What can we do to boost ethical behavior in our society?

 When I started reading the  The Neuroscience of Morality/www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-brain-science-reveals-about-ethical-decline-and-moral-growth/, it seemed obvious and not very helpful.  However, the quotes below support actions described further below.  I’d be interested in whether you agree that we need to instill ethics more and your thoughts as to how we can do so.

Quotes

At the end of page 3: “It's easier for people to act morally when they embrace bottom-line values that they'll uphold no matter what. Gonell's grandfather would remind him, "Never tell lies" - a principle that stayed with him.”

From page 8, I picked the following quotes:

·        “At an institutional level, one way to ward off downward moral slides might be to increase the penalties tied to each stage of moral descent-say, by announcing zero-tolerance antifraud company policies-and to underscore the rewards of holding the moral line. Leaders of organizations can, for instance, swiftly address transgressions and help employees get comfortable with admitting mistakes. In a Maastricht University study, participants whose bosses showed ethical leadership engaged in fewer corrupt acts such as offering bribes. Generally speaking, fraud and cover-ups seem less enticing in ethical workplace cultures, and telling the truth feels like an obligation, not an act of career sabotage.”

·        “Once people decide to act with integrity, their resolve is often socially contagious.”

·        “Psychologists such as Zeno Franco of the Medical College of Wisconsin suggest cultivating what he calls the "heroic imagination": our individual capacity to consider ahead of time what we'll do in situations that call for moral courage, what values we will stand behind even under extreme pressure. In this kind of "What would I do?" scenario, the brain's frontal cortex helps people anticipate how they will feel when they make certain moral choices, and those predicted feelings can influence their decisions in the long run.

Actions

1. The above explain why the “broken windows” law enforcement policy is successful.  It was formulated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in a 1982 Atlantic article [1] and implemented by Police Chief William Bratton when Rudy Giuliani* was mayor of New York, with outstanding results.
2. Parents and other role models should demonstrate and emphasize character.  That includes explaining our actions and considerations to our chidren.
3. We should teach about heroes.  We should teach DEI by showing heroes of various backgrounds showing the same moral fiber and goals, without categorizing them.  We should allow our sameness to show through naturally and demonstrate that people with diverse ethnicities, experiences and ways of looking at situations help us by providing more food and music diversity as well as better ways to solve problems.
4. Schools and streets should be named after individuals, and it should be made easy to learn why those people are being honored.  For example, QR codes could be posted on street signposts.
5. It is beneficial to protect religious rights, partly because religion instills character.  (I think the current Supreme Court has done an excellent job in this regard.)
6. More discussion or research seems appropriate as regards dealing with the frailties of our heroes.
1. I favor acknowledging that our Founding Fathers included slaveowners and did not accord rights to women despite their “all men are created equal” beliefs. 
2. However, emphasizing these failings might make it easier for people to later justify their unethical behavior because “everyone does something unethical”.
3. Perhaps we should focus on those historic failures as a societal failure rather than focusing on the individuals.  The bigger issue is how to avoid such travesties, rather than to assign blame.
4. We should understand the circumstances that existed at the time.  For example, in Robert E. Lee’s time, few people had traveled outside their home state.  Loyalty to their state exceeded loyalty to the federal government.  (Robert E. Lee had a great amount of integrity and only reluctantly decided to serve the South.)  Understanding then-current social thoughts does not excuse unethical behavior but does explain factors that contributed to it. 
5. We should clearly applaud those people who rejected improper societal norms, whether or not their efforts to overturn improper behavior were successful.
7. We should consider criticism we receive.  Why should other societies respect us when our vocabulary includes terms such as “plausible deniability”?
8. We should hold our institutions accountable.  We, as voters and citizens, don’t do this well.

*It should go without saying that supporting Rudy Giuliani's (some of) actions as mayor does not mean I support things he did later in his life.

Redistricting to encourage purple districts

 

A friend of mine suggested using AI to draw political districts with the following parameters:

1. Population difference between districts, largest to smallest, <5%
2. Contiguous districts
3. Districts should respect political boundaries, cities, counties.
4. Districts should respect physical boundaries, rivers, etc.
5. Districts should be as compact as possible.
6. Re-districting be limited to 10 year intervals.

I suggested a 7^th parameter: “Favor creating districts in which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have more than 55% of the registered voters.”

Why might we want to do that?  Before listing the reasons, I’d like to stress that the districts would still adhere to the other rules.  This might simply stretch a district to the [east] instead of to the [north].

