Recently I was asked to comment on President Obama’s foreign policy. By no means am I a foreign policy expert and what I know – if anything—is based entirely on what I have read and seen on TV. However, based upon that limited foundation, I think President Obama’s foreign policy rests on two key factors. I believe he is first and foremost an “Internationalist” in the sense that he believes in World Government. This translates into a tendency to subordinate America’s interests to those of the UN and the international community as a whole. The second factor is his belief that America is an overbearing arrogant super power that acts unilaterally and without regard for the interests of other nations.
President Obama came to the Presidency with no experience in business, government, or the military but with an activist vision of all of these things. He promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to close the Guantanamo Prison, to repair America’s relationship with the Islamic World, to reach out to Iran on their Nuclear ambitions, to reset relations with Russia toward ridding the world of nuclear weapons, to work with the Chinese on global issues, and to make peace in the middle east. In retrospect it is easy to see the naïveté of these goals because of their idealism and failure to account for any of the underlying details. President Obama’s lack of experience left him unprepared for the reality of his position and the constraints on his power. Each of his objectives individually are worthwhile but he did not realize that none of these stood alone but had strings and impacts in Congress and with other countries.
From the outset he found that there were constraints on his power, constraints from congress, from the people, and even from other countries. It seemed to him closing Guantanamo and moving the prisoners to prisons and to civilian trial would only require his order. He was unprepared for the cost, the public outcry, and the legal issues. Ultimately he was forced to abandon this goal and act pragmatically. In fact President Obama’s efforts to achieve the lofty goals he promised have consistently yielded to practical decisions and compromises.
Having been raised as a Muslim or simply exposed to Islam, he came to office perhaps with a greater understanding of Islam than any previous president. Armed with this knowledge he aimed to repair America’s reputation within the Islamic community. This objective formed the basis for much of his foreign policy. This was a policy that not only failed in its objective but seriously damaged his position at home. His actions and compromises have been viewed abroad as signs of weakness and intransigence and at home as examples of his inexperience, incompetence, and subordination of American interests to internationalism.
One of President Obama’s objectives was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but he quickly discovered that starting a war is much easier than ending one. But there was never a declaration of war so as President he could end them with a stroke of a pen, which he more or less did. This was done over the objections of the military and the result left Iraq dominated by religious conflict, an incipient civil war, a corrupt government heavily influenced by Iran, and with Al Qaeda resurgent. The results in Afghanistan are similar. By announcing a withdrawal date the Taliban and Al Qaeda took that as surrender and have become resurgent. In this instance he fulfilled his campaign promise but his foreign policy failed and the Islamic community saw this as an example of American unreliability and weakness.
As part of his policy of Islamic refurbishment President Obama distanced himself from Israel. To a rational person that might have made sense but the Islamic countries simply saw that as another sign of weakness and a demonstration of how unreliable America is as an ally. Rather than improving the situation in the Middle East President Obama’s policies have left the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda stronger throughout the area. More importantly the policy toward Israel has emboldened Iran and the Palestinians and has made the possibility of another war greatly increased.
The Foreign policy toward China has been one of talk more than action. The Chinese government has consistently attacked our government and industrial computers for the purpose of stealing secrets. The Chinese do not honor copyright laws and manipulate their currency. All of these things are known and reported in the press, yet there has been no action taken to correct or prevent these. This has had a huge impact on the American economy through the loss of jobs and revenues. The idea that problems can be solved through talk is the basis of diplomacy but ultimately diplomacy must be backed up by action and these actions have been missing throughout this administration.
The foreign policies of President Obama have been well intended with the idea that by retreating from an aggressive leadership position America’s image would be enhanced, but clearly this has not been the result.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
The Mess in Mesopotamia
It is worth noting that Mesopotamia – now Iraq did not exist prior to the end of WW I, unless you want to consider the Babylonia Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, which was absorbed into the Persian Empire. From that time Mesopotamia did not exist as an independent nation. It is important to understand that Iraq is a creation, not by Arabs, or Muslims, or any indigenous group in Iraq, but was created by the British led by that intrepid self-proclaimed genius and aristocrat – Sir Winston Churchill – aided and abetted by that other self-promoting genius Colonel T. E Lawrence aka Lawrence of Arabia. This was the last gasp of European Colonialism.
It is worth remembering that Queen Victoria had died only 17 years before the end of WW I so the colonial mentality that was so prevalent throughout Europe had not yet expired so the French and English felt it was totally within their right – indeed divine right – to set up the world to suit themselves. So what once had been the Ottoman Empire now became Turkey, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Persia and Egypt had always existed except they were now Iran and Egypt. At the same time that these artificial lines were being drawn Churchill upheld the controversial policy aimed at establishing a Jewish State in what was then Palestine. Palestine, like Persia had ancient roots and had always been a fractious place that had given fits to the Romans who had barely been able to maintain peace there even with massive military force. Nevertheless, Palestine has ancient roots and has long been ethnically diverse and home to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Ironically had you asked a Jew what his nationality was up to the time Israel was created he would have said he was a Palestinian. It was only after the creation of Israel and the schism between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews became Israeli’s and the Muslims became Palestinians. Today there are Muslims AND Palestinians and while to western eyes this distinction seems pretty fine, but Muslims are a very fragmented group and these distinctions are very real to them.
But it was Churchill who was the driving force – along with T.E. Lawrence – who Post WW I, set up the country then called Mesopotamia and now called Iraq. Initially this was a constitutional monarchy and independent democracy from 1925 until 1958. But the bloodletting never abated and these “democratic” governments supported pogroms against the Jews and genocide against the Assyrians. The Shi’ites in Mesopotamia rebelled and were cruelly suppressed by the Sunni’s and the British. The British had occupied the ancient territory of Mesopotamia as liberators of the Iraqi people. In British eyes they were being freed from the oppression of the Turkish Ottomans. And initially the British Army was welcomed as liberators as they determinedly set up a constitutional and democratic government. Unfortunately the people turned on their liberators and killed thousands of the British troops – so the current situation in Iraq is simply an encore of the British experience in the 1920’s. The British ultimately crushed the rebellion but at a cost, the lesson was that it required a massive military intervention applied with an iron hand. This was a lesson lost on the American Military who suffer from the American Disease – this disease is the belief that all peoples are alike, they desire freedom, and that a democratic government will bring peace. The sad reality is that not everyone in the world is prepared for a democratic government either psychologically or culturally and the Muslim World in particular is not ready for democratic government. Democracy has failed every time it has been implemented in the past and the current situation in Iraq shows every sign that it will fail once again.
The western liberals simply cannot let go of the idea that the Arab world is desperate for freedom and democracy. The only Muslim state that has come close is Turkey and that democracy was implemented by force. The Muslim World is actually fragmented by tribes, cultures, feuds, and ironically – religion. They are somewhat unified by their hatred of the West which dates back to the Crusades which is still evidenced by Osama bin Laden and others referring to Westerners and Americans in particular – as Crusaders. Currently the liberal establishment is totally convinced that the American invasion of Iraq was instigated by George Bush for the sole purpose of enriching the oil companies or even worse as a distraction to the failed domestic policies. Both of these are totally false but the truth may be even more pathetic.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strategic bulwark against the Shi’ite dominated Iran but it was increasingly unstable as Saddam began to have visions of grandeur. But the US policy wonks mistakenly thought that if they toppled Hussein the people would view the US as liberators and immediately establish a stable democratic government. It was as if these highly educated people from all of those liberal elite eastern universities never read a history book. Instead of liberators the US was quickly seen as invaders and Crusaders and instead of following the historical precedent of ruthlessly crushing all dissent with overwhelming force, the Americans held an election. The real question is didn’t any of those fancy universities ever hear of Machiavelli? So instead of bringing democracy and law and order, the US managed to unleash all of the pent up hatred and feuds already present and these were exacerbated by the external influence of Al Qaeda. Worse, the stabilizing influence of Sunni Iraq is now gone and the weakened Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and fueling their nuclear ambitions.
It seems the mess in Mesopotamia is much worse than anyone realizes. If the US exits Iraq it will be a strategic disaster because it will be seen as a defeat of the US by Al Qaeda. If the US stays it will continue to inflame Muslims worldwide as it will be seen as an invasion of Islamic lands by Crusaders determined to crush Islam. Also if and when the US does leave Iraq it almost guarantees that an enterprising General will rise to power and overthrow the democratic government which is only a sham anyway. If this General is pro-Iranian, which is likely then we will be faced with an anti-American alliance that could destabilize Saudi Arabia and threaten the World’s oil supply. It would be better if the CIA orchestrated this coup and saw to it that a pro-American General became dictator, but it is unlikely any administration would have the courage to do this and face the wrath of the liberal press. Mesopotamia is a mess and it has always been a mess.
It is worth remembering that Queen Victoria had died only 17 years before the end of WW I so the colonial mentality that was so prevalent throughout Europe had not yet expired so the French and English felt it was totally within their right – indeed divine right – to set up the world to suit themselves. So what once had been the Ottoman Empire now became Turkey, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Persia and Egypt had always existed except they were now Iran and Egypt. At the same time that these artificial lines were being drawn Churchill upheld the controversial policy aimed at establishing a Jewish State in what was then Palestine. Palestine, like Persia had ancient roots and had always been a fractious place that had given fits to the Romans who had barely been able to maintain peace there even with massive military force. Nevertheless, Palestine has ancient roots and has long been ethnically diverse and home to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Ironically had you asked a Jew what his nationality was up to the time Israel was created he would have said he was a Palestinian. It was only after the creation of Israel and the schism between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews became Israeli’s and the Muslims became Palestinians. Today there are Muslims AND Palestinians and while to western eyes this distinction seems pretty fine, but Muslims are a very fragmented group and these distinctions are very real to them.
But it was Churchill who was the driving force – along with T.E. Lawrence – who Post WW I, set up the country then called Mesopotamia and now called Iraq. Initially this was a constitutional monarchy and independent democracy from 1925 until 1958. But the bloodletting never abated and these “democratic” governments supported pogroms against the Jews and genocide against the Assyrians. The Shi’ites in Mesopotamia rebelled and were cruelly suppressed by the Sunni’s and the British. The British had occupied the ancient territory of Mesopotamia as liberators of the Iraqi people. In British eyes they were being freed from the oppression of the Turkish Ottomans. And initially the British Army was welcomed as liberators as they determinedly set up a constitutional and democratic government. Unfortunately the people turned on their liberators and killed thousands of the British troops – so the current situation in Iraq is simply an encore of the British experience in the 1920’s. The British ultimately crushed the rebellion but at a cost, the lesson was that it required a massive military intervention applied with an iron hand. This was a lesson lost on the American Military who suffer from the American Disease – this disease is the belief that all peoples are alike, they desire freedom, and that a democratic government will bring peace. The sad reality is that not everyone in the world is prepared for a democratic government either psychologically or culturally and the Muslim World in particular is not ready for democratic government. Democracy has failed every time it has been implemented in the past and the current situation in Iraq shows every sign that it will fail once again.
The western liberals simply cannot let go of the idea that the Arab world is desperate for freedom and democracy. The only Muslim state that has come close is Turkey and that democracy was implemented by force. The Muslim World is actually fragmented by tribes, cultures, feuds, and ironically – religion. They are somewhat unified by their hatred of the West which dates back to the Crusades which is still evidenced by Osama bin Laden and others referring to Westerners and Americans in particular – as Crusaders. Currently the liberal establishment is totally convinced that the American invasion of Iraq was instigated by George Bush for the sole purpose of enriching the oil companies or even worse as a distraction to the failed domestic policies. Both of these are totally false but the truth may be even more pathetic.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strategic bulwark against the Shi’ite dominated Iran but it was increasingly unstable as Saddam began to have visions of grandeur. But the US policy wonks mistakenly thought that if they toppled Hussein the people would view the US as liberators and immediately establish a stable democratic government. It was as if these highly educated people from all of those liberal elite eastern universities never read a history book. Instead of liberators the US was quickly seen as invaders and Crusaders and instead of following the historical precedent of ruthlessly crushing all dissent with overwhelming force, the Americans held an election. The real question is didn’t any of those fancy universities ever hear of Machiavelli? So instead of bringing democracy and law and order, the US managed to unleash all of the pent up hatred and feuds already present and these were exacerbated by the external influence of Al Qaeda. Worse, the stabilizing influence of Sunni Iraq is now gone and the weakened Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and fueling their nuclear ambitions.
It seems the mess in Mesopotamia is much worse than anyone realizes. If the US exits Iraq it will be a strategic disaster because it will be seen as a defeat of the US by Al Qaeda. If the US stays it will continue to inflame Muslims worldwide as it will be seen as an invasion of Islamic lands by Crusaders determined to crush Islam. Also if and when the US does leave Iraq it almost guarantees that an enterprising General will rise to power and overthrow the democratic government which is only a sham anyway. If this General is pro-Iranian, which is likely then we will be faced with an anti-American alliance that could destabilize Saudi Arabia and threaten the World’s oil supply. It would be better if the CIA orchestrated this coup and saw to it that a pro-American General became dictator, but it is unlikely any administration would have the courage to do this and face the wrath of the liberal press. Mesopotamia is a mess and it has always been a mess.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A Review of the Arab Spring
The Arab Spring continues apace as one Islamic Dictator after another falls to popular uprisings. The US has either quietly stayed on the sidelines as in Egypt and Iran or played an active role as in Iraq and Libya. Although US involvement in Libya was sort of a one off since it was conducted via NATO which is a military euphemism for the US. The US along with the western powers see these uprisings as an effort by the people to be free and struggling for democratic representative government. While these uprisings may establish new representative governments any resemblance to any western style democratic government is wishful thinking. The western powers seem incapable of grasping the realities of the Middle East and Islam. In spite of the politically correct position of the US government and the West, the reality is Christendom ( read the West) is engaged in religious war with Islam.
The Obama administration has declared that all American Troops will withdraw from Iraq. For the anti-war crowd this appears as a victory instead of the disaster it may be because to the Islamic community they won and have succeeded in driving American Forces out of Iraq. Iraq is not politically stable and that instability is being driven by Iran whose objective is to create another Islamic Nation dominated by Iran. It is almost a certainty the current government cannot remain in power once the US leaves and any new government will be Islamic, not secular, and certainly anti-American and anti-Christian.
Currently the West is celebrating the fall of the Gadhafi Government with the belief (read hope) that the new government will be democratic, pro-west, and secular. The first step of the new government was to declare Sharia Law. Of course this doesn’t mean that will stand because like most of the Arab nations, Libya is tribal and each of these tribes is now fully armed and struggling to gain power. It is probable that Libya will remain unstable for the foreseeable future but regardless of who finally emerges as the new dictator he will not be secular or democratic but Islamic and certainly not pro-west. Abdul Jalil – the head of the Libyan transitional government has already announced that he intends to establish Sharia Law in Libya – thus firmly returning Libya to the 8th Century.
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia died recently and now who will be the new Crown Prince is undetermined but the probability is that the logical candidate Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz will be chosen. Saudi Arabia is strictly Islamic and rules with Sharia Law. World opinion has increasingly pressured Arabia to abandon or at least not enforce some of the more barbarous parts of Sharia. While Saudi Arabia has supported the US in some ways that support has largely been because the Royal family is not loved and needs international support. This is why the current Saudi government has been softening its enforcement of Sharia. If Aziz comes to power there is little doubt but he would return to the strict enforcement of Sharia law and reduce his support for the US. With Aziz in power Saudi Arabia could become very unstable and it is feasible that the Monarchy could fall and be replaced by an Islamic dictator.
