Global leadership

Realistic prism of the cost of global leadership
Interesting article linked above … and the author probably is right. You know, it is expensive being the world’s policeman … even if you aren’t really elected to do it.
He may have a point. Maybe the time has come for the United States to stand down and let China take a larger role. I mean, for sure, nobody else will or is in the position to do anything about it.
Of course, it would help if the United States was totally independent of the world energy market, and definitely not dependent on Chinese imports to supply our consumer economy and Chinese investments in Federal Treasury Bonds to keep the federal government afloat with all its deficit pump-priming (that sure doesn’t seem to be working all that well).
Of course, we could hope that everyone is going to bury their swords and pick up plowshares and peace will rule the planet. Who knows, stranger things have happened … or have they?
Nope, just look at the world today (and don’t blame the US for all the conflicts, they would be there whether or not the US did or does anything). Seriously, look where there are conflicts: Across Asia, Africa, South America, North America, even Europe. About the only continent that doesn’t have an active conflict going is Australia (We won’t count the Whale Wars down south of it).
And if it is not wars, conflicts, then how about riots and demonstrations that routinely turn into fiery melees with burning cars and people getting their heads busted.
Nope, sorry, try all you want, you can’t blame the Americans for all that violence. It ain’t our fault. I know our progressives take their cues from various and sundry demagogues in this culture and that who claim if it wasn’t for “Western” influences – particularly those of the Great Satan that is America – that all would be peace, tranquility and happiness throughout the world, but if you believe that … well, I am afraid you may have serious problems.
As I have often pointed out: The Americans are powerful in many ways, but they neither are omnipotent nor omniscient. Besides, people in other countries always have a vote in how things go, whether they are in power or not.
The problem I have with the Americans stepping back behind our moats of the Atlantic and the Pacific and erecting our own castle walls along the Rio Grande and parts west, as well as from Puget Sound to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, is that would be an exercise in futility. We just can’t wall ourselves off from the rest of the world, however attractive that might seem.
Yes, folks, I am just as frustrated with the turn of events around the world as probably anybody else. I feel like screaming Rodney King’s famous line: Can’t we just get along?
But, unfortunately, people, man is not like that. I wish we were, but we aren’t.
In the end, somebody has to step up and lead … or as we used to say when I was in uniform: Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way!
Leading ain’t fun. It ain’t easy. It ain’t cheap. However, sometimes, in the long run, it turns out to be in your best self-interest.
In the end, I guess, what price do we want to put on our liberty, our freedoms, our way of life … as well as those of others?

Again, someone much more articulate than I

This article I am linking to expresses so well the point I have been trying to make.
Arab Spring nations don’t yet grasp freedom of dissent
If there is going to be a clash of cultures, then this will be at its root. Where there is no freedom of dissent; then there is no freedom. Either you are willing to accept and tolerate others who disagree with you or there inevitably will be conflict.
It doesn’t matter where you live, or what culture you live in, or society or anything. At the bottom of it all is that if you are unwilling to accept that other individuals are different than you are and are going to be, no matter what you think, then there will be no freedom, no liberty for anyone. Someone will always be trying to impose the tyranny of conformity on you and everyone else.
This, more than anything else, is what we should take away as a lesson from the riots, carnage and chaos we are seeing igniting around the world by Muslim extremists. Muslim, as well as members of all faiths, should reject the message being sent by these demonstrations in no uncertain terms.

Diplomatic immunity?

British threaten to enter Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Julian Assange
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.

Amen!

Presidents, policies - foreign and domestic - and elections

 

The author of the article linked above has a really good grasp of reality when it comes to the powers of the presidency, to which I add my hearty: Amen! Definitely read the article, it really is good.

You see, contrary to a lot of people’s opinions, the American president ain’t all that powerful. That is malice by design by the people who created this republic 225 years ago.

The so-called “founding fathers” had a really strong dislike for a strong executive authority, which in that time normally was wielded by a monarch of some variety. So, the president was not given all that much authority to do anything, without the advice and consent of Congress, the Supreme Court and the states. Despite the passage of time, the president still finds himself (so far, just hims) very limited in what he actually can accomplish. I think that President Obama probably is getting around to understanding that lesson, but unfortunately, a lot of Americans and very few non-Americans get it.

No matter who wins in November, whoever is sworn in on January 20, 2013, they will find themselves in the same bind.