1. According to 2026 analysis from FairVote and the Cook Political Report, 81% to 85% of our 435 U.S. House districts are considered "safe" for one party.  This has developed due to one-party gerrymanders, to the parties agreeing to create safe districts for each other, and to housing patterns.
2. In safe districts, the election is determined in the primary.  Extremists are more likely than moderates to vote in primaries.  When primary voters can be confident that whoever they nominate will be elected, they can satisfy their extremist preferences.  So, extremists are nominated in the dominant party’s primary, then are elected because it is a “safe” district.
3. Members of the minority party justifiably feel disenfranchised.  They have no chance of winning and don’t even have any moderating influence.
4. Moderates of the majority party, whether they participated in the primary or not may feel disenfranchised, even though they had a shot at influencing the election in the primary.
5. The process encourages political disengagement by members of minority parties and perhaps independents and moderates of the dominant party.
6. There is little penalty or discipline for incumbents who perform their job in extremely partisan fashion.  With purple jurisdictions, a weak incumbent is much more likely to be replaced.
7. The advantage of incumbents is enhanced with safe districts.  Thus, safe districts increase the average age of political representatives.  Generally, that creates risks due to declining health and capabilities.  It generally reduces legislative familiarity with current technology, etc.  And it underrepresents young people.
8. Generally, it is very good from us to hear from each other.  For example, rural and city areas are not islands; we are interdependent.  Thus, it can be helpful to have a mix of rural and urban in a district.

I admit that if all districts had the same percentage distribution, each district would have a majority of the dominant party.  Hence Congress could theoretically have 100% of its members from the dominant party.  Similarly, the 14% Black voters could have no Black representative.  I don’t think we vote so arbitrarily, hope that we won’t do so, and believe strongly that we should educate to undermine such “identity” voting.  Other steps could be taken to address such issues, but I those are separate topics.

Fundamental Problems in Our Society

 Our society has very serious fundamental problems.

1. Most politicians of both political parties divide us because enraged voters are more likely to vote, more likely to contribute money, and more likely to attempt to influence other voters.
2. Most media sources amplify the divide because it means more eyeballs, which means more money for advertising. 
3. Some non-profits also divide us because it leads to more donations.
4. Many schools teach people to see themselves as victims and often teach diversity backwards, emphasizing superficial differences (~identity politics), then indicating that people should get along instead of teaching our similar goals and motivations and pointing out that we can achieve our goals better with input from people with diverse experiences.  They trap inner-city students in inadequate educational institutions.
5. Few people do much to correct this situation.  They continue to support culpable politicians without protest; they engage in the media; and they continue to support their same charities blindly.

Update on the Iran War

 Much as I dislike President Trump, his decision to attack Iran provides an opportunity for him to make a truly outstanding contribution to the world.  Nuclear weapon expansion should be thwarted whether by an ally or not.  Previous Presidents have inadvertently encouraged the spread of nuclear weapons.  It would be tremendous if f President Trump can end Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  It would be even better if he, or his successor, could leverage that into an agreement among existing nuclear powers to monitor for nuclear development, provide a short-range “cease, desist, and tear down” warning.  If the country does not stand down, their nuclear research site should be destroyed militarily.

If he could  stop Iran’s funding of terrorists that would add to the significant accomplishment.

Unfortunately, President Trump's handling of the war with Iran seems to have been deficient in the following ways:

• He has mismanaged our alliances resulting less international (and domestic) support for the war.
• His talk about destroying Iran’s civilization, taking them back to the Stone Ages, and attacking their power plants has made it harder for Iranian citizens to rise up against the regime.  Like almost everyone in the world, they know Trump can’t be trusted.
• I suspect he has caused concern for our Gulf allies by indicating that the USA and Iran might jointly charge tolls for ships to pass the Strait of Hormuz and indicating that he might make a deal with Iran that falls short of their expectations.
• He seemingly underestimated Iran’s willingness and ability to resist, making us vulnerable because they can build drones faster and more cheaply than we can defend against them.  (When the war started, I cited two concerns; a) that Iranian drones could outlast our defenses and b) that Trump was overconfident.)
• He has contributed to the impression that he is anxious to end the war quickly, which encourages Iranian resistance.

The media has served us poorly by stressing the rising price of gasoline but 

1) They hardly mentioning the risk of nuclear war. 