As a further example of the failed US foreign policies we have Syria. The US was quick to step into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and to support the uprisings in Egypt but have done nothing to support the uprising in Syria. It is no secret that Syria has a well organized and capable military and Assad is supported by Iran. If the people of Syria by some miracle manage to overthrow Assad, can the US expect their support? Not very likely but if Assad manages to suppress his opposition which he is likely to do, he will be indebted to Iran and Hezbollah. He would then pose an even greater threat to Lebanon and Israel. What the US policy is toward Syria has never been very clear and the failure to support the rebels in Syria will strengthen the current government just as it did in Iran and America will once again appear to be an unreliable friend.
Iran is actually Persia and at various times in history Persia has been a mighty empire and it seems clear that the current government is intent on re-establishing that empire, if not directly certainly indirectly. As the Arab Spring progresses Iranian influence has spread from Iran across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. How Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia react to this is to be determined but the intransigence of America cannot make them overly comfortable in relying on America and that is before Iran gains nuclear power, which they are sure to do. And when they do gain nuclear capability there is no doubt they will use it as intimidation on all of the Islamic Middle East in their bid to re-establish the Caliphate and the Persian Empire. In the meantime the American public should not be so quick to celebrate the Arab Spring as an example of the rise of democracy because these governments are not going to resemble anything like western democracies and with a Nuclear Iran as the central power a major military confrontation may not be far off.
The Obama administration has declared that all American Troops will withdraw from Iraq. For the anti-war crowd this appears as a victory instead of the disaster it may be because to the Islamic community they won and have succeeded in driving American Forces out of Iraq. Iraq is not politically stable and that instability is being driven by Iran whose objective is to create another Islamic Nation dominated by Iran. It is almost a certainty the current government cannot remain in power once the US leaves and any new government will be Islamic, not secular, and certainly anti-American and anti-Christian.
Currently the West is celebrating the fall of the Gadhafi Government with the belief (read hope) that the new government will be democratic, pro-west, and secular. The first step of the new government was to declare Sharia Law. Of course this doesn’t mean that will stand because like most of the Arab nations, Libya is tribal and each of these tribes is now fully armed and struggling to gain power. It is probable that Libya will remain unstable for the foreseeable future but regardless of who finally emerges as the new dictator he will not be secular or democratic but Islamic and certainly not pro-west. Abdul Jalil – the head of the Libyan transitional government has already announced that he intends to establish Sharia Law in Libya – thus firmly returning Libya to the 8th Century.
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia died recently and now who will be the new Crown Prince is undetermined but the probability is that the logical candidate Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz will be chosen. Saudi Arabia is strictly Islamic and rules with Sharia Law. World opinion has increasingly pressured Arabia to abandon or at least not enforce some of the more barbarous parts of Sharia. While Saudi Arabia has supported the US in some ways that support has largely been because the Royal family is not loved and needs international support. This is why the current Saudi government has been softening its enforcement of Sharia. If Aziz comes to power there is little doubt but he would return to the strict enforcement of Sharia law and reduce his support for the US. With Aziz in power Saudi Arabia could become very unstable and it is feasible that the Monarchy could fall and be replaced by an Islamic dictator.
As a further example of the failed US foreign policies we have Syria. The US was quick to step into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and to support the uprisings in Egypt but have done nothing to support the uprising in Syria. It is no secret that Syria has a well organized and capable military and Assad is supported by Iran. If the people of Syria by some miracle manage to overthrow Assad, can the US expect their support? Not very likely but if Assad manages to suppress his opposition which he is likely to do, he will be indebted to Iran and Hezbollah. He would then pose an even greater threat to Lebanon and Israel. What the US policy is toward Syria has never been very clear and the failure to support the rebels in Syria will strengthen the current government just as it did in Iran and America will once again appear to be an unreliable friend.
Iran is actually Persia and at various times in history Persia has been a mighty empire and it seems clear that the current government is intent on re-establishing that empire, if not directly certainly indirectly. As the Arab Spring progresses Iranian influence has spread from Iran across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. How Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia react to this is to be determined but the intransigence of America cannot make them overly comfortable in relying on America and that is before Iran gains nuclear power, which they are sure to do. And when they do gain nuclear capability there is no doubt they will use it as intimidation on all of the Islamic Middle East in their bid to re-establish the Caliphate and the Persian Empire. In the meantime the American public should not be so quick to celebrate the Arab Spring as an example of the rise of democracy because these governments are not going to resemble anything like western democracies and with a Nuclear Iran as the central power a major military confrontation may not be far off.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
The Arab Spring of 2011
The Arab Spring is worrisome on several levels. It seems that few in the Western World understand the dynamics of the area and American foreign policy over several administrations seems to be based more on wishful thinking (my opinion)than any true understanding of how things work. There is a reason why these countries have been unstable for generations if not for centuries. The Ottomans ruled this area for 500 years but did so with an iron hand and disagreements and disagreeable people were dealt with harshly. The Arab world is tribal in nature with fierce opposition between tribes. Khadafi (sp) in Libya is hanging on to power because his military is drawn from and led by his tribe. The opposition is not some group or groups of people grasping for freedom and democratic government, these are people who think it is time for their tribe(s) to rule. Once Khadafi is out nothing will change and in fact there is a high probability that Al Qaeda could seize power because of the fragmented opposition to Khadafi.
The West and America in particular seems to labor under the misconception that the Arab World is in turmoil because the people want representative government and freedom. There is nothing in the history of this region that would lead any thinking person to that conclusion. Even if "democratic" governments come out of these conflicts they will not resemble any democratic government that would be recognizable by the average American. Their press will be controlled, the government will be corrupt, the legal system will be controlled, there will be no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech, and in general what will emerge is the usual Islamic strongman dictator clinging to power for life or at least for decades.
America is withdrawing from Iraq leaving behind a fragile "democratic" government. It is unlikely that government will survive and very likely that a civil war will occur driven by Al Sadr and other religious leaders. It will be Sunni versus Shia and tribe against tribe with the Christians and Kurds playing a minor role. People seem to forget that the British and French tried to bring democratic governments to this area following WW I and it failed. Those goverments collapsed into strong man dictatorships run by "Presidents" for life. The best thing America can do now is to cut our losses and leave these people to sort it out for themselves. The alternative would be to stop playing this ridiculous game of moral superiority and attempting to establish our rules over them. They regard our freedoms and rules as weaknesses and act accordingly. A few public executions, mass bombings, and an emasculation or two would send the only kind of message these people understand because those are their rules and the rules they understand.
The upheaval in the Arab world is driving out dictators who supported America but what they are being replaced by may be -- and probably will be -- much worse for American security than what it has been under the dictators. Egypt is abandoning their peaceful coexistence with Israel, Syria is in play over Lebanon and Israel. The Iranians are pushing their anti-west and anti-Israel agendas in the background. Our foreign policy is non-existent or at least doesn't give the appearance of being a coherent policy.
Royce
The West and America in particular seems to labor under the misconception that the Arab World is in turmoil because the people want representative government and freedom. There is nothing in the history of this region that would lead any thinking person to that conclusion. Even if "democratic" governments come out of these conflicts they will not resemble any democratic government that would be recognizable by the average American. Their press will be controlled, the government will be corrupt, the legal system will be controlled, there will be no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech, and in general what will emerge is the usual Islamic strongman dictator clinging to power for life or at least for decades.
America is withdrawing from Iraq leaving behind a fragile "democratic" government. It is unlikely that government will survive and very likely that a civil war will occur driven by Al Sadr and other religious leaders. It will be Sunni versus Shia and tribe against tribe with the Christians and Kurds playing a minor role. People seem to forget that the British and French tried to bring democratic governments to this area following WW I and it failed. Those goverments collapsed into strong man dictatorships run by "Presidents" for life. The best thing America can do now is to cut our losses and leave these people to sort it out for themselves. The alternative would be to stop playing this ridiculous game of moral superiority and attempting to establish our rules over them. They regard our freedoms and rules as weaknesses and act accordingly. A few public executions, mass bombings, and an emasculation or two would send the only kind of message these people understand because those are their rules and the rules they understand.
The upheaval in the Arab world is driving out dictators who supported America but what they are being replaced by may be -- and probably will be -- much worse for American security than what it has been under the dictators. Egypt is abandoning their peaceful coexistence with Israel, Syria is in play over Lebanon and Israel. The Iranians are pushing their anti-west and anti-Israel agendas in the background. Our foreign policy is non-existent or at least doesn't give the appearance of being a coherent policy.
Royce
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Obama Strategy?
As the decision relative to Afghanistan continues to wait on President Obama, perhaps it is time to ask precisely what his strategy is relative to America and American foreign policy. During one of his overseas trips, President Obama was asked about the exceptionalism of America. Specifically Ronald Reagan viewed America as “A shining city on a hill” and how did President Obama see America? He was very clear in that he did not see America as unique or with any interests above or different from those of – say – Cuba, Greece, or Venezuela. This startling view was reflected in the mainstream media as a refreshing change from the jingoism that has characterized America. Newsweek almost got the vapors in their fawning over President Obama’s stance that America is no longer chauvinistic and parochial, but we stand as equals with the world and that Obama stands above the country – even above the world – “he is sort of God”. I think even with his overweening ego, President Obama might be a little embarrassed by that quote. But it does raise the question of exactly how does President Obama see the US and where does he think our interests lie?
The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.
If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?
So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.
To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.
So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.
The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.
If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?
So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.
To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.
So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Strategic Observations and Forecast
After reading various articles and books plus listening to the news, and then observing the economic situation both nationally and internationally, I have arrived at some conclusions. Naturally these could be totally off base and have no relationship to reality, but then maybe not. Certainly it should be clear to everyone that not only are we in a serious economic situation but that we are in the throes of significant change politically, economically, and culturally. So these are simply my personal conclusions regarding what I think are some key areas of change and impact.
Energy
The drive within the US for many years has been to achieve independence from fossil fuels, meaning oil and natural gas, but in reality independence from oil imports. The focus has been on electric autos which to date have proven to be overly expensive and hugely unpopular. However, that is basically a technical problem which can and will be overcome so the long term problem is our electrical infrastructure. The Greens have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants while campaigning against coal powered energy. Unless the congress corrects this problem the price of electricity will skyrocket as thousands of electric vehicles hit the road. Even without these electric cars the price of electricity is already increasing and in some areas the supply struggles to meet the demand. My long range forecast is that while the demand for gasoline decreases the cost of gas in the family budget will be replaced by the cost of electricity and there will be shortages in the near term if congress allows the Greens to approve the Kyoto treaty which would reduce our supply of electricity as generating plants are forced to close.
Oil and OPEC
The price of oil is plummeting and efforts by OPEC to drive the price up will probably be futile at least in the near term. The problem is that the oil producing countries of Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and the Emirates have virtually no source of income outside of oil. These oil revenues support their socialist programs and as the price of oil drops their spending far exceeds their income. Consequently through OPEC they have tried to increase the cost of oil by reducing the supply. But there is no honor among thieves so while they agree to reduce the supply of oil the reality is only the Saudi’s do so the actual supply of oil continues to exceed the demand. The result of this hasn’t manifested itself yet, but within the next year OPEC will become nothing more than a hollow shell with each member going their own way while giving lip service to the agreements.
Iran & Venezuela
Both of these countries are unstable but perhaps the most unstable of the pair is Iran. The Mullahs have instituted Sharia Law and enforce it capriciously. They execute homosexuals, adulterers, and women who have been accused of “immoral conduct” – usually without trial. They are Saber rattling but as it turns out much of their vaunted military is unreliable. Their missile program turned out to be mostly an Adobe Photoshop exercise. By using Shia Iraqi soldiers as bait the managed to surround an American patrol with the objective of kidnapping them and holding them hostage in order to embarrass the US. Instead, they American officer who was surrounded by Iranian soldiers ordered his men to open fire. The Iranians turned and ran off leaving eleven dead. There is great unrest among the population and the more restrictive the government becomes the more unsteady the population and the more demands for change. In the meantime their principal source of income is oil and with the plummeting oil prices they can no longer fund their social programs much less their military machine. The best course of action for the US is inaction and possibly increased diplomatic contact. The Mullahs need us to be aggressive toward them and they will undoubtedly continue provocations but we must not allow ourselves to be provoked.
Venezuela is a little more stable but Chavez is systematically wrecking the economy with his socialist programs. The black market is rampant and Chavez is looking for some outside force that he can blame for his problems. Currently this is the US but without his oil income and with his socialized businesses dropping like stones he is driving for total power. This country is subject to an internal revolution by the military. The problem with soldiers is that they have parents and families. If they aren’t happy the soldiers become unreliable. Chavez will continue his drive for total power as dictator but as the price of oil declines he will be forced into either curtailing his social spending or continuing to pump oil in an effort to maintain his revenues. Either way Venezuela will be very unstable as well as his future. Once again our best course of action is no action.
China
It seems pretty clear that China as a communist nation is on very unsteady ground. As they creep more and more into capitalism the communist power structure moves ever closer to Imperial China in practice. Central planning had never worked and is not working in China. Corruption is rampant which has greatly impacted their foreign exports plus weakening the grip of the government on the people. Their exports are declining, unemployment is increasing, and their economy which depends on growth is declining. The Chinese have always been an agrarian economy and the country peasants have always been frugal as well as secretive and prone to ignoring the central government. Nothing has changed and the peasants are not spending so the revenues are dependent on foreign exchange. However, as these decline revenues decline and as these decline the government’s grip on power is threatened since they cannot continue their social programs or control the people who are moving ever more toward capitalism and individual action. It is unlikely the current communist government can continue for any extended period as it is currently structured. Most likely it will become more capitalist oriented with the central government looking more and more like Imperial China with a socialist structure similar to what you see in Europe.
Energy
The drive within the US for many years has been to achieve independence from fossil fuels, meaning oil and natural gas, but in reality independence from oil imports. The focus has been on electric autos which to date have proven to be overly expensive and hugely unpopular. However, that is basically a technical problem which can and will be overcome so the long term problem is our electrical infrastructure. The Greens have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants while campaigning against coal powered energy. Unless the congress corrects this problem the price of electricity will skyrocket as thousands of electric vehicles hit the road. Even without these electric cars the price of electricity is already increasing and in some areas the supply struggles to meet the demand. My long range forecast is that while the demand for gasoline decreases the cost of gas in the family budget will be replaced by the cost of electricity and there will be shortages in the near term if congress allows the Greens to approve the Kyoto treaty which would reduce our supply of electricity as generating plants are forced to close.
Oil and OPEC
The price of oil is plummeting and efforts by OPEC to drive the price up will probably be futile at least in the near term. The problem is that the oil producing countries of Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and the Emirates have virtually no source of income outside of oil. These oil revenues support their socialist programs and as the price of oil drops their spending far exceeds their income. Consequently through OPEC they have tried to increase the cost of oil by reducing the supply. But there is no honor among thieves so while they agree to reduce the supply of oil the reality is only the Saudi’s do so the actual supply of oil continues to exceed the demand. The result of this hasn’t manifested itself yet, but within the next year OPEC will become nothing more than a hollow shell with each member going their own way while giving lip service to the agreements.
