Apparently the Feds are also on the bandwagon for the Pellston Airport!

If I may, I would like to provide an incredibly long response to a few of your observations. First, I fully acknowledged at the time that Sen. Obama’s remark could have been misinterpreted, hence the following transition in the post between his quoted remark and the thrust of the rest of the article: “But while pundits on all sides try to either interpret, defend, ridicule or divine the true nature of the senator’s remarks, I believe they actually expose a larger and more immediate question that American policy makers (and the American public) have yet to ask themselves…”

Which takes me to my second (and related) point. Senator Obama’s remark, regardless of misquote or misinterpretation, served as a vehicle for me to discuss the larger issue of when we, as a nation, decide to use force, as well as how the United States “frames” the issues of military intervention as it relates to genocide.

Third, as you correctly observe, the statement “It isn’t the criteria by which we make deployment decisions” is not the same thing as saying, “We shouldn’t use military force for humanitarian concerns.” However, I believe that Samantha Power’s analysis of the history of U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the prevention of genocide accurately demonstrates that the latter statement has become the de facto result of the logic of the former. Therefore, this post was also an attempt to push the boundaries of some of the preconceived notions associated with the use of military power. Some of those preconceived notions were mine, some were not – but that’s the beauty of blogging. I can write for myself as part of a larger journey of intellectual exploration and share it with those who care to follow.

Fourth, I cannot overstate how much I agree with your statement that “Obama understands that continuous occupation of the country will leave it unstable, and will cause bloodshed to continue indefinitely. It makes far more sense to withdraw the majority of the forces, leaving some diplomatic and peacekeeping elements in place to prevent a sudden civil implosion”. However, I would add that careful observation and vigilance is still required. My concerns are a reflection of our history. For example, in our haste to leave Vietnam (clearly the correct decision) we failed to address the atrocity in Cambodia. My hope is that we leave Iraq in a manner that does not repeat the same type of disaster – either in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East.

To this, I would like to conclude with the following: dissent does not equal disloyalty. By that I mean, just because I chose to caution Senator Obama (and all U.S. citizens) last year on pitfalls and obstacles associated with withdrawal as they relate to genocide, that does not mean that I am opposed to Senator Obama’s policies in general, nor the man himself. In other words, challenging someone’s ideas should never be (mis)construed as a repudiation of the man himself.

Humbly yours,
An ignorant pundit

Unfortunately, you’re the victim of bad coverage by the AP, just as so many people have been. “It isn’t the criteria by which we make deployment decisions” is NOT the same thing as saying, “We shouldn’t use military force for humanitarian concerns.”

The more complex approach to the question: Obama understands that continuous occupation of the country will leave it unstable, and will cause bloodshed to continue indefinitely. It makes far more sense to withdraw the majority of the forces, leaving some diplomatic and peacekeeping elements in place to prevent a sudden civil implosion. He can’t promise an indefinite occupation, simply because an ignorant pundit whispers the word “genocide” into the media’s ear.

# Jack Lessenbury’s commentary on MPR
Jack says, “Sovereign Deed’s entire premise is this: In the event of a disaster, some lives are worth more than others, so we are here to save the truly deserving: The rich. This is a company founded on the principle of billionaires first, poor women and children last. It wants people to think that our government is incompetent to save us, and that they need to buy protection. What I worry about is that if we encourage businesses like Sovereign Deed, their advertising slogan will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If well-off people buy their own services, that will give Congress every incentive to reduce disaster funding for the rest of us.”

Dont think its going to be that easy Bastardizing the state of Michigan whether you have Two Penny Jenny in the pocket or not. Why did the Ex-Speaker of the house quit and become point man for SovDeed? Looks like the tail is wagging the dog and one direction the dog runs he’s white, when he runs back to the owner its black. Whats up with your colors?

Why are things falling into place for SovDeed and anyone else goes thru hades trying to get a venture going in Michigan?

Whats their real interests? Michigans vast supply of fresh water? Just wanna bottle it up and export it? That is for the people who have lived there that is for them to profit off, not some soldier of fortunes. In my not so humble opinion.
DJosieWales

Great post.

I do not have anything of note to add other than please forward what you wrote to Barak Obama’s foreign policy team. Perhaps they could use it.

Cheers,

Matt