2) They haven't explained that China gets more than 25% of its oil from our Persian Gulf allies and 12% from Iraq, but only 14% from Iran.  However, 80% to 90% of Iran's oil exports go to China.  So, China is not anxious to favor Iran over the other Gulf states and Iran is unable to replace the oil China gets from those other Gulf states.  The blockade is an excellent way to fight Iran.

3) They haven't explained that Iran has limited ability to store oil.  Blocked from exporting oil, they will have to stop production.  Some experts believe they might have to stop production in as soon as two weeks after exports stop.  When oil wells are shut off, it can be difficult to resume production because of water and paraffin buildup and other potential problems.  This is another reason why the blockade of Iran's exports is an effective strategy.  It does not cause soldiers or civilians on either side to die (unless perhaps if Iran tries to evade the blockade).  It does not destroy infrastructure either.  It doesn't even expend significant munitions. 

The media, and the Democrats, stoke public reactions that encourage the Iranians to think they can outlast us.

Why We Should Support Ukraine (what you can do)

In the Budapest Memorandum (1994), Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for security assurances from Russia, the UK and the USA.  Russia violated the agreement, annexing Crimea in 2014 and invading the rest of Ukraine in 2022.  The UK and USA have done too little to defend Ukraine.  Below, I outline many reasons to support Ukraine.  First, here’s what you can do:

1. Make your opinion known to your politicians (Senators' URL protocol is www.Senator'sFamilyname.senate.com.  House URL protocol is https://FamilyName.house.gov/contact/)

Click Reinstate Russian Oil Sanctions to ask Congress to reinstate Russian oil sanctions.  Near the bottom of this message, you can see a political cartoon I created with AI that mocks us for crying about the price of gas while Ukrainians are experience true suffering.

Click Sanctioning Russia Act to send a letter, text or call politicians' offices to support this bill: HR2548 (154 sponsors) and S1241 (84 sponsors) are identical. Here you can find their summaries and sponsors: ttps://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2548 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1241. 

2. Donate.  We donate to https://www.razomforukraine.org/ and https://www.hopeinternational.org/.  Here is Razom’s 2025 Impact Report.  Here is Hope Internationsl's efforts in Ukraine: https://www.projecthope.org/region/europe/ukraine/     
3. Spread the word

 I surprisingly found 23 reasons why we should support Ukraine.  I divided into 4 categories which overlap: 1) Peace and Security; 2) Moral; 3) Economic; 4) Ukraine can win (or at least negotiate from strength).  My 20 sources are listed at the end.

Peace and security reasons (see also 10, 14, and 15)

1. To promote general peace in the world, we must dissuade aggression and violation of treaties.  (Russia has violated both Minsk Agreements as well as the Budapest memorandum. 
2. We must encourage countries to forebear nuclear weapons, instead of letting Ukraine be punished for having done so.
3. United, we stand; divided we fall.  If we let Ukraine fall, other allies (Baltic countries and Taiwan) may be next.
4. Ukraine is weakening our enemy and exposing Russia’s weakness and cruel and mercenary practices to the world, benefitting us indirectly.
5. Ukraine is teaching us new ways to fight war and developing weapons we need.
6. Ukraine provided direct expertise to help us defend against Iranian drones.  In return, we harmed Ukraine by suspending sanctions on Russian gas.
7. Ukraine is stymieing Russia without USA troops being engaged.
8. The war in Ukraine has helped focus Europe more on its defense.

Moral reasons

9. Russian is attacking civilians, infrastructure, nuclear facilities, etc. and has abducted 20,000 children.  The brave Ukrainians deserve support.
10. Russian blocks Ukraine grain exports, increasing food insecurity in Africa and Asia.  In 2021, Ukraine was the world’s breadbasket, producing 10% of the world’s wheat, 15% of its corn, 13% of its barley, and 50% of its sunflower oil.          
11. Doing the morally right thing protects us.  As Martin Niemoller said: “First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist.  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
12. If you’re an environmentalist, you should value that sanctions divert gas production from Russia to the USA, where stricter regulations reduce the use of methane, through policies with better measurement and validation.  Thus, our gas production is much better for the world.

