AHHH The French

The French just can’t seem to accept that they must actually work for a living and compete in the marketplace just like everyone else. Even more ironic is that Germany started its failed march to European dominance with the Franco-Prussian War and two world wars, but is now poised to achieve that goal without a shot being fired. The Germans live the good life (for European standards) by working hard and living within their means. Alas the French live the good life but seem to expect that the government should pay for it. The people think a 40 hour work week is exploitation and a 32 hour work week is as much as any employer should expect. Of course the problem with socialism is that eventually it cannot be sustained. The proof of this is being played out across Europe as the economies of Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy teeter on edge of financial collapse. The economy of Greece has already imploded and threatens the Euro itself.

Now the French who view themselves as the dominant force in Europe are finding that not only are they not the dominant country, but that it is Germany calling the tune. Faced with the prospect of actually having to give up some of their benefits and actually work a 34 hour work week, they threw out President Sarkozy and elected inexperienced Hollande. Unfortunately Hollande had no real experience, had no real plan, never took Economics 101, but was sure his Gallic Charm would enable him to win over Germany, the tax payers in both Germany and France, without actually having to make any financial sacrifices. Alas his socialist economics seems to have failed him. The reality is that money will gravitate to the highest return and flee extortionate taxes.

Hollande felt that what was needed was higher taxes and that the rich should pay their fair share, a typical socialist position. In his view the fair share of the rich was 75% of their income, after all the rich should be forced to share their wealth with the workers. Not unexpectedly the rich simply moved their wealth out of the country. Renault moved 70% of their manufacturing to low wage Trukey and ArcelorMitta the French steel manufacturer shut down two furnaces in preparation of shutting the plants. The government’s response to this is to introduce a law forcing manufacturers to sell their idle facilities at a price established by the courts. Apparently the socialists seem to think that any sharp entrepreneur would jump at the chance to buy these facilities just to keep the workers employed.

Hollande was elected on the basis that he would preserve “the social model” while engineering an economic recovery. Neither Hollande nor the socialist electorate realized these are conflicting goals, especially in light of the high level of protection the French worker has. Nevertheless French unemployment is at a 13 year high with more layoffs coming. It is very difficult for an employer in France to layoff employees and it is very expensive due to the required severance costs. Consequently, when employers actually layoff people they are very reluctant to rehire and the tendency is to move those jobs overseas where it is cheaper and the rules more flexible. This means that reducing high unemployment is very difficult and takes a long time.

The Euro is in real danger and unless Hollande can get control of the French economy it may be unsustainable unless the Germans are willing to step up and bail him out. However, the Germans are tired of subsidizing the life of the rich and famous enjoyed by so many countries in Europe. Plus the Germans are also feeling the impact of the slowing world economy and may not be able to continue supporting these failing Club Med European economies. The stark reality is that socialism cannot work unless there are enough tax revenues to sustain the government programs. In a slowing economy the government must react in a business like fashion and reduce expenses which means cutting programs. When the people are accustomed to lavish government handouts this becomes almost impossible so it is now up to Hollande to show us how this is done.

France, The Euro and Beyond

I have been fascinated by the impact of some of the recent events which have rocked the world economy. Of course the first is the reaction by the Greeks to their failed socialist economy which can only be described as denial. The denial being that socialism is a viable governmental form when the costs outstrip the revenues. Their solution is to blame the Germans, blame capitalism, blame the banks, blame anyone and everyone except that person they see in the mirror. So they threw out the government and their austerity program and are now happily returning to their old ways without any idea whatsoever of how to pay for anything. Like all socialists they seem to believe that the “government” will pay for everything by taxing the rich. Of course all of the rich in Greece left a long time ago and when they joined the Euro-zone they gave up their control of their currency, this was a small point which they ignored in their haste to expand their Club Med life style. Now we see the same plan developing in France – that is a total denial that socialism doesn’t work. The French refuse to sacrifice anything to austerity. They feel they are being exploited by being expected to work more than a 35 hour work week and to retire at 62 rather than 60. They know that capitalism is evil and socialism guarantees that the government will always be there for them. Of course they are a little vague regarding where the government gets the money to pay for their benefits other than from the “rich” meaning companies because any individual with any substantial income has already moved his assets out of the country. Furthermore, the socialist government has made it so difficult to lay anyone off that no business will hire new employees. Instead any new jobs are being sent offshore where it is easier to control the staffing. The current thinking in France is that socialism provides for everyone assuring everyone an equitable share of the wealth. Anyone who doesn’t grasp the benefits of socialism must be selfish and greedy, and this brings us to the Euro. Money is an abstraction whose only value is what we collectively give it and the ability of the issuing government to ensure that value, so the dollar, the pound, the yen, and other currencies are monetary instruments guaranteed by their governments but not so the Euro. The Euro is an artificial currency with no specific government guaranteeing it and no specific European government can print new Euros – hence the problems in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and throughout most of the Euro-zone to a greater or lesser extent. The Euro Zone is dominated by socialist governments whose consistent policies have been oriented toward maximum employment with the least amount of work and the most generous benefits. However, the party is ending because none of the Euro-zone countries can sustain these benefits based on their revenues which mean they must be reduced. These austerity programs are not popular but if they are not implemented the Euro-zone can collapse France is the most recent country to refuse to accept these austerity driven reductions in benefits. France was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the Euro-zone thinking that they would be the dominant force. This turned out to be a gross miscalculation because their socialist policies focus on employment and not on productivity. . The unintended result ironically has been higher unemployment as companies refuse to hire new people unless forced to. The wages are inflated relative to the output so these companies look overseas for growth which results in a double strike at home—higher unemployment means less tax revenue and higher unemployment costs. The government expands as new government jobs are created and with these jobs comes greater bureaucracy and with that bureaucracy comes lower productivity and an incentive for employers and investors to move overseas. Today the Greeks are voting to decide whether to continue their Club Med economy or to adopt some measures that would keep them in the Euro-zone. Either way the party has ended because the piper must be paid. A return to the Drachma will certainly cause rampant inflation which will create serious problems but staying with the Euro will force serious austerity measures which will effectively demonstrate that socialism cannot be sustained over the long term. Will the French get the message? Will the socialists in Europe get the message? Only time will tell.