Iran & Venezuela
Both of these countries are unstable but perhaps the most unstable of the pair is Iran. The Mullahs have instituted Sharia Law and enforce it capriciously. They execute homosexuals, adulterers, and women who have been accused of “immoral conduct” – usually without trial. They are Saber rattling but as it turns out much of their vaunted military is unreliable. Their missile program turned out to be mostly an Adobe Photoshop exercise. By using Shia Iraqi soldiers as bait the managed to surround an American patrol with the objective of kidnapping them and holding them hostage in order to embarrass the US. Instead, they American officer who was surrounded by Iranian soldiers ordered his men to open fire. The Iranians turned and ran off leaving eleven dead. There is great unrest among the population and the more restrictive the government becomes the more unsteady the population and the more demands for change. In the meantime their principal source of income is oil and with the plummeting oil prices they can no longer fund their social programs much less their military machine. The best course of action for the US is inaction and possibly increased diplomatic contact. The Mullahs need us to be aggressive toward them and they will undoubtedly continue provocations but we must not allow ourselves to be provoked.
Venezuela is a little more stable but Chavez is systematically wrecking the economy with his socialist programs. The black market is rampant and Chavez is looking for some outside force that he can blame for his problems. Currently this is the US but without his oil income and with his socialized businesses dropping like stones he is driving for total power. This country is subject to an internal revolution by the military. The problem with soldiers is that they have parents and families. If they aren’t happy the soldiers become unreliable. Chavez will continue his drive for total power as dictator but as the price of oil declines he will be forced into either curtailing his social spending or continuing to pump oil in an effort to maintain his revenues. Either way Venezuela will be very unstable as well as his future. Once again our best course of action is no action.
China
It seems pretty clear that China as a communist nation is on very unsteady ground. As they creep more and more into capitalism the communist power structure moves ever closer to Imperial China in practice. Central planning had never worked and is not working in China. Corruption is rampant which has greatly impacted their foreign exports plus weakening the grip of the government on the people. Their exports are declining, unemployment is increasing, and their economy which depends on growth is declining. The Chinese have always been an agrarian economy and the country peasants have always been frugal as well as secretive and prone to ignoring the central government. Nothing has changed and the peasants are not spending so the revenues are dependent on foreign exchange. However, as these decline revenues decline and as these decline the government’s grip on power is threatened since they cannot continue their social programs or control the people who are moving ever more toward capitalism and individual action. It is unlikely the current communist government can continue for any extended period as it is currently structured. Most likely it will become more capitalist oriented with the central government looking more and more like Imperial China with a socialist structure similar to what you see in Europe.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Iran and American Foreign Policy
There has been growing concern over Iran and the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear power. These concerns are well founded, especially since the UN has proven time and again to be totally ineffective in every endeavor but especially in its peace keeping efforts. It is worth pointing out that the USSR developed nuclear capability because of the traitorous activity of some liberal scientists who felt America couldn’t be trusted with such power. Since that time America has continued employing immigrants in sensitive positions because these people have become American citizens. The result has been the spread of nuclear weapons including India and Pakistan. The real threat really isn’t whether or not the Iranians develop nuclear weapons the issue is will the terrorists supported by Iran gain control of them? It is highly unlikely that any nation state will employ nuclear weapons even under attack, but it is an almost certainty that the various Islamic terrorists organizations would use them at the first opportunity, because they would have no fear of reprisal. After all who would you attack?
Recently the fear has been that the Israeli’s will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites using American bunker busters and this threat is now increased with the recent election of President Obama who has made it clear his policies will not favor Israel. Therefore the threat of an attack on Iran prior to Obama taking office is greatly increased, but is the Iranian militancy just saber rattling or does it pose a real threat? Deception and posturing is endemic to Islamic culture but generally misunderstood by the West. It was Saddam Hussein who made a big show out of working on nuclear weaponry and developing weapons of mass destruction when as it turned out, most of this was just to impress his Islamic neighbors and to threaten the US. Now Iran is trying the same tactic by leading the West to believe that they are actually developing nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver those weapons. This was evidenced by their release of the test firing of four long range missiles, which turned out later to be three missiles and on even further analysis only one missile and it was not an intermediate range missile. So Iran’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons or any weapon at all is highly suspect and probably non-existent at least in the near term. So the question remains – why is Iran acting is such a provocative manner knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein?
The answer to the question cannot be known outside of Iran but an examination of the current situation in Iran is certainly warranted and may give some insight into why they are provoking the US. The Ayatollah Khomeini was not so much of a religious leader as he was a revolutionary and he was convinced that when the US allowed the Shah to fall that the Islamic world was ripe for revolution and that his revolution would sweep all before it. Of course this isn’t what happened. Instead he found that while Iran was ready for a change it wasn’t ready for his extreme ideas. Nevertheless, much like Lenin, Robespierre and Hitler the people realized too late that they had changed one tyranny for another. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein wasn’t in any mood to allow the Ayatollah’s to take over his country. The result was a war instigated by Hussein on the mistaken assumption that the people of Iran wouldn’t tolerate the religious fanaticism installed by Khomeini. He was wrong, but there is a lesson there should be heeded. Hitler was convinced the Russians would rise up against Stalin when he invaded Russia but instead he ignited a battle that ultimately brought him down. The same occurred with Iran because the Iranians did not rise up against Iraq but instead rallied together to fight the invader.
The situation in Iran today is very unstable and the Ayatollah’s retain only a very tenuous hold on the government. They try to maintain the facade of a democratic government but they arrest opposition leaders or simply disqualify them from running for office, a process historically used by dictators. The result is a highly unstable government which has grown even more unstable in recent weeks as the demand for oil declines along with oil revenues. The current President of Iran – Ahmadinejad has squandered the oil revenues on the assumption that these would continue indefinitely. As the world demand for oil declines and the dollar strengthens the Iranian government finds itself under pressure internally because it can no longer meet the demands of their infrastructure. They have succeeded in suppressing internal dissent but that can only be a short term strategy. Thus is seems that the best strategy would be to provoke the Israeli’s or the US into attacking them and the best way to accomplish that would be to create the belief that they have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at Israel. This would provoke Israel into attacking them which would entangle the US and rally the people to resist the invaders. At this juncture it seems the best strategy for the west is to do precisely nothing other than to continue economic sanctions as long as Iran continues their provocative behavior, but to do nothing else. The USSR collapsed due to internal economic pressures and it is very possible that the current Iranian regime could collapse for the same reasons.
Recently the fear has been that the Israeli’s will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites using American bunker busters and this threat is now increased with the recent election of President Obama who has made it clear his policies will not favor Israel. Therefore the threat of an attack on Iran prior to Obama taking office is greatly increased, but is the Iranian militancy just saber rattling or does it pose a real threat? Deception and posturing is endemic to Islamic culture but generally misunderstood by the West. It was Saddam Hussein who made a big show out of working on nuclear weaponry and developing weapons of mass destruction when as it turned out, most of this was just to impress his Islamic neighbors and to threaten the US. Now Iran is trying the same tactic by leading the West to believe that they are actually developing nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver those weapons. This was evidenced by their release of the test firing of four long range missiles, which turned out later to be three missiles and on even further analysis only one missile and it was not an intermediate range missile. So Iran’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons or any weapon at all is highly suspect and probably non-existent at least in the near term. So the question remains – why is Iran acting is such a provocative manner knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein?
The answer to the question cannot be known outside of Iran but an examination of the current situation in Iran is certainly warranted and may give some insight into why they are provoking the US. The Ayatollah Khomeini was not so much of a religious leader as he was a revolutionary and he was convinced that when the US allowed the Shah to fall that the Islamic world was ripe for revolution and that his revolution would sweep all before it. Of course this isn’t what happened. Instead he found that while Iran was ready for a change it wasn’t ready for his extreme ideas. Nevertheless, much like Lenin, Robespierre and Hitler the people realized too late that they had changed one tyranny for another. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein wasn’t in any mood to allow the Ayatollah’s to take over his country. The result was a war instigated by Hussein on the mistaken assumption that the people of Iran wouldn’t tolerate the religious fanaticism installed by Khomeini. He was wrong, but there is a lesson there should be heeded. Hitler was convinced the Russians would rise up against Stalin when he invaded Russia but instead he ignited a battle that ultimately brought him down. The same occurred with Iran because the Iranians did not rise up against Iraq but instead rallied together to fight the invader.
The situation in Iran today is very unstable and the Ayatollah’s retain only a very tenuous hold on the government. They try to maintain the facade of a democratic government but they arrest opposition leaders or simply disqualify them from running for office, a process historically used by dictators. The result is a highly unstable government which has grown even more unstable in recent weeks as the demand for oil declines along with oil revenues. The current President of Iran – Ahmadinejad has squandered the oil revenues on the assumption that these would continue indefinitely. As the world demand for oil declines and the dollar strengthens the Iranian government finds itself under pressure internally because it can no longer meet the demands of their infrastructure. They have succeeded in suppressing internal dissent but that can only be a short term strategy. Thus is seems that the best strategy would be to provoke the Israeli’s or the US into attacking them and the best way to accomplish that would be to create the belief that they have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at Israel. This would provoke Israel into attacking them which would entangle the US and rally the people to resist the invaders. At this juncture it seems the best strategy for the west is to do precisely nothing other than to continue economic sanctions as long as Iran continues their provocative behavior, but to do nothing else. The USSR collapsed due to internal economic pressures and it is very possible that the current Iranian regime could collapse for the same reasons.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
A Perspective on Big Oil
Even as the Bush Administration fades into history, the poisonous rhetoric continues. We continue to hear the calls by one demagogic politician after another to tax the oil companies and their “windfall” profits. Of course the sums being reported are indeed huge but these are big companies and like all big companies their revenues are truly large but no larger than any other large company. Then there is the idea America is being held hostage by the Arabian States. Well not exactly. The fact is that country that holds the place as our largest importer is Canada who sends us 1902K barrels of oil per day. Saudi Arabia is second with 1519K barrels and Mexico third with 1230K barrels. Fourth place falls to Nigeria and Venezuela is in fifth place. Then there is the blather coming from those who opposed the Iraqi War but feel that we should just take the oil because after al “they owe us”. Talk about a mixed message! But Iraq already is in sixth place as a source of oil. So it seems we are already getting oil from Iraq and will undoubtedly get more as that country stabilizes. It is worth noting that Iran, Dubai, the Arab Emirates, Yemen, and other sunny and delightful places peopled by colorful natives are not on the list of the top 15 suppliers.
It is also worth noting that in general that the oil these countries are exporting are government owned and controlled by OPEC, an organization that is illegal in the United States. But it is this organization that sets the price for oil and that price can be set arbitrarily according to what the market will bear. So they could charge $200 a barrel and drive the cost of gasoline to $20 a gallon if they chose. So if the oil companies are behind this and they are only after bigger and bigger profits why don’t they set the price higher? Outside of what it would do the world economy, the reality is that the oil companies don’t control the price of gasoline.
So what about those HUGE oil profits that Obama and Hillary want the congress to take (steal) from these oil companies who are gouging us at the pump. No one seems to have actually looked into these HUGE profits and oil company profits have historically run between 7% and 12%. These irresponsible calls for robbing the oil companies on the basis of their ‘OBSCENE” profits are simple demagoguery.
But what about those OBSCENE profits the oil companies are making?. A little perspective seems to be in order. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) calls oil company profits obscene and at first blush many – if not most people – agree. Over the past 12 months, for example, ExxonMobil has made pre-tax profits of $164 billion on sales of $369.5 billion. That’s a lot, but is big oil company profits behind these increases in pump prices?
First, Big Oil can't dictate gasoline prices. Markets determine the price of oil. It's supply and demand that sets the price at the pump. So what you pay at the pump is the market price not a price set by the oil companies. This issue was resolved by the Supreme Court decision last year when they ruled unanimously that oil companies have not been colluding to set prices.
So once again I say that oil prices are high today because the economies of huge nations like China and India are developing rapidly. More oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply, like ANWR or the California Coast. Also if you remember Hurricane Katrina destroyed a lot of oil processing capacity around the Gulf of Mexico so not surprisingly less oil is being processed. .Econ 101 tells us that when less oil is supplied, gasoline prices rise. WOW – what a concept!!! Do you think any of the liberal community has grasped this simple fact or are they ignoring it in hopes of getting a vote??
But let’s get to the nub of the matter. What does the average oil company get out of your $4.50 gallon of gas – ten cents!! The federal tax on gasoline (hello Obama and Pelosi) is nearly twice that (18.4 cents) but then the states get a share also. The price on a gallon of gas in New York is 68 cents and roughly the same in California but virtually every state gets a cut larger than the ten cents the oil company gets. Do any of these politicians call for a reduction in taxes on gasoline – don’t bet on it. That would reduce their income because the government feeds on tax revenues so they want to take more from you and from business – especially oil companies and their “windfall” profits.
So if Exxon made $369B in revenues and $164B in “profits” where did the money go? Well there is a difference between gross profits and net profits. Exxon must spend billions on exploration, billions more on development, and further billions on refining and transportation. When all of these operating costs are figured in those OBSCENE profits evaporate pretty quickly. So when you actually examine where the money goes it becomes evident that these oil companies are hardly making money hand over fist. In fact earnings at Exxon rose 9% last year but fell 4% in the fourth quarter, underscoring the challenges of rising costs and lower commodity prices. The reality is Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%, while profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26% -- so who is gouging whom?
Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies because what the liberals want with their windfall tax on oil companies is to fund the search for alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol and nanotechnology. But when John McCain offered $300M as a reward for anyone who could come up with a viable electric battery operated or other viable alternative he was scorned. The reality is the liberals love throwing money around on in federal research grants to create alternative energy sources and satisfy the academics who live off of those research grants and vote liberal. So given that these giveaway grants are to be used for alternative sources of stuff why shouldn't Uncle Sam give grants to:
• Dell… to create more powerful computers?
• Boeing… to build faster aircraft?
• McDonalds… to make low-fat French fries that taste good?
This won’t happen of course because companies are profit driven and will do better on their own. A little less demagoguery about big oil would go a long way to solving the energy problem. Trust me, we will have alternative energy sources eventually. Many scientists believe that near incredible advances in nanotechnology will allow us to solve all our energy needs with solar power within 20 years.
It is also worth noting that in general that the oil these countries are exporting are government owned and controlled by OPEC, an organization that is illegal in the United States. But it is this organization that sets the price for oil and that price can be set arbitrarily according to what the market will bear. So they could charge $200 a barrel and drive the cost of gasoline to $20 a gallon if they chose. So if the oil companies are behind this and they are only after bigger and bigger profits why don’t they set the price higher? Outside of what it would do the world economy, the reality is that the oil companies don’t control the price of gasoline.
So what about those HUGE oil profits that Obama and Hillary want the congress to take (steal) from these oil companies who are gouging us at the pump. No one seems to have actually looked into these HUGE profits and oil company profits have historically run between 7% and 12%. These irresponsible calls for robbing the oil companies on the basis of their ‘OBSCENE” profits are simple demagoguery.
But what about those OBSCENE profits the oil companies are making?. A little perspective seems to be in order. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) calls oil company profits obscene and at first blush many – if not most people – agree. Over the past 12 months, for example, ExxonMobil has made pre-tax profits of $164 billion on sales of $369.5 billion. That’s a lot, but is big oil company profits behind these increases in pump prices?
First, Big Oil can't dictate gasoline prices. Markets determine the price of oil. It's supply and demand that sets the price at the pump. So what you pay at the pump is the market price not a price set by the oil companies. This issue was resolved by the Supreme Court decision last year when they ruled unanimously that oil companies have not been colluding to set prices.