Economic reasons

13. Up to 90% of our aid to Ukraine is spent in the USA, creating USA jobs in all 50 states (including suppliers).  Substantial oversight assures the money is properly spent.  So, our aid is not exposed to corruption in Ukraine.  While Ukraine has significant internal corruption, it has improved its ranking from 122^nd in 2021 prior to Russia’s invasion to 104^th in 2025.  Corruption typically increases during wartime.
14. Ukraine has 5% of the world’s reserves of lithium, graphite, manganese, titanium, gallium, nickel and other critical minerals.  It also has reserves of the 17 rare earth minerals.
15. In April, 2025, the Ukraine–United States Mineral Resources Agreement created a Reconstruction Investment Fund to develop Ukraine’s critical mineral, oil, and gas sectors.
16. Sanctions help our economy as nations which bought gas from Russia might instead buy it from us.

Amazingly, Ukraine might win (or at least we should help them negotiate from strength)

17. Russian soldiers and mercenaries have incurred 1.3 million casualties, about ¼ of its pre-war military..
18. Russia’s major attacks have gained only 50-230 feet per day. 
19. Russia is spending an unsustainable 50% of its budget on the war.
20. The Hungarian election of Peter Magyar is likely to unblock the EU’s intended $100 billion loan to Ukraine and may result in the EU giving $230 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
21. A high-powered international strategy expert suggested that,  by helping the Gulf states defend against Iranian attacks, Ukraine has positioned itself to advise them on their defense in return for significant financial support.
22. The USA forces Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back by not allowing it to hit targets in Russia (without prior approval by the USA). Ukraine can do better if we don’t restrict it.
23. Ukraine soldiers have better morale, and the citizenry supports the war.  Only 17% of Ukrainians would agree to a treaty based on Russian demands.  67% support Zelenskyy.
24. More than 95% of Ukraine’s drones and 60% of its battlefield equipment are manufactured in Ukraine.

I created this political cartoon (using AI) to show the difference between our focus on short term costs and inconveniences compared to the suffering of brave Ukrainians.

Sources:

1. Razom reports
2. Ukraine’s Top Drone Commander Wants to Bleed Russia’s Army Dry
3. https://www.hudson.org/defense-strategy/symposium-why-us-needs-help-ukraine-defeat-russia
4. https://www.usglc.org/the-importance-of-u-s-assistance-to-ukraine/
5. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-the-us-has-to-gain-from-supporting-ukraine
6. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/four-reasons-why-supporting-ukraine-good-investment
7. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine#:~:text=To%20finance%20the%20Ukraine%20war%2C%20the%20Kremlin,its%20budget%20on%20the%20armed%20forces%2C%20the
8. https://www.dw.com/en/five-facts-on-grain-and-the-war-in-ukraine/a-62601467
9. https://spectrum.ieee.org/ukraine-rare-earth-minerals#:~:text=Ukraine%20will%20contribute%2050%20percent,attempt%20to%20secure%20stable%20supplies.
10. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/28/mapping-ukraines-rare-earth-and-critical-minerals#:~:text=What%20minerals%20does%20Ukraine%20have,at%20an%20estimated%20500%2C000%20tonnes.
11. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20le8jn282o
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93United_States_Mineral_Resources_Agreement
13. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/russias-disregard-nuclear-safety-and-security-ukraine#:~:text=OCTOBER%202022:%20Russia%20conducted%20air,infrastructure%20heedless%20of%20the%20repercussions.
14. https://theconversation.com/corruption-and-war-two-scourges-that-feed-off-each-other-199265#:~:text=Second%2C%20corruption%20leads%20to%20a,threatened%20and%20even%20sometimes%20murdered%E2%80%A6
15. https://www.progressivepolicy.org/the-role-of-natural-gas-in-reducing-asias-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20Russia%20and%20the,emissions%20than%20does%20Chinese%20coal.
16. https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/ukraine-can-still-win-the-war-russia-started-with-u-s-and-european-help
17. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/02/06/russias-january-budget-deficit-hits-nearly-half-of-annual-target-a91885
18. https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/13/peter-magyar-election-win-hungary-eu-ukraine-russia#:~:text=Magyar's%20predecessor%20made%20no%20secret,money%20could%20finally%20be%20disbursed.
20. https://www.courthousenews.com/the-300-billion-hostage-europes-high-stakes-gamble-with-russias-frozen-fortune/#:~:text=March%2013%2C%202026-,The%20$300%20billion%20hostage:%20Europe's%20high%2Dstakes%20gamble%20with%20Russia's,murky%20%E2%80%94%20and%20could%20backfire%20spectacularly.&text=File%20photo%20of%20a%20briefcase,standing%20rules%20of%20international%20finance?
21. Webinar presented by Eliot Cohen for No Labels members, 2026-04-22.