Germany and the Fourth Reich

With the rise of Hitler in the 1930’s Germany attempted to establish the Third Reich militarily as it crushed all of Europe except Russia, which it left devastated. With the fall of the Third Reich the Europeans led by France attempted to constrain Germany while striving to return France to greatness. This effort to control Europe led to the creation of the Euro-zone and the Euro as the common currency. Alas as usual the arrogance of the French created a situation that instead of containing Germany and increasing French power, it has had the opposite effect. The European governments are socialist with populations that are not driven by a strong work ethic but with a strong expectation that the government will take care of them. This has given the hard working Germans a tremendous advantage as they work and make money while the rest of Europe vacations and wallows in their socialist giveaway programs.

Following WWII the Europeans treated Germany as a defeated foe and exploited Germany as Germany rebuilt but this exploitation was mostly financial as they used Germany’s financial growth to gloss over the growing problems with their socialist economies, mostly led by the French whose idea of sacrifice was to work more than 32 hours a week. The Germans accepted this situation for a long time but with the cost of Germany reunification and the end of the cold war Germany began to reassert itself and ask why they were carrying most of the financial burden for the Euro-zone? In fact the current financial crisis in Europe has made several things abundantly clear. First there is no central control and the European Congress is more show than effect. Secondly the only economy in Europe strong enough to exert control and influence financial policy is Germany, and finally, there is little prospect that the weaker European countries will be able to recover financially without some external control and the only logical country to exert that control is Germany.

The French led the charge for the Euro Zone thinking that they would be in charge and would dominate Europe, but they didn’t anticipate what happened when the Euro was introduced. The Maastricht Treaty created a common currency but it also allowed for national control of finance, banking, and fiscal policy. This meant that the countries had their own tax policies but would not share banks but would share interest rates. While the Euro-Zone would share a common currency there was no one in charge of the economy or to set central fiscal policy. But while Europe had been living off of Germany for years they simply assumed that Germany would just continue supporting the rest of Europe financially so there was never any attempt to curtail spending or to align taxes to all of those expensive socialist programs. While that was bad enough it seems that with the lower interest rates – due to the shared interest rates in Maastricht – some of the Euro-Zone members – like Greece – went on a borrowing spree as interest rates dropped and the cheap credit flooded the Euro-Zone.

But now the Germans have had enough. They have had to cut back on many of their socialist programs to maintain Euro-Zone fiscal stability. But they no longer feel that they should support and pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of the Euro-Zone members while they are having to sacrifice to subsidize this irresponsible behavior. The result has been the creation of the European Financial Security Facility (EFSF) which raises money on the bond market and funnels that money to the weak Euro-Zone members, but the EFSF is run by Germany and it is the Germans who call the tune – not the French or the Euro-Zone members. Under the EFSF the financially stressed Euro-States can now access the needed funds but only with German permission, because this is not under the control of the European Union. In fact the EFSF can act independently of the EU in any future financial crisis. The reality now is that any distressed European State can get any money they may need but by doing whatever Germany tells them to do.

The reality now is that any Euro-Zone state who accepts financial assistance from the EFSF means ceding financial control of their economy to Germany. This means that these countries will be forced to accept German austerity programs but the fine print shows that the conditions imposed by Germany don’t have to strictly be financial. In effect Germany now controls the Euro-Zone economy and with that control they can now dictate policies that extend beyond the financial -- if they choose to do so. Failure to accept German direction simply means that Germany can cut off the flow of money which would devastate the weak socialist governments. Germany has attempted to establish control over Europe militarily with the last attempt being Hitler’s Third Reich but now it seems Germany has established control over Europe without firing a shot. Rather than out shooting the French and the rest of Europe they have simply out worked them. Welcome to the Fourth Reich

Socialism Is Love

Hugo Chavez is clearly a closet Marxist but when asked why he was such an avid socialist he summed up socialism by describing it as “love”. “Socialism is Love” is perhaps the best description, in the fewest words, of socialism and communism that I have ever heard. If you consider the motives of many of the outspoken Liberals, Socialists, and even Marxists, you see that what they are seeking is to ensure that everyone shares in the wealth and advantages of society as a whole. Truly a worthwhile objective but then why have these altruistic philosophies failed in practice – or have they failed”

It seems clear today that Communism has failed. Lenin overthrew the Czar in 1917 and purged not just the aristocracy but the capitalists, the business owners, and even the farmers who owned land. Everything was taken over by the state and was to be run for the benefit of everyone. The very foundation of Marxism is expressed in this one phrase:

“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”

This simple phrase indicates that everyone will work to their capacity and give to the state all of their output so the state can redistribute the wealth they generated according to the needs of everyone. In practice this means that if you can generate $100 but only require $10 to support yourself then the state returns $10 to you and distributes the remaining $90 according to the “needs” of others. Of course in practice it seems that members of the Communist Party had more needs than non-members and senior party members had even more needs. Intellectuals, artists, and professionals were generally viewed as parasites because they didn’t produce anything tangible and were treated accordingly.

The stark reality is that the left wing of society closed its collective eyes to the failure of Communism under Lenin and Stalin. The Western Intelligentsia continued to extol the glories of the Worker’s Paradise even when it was obvious that it was nothing short of a crude dictatorship that was systematically murdering thousands of people. This self-deception continued right up to and beyond the fall of the USSR. Castro came to power as a “socialist” whose objective was to overthrow the evil Dictatorship of Bautista with a free and democratic – albeit socialist – government. However, once Bautista was gone, the free and democratic government never materialized, instead Castro declared himself not just a “socialist” but a Marxist. Elections were held but the only party was the Communist Party and the only candidate Fidel. Gone was any semblance of freedom. This same scenario is being played out today in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez who describes himself as a “socialist” while he is rigging elections, nationalizing industries, and wrecking the economy in the his efforts to spread the wealth. Even Chavez himself hints that he is a Marxist, but few people in the media or on the left are willing to call him what he is – a Marxist Dictator cut from the Stalinist cloth.

Every communist regime from Lenin until now has been a disaster economically as well as politically. There has never been a Communist government voted into office and once in control no communist regime has ever been unseated electorally – all have been overthrown by violence. Fortunately few communist regimes remain but those that do are repressive and examples would be North Korea, Viet Nam, and Cuba. Of course many of the fellow travelers would point out that China is “communist” and very successful. However, modern China is no longer a “communist” nation but rather an updated version of Imperial China. The country has adopted many of the trappings of a capitalist society like entrepreneurship, profits, and individuality. Of course there is little freedom of the press, assembly, or speech, but then those things weren’t characteristics of Imperial China either. China has let the capitalist cat out of the bag and they will never be able to put it back, so China will slowly continue its evolution from Communism to Capitalism.

But what of those nations that are truly socialist – countries like France and Sweden? Aren’t they successful? Obviously it depends on how you measure success, but keeping in mind that one of the primary objectives of socialism is employment not profitability or productivity, then the socialist countries of Western Europe do not perform well.