So once again I say that oil prices are high today because the economies of huge nations like China and India are developing rapidly. More oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply, like ANWR or the California Coast. Also if you remember Hurricane Katrina destroyed a lot of oil processing capacity around the Gulf of Mexico so not surprisingly less oil is being processed. .Econ 101 tells us that when less oil is supplied, gasoline prices rise. WOW – what a concept!!! Do you think any of the liberal community has grasped this simple fact or are they ignoring it in hopes of getting a vote??
But let’s get to the nub of the matter. What does the average oil company get out of your $4.50 gallon of gas – ten cents!! The federal tax on gasoline (hello Obama and Pelosi) is nearly twice that (18.4 cents) but then the states get a share also. The price on a gallon of gas in New York is 68 cents and roughly the same in California but virtually every state gets a cut larger than the ten cents the oil company gets. Do any of these politicians call for a reduction in taxes on gasoline – don’t bet on it. That would reduce their income because the government feeds on tax revenues so they want to take more from you and from business – especially oil companies and their “windfall” profits.
So if Exxon made $369B in revenues and $164B in “profits” where did the money go? Well there is a difference between gross profits and net profits. Exxon must spend billions on exploration, billions more on development, and further billions on refining and transportation. When all of these operating costs are figured in those OBSCENE profits evaporate pretty quickly. So when you actually examine where the money goes it becomes evident that these oil companies are hardly making money hand over fist. In fact earnings at Exxon rose 9% last year but fell 4% in the fourth quarter, underscoring the challenges of rising costs and lower commodity prices. The reality is Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%, while profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26% -- so who is gouging whom?
Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies because what the liberals want with their windfall tax on oil companies is to fund the search for alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol and nanotechnology. But when John McCain offered $300M as a reward for anyone who could come up with a viable electric battery operated or other viable alternative he was scorned. The reality is the liberals love throwing money around on in federal research grants to create alternative energy sources and satisfy the academics who live off of those research grants and vote liberal. So given that these giveaway grants are to be used for alternative sources of stuff why shouldn't Uncle Sam give grants to:
• Dell… to create more powerful computers?
• Boeing… to build faster aircraft?
• McDonalds… to make low-fat French fries that taste good?
This won’t happen of course because companies are profit driven and will do better on their own. A little less demagoguery about big oil would go a long way to solving the energy problem. Trust me, we will have alternative energy sources eventually. Many scientists believe that near incredible advances in nanotechnology will allow us to solve all our energy needs with solar power within 20 years.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Christendom and Islam
Western governments simply do not understand Islam or the Muslim countries. These Islamic countries were created by the West in what they thought was the best interest of the people and certainly in the best interest of the West but these are fragile creations that have only the most tenuous hold on reality. Christendom is essentially composed of all of the Westernized and Christian nation states but there is no centralized authority or unifying force. Any unifying Christian force ceased with Martin Luther and certainly ended altogether with Henry VIII who split from the Pope altogether. While loyalties to family, church, ethnic group or other organizations exist in Christendom, these loyalties are always subservient to the nation state. This is not true in Islam. In Islam loyalties are to the family, the clan, the tribe, and Islam in that order with any loyalty to such a thing as a nation state being of secondary importance if it exists at all. In fact the internal politics of these Islamic states tends to be tribal in nature and this can be seen in the internal conflicts that plague all of the Islamic states. These Islamic states are really tribal organizations – essentially “tribes with flags” with a seventh century ethos, where blood feuds are common and personal honor paramount. But whatever they are these Islamic states are not nation states in the Western model and to continue to view their governments as having the same level of authority and respect as Western governments is a major error in judgment.
From a Western perspective these Islamic states are truly barbarous where they stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, lash miscreants for minor offenses, maim others for things such as theft, deny equal rights to women, and see it as their duty to kill all infidels. Recently there was an explosion in an Iranian Mosque and the authorities initially thought that the arms and ammunition stored in the Mosque were not handled properly and exploded. As it turned out this was not the situation but the fact that it was the initial reaction is very telling, when you consider their reaction to any damage to a Mosque by the American Military. Furthermore, Muslims consider it their duty to destroy all Christian Churches and to kill all Christians and this is currently going on in many if not most Islamic countries. For most Christians it would be unthinkable to use a church as an ammunition dump, but to Muslims it is routine practice, particularly due to the fact that the morally superior western democracies would never attack a Mosque. The whole moral structure of Islam is almost totally opposite of that in Christendom. In Saudi Arabia the mere possession of a Bible is a capital offense. All of this moral ambiguity is well known in the West but Westerners continue to see Islam as having equivalent morality and the Islamic countries as nation states with authority. In fact they have only limited authority and are heavily influenced by various religious leaders who may not even be citizens in their countries.
What is not recognized in the West is that since the fall of the Ottomans there has been a power struggle going on throughout the Muslim world as various groups and individuals compete to unify Islam under one central authority—the Caliphate. The Islamic concept of ummah ( cultural unification) actually presupposes the illegitimacy of the nation state but this ummah or unification can only be accomplished through the actions of a strong core state or group, which does not currently exist. However, shortly after the death of Mohammed Islam spread across all of North Africa and culminated in the first central authority in the form of the Umayyad Caliphate whose capital was Damascus (Syria did not exist). This was followed by the Abbasid Caliphate with a capital in Baghdad. This was followed by other Caliphates beginning in the tenth century, but by the thirteenth century the Ottoman Turks rose in the Middle East, conquered Constantinople and established a new Caliphate that stood until the end of WW I. With the fall of the Ottomans the Western Powers created these arbitrary states in the Western model without regard to tribe, clan, or religious grouping and since that time Islam has been without a core state and unstable as the various factions vie for supremacy while some, such as the Kurds, vie for autonomy.
This power struggle is obscured by the American presence in Iraq, but it is being played out in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Shiite’s represent only a small percentage of Muslims, but they currently dominate Iran and Iraq and are easily the most organized and heavily armed. But the Sunni majority will not tolerate Shiite control or a Shia Caliphate so it is unlikely that any religious leader in either of these Shiite dominated countries can muster enough support to unify Islam and restore the Caliphate. However, the power struggle is increasingly violent with each group blaming the US in order to disguise their violation of Islamic law in their fight for supremacy. This is apparent in the recent battles between the Iraqi government and the Iranian backed Militia’s, which are actually power struggles between two Shiite groups, with the US backing one side and the Iranians the other. Because these are both Shiite groups the Sunni majority isn’t happy with the US support of the Shiites so Iraq remains unstable. The problem actually stems from the failure of the US to recognize that a democratic government is totally alien to the Islamic World and supporting the government is actually viewed as supporting a specific Shiite group. It would have been better to have established an authoritarian government but since that didn’t happen, it might be better to allow a military dictatorship to evolve that would be pro-American. A failure to resolve this problem can only allow time for a strong Islamic leader to emerge and that could be in Turkey.
There is growing unrest in Turkey as the Western Powers continue to treat Turkey as a second class country. The Ottomans joined the Germans because they were poorly treated by the British and it seems we are making the same mistake again. If Turkey rejects the secular government established by Ataturk, then they could easily become the stable government that could form the foundation for another Islamic Empire equivalent to the Ottoman Empire, but richer, more stable, and more heavily armed. This would be a disaster for the West and would certainly pit Islam against Christendom once again.
From a Western perspective these Islamic states are truly barbarous where they stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, lash miscreants for minor offenses, maim others for things such as theft, deny equal rights to women, and see it as their duty to kill all infidels. Recently there was an explosion in an Iranian Mosque and the authorities initially thought that the arms and ammunition stored in the Mosque were not handled properly and exploded. As it turned out this was not the situation but the fact that it was the initial reaction is very telling, when you consider their reaction to any damage to a Mosque by the American Military. Furthermore, Muslims consider it their duty to destroy all Christian Churches and to kill all Christians and this is currently going on in many if not most Islamic countries. For most Christians it would be unthinkable to use a church as an ammunition dump, but to Muslims it is routine practice, particularly due to the fact that the morally superior western democracies would never attack a Mosque. The whole moral structure of Islam is almost totally opposite of that in Christendom. In Saudi Arabia the mere possession of a Bible is a capital offense. All of this moral ambiguity is well known in the West but Westerners continue to see Islam as having equivalent morality and the Islamic countries as nation states with authority. In fact they have only limited authority and are heavily influenced by various religious leaders who may not even be citizens in their countries.
What is not recognized in the West is that since the fall of the Ottomans there has been a power struggle going on throughout the Muslim world as various groups and individuals compete to unify Islam under one central authority—the Caliphate. The Islamic concept of ummah ( cultural unification) actually presupposes the illegitimacy of the nation state but this ummah or unification can only be accomplished through the actions of a strong core state or group, which does not currently exist. However, shortly after the death of Mohammed Islam spread across all of North Africa and culminated in the first central authority in the form of the Umayyad Caliphate whose capital was Damascus (Syria did not exist). This was followed by the Abbasid Caliphate with a capital in Baghdad. This was followed by other Caliphates beginning in the tenth century, but by the thirteenth century the Ottoman Turks rose in the Middle East, conquered Constantinople and established a new Caliphate that stood until the end of WW I. With the fall of the Ottomans the Western Powers created these arbitrary states in the Western model without regard to tribe, clan, or religious grouping and since that time Islam has been without a core state and unstable as the various factions vie for supremacy while some, such as the Kurds, vie for autonomy.
This power struggle is obscured by the American presence in Iraq, but it is being played out in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Shiite’s represent only a small percentage of Muslims, but they currently dominate Iran and Iraq and are easily the most organized and heavily armed. But the Sunni majority will not tolerate Shiite control or a Shia Caliphate so it is unlikely that any religious leader in either of these Shiite dominated countries can muster enough support to unify Islam and restore the Caliphate. However, the power struggle is increasingly violent with each group blaming the US in order to disguise their violation of Islamic law in their fight for supremacy. This is apparent in the recent battles between the Iraqi government and the Iranian backed Militia’s, which are actually power struggles between two Shiite groups, with the US backing one side and the Iranians the other. Because these are both Shiite groups the Sunni majority isn’t happy with the US support of the Shiites so Iraq remains unstable. The problem actually stems from the failure of the US to recognize that a democratic government is totally alien to the Islamic World and supporting the government is actually viewed as supporting a specific Shiite group. It would have been better to have established an authoritarian government but since that didn’t happen, it might be better to allow a military dictatorship to evolve that would be pro-American. A failure to resolve this problem can only allow time for a strong Islamic leader to emerge and that could be in Turkey.
There is growing unrest in Turkey as the Western Powers continue to treat Turkey as a second class country. The Ottomans joined the Germans because they were poorly treated by the British and it seems we are making the same mistake again. If Turkey rejects the secular government established by Ataturk, then they could easily become the stable government that could form the foundation for another Islamic Empire equivalent to the Ottoman Empire, but richer, more stable, and more heavily armed. This would be a disaster for the West and would certainly pit Islam against Christendom once again.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Mess in Mesopotamia
It is worth noting that Mesopotamia – now Iraq did not exist prior to the end of WW I, unless you want to consider the Babylonia Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, which was absorbed into the Persian Empire. From that time Mesopotamia did not exist as an independent nation. It is important to understand that Iraq is a creation, not by Arabs, or Muslims, or any indigenous group in Iraq, but was created by the British led by that intrepid self-proclaimed genius and aristocrat – Sir Winston Churchill – aided and abetted by that other self-promoting genius Colonel T. E Lawrence aka Lawrence of Arabia. This was the last gasp of European Colonialism.
It is worth remembering that Queen Victoria had died only 17 years before the end of WW I so the colonial mentality that was so prevalent throughout Europe had not yet expired so the French and English felt it was totally within their right – indeed divine right – to set up the world to suit themselves. So what once had been the Ottoman Empire now became Turkey, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Persia and Egypt had always existed except they were now Iran and Egypt. At the same time that these artificial lines were being drawn Churchill upheld the controversial policy aimed at establishing a Jewish State in what was then Palestine. Palestine, like Persia had ancient roots and had always been a fractious place that had given fits to the Romans who had barely been able to maintain peace there even with massive military force. Nevertheless, Palestine has ancient roots and has long been ethnically diverse and home to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Ironically had you asked a Jew what his nationality was up to the time Israel was created he would have said he was a Palestinian. It was only after the creation of Israel and the schism between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews became Israeli’s and the Muslims became Palestinians. Today there are Muslims AND Palestinians and while to western eyes this distinction seems pretty fine, but Muslims are a very fragmented group and these distinctions are very real to them.
But it was Churchill who was the driving force – along with T.E. Lawrence – who Post WW I, set up the country then called Mesopotamia and now called Iraq. Initially this was a constitutional monarchy and independent democracy from 1925 until 1958. But the bloodletting never abated and these “democratic” governments supported pogroms against the Jews and genocide against the Assyrians. The Shi’ites in Mesopotamia rebelled and were cruelly suppressed by the Sunni’s and the British. The British had occupied the ancient territory of Mesopotamia as liberators of the Iraqi people. In British eyes they were being freed from the oppression of the Turkish Ottomans. And initially the British Army was welcomed as liberators as they determinedly set up a constitutional and democratic government. Unfortunately the people turned on their liberators and killed thousands of the British troops – so the current situation in Iraq is simply an encore of the British experience in the 1920’s. The British ultimately crushed the rebellion but at a cost, the lesson was that it required a massive military intervention applied with an iron hand. This was a lesson lost on the American Military who suffer from the American Disease – this disease is the belief that all peoples are alike, they desire freedom, and that a democratic government will bring peace. The sad reality is that not everyone in the world is prepared for a democratic government either psychologically or culturally and the Muslim World in particular is not ready for democratic government. Democracy has failed every time it has been implemented in the past and the current situation in Iraq shows every sign that it will fail once again.
The western liberals simply cannot let go of the idea that the Arab world is desperate for freedom and democracy. The only Muslim state that has come close is Turkey and that democracy was implemented by force. The Muslim World is actually fragmented by tribes, cultures, feuds, and ironically – religion. They are somewhat unified by their hatred of the West which dates back to the Crusades which is still evidenced by Osama bin Laden and others referring to Westerners and Americans in particular – as Crusaders. Currently the liberal establishment is totally convinced that the American invasion of Iraq was instigated by George Bush for the sole purpose of enriching the oil companies or even worse as a distraction to the failed domestic policies. Both of these are totally false but the truth may be even more pathetic.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strategic bulwark against the Shi’ite dominated Iran but it was increasingly unstable as Saddam began to have visions of grandeur. But the US policy wonks mistakenly thought that if they toppled Hussein the people would view the US as liberators and immediately establish a stable democratic government. It was as if these highly educated people from all of those liberal elite eastern universities never read a history book. Instead of liberators the US was quickly seen as invaders and Crusaders and instead of following the historical precedent of ruthlessly crushing all dissent with overwhelming force, the Americans held an election. The real question is didn’t any of those fancy universities ever hear of Machiavelli? So instead of bringing democracy and law and order, the US managed to unleash all of the pent up hatred and feuds already present and these were exacerbated by the external influence of Al Qaeda. Worse, the stabilizing influence of Sunni Iraq is now gone and the weakened Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and fueling their nuclear ambitions.
