Free Markets, Free People

Did anyone know we’ll soon have an “atrocities czar?”

Because every nation should have one.  Claudia Rosett fills us in:

I’m against atrocities. I’m against genocide. I’d bet you are too.

So why is it somehow so troubling that President Barack Obama, citing a “core national interest” and “core moral responsibility” of the United States, has now ordered into existence an inter-agency Atrocities Prevention Board?

The name alone is not a good sign. With its implication of bureaucrats battling evil, it sounds like satire. An outtake, perhaps, from Graham Greene’s novel, Ministry of Fear, or Washington’s variation on Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. In editorializing last week on this new Atrocities Prevention Board, the Wall Street Journal rightly warned its readers that “this is not an item from the Onion.”

Yup, that’s me – against atrocities and genocide. 

Apparently now we need government to determine what constitutes an atrocity and decide what we’ll do about it.  Of course that requires a new level of bureaucracy.  The formation of an atrocity committee headed by our atrocity czar.  Because atrocities are now a “core national interest” and requires of government action by inclusive committee:

At least once per month, and more often in times of emergency, the Atrocities Prevention Board, or APB, will convene representatives of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, USAID, the Joint Staff, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and the Office of the Vice President to hammer out “the development and implementation of atrocity prevention and response policy.” The White House is calling this approach “whole of government,” and no doubt everyone will have something to toss into the pot.

I’m sure they will.  First off though they have to decide what constitutes an “atrocity” don’t they?

For instance:

In Libya, the U.S. led from behind to remove Gaddafi — who was a vile tyrant, but not in recent years a prime threat to the U.S. But in the case of Iran, where the regime runs global terrorist networks, is pursuing nuclear weapons, and has been threatening for years to obliterate the U.S. ally and democratic state of Israel, the Obama administration confined itself to bearing “witness” and looked to the long “arc of history,” while Iranian protesters were beaten and shot in the streets. In Syria, where the regime is in bed with Iran, the death toll now tops 10,000, after more than a year of rebellion against Assad’s brutal rule — and the U.S. looks on. And in North Korea, where the entire system of government qualifies as an atrocity, the same old Pyongyang shakedown routine has carried on, with North Korea’s 2009 nuclear test and 2012 ballistic missile test (excuse me, “satellite launch”) punctuated by U.S. offers of talks, and food aid for North Koreans whose chief obstacle to feeding themselves is that they are hostage to their country’s murderous government.

Indeed. Libya apparently qualified but not any of the others.

The bureaucracy lives and spends … and breeds.  And mostly accomplishes nothing except generate meeting notes.

I wonder if they’d ever consider declaring the current governance we’re enduring an atrocity?


Twitter: @McQandO

17 Responses to Did anyone know we’ll soon have an “atrocities czar?”

  • I’ll wager the bureaucracy here is being created to provide political cover.  If Obama wants to condemn a country’s leadership he can.  If he does not then he can pass the buck to the ‘Atrocity Bureaucracy’ which will come out and say things like, “We’re investigating the situation.” or “We are monitoring things closely.”

  • Ah!  But think how much training the members of this useless board will receive in boondoggling, spending cash that isn’t theirs, taking fact finding trips to places where atrocities aren’t happening, but where the accommodations are swell so they can meet, confabulate, palaver, indaba and punchayet with other word class nattering nabobs.  There to draft documents and studies, and letters condemning atrocities and, mention, condemn and otherwise accomplish little by way of preventing them.  This will give us great license to poke our nose into places where NATO and the UN currently aren’t nose poking, or perhaps we can send the US members of the committee out WITH the NATO and UN members of whatever similar commissions.  It will provide an opportunity for Baracka to appoint someone of the caliber of Van Jones to head the commission and this person will have the unique opportunity to travel to far away places on the executive dime and come back to report to Baracka so we can threaten and bully small countries that we otherwise may not have any excuse to threaten and bully.
    This will be an important position, to office, staff and incorporate and keep someone gainfully employed (creates jobs!!!!!) until January of next year when the new incoming executive will shit can all the Czars Baracka has anointed.

    • …when the new incoming executive will shit can all the Czars Baracka has anointed.

      May it be so…and may they NEVER be replaced.

      • Sadly, that is not the way it usually goes.  Most presidents capitalize and expand upon the mistakes of their predecessors.
        If it were so then the alphabet soup of agencies not mentioned in the enumerated powers would have disappeared a long time ago.  Instead, pretty much all of them are still around and getting bigger by the day.

  • The name alone is not a good sign. With its implication of bureaucrats battling evil, it sounds like satire. An outtake, perhaps, from Graham Greene’s novel, Ministry of Fear

    Sounds more like something out of Atlas Shrugged to me. Or possibly Hitchhiker’s Guide. But whatever, you can’t make up s**t as good as this for good old fashioned morony (like irony, but meatier and more academic).

  • How are we (the US) supposed to be preventing atrocities with a shrinking military?  Are we to bombard transgressors with <i>strongly-worded letters</i>, i.e weapons of mass discussion?
    One atrocity they could work on right away: The Obama administration.

    • “Weapons of Mass Discussion”
      I’m totally stealing that one.

  • How much you want to bet that this is some step on a path to enable going to war when convenient but without having to play pretty with Congressional approval? If the APB says there is a need for police action urgently against convenient fall-guy X then the bombing isn’t war and all the polsci profs can rest easy with their hypocritic minds at peace.

  • I’m willing to bet that the within the next 6 months, the new-found APB will be examining Israeli “atrocities”.

  • Stupid “Life of Julia” qualifies as an atrocity…..

  • Atrocities Prevention Board?  first, define “atrocity.”  Some might consider it an “atrocity” if Barack Obama loses his bid for a second term.

  • Did I mention that my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was a bastard fathered by Genghis Khan ?
    Of course, I never mentioned it because it is most likely not true.
    And somewhere in there is an atrocity.

    • AT least one, no doubt perpetrated against my Vandal ancestors – I demand….something or other!