The Gross Domestic Product per capita of France is 26% below that of the US, Sweden is 22%
And Germany is 38% below that of the United States. When viewed in terms of Gross Domestic Product per Employed Person the United States produces $81,024 per person while France produces $63,097, Sweden $63,401, and Germany $59,052 and these are countries where employment is a primary objective and the rationale for government control. But the unemployment rate in the US is at 4.5% while France and Germany have unemployment rates of 9% and Sweden 7%.

The obvious conclusion is that capitalism undoubtedly has greater swings in employment it has greater productivity and wealth generation than any of the socialist countries and ironically less unemployment. So while the socialists and Marxists show their “love” for the poor and downtrodden at the expense of the rich and successful, the overall result is a reduction in overall wealth and greater unemployment, not considering the flight of capital and brains as the more educated and aggressive members of their society flee their loving embrace. One is reminded of George Orwell’s “New Speak” where “Love is Hate”. This certainly seems to apply to Communism and Socialism.

Revolutions and the French

American history in general is not especially interesting since it is mostly composed of political struggles between politicians with some moral relevancies here and there. Nevertheless, in reading the papers of some of the founding fathers, it is fascinating to see their differences, their likes and dislikes, but most interestingly – how they perceived current events. This is especially true of the French Revolution, which today is viewed as an unnecessary bloodbath conducted by extremists in the name of “democracy”. To many people – even today – the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but the only similarities are in the term “Revolution” and beyond that there is no similarity at all.

It is fascinating to read the papers of the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson during this period and to see how the Americans viewed the French Revolution. Jefferson, like Madison and others saw the French Revolution as a natural result of the American Revolution. The French citizens were simply exercising their right of self-determination. But Jefferson was a Francophile and continued to make excuses for the French even as their excesses grew. He ignored the real meaning of their call for Liberte`, Fraternite`, Egalite` even after Citizen Genet arrived on the scene and Americans began calling themselves “Citizen” in the French Style. He ignored Genet's attempts to undermine the Administration until they became so extreme that even he could no longer ignore them. Eventually even Jefferson had to accept the fact that Robespierre, Danton, and Marat were out of control and were conducting an unnecessary bloodbath. But to criticize the French would have been impolitic since there was such support for the French among the American public. Plus Hamilton and others were highly critical of the French Directory and how they were conducting their affairs.

We tend to forget that the American Revolution was actually just one theater in a global war that had been going on prior to 1776 and raged off and on throughout the period and only ended with the exile of Napoleon. In fact this European War had been going on during the reign of Louis XV and then under Louis XVI as well. Wars cost money and this one was no exception and France was essentially bankrupt. Louis XVI was inept at almost everything and he had simply continued the policies of his father and grandfather without regard to the cost. Consequently the population was restive at first and then moved to rebellion. Whether or not the American Revolution had any influence on this is arguable but some certainly saw that it was possible to throw off the yoke of monarchy. Nevertheless, the country of France was effectively bankrupt and turned to America for the money owed to them by the American Government. Jefferson felt that a failure to support the French Revolutionaries would be hypocritical since they were attempting the same rebellion that the Americans had just successfully accomplished. Besides the French were still enemies of Britain and Jefferson essentially saw Britain as the arch enemy of America. The result was Jefferson recognized the money owed to the French as a legitimate debt owed to a legitimate government while Hamilton saw this as an attempt by an illegitimate group of thugs to get the money they needed to maintain their control over what was clearly a bloody purge.

It is worth noting that during this entire contretemps Washington remained above the fray. Generally his attitude was “the French be damned”. He never forgot nor forgave the way the French and British aristocracy treated him. He felt the Europeans got what they deserved and that the future of America did not lie across the Atlantic but to the West. His policy was always to grow America, to exploit our resources, and to let the Europeans stew in their own juice. This essentially became the cornerstone of American Foreign Policy up to the First World War when America became a world power that overshadowed the Europeans.

The fact is that during this entire period – in fact from the fall of the Roman Empire – the French and English were at war with each other and even today they detest each other. The French have never been able to establish a stable government and the French Revolution was really just another example of that inability. Once Louis XVI was executed and the son Louis XVII disappeared (or died your choice) the rise of a military dictator was inevitable. Napoleon just happened to seize the moment and ultimately the crown as well. However, unlike Washington, Napoleon was unable to relinquish power and establish a democratic government. Instead he succumbed to the intoxication of power and launched France on wars of conquest and thus betraying the revolution.

Washington set an example that has not been duplicated since. Instead we see revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao Tse Tung, seizing power for themself and failing to give up their power in favor of a democratic government. Only Washington was able to give up total power and step off of the world stage. This has set an example for the world and this example is repeated with every change in administration. Today the French and most European countries are democratic and are able to change administrations without killing each other, but they owe America and George Washington a debt of gratitude. The American Revolution stands unique in history and the French Revolution was typical of all other revolutions where the outs over threw in the ins and then proceeded to continue business as usual.

Odds and Ends

There is a new Pope in Rome and already we hear cries across the land as the secularists beat their breasts and shake their fists at Heaven. What is needed is NOT moral teaching or lectures, what the liberal establishment feels is needed are married priests, female priests, birth control, abortion, and all of those things that are so near and dear to the hearts of the liberals. Personally, I am not a Catholic nor do I subscribe to many of their beliefs, but the fact is the last Pope was a moral beacon in a sea of slime and immorality. He took a stand and stayed the course and for that reason alone he stands out among world leaders who seem to be more focused on their power and perks than on any personal beliefs. But there are some exceptions – George Bush and Tony Blair come to mind as does Bertelsconi (sp) in Italy and I am sure there are others, but the vast majority of “world leaders” fall into the Kofi Annan category --- contemptible power seekers who are corrupt and have no real moral convictions about anything. So the new Pope shows signs of continuing the policies of the last Pope and in my opinion this is a good thing since what the world seems to need is a moral compass and someone to point the way.

