good’
Related Content
The Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. — Donald Trump, who frequently criticizes U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is praising Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s ruthlessness.

"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? … But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good," Trump told supporters at a campaign rally Tuesday night in Raleigh, North Carolina. "They didn’t read ’em the rights, they didn’t talk. They were a terrorist, it was over."

Trump has previously said the world would be "100 per cent better" if dictators like Saddam and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.

<insert>

     Aside from the bad grammar, Trump is correct. The first object lesson was the breakup of Yugoslavia after the death of another brutal dictator, Tito. Many fewer died under Tito than in the chaos which followed. The same can be said of Hussein and Gadafi, whose deaths led to untrammelled violence and Daesh, aka ISIS.

Saddam in fact has no record of killing terrorists and was not a force against al-Qaida. Then-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003 that Saddam was offering financial rewards of up to $25,000 to families of suicide bombers. Although the U.S. supported Saddam against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was listed by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. Saddam suppressed dissent in his country and used poison gas against 5,000 Iraqi Kurdish men, women and children.

Jake Sullivan, a Clinton senior policy adviser, said Trump’s "praise for brutal strongmen seemingly knows no bounds."

Sullivan said such comments "demonstrate how dangerous he would be as commander-in-chief and how unworthy he is of the office he seeks."

Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements have proved controversial, even within the Republican Party that is poised to nominate him for president in a few weeks. He has said the United States is too fully engaged around the world and has questioned the role of NATO and said the United States has been taken advantage of by nations benefiting from its security co-operation and troop presence. Some critics within the GOP have said his policies suggest an isolationist stance in an increasingly dangerous world.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, partners among Republican congressional critics of Obama administration foreign policy, carried out a fact-check on Trump’s national security statements earlier this year at a Capitol Hill hearing.

On April 19, when the Army general selected to lead U.S. forces in South Korea testified before the committee, McCain seized the opportunity to undermine Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. withdraw its forces from the South because Seoul isn’t paying enough to cover the cost of the American military presence.

"Isn’t it the fact that it costs us less to have troops stationed in Korea than in the United States, given the contribution the Republic of Korea makes?" McCain asked Gen. Vincent Brooks.

Yes, Brooks said, telling McCain the South Koreans pay half, or $808 million annually, of the U.S. presence there.

Two days later, Trump’s claim that NATO is irrelevant and ill-suited to fight terrorism came under the microscope. As president, Trump has said he would force member nations to increase their contributions, even if that risked breaking up the 28-country alliance.

In early March, more than 70 conservative national experts, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, wrote in an open letter that they have disagreed with one another on a variety of issues but are united in their opposition to a Trump presidency. Chertoff served in President George W. Bush’s administration.

<end>

    We see that brutal dictators are sometimes not the worst alternative. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Every solution has its own set of problems. In a related vein, how’s that nation-building in Haiti coming along?  Hasn’t happened there or in Iraq or Libya. Not so easy, bringing democracy to those who have no concept of individual rights.

Government Job or Respect–Which’ll It Be?
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson, Ph.D.
Author, “Power Teaching: How to Find Someone to Teach Your Child when the Education System has Failed.
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: