The American War Machine

We are using the wrong strategy in our Afghanistan battle.  United States armed forces along with international armed forces and Afghan security forces and police are now reported by the Associated Press to outnumber Taliban rebels by 12-1.  There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans.  Americans are dying at an alarming rate thanks to IEDs.  Our fight ought to be with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups that threaten the United States.  They are the group that was responsible for 9-11.

The American army is made up of volunteers.  As a consequence most American families are not affected by the injuries and loss of life.  The military-industrial complex couldn’t be happier because the war is making money for military manufacturers and the commanders have a cause that is difficult to dispute.

My contention is that the United States needs an alternate strategy that uses an undercover, quick deployment methodology that will deter attacks on the United States and its allies.  We cannot bring Jeffersonian democracy to people who have no conception of our way of life.  Many of the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are living in a 12^th century world.  Our occupation of Iraq proves that we cannot contain terrorists.  Our final success in that country remains in doubt as proven by the latest bombings in Baghdad that have killed 153 people.

Like the continued manufacture of C-17 aircraft, the industrial complex that manufactures war materiel will lobby Congress to support the McChrystal request for more forces.  I fear that Obama does not have the backbone to say “no” to those who love war.        

The President’s Vision

President Obama has already made history by being the first non-White to be elected to the presidency.  That was a significant accomplishment.  However, it is not enough for our new president.  He wants to make significant changes to our relationship with the rest of the world and wants to re-make parts of the American economy.  The changes he wants to accomplish are dramatic.  Given his lack of experience, his objectives seem unrealistic.  After all many Democrats as well as most Republicans hold historical views that are contrary to his ideas.

Obama’s allies are operatives who seem to see everything through a political spectrum.  Those associates are driven by political motivation.  They understand that their best opportunities to change America and its relationship to the world must be accomplished in the earliest part of the Obama presidency.  That is the reason for the hard push for health care reform and the very aggressive foreign policy.  It is not clear that his closest supporters even understand his vision.

I am not saying that his ideas are wrong.  They are just views that do not conform to historic philosophy.  It appears he may be correct in his views of the 21^st century.

In foreign affairs Obama wants the United States to step down from its position of supremacy.  His calls for greater participation of other countries in resolving international issues is a view that was actually started by President George W. Bush.  There is a good reason for this change of philosophy.  This country currently has 300,000 soldiers in 150 countries and 820 bases in 39 countries.  The U.S. military budget is approximately $500 billion.  Starting with George Washington there has been an idea that the country would be better off with limited foreign entanglements.

In domestic affairs Obama wants to involve the federal government in more of the things that impact most citizens.  Reform of health care is just the first step of his agenda.  He wants the federal government to become more involved in the educational systems and the industrial system of our nation.  I believe his objective is U.S.A. Incorporated.  He sees this as the avenue to competition in a global economy.  His list of books to read in 2009 includes Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman.  The recent decline in the value of the American dollar is a good thing when you are trying to compete with the low cost nations of the world.

It’s a scary set of objectives.  I think I can see where he wants to take this nation.  Many people will fight him because they are living in the past.  The problem is too few have taken a really good look at where the nation is right now.  Those resisting his ideas could easily stop him.  The question is what is their vision?

Blame it on the Jews

There are 13 million Jews in the world.  The overwhelming majority are in the United States and Israel.  Despite our small numbers we have power that can bring businesses and countries to their knees.  At least that is what many people say when they need a scapegoat.

So why is Chavez of Venezuela and Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president of Honduras, blaming their perceived problems on Jews?  It’s easy and convenient.  The connection between Israel and the governments of these two countries is unexplainable by those blaming Jews for their predicament.

Fortunately it is difficult to blame Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and other international problems on Jews.  What about Country Wide Mortgage and the American car manufacturers?  Nope! Those businesses were not managed by Jews.  What about MGM, and NBC?  No Jewish management there either.

It’s getting harder and harder to blame Jews.  Let’s see who can we blame?  Hmm.

Sticking a Finger in Our Eye

To make it clear that Iran doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, they have test fired some missiles today as a follow up to Friday’s admission of a secret nuclear facility.  Their behavior is that of a child who thinks he can continue his disobedience to an adult supervisor.  The difference is that Iran is not a child and the consequences of their actions are too horrible to contemplate.