The debate on gay marriage continues unabated and I continue to find myself conflicted on the issue. First, I don’t think the government – any government – has the right to deny a license solely on the basis of sex. I think if two people decide to commit to spending their lives together and thus to enjoy the legal and financial advantages of that decision, then the government does not have the right to deny them. HOWEVER, I stop short of “gay marriage” since I think marriage is a sacred and religiously based institution. If a particular church decides to perform a “marriage” ceremony for same-sex couples, then that is their right but they are under no obligation to do so and the state has no right to force them. Furthermore, a civil union is not the same as marriage and the state is under no obligation to recognize same sex couples as “married”. This brings up the alternative situation and that is the civil union of heterosexual couples. Currently there seems to be a growing trend for couples to simply set up house without the benefit of a license or a marriage. These couples seem oblivious to the legal ramifications of this situation but if civil unions are allowed for same sex couples can they be denied for heterosexual couples? Apparently Sweden has elected to provide civil unions for all \who apply and the result has been the virtual elimination of marriage as an institution. Personally I think this is a serious matter because marriage is a commitment that has moral and religious overtones as well as legal ramifications. If the focus is shifted to the legal ramifications only I think it further separates us from the religious and moral teachings that underpin our society whether the liberal secularists like it or not.

I wonder if others have noticed that as the situation in Iraq improves and the number of attacks declines daily, that the New York Times and the rest of the elite media have shifted their attacks on President Bush from Iraq to domestic issues. Suddenly Tom Delay is all over the front page and accused of all sorts of nefarious practices – practices that are commonplace in Congress and have been for years but Tom Delay is being castigated for them. So once again the elite media are showing their partisanship while wondering why their credibility is eroding. Anyone who believes anything they read or see in the elite media are gullible fools.

Of course the media is having a field day with the Bolton nomination. The liberals and internationalists are distraught over Bolton because he has the temerity to speak the truth. The UN is a corrupt ineffectual organization whose sole purpose seems to be to attack and undermine the US while stealing as much money as they can and spending as much as they bleed from the US taxpayer. Bolton was selected because he is an outspoken bull dog who calls a spade and a spade. He is perfectly capable of looking Kofi Annan in the face and calling him a crook. He is quite capable of telling the French they are a two bit third rate nation whose position on the UN Security Council should be consolidated with the British seat. Bolton is a career diplomat but one who has the ability to say what needs to be said. Unfortunately too many of the liberals in this country still believe that getting the French to like us is important and that we can buy friends.

With any luck the people in this country will finally wake up and realize the Constitution does not call for the separation of Church and State it just restricts the Government from passing laws restricting the Church. The time has come to rein in the judiciary and since the Democrats clearly are not capable of doing that, hopefully the new Congress will be more conservative and will get this badly needed job done.

It's Back To Work For The French

In today's paper I ran across a survey conducted by France for the EU that shows the hardest working people in the world are the Koreans with the US worker lagging behind in fifth place. The thrust of the article is to demonstrate that in spite of the high unemployment rate, their socialist economy, their 35 hour work week, their declining standard of living, and the declining level of investment, the French are truly among the hardest working people in world. Of course we all know the EU wouldn't say or do anything that would make them look better than the US, but it is worth noting that this metric is in hours worked not in GDP or productivity. The implication is that the more hours you work the more productive you are, which of course would probably make the Masai Herdsmen among the most productive workers in the world since they do little else but herd cattle. This same article points out that the French are being forced into extending their work week to a horrific 39 hours. It seems that the plan had been to reduce the work week to 35 hours which would force employers to hire more people, but the law of unintended consequences took effect and employers simply froze salaries, stopped hiring, and spread the work to the current employees, which resulted in soaring unemployment and a declining standard of living. But the French would have you believe that they are working like little beavers, that the hours worked or more important than what is done in those hours, and the French Socialist Programs just need a little tweaking. The idea of increasing their productivity isn't mentioned as part of the solution. This same article shows the Danes work almost as hard as the Americans. Well I have observed the Danes hard at work as part of a factory tour. I was one of two Americans on this tour and we were both appalled by what we saw. We could have reduced their headcount by at least 50% and increased their productivity by at least that much without doing any further investigation. However, we were told that the objective was not individual productivity but EMPLOYMENT. The objective was to keep as many people employed as possible, not to turn out more product. This is the prevalent attitude throughout Europe. They prefer to live the good life without working too hard.

Another article showed that the highly vaunted Canadian Healthcare system is failing -- if not already failed. The liberal press isn't exactly shouting this from the roof tops but it seems appointments for critical tests, like catscans, make take 3 months or more, that surgical procedures may require a lead time of as much as 3 years. In the meantime Canadian citizens are paying 48% income taxes and this may have to increase. Plus with the current trends as much as 85% of the National Revenue will have to go into their national healthcare system. The result is that people who really need medical attention are having to pay for the services out-of-pocket. When the decisison is to pay on their own, many opt to come to the US for treatment. It seems to me that not too long ago it was Hillary supported by the liberal press who were pressing for a national healthcare system modeled after Canada's. The liberals just can't seem to understand that Socialism is dead! D.E.D -- dead. Governments, any government, can do very few things efficiently and should never be relied upon to solve any problem beyond national defense.

A Salute to History

As most students understand it today, history is just a bunch of old white guys who have subjugated women, enslaved “people of color”, and generally raped the environment without contributing very much to the world. We are led to believe that the entire concept of “Western Civilization” is nothing short of a manifestation of the arrogance and general ignorance of the (American) white males who refuse to recognize the major contributions of other countries and cultures. Of course anyone who has ever studied history is well aware of the falsity of that proposition so you wonder exactly what students are being taught. Then I remember that Stephen Ambrose – the alleged pre-eminent historian of the Twentieth Century admitted that he was taught a distorted view of American History and then (knowingly) continued to teach these distortions to his students throughout his career. To his credit he admitted this prior to his death and even attempted to rectify some of his more egregious comments in his last book, but even there he was unable to give up some of these distortions because left wing liberals cannot actually attribute anything noble or good to any white man.

For example Ambrose simply cannot get by the fact that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the founding fathers were slave owners. Now this is a historical fact but is that all there is to these men? Should the very carefully chosen facts selected by those who purport to be “historians” define these men? Perhaps the most egregious distortion is from Ambrose who acknowledges Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration Of Independence but then dismisses Jefferson as a hypocrite for owning slaves. What is totally ignored are the writings and actions of Jefferson in opposition to slavery. He was opposed to it and attempted to have it ended but in the end he came to realize that it was too critical to the economy of the Southern States. Of course none of this is covered by Ambrose, which seems to be typical of what passes for scholarship today.

But what about the Indians? Of course they don’t even exist anymore because they have been replaced by Native Americans, which is another politically correct but factually inaccurate description. The Indians are not native to America and clearly are simply immigrants, possibly from Asia or South America, but being first doesn’t make them “Native”. But this is simply nitpicking and it really doesn’t matter if they are called Indians, Native Americans, or Ewoks because the focus for the historians is how the white man destroyed their culture in what is nothing short of genocide. These are very serious accusations if true but then some historians refer to this time period as the “Indian Wars”. A war is considerably different than genocide because in a war their are winners and losers and deaths on both sides. Genocide is a deliberate attempt to wipe out a culture and kill a specific group of largely defenseless people – e;g; the Jews.