In addition, as the author pointed out, no matter how much the president wants to control things, he ain’t in control. No one is. That to me is the salient point of the article. People, in their hubris, think we can control events. Well, I have news for you, if you haven’t figured it out already: We don’t, we can’t and we never will.

George W. Bush opposed nation-building and that is just what trapped his administration in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama was going to step back and let other nations help carry the load, and found out that everybody still looks to the Americans to take the lead.

Whether it is trying to control the weather or stop climate change, or bring global peace to all mankind, or ensure that no one goes hungry or without medical care: It is not going to happen. That may sound like a pretty ugly assessment, but it is facing reality.

The best we all can do is to try to cope with whatever contingencies we are faced with. Rarely will they be the ones we chose and often they will be seemingly overwhelming … and sometimes they might well be. But we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that somehow, someone, somewhere will be able to bring this chaos we see around us under control. It is not going to happen.

Remember the ancient curse – “May you live in interesting times” - well, it may come as a revelation to you, but all times are interesting times.

I don’t have a crystal ball, nor am I clairvoyant, but I can tell you all: BUCKLE UP, we are in for a wild ride.

Excellent analysis of Russian foreign policy

Reading material:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18462813

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18642032

As an observer of the world, much of which is distressing to me … the world does seem to be going to hell in a hand-basket rather rapidly … it is hard not to notice what is going on in Syria.

Of course, what can other countries do? Not much because, as usual, there are forces at work that are more important to some key people than the tragedy that is going on in Syria. Not that these forces are not understandable, because they are quite understandable.

In the first article, which is probably the best explanation of why the current Russian government is acting the way it is, Moscow under Putin does not want to see any precedent set in international relations that has it endorsing the interference with the internal sovereignty under some nebulous “responsibility to protect” “civilians.” IF Putin did, then the same concept possibly could be applied to restive populations in Russia and that would never do.

I think that one of the hardest things to explain to Americans is that the rest of the world just doesn’t think like Americans do. And because people in different countries view things from entirely different perspectives, things that are objectionable in the US are relatively acceptable in other countries. (see Horsemeat).

In addition, different countries are ruled/governed in different ways. Most countries are held to different standards. Unfortunately, what is acceptable in the US (and a lot of countries based on the European Occidental Judeo-Christian model) is not always acceptable in other countries and vice-versa.

One must remember that all countries act in what they perceive to be their own best interest. In that sense, the people who run those countries are no different than any other human on the planet. How they arrive at what they perceive to be their own best interest often will be baffling to someone not steeped in the culture and history of the particular country’s leadership but in the end, they will be doing what they perceive to be right and in their best interest.

Such is the case with what Moscow is doing in Syria … and also what Iran is doing in Syria. Of course, you could also say what the Turks and the Saudis and the other Arabian Peninsula nations who have taken side with the rebels.

The classic example of this, to me, is Operation Desert Storm. While it probably was in the best interest of world had the US-led coalition gone on to Baghdad and taken out Saddam Hussein in 1991, it couldn’t happen because a large chunk of the coalition’s fighters were Arab monarchs and dictators. They did not want to see the U.S. go around knocking off sovereign heads of state, even if they were despicable tyrants who threatened what passes for regional peace in that part of the world. If the U.S. could do it to Iraq … well, they could do it to the other Arab monarchies and dictators. That they were determined was not going to happen and the Americans, not being their usually totally stupid selves, realized that going north of the Euphrates River and on to Baghdad was a line the coalition could not pass. We could romp and stomp through the relatively uninhabited portions of southern Iraq in pursuit of the forces that held Kuwait and those that supported them. As it was, we pushed the limits of the envelope to restore the government of Kuwait far beyond what that relatively simple mission could have taken. Granted the fight would have been much bloodier for the coalition, but the result would have been the same in the end. However, going into the heartland of Iraq would be a bridge too far for the Arab allies and the European forces very likely would have found their erstwhile allies turning their coats and becoming hostiles on their flanks and in their rear. Not a good situation at all.

So, as you watch the Russians ship arms and equipment to Syria in the midst of sanctions and civil war, remember: Moscow is doing it because it sees it as in its best interest to be doing so.