It seems the mess in Mesopotamia is much worse than anyone realizes. If the US exits Iraq it will be a strategic disaster because it will be seen as a defeat of the US by Al Qaeda. If the US stays it will continue to inflame Muslims worldwide as it will be seen as an invasion of Islamic lands by Crusaders determined to crush Islam. Also if and when the US does leave Iraq it almost guarantees that an enterprising General will rise to power and overthrow the democratic government which is only a sham anyway. If this General is pro-Iranian, which is likely then we will be faced with an anti-American alliance that could destabilize Saudi Arabia and threaten the World’s oil supply. It would be better if the CIA orchestrated this coup and saw to it that a pro-American General became dictator, but it is unlikely any administration would have the courage to do this and face the wrath of the liberal press. Mesopotamia is a mess and it has always been a mess.
It is worth remembering that Queen Victoria had died only 17 years before the end of WW I so the colonial mentality that was so prevalent throughout Europe had not yet expired so the French and English felt it was totally within their right – indeed divine right – to set up the world to suit themselves. So what once had been the Ottoman Empire now became Turkey, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Persia and Egypt had always existed except they were now Iran and Egypt. At the same time that these artificial lines were being drawn Churchill upheld the controversial policy aimed at establishing a Jewish State in what was then Palestine. Palestine, like Persia had ancient roots and had always been a fractious place that had given fits to the Romans who had barely been able to maintain peace there even with massive military force. Nevertheless, Palestine has ancient roots and has long been ethnically diverse and home to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Ironically had you asked a Jew what his nationality was up to the time Israel was created he would have said he was a Palestinian. It was only after the creation of Israel and the schism between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews became Israeli’s and the Muslims became Palestinians. Today there are Muslims AND Palestinians and while to western eyes this distinction seems pretty fine, but Muslims are a very fragmented group and these distinctions are very real to them.
But it was Churchill who was the driving force – along with T.E. Lawrence – who Post WW I, set up the country then called Mesopotamia and now called Iraq. Initially this was a constitutional monarchy and independent democracy from 1925 until 1958. But the bloodletting never abated and these “democratic” governments supported pogroms against the Jews and genocide against the Assyrians. The Shi’ites in Mesopotamia rebelled and were cruelly suppressed by the Sunni’s and the British. The British had occupied the ancient territory of Mesopotamia as liberators of the Iraqi people. In British eyes they were being freed from the oppression of the Turkish Ottomans. And initially the British Army was welcomed as liberators as they determinedly set up a constitutional and democratic government. Unfortunately the people turned on their liberators and killed thousands of the British troops – so the current situation in Iraq is simply an encore of the British experience in the 1920’s. The British ultimately crushed the rebellion but at a cost, the lesson was that it required a massive military intervention applied with an iron hand. This was a lesson lost on the American Military who suffer from the American Disease – this disease is the belief that all peoples are alike, they desire freedom, and that a democratic government will bring peace. The sad reality is that not everyone in the world is prepared for a democratic government either psychologically or culturally and the Muslim World in particular is not ready for democratic government. Democracy has failed every time it has been implemented in the past and the current situation in Iraq shows every sign that it will fail once again.
The western liberals simply cannot let go of the idea that the Arab world is desperate for freedom and democracy. The only Muslim state that has come close is Turkey and that democracy was implemented by force. The Muslim World is actually fragmented by tribes, cultures, feuds, and ironically – religion. They are somewhat unified by their hatred of the West which dates back to the Crusades which is still evidenced by Osama bin Laden and others referring to Westerners and Americans in particular – as Crusaders. Currently the liberal establishment is totally convinced that the American invasion of Iraq was instigated by George Bush for the sole purpose of enriching the oil companies or even worse as a distraction to the failed domestic policies. Both of these are totally false but the truth may be even more pathetic.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strategic bulwark against the Shi’ite dominated Iran but it was increasingly unstable as Saddam began to have visions of grandeur. But the US policy wonks mistakenly thought that if they toppled Hussein the people would view the US as liberators and immediately establish a stable democratic government. It was as if these highly educated people from all of those liberal elite eastern universities never read a history book. Instead of liberators the US was quickly seen as invaders and Crusaders and instead of following the historical precedent of ruthlessly crushing all dissent with overwhelming force, the Americans held an election. The real question is didn’t any of those fancy universities ever hear of Machiavelli? So instead of bringing democracy and law and order, the US managed to unleash all of the pent up hatred and feuds already present and these were exacerbated by the external influence of Al Qaeda. Worse, the stabilizing influence of Sunni Iraq is now gone and the weakened Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and fueling their nuclear ambitions.
It seems the mess in Mesopotamia is much worse than anyone realizes. If the US exits Iraq it will be a strategic disaster because it will be seen as a defeat of the US by Al Qaeda. If the US stays it will continue to inflame Muslims worldwide as it will be seen as an invasion of Islamic lands by Crusaders determined to crush Islam. Also if and when the US does leave Iraq it almost guarantees that an enterprising General will rise to power and overthrow the democratic government which is only a sham anyway. If this General is pro-Iranian, which is likely then we will be faced with an anti-American alliance that could destabilize Saudi Arabia and threaten the World’s oil supply. It would be better if the CIA orchestrated this coup and saw to it that a pro-American General became dictator, but it is unlikely any administration would have the courage to do this and face the wrath of the liberal press. Mesopotamia is a mess and it has always been a mess.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Historical Roots and Islamofascism
The moderate Muslims – assuming there are some – continue to assure the West that Islamofascism is not based on Islam but is a perverted form of it – a cult—based on radical ideologies more akin to Bolshevism and the Nazi Socialists than Islam. This cult like figure known as Osama bin Laden has created a fantasy world that rejects all of modernity, a reactionary who clearly wants to be the Caliph of a seventh century realm. In reality Osama bin Laden is much closer in outlook to the Unabomber than he is to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim head of state. His fantasy world is wrapped up in the trappings of Islam and his goals are to overthrow all secular governments – including Muslim ones – and to install an all powerful Caliphate over the entire world or what is left of it after they destroy Christendom. However, while Osama bin Laden is living in a fantasy world much of the Islamic world isn’t far behind. They intend to stamp out the only democratic government – Israel, that has a sound economy and a non-authoritarian government. To date their success in this unrealistic endeavor has been rather pathetic. The history of the Islamic World shows that it is not only trapped in its tribal culture but that their internecine battles have made them impotent relative to Israel and centuries behind everybody else. It is this lack of unity, their tribal culture, and their irrational behavior toward Jews and Israel that has left the Islamic World in poverty and squalor – enter the Ottomans—just as anti-Semitic but much more successful.
The Ottoman Empire ruled the Islamic World for four hundred years and during that time there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, and in fact there was no real improvement in medicine, hygiene, or public health, instead there was a long slow and inexorable decline. The Ottomans were ruthless conquerors of the Islamic Empire created by Saladin, and they crushed any opposition. They liked the quiet life and they maintained it. They did not subscribe to capitalism, socialism, Marxism, representative government, or any of the trendy western political philosophies. They avoided all of these intellectual fads of the West but once the Ottoman Empire fell and was partitioned up by the Western Powers in 1917 the carnage began. The first blunder of the West and the one that continues even today is that the Muslims are desperate for a western style democracy but nothing could be further from the truth. The Ottomans unlike the western powers never allowed anyone to think that they would provide freedom of any kind or any kind of wealth instead they kept everyone in line with ruthless efficiency. They did this by maintaining strict control over the religious leaders and any rabble rouser was either eliminated or exiled. A historical lesson ignored by their successors who should never have allowed Ayatollah Khomeini or al Sadr or any of these radical Islamic clergy into any Islamic country. Of course this is outright oppression and dictatorship, which makes the liberals in the west very queasy but authoritarian governments seem to be the only ones that are successful today just as they have been in the past. It is the misguided policies and philosophies of the West that have laid the groundwork for the Islamofascists that plague us today. And yes the radical Muslim clergy is a problem but not the only problem – enter Yasser Arafat – a man more accurately described the destroyer of Arabic cause or gang leader. Awarding this man the Nobel Peace Prize was a travesty but representative of the ability of the West to ignore facts in favor of their wishful thinking.
Perhaps the first thing to remember is that until 1947 Palestinians were Jews, not Arabs. When the state of Israel was established the Jews became Israeli’s and the Arabs ceased being Arabs and became Palestinians except for those who remained Arabs – it is all very confusing. The New Palestinians became “refugees” and have remained in self-inflicted limbo ever since. These refugees formed the power base for Yasser Arafat who led the Palestinians for forty years and led them into one disaster after another with flags flying and drums beating. The only person to gain from his leadership was Arafat himself and everyone else suffered. He initially described the PLO as a Marxist Socialist Revolutionary movement which gave him support from the USSR, but that was never his true leanings. He actually was a member of the semi—secret Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920”s and has been dedicated to the extermination of the Jews ever since. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Hitler and have practiced assassination and disinformation ever since in their drive to eradicate Jews.
Most of the Arab leaders hated Arafat and distrusted him – which is saying a great deal in a society not noted for its truthfulness. Arafat was a poor administrator and even worse organizer and was generally viewed by his “allies” as little more than a gang leader who was a master of the shakedown – an art he practiced with great result on America, the Saudi’s, and Gulf States. The fact is that Arafat was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the failure by any Arab leader to support him and his causes opened them to political unrest stirred up by Arafat or worse their assassination by his Fatah thugs. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that when the USSR imploded and their secret files became available photographs were discovered that had been taken by the Romanian Secret Police. These photos – taken at different times – showed that Arafat was a homosexual who cavorted with his body guards. This information has been available since the Reagan Administration but no one ever used that information to leverage Arafat. Considering the attitude of the Arabs and Islam in general, this would have been a substantial lever, but blackmail is such a dirty word.
Arafat seemed to be a compulsive liar and he certainly was corrupt. Much – if not most – of the aid money flowing into his hands was siphoned off into Swiss Bank Accounts. Much of this money was then used for arms which killed thousands of Israeli’s as well as maintaining his “bride of convenience” in Parisian splendor. Even though he demanded and got concessions from just about everyone it was never enough. He was in the terror business and it was a business he liked. The reality is that he led the Palestinians into one defeat after another and has left the Palestinians worse off. After billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians they lack an economy, have dismal medical facilities, have no schools other than the ridiculous Madrassa’s, they have no electric generation capability, and in general there is rampant unemployment and unhappiness in an area maintained by armed gangs. The more Arafat and his Fatah gang attacked the Israeli’s the stronger they got, the weaker the PLO got and the more discredited thier cause became, ultimately resulting in the Hama’s coup. Arafat was a murderer and a disaster for the Arabs and Palestinians.
The current policy of the West is doomed to failure as it always has been because the Western States are convinced that the Islamic States are desperate for Western democracy. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have described Iraq and Syria as “failed states” without regard to the historical facts. While it is true both of these countries could not be described as bastions of liberty, they were stable and yes it is true that both Saddam and Assad have murdered thousands of their citizens in their determination to maintain power, have the western powers done any better? Are things more or less stable? Does democracy work or not? Unfortunately, the bet is that once West leaves Iraq another general will arise and overthrow the government and things will go back to what they were.
The Ottoman Empire ruled the Islamic World for four hundred years and during that time there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, and in fact there was no real improvement in medicine, hygiene, or public health, instead there was a long slow and inexorable decline. The Ottomans were ruthless conquerors of the Islamic Empire created by Saladin, and they crushed any opposition. They liked the quiet life and they maintained it. They did not subscribe to capitalism, socialism, Marxism, representative government, or any of the trendy western political philosophies. They avoided all of these intellectual fads of the West but once the Ottoman Empire fell and was partitioned up by the Western Powers in 1917 the carnage began. The first blunder of the West and the one that continues even today is that the Muslims are desperate for a western style democracy but nothing could be further from the truth. The Ottomans unlike the western powers never allowed anyone to think that they would provide freedom of any kind or any kind of wealth instead they kept everyone in line with ruthless efficiency. They did this by maintaining strict control over the religious leaders and any rabble rouser was either eliminated or exiled. A historical lesson ignored by their successors who should never have allowed Ayatollah Khomeini or al Sadr or any of these radical Islamic clergy into any Islamic country. Of course this is outright oppression and dictatorship, which makes the liberals in the west very queasy but authoritarian governments seem to be the only ones that are successful today just as they have been in the past. It is the misguided policies and philosophies of the West that have laid the groundwork for the Islamofascists that plague us today. And yes the radical Muslim clergy is a problem but not the only problem – enter Yasser Arafat – a man more accurately described the destroyer of Arabic cause or gang leader. Awarding this man the Nobel Peace Prize was a travesty but representative of the ability of the West to ignore facts in favor of their wishful thinking.
Perhaps the first thing to remember is that until 1947 Palestinians were Jews, not Arabs. When the state of Israel was established the Jews became Israeli’s and the Arabs ceased being Arabs and became Palestinians except for those who remained Arabs – it is all very confusing. The New Palestinians became “refugees” and have remained in self-inflicted limbo ever since. These refugees formed the power base for Yasser Arafat who led the Palestinians for forty years and led them into one disaster after another with flags flying and drums beating. The only person to gain from his leadership was Arafat himself and everyone else suffered. He initially described the PLO as a Marxist Socialist Revolutionary movement which gave him support from the USSR, but that was never his true leanings. He actually was a member of the semi—secret Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920”s and has been dedicated to the extermination of the Jews ever since. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Hitler and have practiced assassination and disinformation ever since in their drive to eradicate Jews.
Most of the Arab leaders hated Arafat and distrusted him – which is saying a great deal in a society not noted for its truthfulness. Arafat was a poor administrator and even worse organizer and was generally viewed by his “allies” as little more than a gang leader who was a master of the shakedown – an art he practiced with great result on America, the Saudi’s, and Gulf States. The fact is that Arafat was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the failure by any Arab leader to support him and his causes opened them to political unrest stirred up by Arafat or worse their assassination by his Fatah thugs. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that when the USSR imploded and their secret files became available photographs were discovered that had been taken by the Romanian Secret Police. These photos – taken at different times – showed that Arafat was a homosexual who cavorted with his body guards. This information has been available since the Reagan Administration but no one ever used that information to leverage Arafat. Considering the attitude of the Arabs and Islam in general, this would have been a substantial lever, but blackmail is such a dirty word.
Arafat seemed to be a compulsive liar and he certainly was corrupt. Much – if not most – of the aid money flowing into his hands was siphoned off into Swiss Bank Accounts. Much of this money was then used for arms which killed thousands of Israeli’s as well as maintaining his “bride of convenience” in Parisian splendor. Even though he demanded and got concessions from just about everyone it was never enough. He was in the terror business and it was a business he liked. The reality is that he led the Palestinians into one defeat after another and has left the Palestinians worse off. After billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians they lack an economy, have dismal medical facilities, have no schools other than the ridiculous Madrassa’s, they have no electric generation capability, and in general there is rampant unemployment and unhappiness in an area maintained by armed gangs. The more Arafat and his Fatah gang attacked the Israeli’s the stronger they got, the weaker the PLO got and the more discredited thier cause became, ultimately resulting in the Hama’s coup. Arafat was a murderer and a disaster for the Arabs and Palestinians.
The current policy of the West is doomed to failure as it always has been because the Western States are convinced that the Islamic States are desperate for Western democracy. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have described Iraq and Syria as “failed states” without regard to the historical facts. While it is true both of these countries could not be described as bastions of liberty, they were stable and yes it is true that both Saddam and Assad have murdered thousands of their citizens in their determination to maintain power, have the western powers done any better? Are things more or less stable? Does democracy work or not? Unfortunately, the bet is that once West leaves Iraq another general will arise and overthrow the government and things will go back to what they were.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Middle East Policies
Recently we were treated to one of the most idiotic speeches by President Bush that he has delivered in his presidency and that is going some. Once again he mounted his horse and promised to bring “democracy” to the Middle East as if these people were longing for a representative government and the freedoms enjoyed in the West. The fact that he actually delivered this speech rests entirely on his shoulders but ultimately it is the fault of the State Department. The State Department has been monopolized by the East Coast intelligentsia practically since its inception and in sprite of the highly vaunted quality of education delivered by the Ivy League their alumni have never been strong on history – especially history of the Middle East. It’s as if the Ottoman Empire never existed.
Virtually all of the current Islamic States were ruled by the Ottomans for 400 years. During this period there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, or steady improvement in medicine, hygiene, public health, or education. But the Ottomans maintained peace and order during this entire time because the Ottomans would not tolerate any challenge to their authority and the punishments they inflicted on any challenger were draconian. Then the Ottomans – thanks to the bumbling of Winston Churchill – sided with the Kaiser and their empire was dismantled by the French and British. It has never known a peaceful moment since then. The Western Democracies have never understood nor even attempted to understand the people or their motivations in the Middle East. Instead the drive has been to westernize them and to create freely elected democratic governments that were independent of the Mosque. This policy has consistently failed with the only exception being Turkey but that was reformed from within by Kemal Attaturk and was not accomplished by the Western Powers. This failed policy of westernization continues today as is evidenced by President Bush’s speech and the American Foreign Policy relative to Iraq.
The British and French and now the Americans arrogantly assume that because the Islamic States are consistently mired in poverty, ignorance, and squalor they are desperate to become westernized. Well when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled Iraq was a constitutional monarchy until 1958 when the Army overthrew the monarchy in a very bloody coup. Prior to this coup the “democratic” government conducted genocide against the Assyrians and the Jews. The Shiites were suppressed as well. The brutality of this regime rivaled that of Saddam Hussein and it was all done under a democratic government, but not one where all were created equal or given equal protection under the law. All of this is on the historical record – a record our State Department and all of those Alumni from all of those fancy colleges seem to have neglected to read. The liberal media as well as all of those well meaning politicians had assumed that the Iraqi’s were longing for a democratic government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, and an elected parliament. What they neglected to consider was what happened when the British introduced those democratic institutions in 1920, which was exactly what happened after the Bush Administration re-introduced them in 2005. What happened then is what is happening now – civil war, massacres, and an unreliable military that merrily participates in the internecine warfare. This is the background that permeates the Middle East and it is against this background that President Bush calls for the installation of democratically elected western style governments. The fallacy of this policy is obvious or should be obvious and certainly the various Sheiks, Emirs, Monarchs, and Presidents for Life know that this is not in their best interest.
Governments throughout the Middle East are dictatorships, monarchies, or some similar absolutist government and all of them are driven by Islam no matter how secular they may appear. While Iran and Egypt are ancient countries the rest are artificial creations of the west. The separation of church and state so common in the west is unheard of in the world of Islam where governments are subservient to the religious leaders and no where is this more apparent than in Iran and Iraq today. The time has long past for America and the Western powers to cease their insistence that the Middle East adopt western values and conduct themselves and their affairs along western lines. There is no history of democratic governments or even processes in these countries and those governments that are stable are authoritarian.
This is not a call for America to establish a military government similar to what was done in Japan in 1945. It is too late for that but this constant drumbeat for the creation of freely elected governments must cease. The more America, the western media, and the liberal establishment press for this unrealistic objective the more idiotic we seem and the harder it is for our friends in the area – and there are some – to take us seriously. Our foreign policy needs to be revamped to accept the reality that many of these countries were better off under the absolute authority of the Ottomans. It should seem apparent to any educated westerner that the Islamic countries have no desire to become westernized or democracies. They were happy in the seventh century and they were happy under the Ottomans, but the west wanted their oil and in order to get it they felt it was necessary to modernize the Middle East. This modernization has been resisted by Islam for 500 years and is resisting now, unfortunately Pandora’s Box was opened with the fall of the Ottomans and now we are left with result and no solution in sight.
Virtually all of the current Islamic States were ruled by the Ottomans for 400 years. During this period there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, or steady improvement in medicine, hygiene, public health, or education. But the Ottomans maintained peace and order during this entire time because the Ottomans would not tolerate any challenge to their authority and the punishments they inflicted on any challenger were draconian. Then the Ottomans – thanks to the bumbling of Winston Churchill – sided with the Kaiser and their empire was dismantled by the French and British. It has never known a peaceful moment since then. The Western Democracies have never understood nor even attempted to understand the people or their motivations in the Middle East. Instead the drive has been to westernize them and to create freely elected democratic governments that were independent of the Mosque. This policy has consistently failed with the only exception being Turkey but that was reformed from within by Kemal Attaturk and was not accomplished by the Western Powers. This failed policy of westernization continues today as is evidenced by President Bush’s speech and the American Foreign Policy relative to Iraq.
The British and French and now the Americans arrogantly assume that because the Islamic States are consistently mired in poverty, ignorance, and squalor they are desperate to become westernized. Well when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled Iraq was a constitutional monarchy until 1958 when the Army overthrew the monarchy in a very bloody coup. Prior to this coup the “democratic” government conducted genocide against the Assyrians and the Jews. The Shiites were suppressed as well. The brutality of this regime rivaled that of Saddam Hussein and it was all done under a democratic government, but not one where all were created equal or given equal protection under the law. All of this is on the historical record – a record our State Department and all of those Alumni from all of those fancy colleges seem to have neglected to read. The liberal media as well as all of those well meaning politicians had assumed that the Iraqi’s were longing for a democratic government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, and an elected parliament. What they neglected to consider was what happened when the British introduced those democratic institutions in 1920, which was exactly what happened after the Bush Administration re-introduced them in 2005. What happened then is what is happening now – civil war, massacres, and an unreliable military that merrily participates in the internecine warfare. This is the background that permeates the Middle East and it is against this background that President Bush calls for the installation of democratically elected western style governments. The fallacy of this policy is obvious or should be obvious and certainly the various Sheiks, Emirs, Monarchs, and Presidents for Life know that this is not in their best interest.
Governments throughout the Middle East are dictatorships, monarchies, or some similar absolutist government and all of them are driven by Islam no matter how secular they may appear. While Iran and Egypt are ancient countries the rest are artificial creations of the west. The separation of church and state so common in the west is unheard of in the world of Islam where governments are subservient to the religious leaders and no where is this more apparent than in Iran and Iraq today. The time has long past for America and the Western powers to cease their insistence that the Middle East adopt western values and conduct themselves and their affairs along western lines. There is no history of democratic governments or even processes in these countries and those governments that are stable are authoritarian.
This is not a call for America to establish a military government similar to what was done in Japan in 1945. It is too late for that but this constant drumbeat for the creation of freely elected governments must cease. The more America, the western media, and the liberal establishment press for this unrealistic objective the more idiotic we seem and the harder it is for our friends in the area – and there are some – to take us seriously. Our foreign policy needs to be revamped to accept the reality that many of these countries were better off under the absolute authority of the Ottomans. It should seem apparent to any educated westerner that the Islamic countries have no desire to become westernized or democracies. They were happy in the seventh century and they were happy under the Ottomans, but the west wanted their oil and in order to get it they felt it was necessary to modernize the Middle East. This modernization has been resisted by Islam for 500 years and is resisting now, unfortunately Pandora’s Box was opened with the fall of the Ottomans and now we are left with result and no solution in sight.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Foreign Policy
Recently we have been treated to a virtuoso display dissimulation by the Prime Minister of Iran and a breathtaking display of the anti-American attitudes found on the liberal campuses of America. Coincidentally I have been asked to sit in on a discussion of American Foreign Policy by a private discussion group who are increasingly concerned about several foreign policy issues, but first Iran.
Iran
There is no doubt but that Iran is a terrorist state established by and in control of Islamofascists. But of all of the Islamic States Iran is perhaps the one with the largest educated population. Their population is relatively young on average, generally pro-west if not pro-America, and very restive. While the world is focused on the Iranian Government and its drive to gain nuclear weapons and drive the Americans out of Iraq, the Iranian government is struggling internally to maintain control and that is becoming more difficult everyday as the youth of Iran resist the Mullahs and their strict moral codes that are not shared by more educated people.
The danger is that if the Iranians gain nuclear capability before a more secular government comes to power, then Hamas and other terrorists organizations will gain that capability and would certainly use it against Israel and America. It should be noted that it is quite possible that the Iranians are using their nuclear program to distract America and the UN from the underground nuclear development effort going on in Syria. The Israeli’s bombed this facility but whether or not it was destroyed remains unknown. If this secondary nuclear development can go forward, then the Iranian government may be more open to UN inspections and loosen their control over their people in order to stabilize their government without sacrificing their nuclear ambitions and objective of bringing down America.
China
This is a very interesting topic considering two things -- 1) Bill Clinton is the one who allowed free trade status to the Chinese. He was financially supported by Hsu as was Hillary. Connecting these dots may be impossible but given the sleaziness of the Clinton's it is easy to conclude that there was a Quid Pro Quo between the Clinton's and China. However, China is far from a free or even capitalist society, although it is no longer a pure Marxist state. It is more like the old imperial china than the worker’s paradise promised by Mao and Lenin. The people have few civil rights and although the government is more open to entrepreneurs it is worth noting that they are the major source for copyright violations, product knock offs, and violation of almost every standard of production and safety. They are a rogue nation relative to business standards, civil law, and human rights. The American government as well as the UN gives lip service to China’s violation of human rights and the use of slave labor but no meaningful action has been taken nor is likely to be taken. But this flouting of standards and safety is beginning to catch up with them but I note the US Government is making more excuses than taking any effective action.
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez is a Marxist and only a thinly veiled one at that. He is systematically raping the industry of Venezuela in his drive to redistribute the wealth. He is a living example of how to gain power by promising the take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. This was tried by the Roman Emperors and failed. It was tried by Lenin and failed. It has been tried in France and failed. It was tried in Cuba and failed. It has been tried numerous times in Mexico and has failed every time. The reality is that poor people are poor for a reason and taking the wealth away from those who create the jobs and their wealth and giving it to the poor assures the politician of their votes while giving the poor a few dollars and temporary relief. In the long term, the entrepreneurial class is destroyed, the means of wealth generation is destroyed, and the entire country sinks further into poverty. This is true of Venezuela today just as it is of Cuba. For America the problem lies mostly in the production of oil because under Chavez the production has declined dramatically and will probably sink further as he and his Marxist/Socialist cohorts mismanage the oil fields.
Saudi Arabia
The House of Saud has a tiger by the tail. The situation there is analgaous to an obscure protestant sect of snake handlers got control of the US Government and used their resources to convert everyone to their way of thinking. They have created a monster and they don't know what to do. If they stop funding these terrorists they face a civil war which they will certainly lose -- and they may have one anyway. If they continue funding these Madrassas and thus indirectly the terrorists, they risk losing support of the West and thus instigating a civil war. The Saudi Government is VERY UNSTABLE and I seriously doubt they can remain in power much longer. Once they fall, the Muslims will have a choke hold on Western Society -- especially Europe. This will give the Russians an upper hand in Europe and they will become resurgent politically and economically. This is a problem that will be exacerbated if Putin becomes dictator which seems to be his plan. America's dependence on foreign oil will be a problem because much of our oil comes from Venezuela but the mismanagement by Chavez has reduced their output but he is heavily dependent on American oil revenues.
It should be noted that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, Quatar, the Emirates, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey plus all of North Africa represent the old Islamic Empire that stretched from Spain to India. The Muslims are trying to re-establish that empire under the Caliphate, which historically was seated in Baghdad and unter the Ottomans in Constantinople. The war against the West is only part of the issue because these various leaders are vying for power and the position of Caliph, which is what Saddam was after. It seems clear to me that Spain has already succumbed to the Muslims in all but name and France isn't far behind. The western powers continue to view these countries as countries with secular governments but that is a false assumption. Islam does not recognize any secular power and they make no distinction between the Mullahs and the government. People like Maliki are shams because they have no real power unless the Mullahs say they do.
We are engaged in a religious war and no Muslim can be loyal to ANY government and remain a Muslim. This means that all of these Muslims who exist in our midst represent a huge and growing threat to our stability because when challenged they must side with Islam and NOT the government- any government. Just because these people are American or French, or German citizens does not mean they would support those governments over Islam and the Mullahs. Saudi Arabia is a problem but Iran, Syria, and Palestine are much greater problems right now. There are laws government sedition and it is long past time when those laws should be enforced in America.
Iran
There is no doubt but that Iran is a terrorist state established by and in control of Islamofascists. But of all of the Islamic States Iran is perhaps the one with the largest educated population. Their population is relatively young on average, generally pro-west if not pro-America, and very restive. While the world is focused on the Iranian Government and its drive to gain nuclear weapons and drive the Americans out of Iraq, the Iranian government is struggling internally to maintain control and that is becoming more difficult everyday as the youth of Iran resist the Mullahs and their strict moral codes that are not shared by more educated people.
The danger is that if the Iranians gain nuclear capability before a more secular government comes to power, then Hamas and other terrorists organizations will gain that capability and would certainly use it against Israel and America. It should be noted that it is quite possible that the Iranians are using their nuclear program to distract America and the UN from the underground nuclear development effort going on in Syria. The Israeli’s bombed this facility but whether or not it was destroyed remains unknown. If this secondary nuclear development can go forward, then the Iranian government may be more open to UN inspections and loosen their control over their people in order to stabilize their government without sacrificing their nuclear ambitions and objective of bringing down America.
China
This is a very interesting topic considering two things -- 1) Bill Clinton is the one who allowed free trade status to the Chinese. He was financially supported by Hsu as was Hillary. Connecting these dots may be impossible but given the sleaziness of the Clinton's it is easy to conclude that there was a Quid Pro Quo between the Clinton's and China. However, China is far from a free or even capitalist society, although it is no longer a pure Marxist state. It is more like the old imperial china than the worker’s paradise promised by Mao and Lenin. The people have few civil rights and although the government is more open to entrepreneurs it is worth noting that they are the major source for copyright violations, product knock offs, and violation of almost every standard of production and safety. They are a rogue nation relative to business standards, civil law, and human rights. The American government as well as the UN gives lip service to China’s violation of human rights and the use of slave labor but no meaningful action has been taken nor is likely to be taken. But this flouting of standards and safety is beginning to catch up with them but I note the US Government is making more excuses than taking any effective action.
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez is a Marxist and only a thinly veiled one at that. He is systematically raping the industry of Venezuela in his drive to redistribute the wealth. He is a living example of how to gain power by promising the take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. This was tried by the Roman Emperors and failed. It was tried by Lenin and failed. It has been tried in France and failed. It was tried in Cuba and failed. It has been tried numerous times in Mexico and has failed every time. The reality is that poor people are poor for a reason and taking the wealth away from those who create the jobs and their wealth and giving it to the poor assures the politician of their votes while giving the poor a few dollars and temporary relief. In the long term, the entrepreneurial class is destroyed, the means of wealth generation is destroyed, and the entire country sinks further into poverty. This is true of Venezuela today just as it is of Cuba. For America the problem lies mostly in the production of oil because under Chavez the production has declined dramatically and will probably sink further as he and his Marxist/Socialist cohorts mismanage the oil fields.