The Indians allied themselves with the French, the British, and even the Americans for various reasons including pay. The Indians frequently came out on top and the Yaqui Apaches have never signed a peace treaty and are technically still at war with the United States. This is not to say that in the end the Americans treated the Indians fairly, because they didn’t but unfair treatment is a far cry from genocide. This of course brings us to Wounded Knee, which is not the greatest moment in American Military History. However, shouldn’t that be placed into perspective? Weren’t the Indians at war with the US? Hadn’t the Indians attacked the Americans and were in fact fleeing from the soldiers? In fact, when viewed from a military perspective the Indians were incapable of winning. There is no doubt that the Plains Indians were some of the finest cavalry in the world – possibly second only to the Mongols but in spite of Hollywood the actual Indian War was largely an infantry affair fought between a disciplined Army with central command and an a fragmented collection of warriors. But even so, the real issue was logistics and the Indians lost because of that. The Army had permanent bases supported by a logistical infrastructure while the Indians were nomadic and without a logistical base. Wounded Knee is a vivid example of this because the warriors that were fighting the Army were hampered by their dependents. The soldiers moved alone but the Indians had to take everything with them. Food was always an issue because they were nomadic and couldn’t stay in one spot long enough to grow crops. So while Wounded Knee wasn’t glorious in some ways it was inevitable due to the nature of the Indian’s logistical structure.

But in their drive to dismiss Western Civilization as anything meaningful, these new historians must show how other cultures are equivalent and have made equal or even greater contributions to the world. Of course foremost among these is China, because after all the Chinese invented practically everything. There is no doubt that the Chinese had a very advanced culture far in advance of the West but precisely what did they do with it? Was there any great influx of Chinese explorers into Europe, Africa, or the new World? The fact is that if it hadn’t been for Marco Polo most of the discoveries of the Chinese would have remained in China.

The Japanese have historically been xenophobic and entered the community of nations only because the United States insisted. To this day the Japanese are very insular and while they build a great many things the list of their inventions is very short and many of their inventions are in fact simply enhancements of inventions by others. Essentially we can dismiss Asia as a source of anything that underpins Western Civilization even though they may have thought of it first. So we can move on to Africa – well once you exclude Egypt there isn’t anything there. However the Egyptians did contribute a great deal to our culture and form one of the roots to Western Civilization or did they? Precisely what have we inherited from the Egyptians – ancient or otherwise? Well mostly history and a lot of interesting artifacts but very little in the form or culture, organization, or government. Mostly the Egyptians fed the west – mostly Romans – who were the actual foundation of Western Civilization. So we can conclude that Civilization as we know it is mostly Western in origin and while others may have invented things the actual builders were in the West and not in the East or in Africa and this brings us back to the contemporary view of history.

It is worth noting that the protagonist in 1984 was charged with rewriting history, which at the time the book was published seemed ludicrous but that is precisely what academia and Hollywood are doing to day. We are being treated to the trashing of the heroes of western culture and the aggrandizement of the counter-culture heroes. Thus Che Guevara becomes a hero rather than the murdering terrorist that he was. The Sandinistas were not Marxists, even though they said they were (what did they know? They were simple peasants) but revolutionaries trying to throw off the yoke of America. Capitalism is bad and exploitive because it places responsibility on the individual so this makes America bad. Marxism and socialism is good because it ensures that everyone shares equally. Of course, these same people ignore George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” just as they ignore “1984”. The fact is Academia today is infested with a gaggle of PhD’s who have never had a job, people who have never had to pay their way or make a profit. These Professors have gone from kindergarten to PhD with out any break for a taste of reality. Stephen Ambrose was just the tip of the iceberg. At least he acknowledged before he died that he had knowingly and deliberately distorted the history that he taught in order to make some left leaning political points. Do you think that pseudo-historian and fake Indian Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado will ever admit that he is an left leaning ignoramus who is actually distorting facts? Not likely – so Academia like the New York Times is no longer credible and any ‘facts” coming from these sources should be taken with a very large grain of salt if not ignored altogether.

REVOLUTIONS AND THE FRENCH

It is fascinating to read the papers of the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and to see how the relations between America and the French developed during a very pivotal time for both countries. Clearly Jefferson was a Francophile and felt the French were our friends. However, this was the 1790’s and as we know things weren’t going all that well in Europe and France in particular.

Perhaps one of the most interesting things is so the French Revolution through contemporary eyes. I think for most people today we view the French Revolution from the perspective of Charles Dickens book “A Tale of Two Cities” where the French are hardly seen as sympathetic no matter how just their cause. Of course for those who are more oriented to history we have the advantage of hindsight and can see how the excesses of the French (Robespierre, Marat, and Danton) lead inexorably to the creation of a military dictatorship under Napoleon. But all of these things are after the fact and we have the benefit of knowing what happened next, a luxury denied Jefferson, Washington, and the new American Republic.

We tend to forget that the American Revolution was actually just one theater in a global war that had been going on prior to 1776 and raged off and on throughout the period. In fact this European War had been going on during the reign of Louis XV and then under Louis XVI as well. Wars cost money and this one was no exception and France was essentially bankrupt. Louis XVI was inept at almost everything and had no ability to see what was going on around him. Consequently the population was restive at first and then moved to rebellion. However, during this period our friends the French were leaning on the US for money owed. Obviously this was a legitimate debt but France typically approached this demand in their usual arrogant fashion.

However, Jefferson accepted this demand in good grace primarily because he really hated the British (an interesting historical footnote) and the French were (as usual) fighting the British (and the Dutch). This formed the background to the final upheaval that we know as the French Revolution. The correspondence between Jefferson and the American Envoys in Paris are interesting. To support the King and not support the Revolutionaries would be hypocritical since the Americans had just rebelled against their King. Still there was a lot of sympathy for Louis and the general feeling was that he should go into exile. No one was really in favor of executing the King. As the terror progressed the attitude of the Americans in Paris really turned against the Revolution but publicly they continued to support the Revolution. Jefferson supported the Revolution to the end but privately he made it very clear that he supported the Revolution but not the Revolutionaries. Furthermore, some of the American diplomats felt that the situation could only end in one way and that was the rise either of a new King (unlikely) or a strongman (Napoleon was unknown at the time).