A Matter of perspective

Background reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/world/europe/nireland-dog-death-sentence/index.html?hpt=wo_bn6

http://world.time.com/2012/07/11/getting-away-with-murder-why-pakistans-fanatic-right-acts-with-impunity/

http://world.time.com/2012/07/11/yemen-suicide-bomber-attacks-police-cadets/

http://news.yahoo.com/mali-seek-icc-probe-rebel-crimes-north-132152653.html

http://news.yahoo.com/masked-gunmen-kill-9-police-pakistan-city-lahore-043305206.html

http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-burned-nigeria-petrol-tanker-blaze-111541832.html

http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/26/fbi-nationwide-child-prostitution-sweep-leads-to-104-arrests-79-children-rescued/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18829052

It is interesting the things that spur emotions in people. Sometimes, it makes one shake their head in amazement … or amusement, I am not sure.

For example, my step-daughter, who truly is a wonderful young woman who holds passionate beliefs (even if her step-father thinks some of them are more than a bit out there, if you understand the reference). She works as the manager of a pet supply/pet store and as one would expect is passionate about animals and their treatment, or lack thereof, or mistreatment, as the case may be.

Recently, on her Facebook page, she took up the case of a dog in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, that was a pitbull-lab mix and, since owning pitbulls happens to be illegal in Belfast, was slated to be put down. After several years of legal wrangling, the dog was put to death recently and there now is an effort to punish the dog catcher person for obeying the law.

Couple points here: One, my stepdaughter is Canadian and this was happening in Northern Ireland. I mean, if you don’t like a law, then move to the place and change it. (But that is an entirely different argument). Second, it is a dog, however loveable, or not, but still a dog.

In a world where hundreds (if not thousands) of people are dying every day (the sample of news stories above taken from roughly one 24-hour period), to me, there would seem to be a much larger issue to take up. It is, however, a matter of perspective.

But then I am struck by something Josef Stalin was alleged to have said:

One death is a tragedy; thousands (or was it millions) are just statistics.

And yet, where is the passion? Where is the anger? Where is the action? Nowhere.

Why is that? Why is it that we can get all that worked up over the deliberate death of one dog, when there are so many deliberate deaths of human beings every day? To me that is more than a tragedy, it is an obscenity.

I understand that in war people die, that is why Robert E. Lee’s observation always seems so appropriate:

It is well that war is so terrible; otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

(If you don’t know who Bobbie Lee was, please look him up, he was a great American)

There are times for war, just as there are times for peace, but in every conflict/war/battle every death is a tragedy. We see far too much tragedy these days. Part of that is a product of the telecommunications revolution that allows us to be aware of events happening all around the planet within seconds of it happening, but even then it seems that there is a lot of violence being done to relatively innocent people every day that far outweighs the fate of a simple dog. I am not really criticizing my stepdaughter, just pointing out that that it is a matter of perspective … a matter of what is important.

Syria

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/halting-syrian-chaos-robert-d-kaplan-and-kamran-bokhari

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/08/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

First thought: Ain’t our problem.

Ok, we ought to stand with people seeking a voice in their government, which – it should be rather obvious – in most Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern countries has been far from the state of affairs.

And I think, for the most part, the US tries … I am not so sanguine as to contends it succeeds but I give us credit for at least trying.

Now, there are two ways of trying. One is called using soft power and the other is by using its complement, hard power. Soft power usually means with words; hard power usually means with means other than words, up to and including military force. In other words, with hard power you try to coerce the party to whom you wish to change their behavior using forceful pressures, from sanctions to military action; while, with soft power, you try to convince the party to change their ways by talking to them and reasoning with them that it is in their own best interest to change course.

Sometimes, soft power – often called “diplomacy – actually works. However, in the real world – regretfully, because we all have differing points of reference, much less views, usually it takes some form of hard power – pain – to make governments and regimes to change their mindset.

In Syria, well, I hate to say this but the US is not about to be listened to by the Assad government. Sorry, but that option really is not viable.

Secondly, I am pretty certain that the American people – having grown tired of wars in the region and Southwest Asia – are not really all that gung ho to get involved in yet another conflict that basically is intramural one, where if we have any role, it should be holding coats … and possibly passing ammunition.

The problem is – as in with any domestic-violence situation, a police officer will tell you – that no matter what the US does, it is going to piss off some people. People, neighbors, others involved in similar situations are all going to look at the situation and wonder, “Could/Would that happen to us?”