Saudi Arabia
The House of Saud has a tiger by the tail. The situation there is analgaous to an obscure protestant sect of snake handlers got control of the US Government and used their resources to convert everyone to their way of thinking. They have created a monster and they don't know what to do. If they stop funding these terrorists they face a civil war which they will certainly lose -- and they may have one anyway. If they continue funding these Madrassas and thus indirectly the terrorists, they risk losing support of the West and thus instigating a civil war. The Saudi Government is VERY UNSTABLE and I seriously doubt they can remain in power much longer. Once they fall, the Muslims will have a choke hold on Western Society -- especially Europe. This will give the Russians an upper hand in Europe and they will become resurgent politically and economically. This is a problem that will be exacerbated if Putin becomes dictator which seems to be his plan. America's dependence on foreign oil will be a problem because much of our oil comes from Venezuela but the mismanagement by Chavez has reduced their output but he is heavily dependent on American oil revenues.
It should be noted that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, Quatar, the Emirates, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey plus all of North Africa represent the old Islamic Empire that stretched from Spain to India. The Muslims are trying to re-establish that empire under the Caliphate, which historically was seated in Baghdad and unter the Ottomans in Constantinople. The war against the West is only part of the issue because these various leaders are vying for power and the position of Caliph, which is what Saddam was after. It seems clear to me that Spain has already succumbed to the Muslims in all but name and France isn't far behind. The western powers continue to view these countries as countries with secular governments but that is a false assumption. Islam does not recognize any secular power and they make no distinction between the Mullahs and the government. People like Maliki are shams because they have no real power unless the Mullahs say they do.
We are engaged in a religious war and no Muslim can be loyal to ANY government and remain a Muslim. This means that all of these Muslims who exist in our midst represent a huge and growing threat to our stability because when challenged they must side with Islam and NOT the government- any government. Just because these people are American or French, or German citizens does not mean they would support those governments over Islam and the Mullahs. Saudi Arabia is a problem but Iran, Syria, and Palestine are much greater problems right now. There are laws government sedition and it is long past time when those laws should be enforced in America.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Are Liberals Unfair and Unbalanced?
Recently we were treated to a Liberal Spectacle that caused me to seriously question whether the Liberal Elite was capable of thinking or did they simply react to a stimulus much like Pavlov’s dogs. It seems the University of Illinois Dental School discovered the 46 of their students were caught cheating. In an incredible display of liberal logic the Dean of the Dental School excused the students conduct with this statement “What can you expect from students when the President of the United States lies about WMD’s?” This came from the DEAN of the dental school – a person one would think who was educated and capable of even an elementary level of reason, but alas – apparently not. Presumably he remains Dean and life goes on as his liberal colleagues nod their heads in agreement like little bobble heads. Does anyone in the Liberal Community THINK? Can these people REASON or do they simply react to trigger words like Rove, Coulter, Bush, Cheney? Once any one of these words is put into a sentence the Liberal is rendered unconscious and incapable of assimilating or understanding what was said. Hence the Liberal Community is convinced that President George Bush knew about the 9/11 attack but failed to prevent it so his oil buddies could gain control of the Iraqi oil fields. These people do not seem to have even the reasoning ability of a cockroach.
The visceral anger aimed at President Bush has reached a point of such psychological disorder that serious therapy is needed to bring these people back to even a minimum level of rational conduct. If you doubt this consider some of the statements made by these pea brains. Harry Belafonte – a noted singer but not intellectually gifted – called President Bush “the greatest tyrant in the world”. A tyrant is an absolute ruler – a despot – who rules brutally, so Mr Belafonte considers President Bush to be equivalent if not worse than Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and any number of African Leaders who merrily go about slaughtering their citizens. Is this a fair assessment of the President? Is he a cruel depot who has absolute power or is Mr. Belafonte unbalanced
However, this irrationality of the Liberal mind isn’t limited to the President, it focuses on almost any person, cause, or entity which they perceive to deviate from their ideology, and one of these is Fox News. Mention Fox News to any Liberal and they immediately get the vapors and lose their grip on reality. One would think that Fox News is not just the evil empire but an active threat to the country, whose sole objective is to destroy Liberalism and to install a fascist state. The Liberal establishment controls ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and in fact the Liberals have a virtual monopoly on the information being meted out to the American Public. Of course the operative word here is “virtual” because that wee small voice of Fox News dares to deviate from the revealed truth of the Liberal Elite.
The irony here is that out of 300 million people only about 2 million watch Fox News on any given night – that is less than 1% and that number doesn’t seem to include any of the Liberals, because if you ask one if they watch Fox, they are dumbstruck. “Of Course not” is the reply. They know that Fox News is evil incarnate because all of their fellow liberals tell them so, so it isn’t necessary to actually watch it. They know that Fox is run by Roger Ailes who used to work for Ronald Reagan so there is no need to go any further – it is a conservative propaganda machine – case closed. The real irony is that if they were to actually watch Fox they would find a lot of liberal voices on Fox and many of these are extreme. Frequently you will see Susan Estrich, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, and other liberals and even Michael Moore -- that leading light of liberal lunacy has been seen on Fox. However, the liberal network monopoly would never provide a platform for the likes of Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, or Rush Limbaugh – that would betray their dedication to the truth – or least as the revealed truth of liberalism.
The one thing about Fox that drives the liberal establishment into orbit is the Fox slogan of “Fair and Balanced”. Mention this slogan to the average liberal and they begin to froth at the mouth and yell how it isn’t FAIR and it certainly isn’t BALANCED, because they present BOTH sides of an issue. Of course the operative word here is “fair” because it isn’t fair for anyone to present a counter argument or an alternative view to any liberal belief. And “belief” is the right word because Liberalism is at its core a faith based belief system where empirical data isn’t required.
A recent and excellent example of “faith based” liberalism is “Global Warming”, That intellectual beacon Al Gore, has sounded the alarm (and founded his own business on this belief) that the planet is warming and we are all in imminent danger of being incinerated, unless we immediately rape American Industry, pour billions of dollars into Africa (to line the pockets of dictators no doubt), sign the Kyoto Treaty, and stop driving SUV’s. To support this claim a whole gaggle of liberal scientists have lined up to acknowledge the reality as described by Gore. These scientists run the gamut from Astronomers to Zoologists but alas – endorsements from Climatologists seem to be sadly lacking. It seems that Climatologists acknowledge that the planet is going through a warming cycle but they don’t know why and they certainly aren’t ready to attribute it to human activity. However, liberals don’t need any proof that global warming is being driven by American’s; they believe it is and THAT is all of the proof they need. Yet this group has the temerity to view themselves as “intellectuals” when Goofy displays more sense than they do, and he is a talking dog.
And this brings me to San Francisco – the only city in the United States with a foreign policy but no defense budget. This city prides itself on being “tolerant” but then I guess so were the Nazi’s and Saddam Hussein as long as you agreed with them. San Francisco is actually one of the most intolerant cities in the country. This is a city that has banned military recruiters from the high schools without even considering that might be a violation of “Freedom of Speech”. To the average liberal San Franciscan “Freedom of Speech” cannot be applied to any situation in which they don’t believe and they certainly don’t believe in the military. To carry this insanity even further they had a city wide referendum on the war in Iraq. The “withdraw the troops immediately” won hands down – establishing their own foreign policy. In case of attack I suppose they would greet the invading Islamofascists with flowers, placards, and gay pride advocates dressed in sequined Tutu’s. Certainly they wouldn’t want to call on the American Military for help – after all they have been banned from the city by the anti-war liberals.
It seems to me that the term American Liberal is actually an oxymoron because you cannot be American and a liberal at the same time. Liberals do not believe in America, they think that we are a fascist power led by the “greatest tyrant in the world” and are bent on world domination. These people are neither fair nor balanced and one wonders if they are even capable of thought much less critical thinking.
The visceral anger aimed at President Bush has reached a point of such psychological disorder that serious therapy is needed to bring these people back to even a minimum level of rational conduct. If you doubt this consider some of the statements made by these pea brains. Harry Belafonte – a noted singer but not intellectually gifted – called President Bush “the greatest tyrant in the world”. A tyrant is an absolute ruler – a despot – who rules brutally, so Mr Belafonte considers President Bush to be equivalent if not worse than Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and any number of African Leaders who merrily go about slaughtering their citizens. Is this a fair assessment of the President? Is he a cruel depot who has absolute power or is Mr. Belafonte unbalanced
However, this irrationality of the Liberal mind isn’t limited to the President, it focuses on almost any person, cause, or entity which they perceive to deviate from their ideology, and one of these is Fox News. Mention Fox News to any Liberal and they immediately get the vapors and lose their grip on reality. One would think that Fox News is not just the evil empire but an active threat to the country, whose sole objective is to destroy Liberalism and to install a fascist state. The Liberal establishment controls ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and in fact the Liberals have a virtual monopoly on the information being meted out to the American Public. Of course the operative word here is “virtual” because that wee small voice of Fox News dares to deviate from the revealed truth of the Liberal Elite.
The irony here is that out of 300 million people only about 2 million watch Fox News on any given night – that is less than 1% and that number doesn’t seem to include any of the Liberals, because if you ask one if they watch Fox, they are dumbstruck. “Of Course not” is the reply. They know that Fox News is evil incarnate because all of their fellow liberals tell them so, so it isn’t necessary to actually watch it. They know that Fox is run by Roger Ailes who used to work for Ronald Reagan so there is no need to go any further – it is a conservative propaganda machine – case closed. The real irony is that if they were to actually watch Fox they would find a lot of liberal voices on Fox and many of these are extreme. Frequently you will see Susan Estrich, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, and other liberals and even Michael Moore -- that leading light of liberal lunacy has been seen on Fox. However, the liberal network monopoly would never provide a platform for the likes of Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, or Rush Limbaugh – that would betray their dedication to the truth – or least as the revealed truth of liberalism.
The one thing about Fox that drives the liberal establishment into orbit is the Fox slogan of “Fair and Balanced”. Mention this slogan to the average liberal and they begin to froth at the mouth and yell how it isn’t FAIR and it certainly isn’t BALANCED, because they present BOTH sides of an issue. Of course the operative word here is “fair” because it isn’t fair for anyone to present a counter argument or an alternative view to any liberal belief. And “belief” is the right word because Liberalism is at its core a faith based belief system where empirical data isn’t required.
A recent and excellent example of “faith based” liberalism is “Global Warming”, That intellectual beacon Al Gore, has sounded the alarm (and founded his own business on this belief) that the planet is warming and we are all in imminent danger of being incinerated, unless we immediately rape American Industry, pour billions of dollars into Africa (to line the pockets of dictators no doubt), sign the Kyoto Treaty, and stop driving SUV’s. To support this claim a whole gaggle of liberal scientists have lined up to acknowledge the reality as described by Gore. These scientists run the gamut from Astronomers to Zoologists but alas – endorsements from Climatologists seem to be sadly lacking. It seems that Climatologists acknowledge that the planet is going through a warming cycle but they don’t know why and they certainly aren’t ready to attribute it to human activity. However, liberals don’t need any proof that global warming is being driven by American’s; they believe it is and THAT is all of the proof they need. Yet this group has the temerity to view themselves as “intellectuals” when Goofy displays more sense than they do, and he is a talking dog.
And this brings me to San Francisco – the only city in the United States with a foreign policy but no defense budget. This city prides itself on being “tolerant” but then I guess so were the Nazi’s and Saddam Hussein as long as you agreed with them. San Francisco is actually one of the most intolerant cities in the country. This is a city that has banned military recruiters from the high schools without even considering that might be a violation of “Freedom of Speech”. To the average liberal San Franciscan “Freedom of Speech” cannot be applied to any situation in which they don’t believe and they certainly don’t believe in the military. To carry this insanity even further they had a city wide referendum on the war in Iraq. The “withdraw the troops immediately” won hands down – establishing their own foreign policy. In case of attack I suppose they would greet the invading Islamofascists with flowers, placards, and gay pride advocates dressed in sequined Tutu’s. Certainly they wouldn’t want to call on the American Military for help – after all they have been banned from the city by the anti-war liberals.
It seems to me that the term American Liberal is actually an oxymoron because you cannot be American and a liberal at the same time. Liberals do not believe in America, they think that we are a fascist power led by the “greatest tyrant in the world” and are bent on world domination. These people are neither fair nor balanced and one wonders if they are even capable of thought much less critical thinking.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Another Experiment in Socialism Gone Awry
It is truly amazing how the socialists in the world fail to get the message that it doesn’t work. Our Universities and the Educational community in general continue to be filled with these people who feel capitalism is evil and that socialism is the only “fair” way to run a government. Of course it goes unsaid that they should be the ones to run the government because the rest of us are too stupid to make the right decisions. Even in those European countries where socialism is entrenched the best they have been able to achieve is a level of mediocrity, where no one is terribly rich, no one terribly poor, and many who simply give up and live parasitic lives without working. If it wasn’t for the leadership of the United States most of Europe would simply collapse. But that really isn’t the issue. The issue today is Venezuela, a once prosperous country rich in oil revenues but suffering from the usual Latin America malaise of few members in the middle class, too many ignorant and uneducated peasants, and too little reinvestment in the country.
What we find today in Venezuela is Hugo Chavez doing what dictators and communists have done forever and that is promise something for nothing to the masses and then find a scapegoat to blame for the failures that inevitably follow from socialist policies. Since Chavez gained power the economy of Venezuela has slipped into decline and is growing worse day by day. At first glance this deterioration may not be obvious because the streets are filled with vendors hawking their wares and shouting out prices. These vendors are selling virtually everything and from the sheer number it would appear that the economy is in good shape and that the people are prosperous and doing well. But this appearance is deceiving because the supermarkets where one would ordinarily buy vegetables and other staples are virtually bare. But why is this happening when the whole objective of socialism / communism is to share the riches with everyone. The objective is to take from those that have and give to those who have not so why are goods becoming scarce?
Obviously the answer to this question is complicated but it starts with some of the fundamentals of socialism / communism. In capitalism the objective of any enterprise is profit and if the profits are not forthcoming the business goes out of business. In socialism and in Venezuela the Chavez form of Socialism is more nearly akin to communism the objective is employment and any profits from the enterprise are taken by the state and redistributed into other endeavors that are not making a profit. The inevitable result of this policy is that eventually there are no profits being generated by any enterprise. But the more direct impact of government control of the economy is the policy of price control. This failed in ancient Rome and it has failed in every instance where it has been tried and it is failing in Venezuela. As soon as the government fixes the price at which a product can be sold it immediately drives that product out of the marketplace because the product can be sold at a higher price on the black market. Punishment of black marketeers increases the scarcity and drives the prices even higher. In Venezuela the government allows these individual entrepreneurs to exist, which is why the street vendors are selling vegetables on the street but the shelves in the markets are bare.
Regimes like Chavez’s drive away business from outsiders and cause investors internally to flee the country taking their wealth with them. This has historically been the problem in Latin America as one dictator after another seizes power the wealthy move their wealth to other countries and the new regime falters and fails to be replaced by other and the pattern repeats itself. Dictatorships are inherently unstable and eventually fail. Communist states follow the same pattern for much the same reason – any prudent person will not stand by and allow the fruits of his labor to be seized by the government and redistributed to the unproductive.
There is a lesson here for America’s leftists and the extreme positions held by many in the Democratic Party. Raising taxes is simply a legal way of taking the profits from the productive and giving them to the unproductive. This is what Chavez is doing in Venezuela and his strength comes from the unemployed, the disenfranchised, and the poor. The power base of Pelosi and the extreme left increasingly rests on the illegal immigrants, the poor, and the unproductive.