It is timely to end the current DHS government shutdown

 In my post of October 18, 2025, I wrote:

"Democrats could have refused to fund the government because the Trump administration is acting unconstitutionally, undermining separation of powers.  Democrats could have demanded that Adelita Grijalva be seated in the House (which Republicans are blocking to avoid release of the Epstein files), that President Trump get Congressional approval for military action in the Caribbean, etc.  

Instead, Democrats shut down the government because they don’t like a law that was legally passed.  That’s a terrible reason to shut down the government.  If you disagree about a law that passed, you close the government???  Consider the national and international ramifications.  If it is appropriate to shut down the government because you don't like a law that passed, our government could be shut down permanently. "

So, it may not come as much a surprise that I have supported the Democratic shutdown over ICE.  Defunding an executive branch to press for the discontinuation of unconstitutional behavior is appropriate.

However, the Trump administration has now signaled acceptance of most of the Democratic demands in several ways: Tom Homan replacing Greg Borvino, MarkWayne Mullin nominated to replace the now-fired Kristi Noem, Mullin's testimony as to the direction in which he intends to take teh agency, compromise negotiation stances by Republicans, and press reports of moderation throughout the administration.

The Democrats should now declare victory and end the shutdown of DHS.  The current risks due to the war with Iran underscore the wisdom of ending the shutdown now.

The Iran War

Nuclear War is our biggest existential threat.

Iran’s current regime is determined to have nuclear weapons.

Therefore, this is a war for regime change to avoid Iran having nuclear weapons.

The current Iranian regime is also the biggest exporter of terrorism.  And it has called for “Death to America” incessantly for nearly 50 years.

I have documentation of being a “never Trumper” since 1988.  I have repeatedly lauded                Separation of Powers as the key to our national success and have consistently, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, objected to Congress relinquishing power to the President.  Below I note some criticisms of President Trump and why the Republicans’ comparison to Libya is inaccurate.

Despite the previous paragraph, the world will be much safer if we topple the Iranian regime.

Many in the liberal press and many Democrats instigate opposition to the war by focusing attention on its disadvantages.  Their efforts are damaging:

1.      1) Because of the emphasis on the increasing price of oil, President Trump temporarily released sanctions on Russian oil, to the detriment of Ukraine.

2.      2) If President Trump curtails activities prior to regime change, the world will be much less safe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments drill down.

President Trump is consistently not interested in spreading democracy, neither in Venezuela nor Iran.  Iranian dissatisfaction with the regime is a strategic asset in his eyes.  This is very different from most previous “regime change” wars.

Instead of rallying the nation by noting that higher temporary oil prices are a small price to pay for removing Iran’s nuclear capability, many press/Democrats focus on oil price increases.  CNN has stated multiple times that oil prices have never been higher during Trump presidencies.  A more appropriate (and simpler) message is that oil prices are still lower than under President Biden.  CNN preferred contorted language to cast the price increase in a bad light.

I created the following cartoon using AI.

Ukraine has helped us in the Iran War by providing anti-drone expertise.  Ukraine benefits from the Iran War to the degree that the war cuts off a source of drones for Russia.  However, suspending sanctions on Russian oil undermines Ukraine.  (19Mar26 addition: the Iran War also helps Russia by boosting the price for its oil.)

President Trump wisely boosted our energy independence.  His “all of the above” approach is faulty in overly reducing attention to renewables (which I believe will grow, albeit more slowly, despite his efforts).  President Obama opposed fracking (but took credit for the economic growth it created).  President Biden tried to close all carbon power plants and block liquid natural gas exportation.  We, and our allies, are safer with Trump’s energy strategy.

To stimulate opposition, many press/Democrats claim there is no clear goal for the war and no plan.  Despite President Trump’s communication flaws, I think the goal is clear (see above).

Many press/Democrats focus on our military deaths, rather than recognize there have been impressively few deaths compared to the impact of our bombing.  We don’t know whether there is a complete plan, but clearly there has been a well-coordinated plan of attack so far.

CNN says the war has caused Americans to feel insecure due to radical Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks.  On 9/11, we joined the rest of the world in recognizing our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.  We’ve had domestic shootings, as well as terrorist attacks, that cause us to feel insecure.  CNN should encourage us to be vigilant to maximize safety and should explain that success will increase safety.