In my estimation, that is what they (the other folks) should and will do, and unfortunately for those who think the US OUGHT to do something (anything, please), is resent the US playing – yet again – global constable-on-patrol (Cop, those who don’t recognize the acronym).

Ok, the US was never elected to be the global cop. We kinda inherited the role from the Brits after World War II. They pretty much played the global cop role for a century and half and for the last 65 years, it is has fallen by default to the global power with the strength and capability to do it. The old Soviet Union (and now the Russians) and to a lesser extent, the Chinese, wanted to, or would like to see themselves in that role, but unfortunately, they really don’t have the ability. Alfred Thayer Mahan, more than a century ago, had a really good explanation of why, but I will leave that for you all to look up and find out about.

Now, if the US is not going to play global cop in Syria, well … who is going to be the cop on the beat. It looks like the job has basically fallen to Turkey, according to the above analysis, which probably is valid. Of course, one can imagine the Turks would like to play a much greater role on the world stage than they have for the last century, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which for centuries DID dominate the world scene in many ways).

Now, the question is:

A: Are the Turks up to the challenge? Heck, I don’t know.

B: Are the Iranians (the Turks rivals going back millennia) going to let them do it? I don’t know that either, but given the bent of the current regime in Tehran, I would find that doubtful.

Which brings me to another point: Why the heck should the US care or be involved? It shouldn’t. Sorry, but this is a domestic squabble and, for one, I think the Syrians should duke it out. Of course, I am not above having the US pass ammunition to side we would like to win, but it really isn’t our fight … at the moment.

So, should Ms. Rodham-Clinton be running around saying that the days of the Assad regime are numbered? Probably not, but then, I am not in the government and that decision is not mine. Thank God.

But anyway, so much for that random thought.

Wikileaks v. Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/world/meast/uk-syria-wikileaks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
Julian Assange and his Wikileaks is back in the news. It seems that his group has posted a couple of million e-mails hacked from the Syrian government to expose how really nasty the Assad regime is/was and probably will be. It also exposes all those bad people who are dealing with Assad and his cronies.

And this guy is hiding out in the Paraguayan Embassy seeking asylum from the Brits and Swedes because he is afraid the Swedes MIGHT turn him over for prosecution in the US for dumping the raft of secret diplomatic communications and military documents from the US Government.

What is this guy drinking?

I mean, first he busts all the conditions he agreed to when he made bail in Britain after he was arrested on an international warrant from Sweden on alleged sexual misconduct. There is not warrant for his arrest in the US. In fact, at last check, the grand jury was still out on whether or not their would be any charges in that case. The military probably will symbolically “hang” the young idiot trooper who thought it would be cool to violate his oath and the UCMJ to dump a bunch of files to Wikileaks. But Mr. Assange probably doesn’t have all that much to fear from the US.

Now, let’s see: The Brits are pissed because this Australian jerk (although I think most Australians want to disown the fellow) is now definitely a law-breaker in the UK.

But the folks who really now will want his head on a Pike (HBO already did that with George W. Bush) will be the Syrians and all those business people in Europe who were fudging the books to deal with the Assad Regime despite sanctions. If you think the CIA is bad, they ain’t got nothing on these folks. It isn’t even a close race. In fact, they probably have taught the CIA a few tricks or so.

I hope the Paraguayan Embassy has a good security team … or Mister Assange does, if he ever opts to leave it in the future. I really would not be surprised if some pissed of person (non-US and non-CIA) ices him rather messily. This guy really is living in his own little nether world … and has no clue how really ugly and mean the big, bad world is out there.

Skepticism

Ok, folks. Something doesn’t quite add up here.

I have been trying to piece together exactly what the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was all about and how it supposedly was to come about.

Either there are some IRGC Al Quds people who are incredibly stupid or these guys make some of the crackpot schemes of the CIA look absolutely brilliant.

First, I admit I am never going to see any of the NSA intercepts that may be linked to this, but it sort of beggar’s belief that some Iranian sleeper is going to go down to Mexico to link up with somebody he doesn’t know from Adam but is supposed to be from one of that nation’s drug cartels and offer them $1.5 million (do you want that in small bills or in opium) to off the ambassador. If I was some Mexican cartel guy, I would have tossed this yahoo in a heartbeat. Shooting up ICE and Border Patrol people is one thing, but I would think that the Mexican drug lords have got enough on their plate to even contemplate getting involved in that sort of international shenanigans. And then it turns out that the cartel contact is a DEA informant …  like great choice Iran.