The policy of neutrality between America and the European powers was orchestrated by Jefferson but as we know today it led inevitably to the problems of 1812. Jefferson was anti-war (and a founding Democrat) and the lesson here is the same lesson that the Democrats have never learned and that is while war may be ugly, sometimes a war now prevents a much greater war in the future. Siding with the British might have constrained the terror and prevented the rise of Napoleon. At the least it would have prevented the war of 1812. And as we see today, the Democrats continue to be anti-war – any war – and simply fail to understand that some people only understand naked power.

Bush Bashing

The Bush Bashing continues and there is this continuing misconception that he is dumb as a rock, but I disagree. True he is a poor speaker but not being articulate is not the same as being stupid. He is actually a very intelligent man and an excellent executive. Having spent a great deal of time in senior level positions (near CEO's of Fortune 500 companies) plus having been trained as a leader and having a Master's degree in Management, I feel I know an executive when I see one. Bush has surrounded himself with some very intelligent and highly experienced people. He solicits their opinion and seeks opinions differing from his own. He makes the decisions and takes the heat accordingly. The irony is that when he has listened to Powell, whom the internationalists love, it has always backfired because the international community has no desire to solve problems they see as America's. Instead they are attempting to hide their involvement in most of these problems and are doing as much as they can to embarrass Bush and "teach America a lesson". However, the President's conduct in the face of these attacks has demonstrated (to me at least) that he is an excellent leader and manager. He also has a firm grasp on the International situation and what it takes to make diplomacy work. What few people seem to realize is that we are involved in a sea change relative to power centers. While this hasn't become totally visible it is underway and will become more evident with time. Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld apparently recognize this and are acting accordingly.

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European politics has been dominated by France, England, Spain, and to a lesser extent Italy. By the 19th Century the power centers were Germany, France, and England and everyone else was an also ran. These countries and Western Europe in general have been dominated by socialism and socialist policies. They tout their democratic principles but in fact they pander to the masses and their economies are slowly sinking into non-competitiveness. The EU is their attempt to staunch the decline but ironically that is what is contributing to the sea change because the power is shifting to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, and the Balkans. These are the people who have shed communism and are not likely to embrace socialism, which increases their competitiveness. As their economic strength increases so does their power and influence. France in particular is attempting to bully them into line but that isn't likely to work in the long run. The problem is so many people don't look into the future but look into the past and then back into the future expecting everything to remain the same. It won't and it isn't. France and Germany are locked into some social policies they can't change and the Bush policies are putting huge pressure on them. The internationalists think Bush is wrong because the French and Germans hate us -- that is old thinking because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant on the world stage. The reality is they no longer have financial wherewithal to maintain their socialist policies and field any significant fighting force. The truth of the matter is both of these countries have allowed their military to decline and are approaching obsolescence. The President and his advisors clearly see this so Bush doesn't care very much about these declining states and is focusing on the future power centers, which will have greater importance to the US in this century than France or Germany. Now everyone says Bush is wrong because he is stupid. First, I don't think he is wrong and secondly, the policy shift is probably coming from Rice, supported by Powell and Rumsfeld. Bush is simply executing on their recommendations, to call him stupid is to misinterpret what is going on. His strength is to listen to his advisors and act -- not to invent policy and pass it on to them.

Kerry continues to rant and rave and attempts to justify his lack of commitment on misinterpretations and distoritions. He is a hollow man -- devoid of any sincere belief in anything but himself. He is Clinton lite -- He will say and do whatever is necessary to gain and keep power. He has no strong belief in anything other than himself. His track record is horrible and amply demonstrates my assertions. He votes for the war and then votes against the funding. He justifies this on some sort of pseudo-moral ground but it looks to me like an effort to cause Bush to fail or at least to embarrass him. He had no compunction about jumping onboard with Jane Fonda and the VVAW. He betrayed his fellow soldiers for his personal power seeking not for any moral belief. He is a hollow man. The democrats do have some honorable men but unfortunately Kerry isn't one of them and Edwards brings new dimension to the term light weight. He has no government experience, no military experience, and no business experience -- what could possibly qualify him to be a Senator much less run the country?

Jihad and Strategic Asymetry

Actually I have been browsing through some of my essays on various subjects and came across this one that I wrote several months ago. It seems to be even more relevant now in light of some of Senator Kerry's remarks regarding terrorism and Iraq. It is increasingly apparent that we are in a war with few allies because so many of our "allies" are of the Neville Chamberlin variety in that they feel if they just let the jihadists beat on the US they will be safe. They seem to be oblivious to their own peril. Spain is gone -- done for -- they are in thrall to the Muslims and France isn't far behind. Certainly France will be dominated and in control of the Muslims within 5 years and possibly sooner. Germany isn't quite as threatened yet but their socialistic society is gradually emasculating them. In fact that is one of the errors in this essay because I credit both the Germans and the French of having armies capable of deployment. That is really not the situation because both countries have small armies armed with increasingly obsolete weapons. This in itself isn't an overly serious problem because the Muslims are using primitive weapons. The problem is the size of these armies and the fact they are trained to fight on a battlefield. If SecDef Rumsfeld has done else he has transformed our army into a fighting force capable of fighting an unconventional war using unconventional tactics, which I think falls into the category of Asymetric Strategy.

Strategic Asymetry

Rome was a mighty power, unrivaled at the time, and capable of crushing any and all opposition. They had over a million man Army that was highly trained and virtually invincible. They had a government run by a bureaucratic civil service, philosophers, artists, and a highly educated and civilized society. However, this Empire that stretched from Persia to Scotland was besieged from without by Barbarians hungry for the riches of Rome and within by greedy aristocrats willing to sell their votes, judges willing to sell their judgements, and bureaucrats expecting kickbacks or “tips” for doing the jobs for which they were paid. All of these things contributed in their way to the ultimate destruction of Rome but perhaps the greatest factor in that destruction was the complacency of the people. After all most of Roman society wasn’t really “Roman” at all but was a collection of merchants, artisans, and farmers spread across the Empire and all to a greater or lesser extent living what at the time was the “good life”. The problems and issues that ultimately brought down the Empire were viewed as being the responsibility of the government. The average Roman citizen was largely unaware of the dangers lurking on their borders that threatened their civilization or they were aware but too busy with their own lives to become involved, a situation not unlike what we are facing today.