Many Democrats/press still tout President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal with Iran.  The deal had various 10-15-year limitations on Iran and required Iran to reduce (not eliminate) stockpiles of enriched uranium and centrifuges.

These press/Democrats fail to mention that President Obama essentially recognized Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons and had no plan to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons after those short-term limitations expired.  What was he going to do?  Continue our history of rewarding nuclear development by bribing them to stop, with funds that would support more terrorist activity?

President Obama stated repeatedly that ”every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off”.  However, as I noted at the time, it did nothing to restrict Iran from developing nuclear weapons outside Iran.

Many press/Democrats say the attack on Iran is illegal because there was no “imminent” threat.  While I favor the “imminent threat” philosophy and agree that Congress should declare war, Trump, like many Presidents, justified his action under the War Powers Resolution, which does not require an “imminent” threat.  It deals with hostile action (regardless of imminent threat) and, secondly, placing the military in a position where they might be subject to an imminent threat.

Nonetheless, Secretary Rubio addressed the “imminent” threat issue.  He said Israel was about to attack Iran and our government concluded Iran would respond by attacking us.  He stated we attacked Iran at that time not because Israel pushed us to do so, but because of the imminent threat that Iran would attack us.  It affected, as he expanded later, the timing of the attack, not whether to attack.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the above rationale, but I think it is terrible that many press/Democrats have chosen to mischaracterize it.

I don’t criticize government every time something goes wrong.  We can’t control everything.  Imagine what these Democrats/press would have said if Israel attacked Iran, as we sat on the sideline; Iran then attacked us, inflicting casualties; and it became public that the Trump administration anticipated Iran’s attack and our losses, but decided to take no proactive steps to thwart it.

On March 5, 2026, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 1099, affirming that “Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism”.  It made no mention of attacking Iran. 

Adam Smith (D, WA), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, released this statement: “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor.  Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced.  I have never contested this.  What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion.  I support this resolution.  I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”

Yet 53 Democrats (25%) opposed this resolution.  Why?  Congresswoman Lateefah Simon said, in part,  ”I voted against H.Res 1099, a Republican resolution that contains inaccuracies and is designed to justify the President’s actions in Iran…. That is already U.S. policy.  This resolution … puts Congress on record as giving the Administration further pretext for a war that should not have been started in the first place.”

She cited no inaccuracies in the brief resolution.  How can the resolution provide “further pretext” if it simply restates what “is already U. S. policy”?  If she, and the other 52 Democrats, agree that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism but oppose the war, why not take the same approach as Adam Smith?  Why vote against a resolution that precisely states their position?  Might their vote encourage Iran to continue resisting?

President Trump’s defenders cite President Obama’s action in Libya as precedent.  However, President Trump is, as he continually does, hugely expanding on past precedents.  Some key differences between the current war in Iran and the 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya:

1)      We were part of a broad-based consortium in Libya.  President Trump has stupidly and frivolously eroded support from our allies.  (Later addition: our allies are refusing to join us in opening up the straits of Hormuz even though they would benefit more than us.  This is a direct result of President Trump's mishandling of our alliances.  Early reports ignored that European allies are more vulnerable to domestic violence if they support the war because they have large Muslim immigrant populations.  Japan has no such problem and I believe our allies would have supported us if President Trump acted better.  Earlier, when Britain said it was sending a warship, he ridiculed them and said it wasn't necessary.  He has told our allies  - other than Israel - that he doesn't need their help, so they've decided to trust him on that.)

2)     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the action.  NATO led it.

3)     Fighting was occurring in Libya; the stated goal was to end that fighting.

4)     Secretary of Defense Gates discussed the intervention in advance in a Congressional hearing.

5)     Hopefully, unlike NATO, President Trump will not cease our efforts too soon.  President Obama said the "worst mistake" of his presidency was "probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya."

However:

a)      The Libya effort lasted 7.5 months.

b)     It accomplished regime change with only minimal special forces activity on the ground.  Note: While regime change was NOT part of the U. N. Resolution, it appears to have been a goal.

c)      Involvement of special forces violated the U. N. Resolution. 

d)     On June 24^th, 2011, the House of Representatives voted down Joint Resolution 68 which would have authorized U. S. involvement for up to 12 months.  Even 38% of Democrats voted against Resolution 68, but President Obama plowed ahead without authorization.

e)     The French had initially stimulated the action, reportedly because of oil (sound familiar?).