But the real warning is that Hugo Chavez is a “democratically elected” leader who seems to have convinced the American left that he is not only a popularly elected leader but that he represents the future of Latin America. Of course this was the position these same leftists took with Fidel Castro and we see how well that worked but the situation in Venezuela may actually be worse because Chavez like dictators before him is using the US as a scapegoat to distract the people from the evident failures of his regime. This is the same technique being used by Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the Mullahs in Iran, the Islamofascists all over the world, and the list goes on and on. However, unlike the others Chavez appears to be trying to provoke the US into some sort of retaliation or military intervention. The recent capture of the British Soldiers is an example of this attempt to provoke an attack by the Iranians. Chavez needs something similar to consolidate his grip on the country because his seizure of private property and obvious drift toward a fascist communist state is rapidly eroding his power.
The leftists in this country and worldwide continue to view the US as the oppressor of the weak, especially Cuba and other communist countries like North Korea. Chavez is relying on this attitude and the fact that the US is distracted by the Islamofascists, which gives him the opportunity to establish himself as the first Communist in South America. He doesn’t represent a significant problem yet but he is not someone to be ignored for long.
What we find today in Venezuela is Hugo Chavez doing what dictators and communists have done forever and that is promise something for nothing to the masses and then find a scapegoat to blame for the failures that inevitably follow from socialist policies. Since Chavez gained power the economy of Venezuela has slipped into decline and is growing worse day by day. At first glance this deterioration may not be obvious because the streets are filled with vendors hawking their wares and shouting out prices. These vendors are selling virtually everything and from the sheer number it would appear that the economy is in good shape and that the people are prosperous and doing well. But this appearance is deceiving because the supermarkets where one would ordinarily buy vegetables and other staples are virtually bare. But why is this happening when the whole objective of socialism / communism is to share the riches with everyone. The objective is to take from those that have and give to those who have not so why are goods becoming scarce?
Obviously the answer to this question is complicated but it starts with some of the fundamentals of socialism / communism. In capitalism the objective of any enterprise is profit and if the profits are not forthcoming the business goes out of business. In socialism and in Venezuela the Chavez form of Socialism is more nearly akin to communism the objective is employment and any profits from the enterprise are taken by the state and redistributed into other endeavors that are not making a profit. The inevitable result of this policy is that eventually there are no profits being generated by any enterprise. But the more direct impact of government control of the economy is the policy of price control. This failed in ancient Rome and it has failed in every instance where it has been tried and it is failing in Venezuela. As soon as the government fixes the price at which a product can be sold it immediately drives that product out of the marketplace because the product can be sold at a higher price on the black market. Punishment of black marketeers increases the scarcity and drives the prices even higher. In Venezuela the government allows these individual entrepreneurs to exist, which is why the street vendors are selling vegetables on the street but the shelves in the markets are bare.
Regimes like Chavez’s drive away business from outsiders and cause investors internally to flee the country taking their wealth with them. This has historically been the problem in Latin America as one dictator after another seizes power the wealthy move their wealth to other countries and the new regime falters and fails to be replaced by other and the pattern repeats itself. Dictatorships are inherently unstable and eventually fail. Communist states follow the same pattern for much the same reason – any prudent person will not stand by and allow the fruits of his labor to be seized by the government and redistributed to the unproductive.
There is a lesson here for America’s leftists and the extreme positions held by many in the Democratic Party. Raising taxes is simply a legal way of taking the profits from the productive and giving them to the unproductive. This is what Chavez is doing in Venezuela and his strength comes from the unemployed, the disenfranchised, and the poor. The power base of Pelosi and the extreme left increasingly rests on the illegal immigrants, the poor, and the unproductive.
But the real warning is that Hugo Chavez is a “democratically elected” leader who seems to have convinced the American left that he is not only a popularly elected leader but that he represents the future of Latin America. Of course this was the position these same leftists took with Fidel Castro and we see how well that worked but the situation in Venezuela may actually be worse because Chavez like dictators before him is using the US as a scapegoat to distract the people from the evident failures of his regime. This is the same technique being used by Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the Mullahs in Iran, the Islamofascists all over the world, and the list goes on and on. However, unlike the others Chavez appears to be trying to provoke the US into some sort of retaliation or military intervention. The recent capture of the British Soldiers is an example of this attempt to provoke an attack by the Iranians. Chavez needs something similar to consolidate his grip on the country because his seizure of private property and obvious drift toward a fascist communist state is rapidly eroding his power.
The leftists in this country and worldwide continue to view the US as the oppressor of the weak, especially Cuba and other communist countries like North Korea. Chavez is relying on this attitude and the fact that the US is distracted by the Islamofascists, which gives him the opportunity to establish himself as the first Communist in South America. He doesn’t represent a significant problem yet but he is not someone to be ignored for long.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Observations on Iraq
I wrote this is response to some one who was questioning the Iraqi situation on the basis that more troops were needed.
The first military rule is to not interfere with the commander on the ground. I am not there, neither is Bush or Rumsfeld or even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Therefore, I have bowed to the CG's in Iraq who have consistently stated they didn't need more troops. I realize that Generals -- especially multi-starred ones are at heart political but I cannot believe that any American General would sacrifice even one trooper for his personal career -- Since I am not there I accept the fact that the number of troops on the ground is sufficient. I note that many of the voices calling for more troops are either political voices (congress people -both sides) or media. In either case (with some exceptions) these are not qualified voices. I have a high regard for Senator McCain but he was a pilot not a command officer so even he has only a limited knowledge of what it takes to fight a ground fight. Kerry was a Naval Officer with limited command experience and to my knowledge no tactical experience.
The war itself is somewhat problematic -- at least from my perspective. The root causes are deep and go back years if not centuries. The British and the French in their last gasp as colonial powers signed the Sykes-Picot (secret) Treaty, which in effect said that they would divide the old Ottoman Empire between them. This created totally fictious countries -- Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Arabia, Kuwait, Palestine, and arguably Iran. Turkey was shrunk to it's current size and the Kurds once again lost Kurdistan. Under the Ottomans the Arabs and Jews lived peaceably. The Jews and Christians paid some nominal tax to be non-muslim. Unfortunately the Colonial Powers failed to take into consideration the people and the property they were so happily dividing up. The Muslim Brotherhood began in the 20"s along with terrorism. The war intervened but the Muslims joined with Hitler and the Nazi's actually had two SS Divisions made up entirely of Muslims (this is true -- I didn't believe it either and looked it up). Following the war the creation of Israel simply brought the battle and terroism to the forefront. Since Harry Truman supported the founding of Israel and the Brits and French essentially stepped aside the US was left holding a very dirty stick.
My point to this is that of all of the middle eastern countries only two were essentially secular -- Lebanon and Iraq. Reagan failed to deal with Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks. For Bush to take up that fight would have involved taking on Syria as well as Iraq and possibly igniting a major conflict stretching across the entire middle east. . Strategically attacking Iraq was probably a good thing because if it succeeds in returning the country to a secular one he will have driven a wedge into the heart of the Arab world. The fight here seems to center on Oil, ego, and immediate threat. Oil is really not terribly relevant since Iraqi oil primarily goes to Europe. The ego's are on both sides and to a large extent this is just belly bumping. The issue of immediate threat is much more relevant and not nearly as clear as the media and various politicians would have you think.
I do agree that the administration and the military both thought that the population would rise up against Saddam and when that failed to happen it caught them off guard. I also think they had expected that Iraq was more secular and less religious than it is and that caught them off guard. I don't think the Pentagon realized they were embarking on a religious war and that is what this is.
I think this is a war unlike any war we have ever fought. In Viet Nam we were fighting a nation state with an organized and generally recognizable enemy. Here we are fighting individuals who belong to no nation state but are religious fanatics whose loyalty is not to a country but to a feudal lord whose power lies in a religious foundation. These people are invisible -- even in Iraq. They are like assassins -- they hide and they smile and they attack from the shadows. Would more troops help? Would more troops simply provide more targets? What about the loss of life? These are all very hard questions and I have no glib answers. I know the number of casualties are astonishingly low but then any is too many. For myself I continue to read and research the area and the history in an effort to grasp the strategic significance. At a tactical level I accept that the military commanders are doing their job and that the political leaders are doing theirs since they all have information I don't have. I know from my reading that this issue goes back decades and that this is a war that has been going on for at least 70 years and quite probably will go on for another 50.
In reading the 9/11 report I discovered that the Clinton administration was well aware of what was going on and what needed to be done. President Clinton made several attempts to nip this in the bud but was over ridden by his staff. Many of the things that Bush did immediately after 9/11 were put in place by Clinton. I notice that the Clinton's have been very quiet concerning this issue and I think with reason. I think they are well aware that Bush is simply executing some of their plans, adding some his own, but doing what they recognized needed to be done all along.
I admired General Patton and had a low regard for Eisenhower. I admired General Schwartzkopf but had a low opinion of Powell for the same reasons. There are big differences between command officers and Pentagon Warriors. I take exception to arm chair generals and pundits who sit in Washingotn or elsewhere and critize events and affairs on the basis of limited knowledge, limited experience, and with hidden agendas. While I was still in the active reserve I held a civilian job that brought me into contact with many foreign nationals. During the height of Viet Nam my wife and I had a cocktail party attended by several foreigners. These people were astonished that the Army had not put a stop to the demonstrations, taken over the media, and imprisoned the leaders of the peace movement. I spent the entire evening attempting to explain the Constitution and that as an Army Officer I was sworn to uphold the Constitution -- NOT THE GOVERNMENT -- and that the Constitution guaranteed the right of these people to speak their mind and consequently I was expected to protect them even if they were spitting on me and the things I believed in.. Trying to explain the freedoms that we enjoy and how the military is sworn to protect the exercise of these was difficult. Later I observed how the Chinese, South Africans, and Latin Americans handled dissent. Our way is better. I don't think Iraq is a quagmire. I don't think it is going to end soon. I don't know if more troops are needed. I do think that we need to recognize this is a religious war that is not bounded by national boundaries or recognized governments. I think everyone has the right to their opinion and they are free to criticize the administration. I was recently on a flight from Calif with several uniformed soldiers. All of these young men were moved up to first class and got a round of applause from the passengers. A big change from the Viet Nam era.
The first military rule is to not interfere with the commander on the ground. I am not there, neither is Bush or Rumsfeld or even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Therefore, I have bowed to the CG's in Iraq who have consistently stated they didn't need more troops. I realize that Generals -- especially multi-starred ones are at heart political but I cannot believe that any American General would sacrifice even one trooper for his personal career -- Since I am not there I accept the fact that the number of troops on the ground is sufficient. I note that many of the voices calling for more troops are either political voices (congress people -both sides) or media. In either case (with some exceptions) these are not qualified voices. I have a high regard for Senator McCain but he was a pilot not a command officer so even he has only a limited knowledge of what it takes to fight a ground fight. Kerry was a Naval Officer with limited command experience and to my knowledge no tactical experience.
The war itself is somewhat problematic -- at least from my perspective. The root causes are deep and go back years if not centuries. The British and the French in their last gasp as colonial powers signed the Sykes-Picot (secret) Treaty, which in effect said that they would divide the old Ottoman Empire between them. This created totally fictious countries -- Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Arabia, Kuwait, Palestine, and arguably Iran. Turkey was shrunk to it's current size and the Kurds once again lost Kurdistan. Under the Ottomans the Arabs and Jews lived peaceably. The Jews and Christians paid some nominal tax to be non-muslim. Unfortunately the Colonial Powers failed to take into consideration the people and the property they were so happily dividing up. The Muslim Brotherhood began in the 20"s along with terrorism. The war intervened but the Muslims joined with Hitler and the Nazi's actually had two SS Divisions made up entirely of Muslims (this is true -- I didn't believe it either and looked it up). Following the war the creation of Israel simply brought the battle and terroism to the forefront. Since Harry Truman supported the founding of Israel and the Brits and French essentially stepped aside the US was left holding a very dirty stick.
My point to this is that of all of the middle eastern countries only two were essentially secular -- Lebanon and Iraq. Reagan failed to deal with Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks. For Bush to take up that fight would have involved taking on Syria as well as Iraq and possibly igniting a major conflict stretching across the entire middle east. . Strategically attacking Iraq was probably a good thing because if it succeeds in returning the country to a secular one he will have driven a wedge into the heart of the Arab world. The fight here seems to center on Oil, ego, and immediate threat. Oil is really not terribly relevant since Iraqi oil primarily goes to Europe. The ego's are on both sides and to a large extent this is just belly bumping. The issue of immediate threat is much more relevant and not nearly as clear as the media and various politicians would have you think.
I do agree that the administration and the military both thought that the population would rise up against Saddam and when that failed to happen it caught them off guard. I also think they had expected that Iraq was more secular and less religious than it is and that caught them off guard. I don't think the Pentagon realized they were embarking on a religious war and that is what this is.
I think this is a war unlike any war we have ever fought. In Viet Nam we were fighting a nation state with an organized and generally recognizable enemy. Here we are fighting individuals who belong to no nation state but are religious fanatics whose loyalty is not to a country but to a feudal lord whose power lies in a religious foundation. These people are invisible -- even in Iraq. They are like assassins -- they hide and they smile and they attack from the shadows. Would more troops help? Would more troops simply provide more targets? What about the loss of life? These are all very hard questions and I have no glib answers. I know the number of casualties are astonishingly low but then any is too many. For myself I continue to read and research the area and the history in an effort to grasp the strategic significance. At a tactical level I accept that the military commanders are doing their job and that the political leaders are doing theirs since they all have information I don't have. I know from my reading that this issue goes back decades and that this is a war that has been going on for at least 70 years and quite probably will go on for another 50.
In reading the 9/11 report I discovered that the Clinton administration was well aware of what was going on and what needed to be done. President Clinton made several attempts to nip this in the bud but was over ridden by his staff. Many of the things that Bush did immediately after 9/11 were put in place by Clinton. I notice that the Clinton's have been very quiet concerning this issue and I think with reason. I think they are well aware that Bush is simply executing some of their plans, adding some his own, but doing what they recognized needed to be done all along.
I admired General Patton and had a low regard for Eisenhower. I admired General Schwartzkopf but had a low opinion of Powell for the same reasons. There are big differences between command officers and Pentagon Warriors. I take exception to arm chair generals and pundits who sit in Washingotn or elsewhere and critize events and affairs on the basis of limited knowledge, limited experience, and with hidden agendas. While I was still in the active reserve I held a civilian job that brought me into contact with many foreign nationals. During the height of Viet Nam my wife and I had a cocktail party attended by several foreigners. These people were astonished that the Army had not put a stop to the demonstrations, taken over the media, and imprisoned the leaders of the peace movement. I spent the entire evening attempting to explain the Constitution and that as an Army Officer I was sworn to uphold the Constitution -- NOT THE GOVERNMENT -- and that the Constitution guaranteed the right of these people to speak their mind and consequently I was expected to protect them even if they were spitting on me and the things I believed in.. Trying to explain the freedoms that we enjoy and how the military is sworn to protect the exercise of these was difficult. Later I observed how the Chinese, South Africans, and Latin Americans handled dissent. Our way is better. I don't think Iraq is a quagmire. I don't think it is going to end soon. I don't know if more troops are needed. I do think that we need to recognize this is a religious war that is not bounded by national boundaries or recognized governments. I think everyone has the right to their opinion and they are free to criticize the administration. I was recently on a flight from Calif with several uniformed soldiers. All of these young men were moved up to first class and got a round of applause from the passengers. A big change from the Viet Nam era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)