Iran’s action is a direct challenge to the United States and to our president.  What will Barack Obama do in the face of his position as leader of the western world?  I hope he continues his calm demeanor and quietly prepares for the worst.  Vice President Joe Biden had predicted the president would be tested in his first six months in office.  Now is the time the when Biden’s foreign affairs experience will be a most valuable input.

Our congress is slow to respond to threats from other nations.  There has not been a declaration of war since the start of WWII.  It’s unlikely there will be that kind of action to Iran’s saber rattling.  However, behind the scenes the United States could quietly condone an air strike on Iran by Israeli aircraft.  This morning’s statements by our Secretary of defense and state, on the TV talk shows, were not made with the knowledge of today’s missile tests.

When have sanctions deterred any nation?  Unless the October 1 talks with Iran bring about real changes the time for military actions will have arrived.

Israel Is Another Step Closer to Bombing Iran

Barack Obama’s comments at the end of the G20 summit were capped with a Q and A from reporters that left no doubt about American actions if Iran continues its nuclear facilities construction and revealing all existing facilities.  The president’s firm but conciliatory message was clear.  There will be strong sanctions and the possibility of military actions against those sites is definitely a possibility. 

The problem for the United States is its size and purpose.  American military bases and other American facilities are located in more than 50 nations around the world.  Many people question American motives.  Those are questions asked by both American citizens and the people of other countries.  The largest and most influential nations of the world hold considerable distrust for this nation.    

Israel, other the other hand, has made its position clear.  The doctrine that has been supported by most Israeli leaders is strike first when there is a national threat.  It’s easy to understand their reasoning.  Their entire country is the size of New Jersey.  The country is primarily Jewish and its self interest is more easily defined.

Israel does not ask permission for its actions.  Israel does act in its own best interest.  If Iran is a threat, Israel will take the necessary action.

Is Mexico a Failing State?

This is not news.  Mexico is becoming a failed state.  Just Google these words “Mexico is a failed state” and you will see at least eight articles on the subject.   

Wikipedia says the term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:

• loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
• erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
• an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
• an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has “failed” is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.

The Associated Press reports a “Gunmen killed a state congressional candidate and his wife and two sons in their home Saturday in the Gulf coast state of Tabasco, in southern Mexico.” Gangs are the suspected killers.

It’s happening all over Mexico.  Is Mexico a failed state now?  That depends on your definition.  The United States government needs to be more concerned about its southern neighbor and the impact on our own nation.  Mexico could become a haven for terrorists that could bring significant harm to Americans.

al-Qaida Does Not Need Afghanistan

The Associate Press reported today that these are the five measures that Obama will use to decide if the anticipated request for more troops is an appropriate action.

-The concern about how Afghans, Americans and NATO allies would view a troop increase

-How force size changes might be countered by al-Qaida propaganda and tactics.

-What impact any change would have on neighboring and nuclear-armed Pakistan, where the al-Qaida leadership – including Osama bin Laden – are believed hiding along the rugged, mountainous border.

-The effect on the “health” of U.S. forces, already strained from repeated deployments in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

-How more forces effectively would propel Obama’s goal of denying al-Qaida and its Taliban allies safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. President the list of consideration ought to include 1)the likelihood of another attack on the United States if U.S. forces are entirely withdrawn from Afghanistan.  After all al-Qaida can set up camp in another country.  2)Is Afghanistan crucial to al-Qaidas desire to harm America.

The press ought to be doing more to answer these questions.  There is nothing in the press to indicate al-Qaida needs Afghanistan and neither does the United States.

End the War In Afghanistan

Afghanistan is a quandary for the United States.  No nation has ever successfully occupied that country.  Alexander the Great tried and failed; and so did the French, British, and Russians.  All of them committed larger armies than the Americans.  Just to review, that is the country that was the training ground for those who attacked the World Trade Center in New York.  We thought that Osama bin Laden would be caught in that country but he wasn’t.