Just as Rome was threatened by Barbarians, America and indeed all of Western Civilization is being besieged by Neo-Barbarians. There are some very serious issues and questions facing Western Civilization today and much like our Roman counterparts these are largely being ignored, either through ignorance, denial, or complacency. Of course while ancient Rome provides a historical parallel, the situation is not totally the same. The problems and issues threatening Western Civilization today are not rooted in a desire by the Neo-Barbarians to join Western Civilization but rather by a desire to destroy it. More importantly, many of the problems facing Western Civilization are internal and are rooted in conservative thinking masquerading as “liberal” or “progressive” thinking. An example is “Globalization” which is viewed negatively by the left because it is seen on the one hand as moving jobs overseas and on the other as exploiting poor nations.

At the strategic level Globalization represents what many liberal politicians have been striving for since the French Revolution and that is redistribution of wealth, but rather than redistributing the wealth of the rich, it actually is moving work across national borders and thus raising the average incomes of poorer nations. For some this movement of work to low labor nations is “exploitive” but this fails to recognize that if the same wages were paid to these workers that is paid to the high cost workers then the incentive to send the work to them would be lost and the result would be they would be even poorer, while the demand for labor would exceed the supply. This would drive up the costs and place the entire First World into a destructive inflationary spiral. Therefore, the critics of Globalization must understand that labor is simply a commodity and the purchaser will opt for the best price and the price is set by competition. However, as Globalization increases and nations become ever more interdependent, the result is a blurring of the Nation State and a homogenization of culture and this brings us to the Neo-Barbarians and the threat they represent to Western Civilization.

It is the very ubiquity of American Culture that is a major underlying factor in the greatest issue facing America today and that is “Global Terrorism”. This is widely viewed as an “American” problem by Europe and the United Nations but it is in fact a threat to Western Civilization. The United Nations has always been anti-American and largely impotent in any real crisis. Since the UN is largely made up of non-democratic countries run by dictators, many of whom are virulently anti-American and sympathetic to the terrorists they do not see the terrorists as any threat, other than to America. Therefore, there is no sense of urgency to confront what to them is an American problem. In fact many of them think it is about time that America got its “comeuppance.” What they don’t see is what would happen to them if America were to fall?

The Europeans are little better. Europe has always been focused on its past rather than focusing on its future, so they see terrorism as more of an annoyance than any real threat, because they continue to think in terms of Nation States rather than the individual or socio-political interests represented by the terrorists. The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, think only in terms of their national interests rather than thinking globally. After all, they are wealthy have their own armies and are quite capable of meeting any aggression on the battlefield. What they fail to see or accept is that there is not going to be any battlefield – ever. The threat is within and aimed at destroying their economic power and will to resist with the objective of installing an Islamic society. What the UN and the Europeans either don’t understand or don’t accept is that the terrorists represent a new kind of threat that is rooted in ideology not in nation state politics. Besides what the Europeans seem to think is that the terrorists are really threatening America and therefore, it is essentially an American problem. What the Europeans fail to grasp is what would happen to them if America were to fall?

But this obsolete thinking is also quite prevalent in America as well, where our political representatives are reluctant to declare war on terrorists and terrorism, even though Thomas Jefferson gave us a historical precedent with his war on the Barbary Pirates. Instead we have a drive by our politicians to fight terrorists and to enlist the support and aid of the United Nations and Europe in a cause in which they really don’t believe involves them and may have been brought on by the sheer arrogance of America. The terrorists are viewed as a small group of fanatics bent on murder and destruction that can be contained and defeated through law enforcement.

The reality is we are already engaged in World War III and many, perhaps the majority, of the combatants are not even aware there is a war going on. Furthermore, this ignorance and complacency by so many individuals who see the current situation in terms of social unrest, political partisanship, and cultural conflicts, are virtually assuring this war will drag on for years, perhaps for a century or more and worse, their inability to see the stark reality of the situation is actually placing the outcome in doubt. Had you asked the average Roman Citizen if they thought the Barbarians would bring down mighty Rome, I am confident they would have laughed at the idea, just as so many people today feel no threat from these neo-barbarians called terrorists. Rome had mighty legions of well trained warriors, wealth, and the tactical ability to meet any threat anywhere, yet a raid here, a raid there coupled with high taxation and a reluctance to understand the actual threat and Rome was crippled and then fell.

The parallel is striking for like Rome we are protected by our technology, our laws, our education, our wealth, and most of all by our belief in fair play, multi-culturalism, and equality. When these Neo-Barbarian Terrorists call for the destruction of America it is viewed on the one hand as laughable hyperbolae and on the other as simply a reaction to the arrogance and ubiquity of American culture. Thus these terrorists are seen as misguided but with some legitimate complaints that can be discussed, negotiated, and eventually corrected. Of course this assumes these Neo-Barbarians share the same values and objectives as we do but this is a false assumption because it is not only our technology, our laws, our educational institutions, and our wealth that they wish to destroy, they wish to destroy anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their distorted religious system. This is a religious war of Islam against Christians, it is another Crusade, which they openly state but it is the Christians who refuse to see this for what it is. Furthermore, it is the very roots of our society and Western Civilization that they are using as weapons to destroy us. It is our very freedoms and morality that they are turning against us. Our situation calls for asymmetric thinking but what we are seeing is conventional thinking rooted in the idea of the Nation State and classic conflicts, but there may be another historical parallel that is closer to what is happening today.

Genghis Khan and his successor Tamerlane probably never had more than 250,000 troops at any one time but they conquered and controlled an Empire that was larger and more diverse than the Roman Empire. How did they do it? They did it through sheer terror. The Mongols were nomadic meaning they had no cities to attack, no fields to burn, no infrastructure to destroy and whose actual location could not be predicted with any certainty. To oppose the Mongols meant you either had to win or suffer fearful punishment. At first many opposed the Mongols but the Mongols didn’t fight according to the rules, instead they used unconventional tactics while their opponents were still fighting a largely infantry oriented war that relied on strongholds. Consequently, the battles were always fought on the terms set by the Mongols so the peoples being attacked were always on the defensive and rarely prepared. The various cities and principalities were not closely allied for any number of reasons leaving each one vulnerable. The Mongols used lightly armed cavalry and certainly didn’t fight hand-to-hand or toe-to-toe, their tactics were based on surprise attacks and sheer terror. To oppose the Mongols meant that you had to defend your stronghold while the Mongols waited outside of the walls until you surrendered or starved. When the Mongols finally emerged victorious they totally destroyed their enemies by slaughtering every living thing and leveling the cities they captured, leaving nothing standing. The result of this total devastation was stark terror and capitulation without resistance. After all, the Mongols were after loot and could usually be bought off. However, with the deaths of the two great Khans, the Mongol Empire fragmented and disappeared with only Kublai Khan remaining as the Emperor of China.