The U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001.  After criticizing G.W. Bush for the Iraqi War surge, Barack Obama has proposed and is carrying out the same strategy in Afghanistan.  What’s the use of bloggers and other non-influential writers from questioning the president’s plans?  Well now we have a highly respected conservative columnist, George Will, who writes for the Washington Post and other publications calling for American withdrawal.  Bloggers and columnists opposed to this action should write column after column until withdrawal is complete. 

With no definition of victory in the battle against terrorists there is no way for anyone to know if we are winning the war.  Certainly the loss of American lives is not worth the investment.  Admiral Mullin, appearing on Meet the Press, gave an assessment that was not encouraging.

Why must a conservative journalist be the person to say the things we all know?  It’s our nature to listen to the most serious and conscientious of our fellow citizens.  I hope that President Obama ends this loss of life and fortune very soon.

The 21st Century World Economy Has Arrived

The United States was not interested in the rest of the world until WWII.  Our nation kept up its protectionist and no alliance philosophy until that war thrust us (were we dragged?) into a position of leadership.  Exceptions to that basic idea did occasionally occur.  There was the famous bombardment of pirates off the north coast of Africa in the early 1800s.  That was an independent action that led to know alliances.  WWI is the outstanding example of working together with other countries to defeat a common enemy.  At the end of that war the United States did not join the League of Nations.  Instead the country reverted to its no alliances philosophy.

The idea of no alliances apparently dates back to Thomas Jefferson. He extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” 

A Cato Institute article on free trade confirms the philosophy of high tariffs. The article provides a U.S. Department of Commerce graph that shows 30% import duties on durable goods until WWII.  Pat Buchanan, the conservative talk show host and former presidential candidate, still contends that the United States would be better off economically if trade barriers were in place.  He repeated that position on the McLaughlin Group on Friday August 21, 2009.  When was the last time he went shopping?  Walmart, Target, Sears, Best Buy, etc. are all part of the global market place.

It’s understandable why Buchanan and others believe that protectionism is the salvation for the United States.  We can’t compete with other nations for many goods and services.  Our cost of living is just too high.

Listed on President Barack Obama’s top five books to read this summer is Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat.  It’s a book that tells us something we already know but in horrifying detail.  This book tells us about the interdependence of every nation in the world.  The quote “President Obama will probably learn of the operation from CNN” evidences how well we have connected everyone.  Even Mayanmar’s (Burma’s) secretive government has been unable to keep events in that country a secret from the world.  Neither 10th century Muslims nor Asian dictators can stop the interconnected world.  Visit Toronto, Canada and it’s like visiting the United Nations.  You will realize the world cannot be turned back.

The answer to our dilemma is innovation and invention.  This nation gave birth to assembly line manufacturing (Henry Ford’s factories), the telephone, the computer world, and the internet.  It was Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb and the first recording devices.  The largest and most successful aircraft manufacturing companies were built in the United States.  It’s that creativity that will revitalize this nation.

What will it be?  I don’t know.  It could be new car batteries or new ways to generate electricity or something else.  The new world has arrived.  Get excited!

Will Israel Attack Iran?

The answer to the question is, only the Israelis know for sure.  According to Micah Zenko in today’s Los Angeles Times the likelihood is high.  Mr. Zenko says Iran has until late September to provide the desired response to an international proposal for stopping nuclear enrichment.  Given Israel’s history of a first strike doctrine this action is definitely a real possibility.

A columnist in the Pakistani Spectator has provided some important information that would support the thought that Israel is physically positioning itself for such an attack. The unidentified “Guest Blogger” contends that  “In a latest move Israel has moved two of its Saar Missile Class warships through the Suez Canal. Ten days back Israel also sailed its Dolphin class submarine, capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, to an unidentified location.”

Of course, if this is an accurate report, Iranian intelligence knows about the positioning of Israeli ships.  Can we rely on Michael Oren, the new Israeli ambassador to the United States, when he said on Fareed Zakaris’s GPS that Israel would only use nuclear weapons in response to another nation’s first use?  Frankly I doubt it.

Although there appears to be more peaceful times in Israel, its last two wars have ended in a draw.  Perhaps that was enough for Israel’s enemies.

Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons now.  I am guessing that Israel will strike Iran if it believes there is a real threat.  It just won’t be nuclear.