Certainly there are some obvious historical parallels here. How many terrorists are there worldwide? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Perhaps a million? No one really knows because like the Mongols they don’t have a central location, their infrastructure is largely virtual and what is tangible is carefully hidden. They are difficult to locate and cannot be attacked because they exist within the very societies they are trying to destroy. They attack on their terms and under the conditions of their choosing, consequently those being attacked are always on the defensive – after the initial attack. When they do emerge with any recognizable infrastructure they can be attacked and destroyed and Iraq and Afghanistan are examples. But they were not totally destroyed in these locations they simply faded back into the society and continued their hit and run tactics. Pinpricks in the side of the American Colossus but the tactic is to sap the will of the people to resist, to give up and to go away leaving them to continue their strategy, which is the total destruction of Western Civilization.

As much as this terrorist strategy may seen unattainable, even laughable, it is very real and quite possible. First, they can succeed in having the civilized countries ignore them or only give half-hearted resistance, leaving them to grow and expand their hidden infrastructure. Their announced target is to take over a nuclear power like Pakistan or India. Once this is accomplished they are in a position to literally destroy Washington D.C., London, New York, or any and all large cities. This devastation would pale in comparison to the damage done to Western Society as a whole. The economy of the world would be in a shambles and might possibly never recover, especially if all of the major cities were destroyed. Then there is the possibility of bio-terrorism masquerading under the name “Weapons of Mass Destruction” which we know exist but do not know precisely where they are. Consider a massive plague unleashed on the world, much like the Black Plague in the 1600’s, where 25% of the population of Europe died. Consider what this would do to the world economy and Western Civilization in general. This is the absolute objective of the radical Muslims – totally destruction of all Infidels, their society, their technology, and their hated democracies. They offer no compromise and no quarter is asked or given and it is necessary that all countries and societies realize this. What is needed to combat this threat is some asymmetrical thinking with non-traditional approaches and certainly a realization that we are dealing with a serious threat from a non-traditional enemy.

The first step in an asymmetrical strategy is accept the fact that we are not dealing with a nation state and therefore, a direct attack is not possible, although they can attack us at will and at a location of their choosing. Furthermore, they are not bound by any treaty or convention. This brings us to the first hurdle in developing an asymmetrical strategy and that is the Geneva Convention. As a nation we abide by the Geneva Convention but our enemy is not bound by this convention and so are free to murder, torture, kidnap, and generally take any action they choose. By insisting that we abide by the Geneva Convention we are in effect crippling our military. During the Revolutionary War the British had the most powerful army in the world. They marched onto the battlefield in bright red uniforms with perfect discipline. Unfortunately for them the Americans didn’t understand the rules and hid behind trees and bushes. The Americans lost almost every battle but eventually won anyway. This is very analogous to our current situation. We are being forced to fight according to “the rules” while the terrorists simply ignore them. This is not a good strategy. Our overall response has been tepid, but we have held people deemed a threat as enemy combatants, denied them constitutional protections, subjected them to psychological pressure, and mild physical discomfort. This rather mild response to these terrorists and murderers has been heavily criticized by many in the left wing, who view these actions as criminal and insist that we “act in a civilized manner and according to the rule of law”. Of course these same people criticize the terrorists as well but offer no solution regarding how to stop them, instead they focus on the Geneva Convention and the “rules”.

Then there is the money. Even terrorists need money for explosives, arms, travel, food, bribes, and the usual operating expenses. Certainly, there has been an effort to cut off the money supply but much of this is hidden as charities, educational foundations, or similar innocuous sounding groups. These should be closed down entirely or denied the ability to transfer funds out of this country to any country deemed a sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, they should be denied the ability to transfer funds to any country that permits the transfer of funds to any country deemed a sponsor of terrorism. A violation of this law would result in all of their funds being confiscated and their officers imprisoned or deported. The informal banking system historically used by the Arab community should be outlawed in this country and subjected to the same fiduciary laws as any formal organization. Any transfer of funds out of this country by any individual should be restricted to no more than $5000 in a year.

The Islamic Community should be notified that hate speech, threats to America, and any encouragement or overt attempt to recruit suicide bombers or terrorists, will be viewed as sedition and the perpetrator subject to imprisonment. If these acts transpire within a Mosque, that Mosque will not only be closed, it will be razed. If these actions take place outside of the United States, the harboring state (e.g. Syria, Iran, etc.) will be notified that the US expects them to take equivalent action to what would be done in the US and if they fail to do so, the US reserves the right to act unilaterally, if the harboring state views this action as an act of war, then so be it.

The head of state for any nation state viewed as harboring or sponsoring terrorists and terrorism should be told that the US holds them personally responsible for any terrorist action taken against the United States. This means that the US will attempt to remove them via assassination or any other means available. The objective is to take the battle to the terrorists, to deny them safe harbor, to disrupt their communications, to kill as many as possible, and to give those who would harbor them the choice to live within the confines of law or die.

The real lesson is how the Mongol empire disintegrated. The mighty Mongolian Empire fragmented when the leaders died so what is needed is a direct attack on the leaders. This includes people like Yasser Arafat, the various Mullahs running Iran, the Dictator of Syria, as well as the leaders of the various terrorist organizations. History tells us that with these people out of the way their followers will fall to fighting among themselves because the root is power and money, not ideology. Hence our basic strategy should be one of personal attacks on the leaders after giving them ample notice to conform or die. If they fail to heed the warning then there should be strikes against them similar to the air strike against Quaddaffi in Libya. This is a strategy that is being used by Israel and while it has not caused the attacks to stop, the reality is they are not striking the real leaders who actually reside in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, not in Gaza.

Many of these recommendations are already in place but under severe attack by the left and many well intentioned people who see these as extreme measures and not in keeping with the American character. However, these are extreme times and if we fail to take extreme measures we may find ourselves in the same position that the ancient Romans did, a civilization in slow decline harassed by Neo-Barbarians, with a collapsing economy, and a government unable to protect us from the ravages of the barbarians.

The fall of America and the end of the Pax Americana would plunge the world into chaos. The Europeans would be unable to contain the terrorists and France in particular would be vulnerable to a takeover by the Muslim terrorists. Very quickly the world would decline into a series of feudal states dominated by war lords fighting over the bones of society. Just as all vestiges of civilization vanished with the fall of Rome so it would be with the fall of America. Gone would be the leading technology, the science, and most of all the infrastructure on which the world economy depends. We are deeply engaged in World War III --- a war that could easily drag on for a decade or more – and if we do not aggressively pursue these Neo-Barbarians using every means at our disposal, we run a very great risk of losing.