Next, I admit I don’t have any inside dope on the machinations of the Iranian regime or the theocrats who pull the strings, but this sounds about as dopey a plan as a poor novel plot or movie script. It takes a certain suspension of disbelief to think someone really thought it might work.

Let’s assume what has been reported is true. Some low to mid-level functionary at Al Quds decides to enhance his career and go rogue. He contacts his American cousin and tells him to hoof it down to Mexico to see if he can troll up someone in the Mexican mafia to provide a hit man/team.  This guy in Al Quds obviously has some pull, cause he is able shift $100 K electronically to some bank account.

But why use a Mexican cutout? They  don’t have any reason to play square and a lot of reasons not to.

It would seem cheaper and more reliable to get a Jihadi to do it.

And the blowback on this hit is going to be intense. If you are going to try something like this, you better have something better than just plausible deniability going for you, especially when you are coming from the Dark Side as far as the US and its erstwhile friends seeing things.

It all just tends to make one wonder why any Persian with more than two functioning brain cells (and these people really do go way back in the smarts department,  chess versus checkers anyone) would do this without having some really important goal in mind. It doesn’t make whole lot of sense.

Random Thoughts 20

As I watch the events marking 9/11 and the controversy surrounding the pastor in Florida who threatened to burn copies of the Islamic holy book, I was struck by the differences between the US and say Afghanistan or Indonesia.

In those countries, demonstrators angry over the prospect of some obscure non-denominational preacher in a faraway country with a church with a membership of about 50 will destroy a copy of their sacred text. They protest by burning American flags, a relatively sacred object to many Americans, and urging death to Americans everywhere. I imagine that if they had Christian Bibles to burn, they would readily do so.

Americans, who thought the idea of burning the Islamic sacred text … or at least a copy of it … was not a very good idea were able to talk to the point that the pastor reconsidered his idea and apparently has decided that it is not such a great idea after all.

Still, the riots and demonstrations persist, just because someone even thought of burning the text. How bizarre is that?

I wonder if Christian Americans were to go on rampages every time an American flag was burned, or Christian sacred symbols were destroyed in Muslim countries, how that would be received? How about Americans calling for the deaths of all Muslims and then violently following up?

Yes, I know, there are those who say Americans already are doing that with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that would be a misrepresentation of those efforts.

Besides, much of the violence in those war torn countries is not directed at coalition forces as it is against local indigenous people.

It just strikes me how hypocritical it is to hold the US to one standard while absolving others and holding them to an entirely different standard. It doesn’t matter that Americans look at themselves as unique or exceptional in this world where multicultural people have been able to come together and for the most part live in peace and harmony (especially when compared to the rest of the world where peace and harmony, if it exists at all) comes only with homogeneous countries with one race, one religion and one government ideology.

But then, it is acceptable to find fault with everything the US does, both internally and externally, and to absolve others of the selfsame failings or worse.

It really gets depressing sometimes.

Random Thoughts 10

I have been doing my usual thing of reviewing the news on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, and commentary from the Drudge Report and Neil Boortz (He is an Atlanta-based talk-show host who actually went to the same high school I did ... although he was ahead of me by four or five years) and have a whole bunch of random thoughts ... well some are related.

It was interesting to read that Russian President Putin picked a relatively political unknown as prime minister to lead a caretaker government until the parliamentary elections in November and the presidential elections early next year. The thing that most interests me is whether Putin will just leave office (as he is barred from seeking a third term) and pass the reins of power to a successor yet to be determined. That will be the true test of democracy in Russia.. Another thing that sort of amazed me ... here the Russians are a few short months from having an election for president and like nobody is campaigning for the job ... this seems weird, especially when we look at the U.S. where it is like 14 months before the election and still six months before the primary mess begins (I will not digress on that as I think I already have) and most of what is on the news is about the two mobs seeking to become their party’s candidate. It makes one wonder what it going on in Russia these days.

Then, of course, the Russians had to set off a massive fuel-air bomb that was four times more powerful than the reported force of the U.S. MOAB bomb that uses basically the same technology. I think we just reverted back to the 1950s with a schoolyard demonstration of our bomb is bigger than your bomb.

Then there was the item about the Japanese prime minister saying he was stepping down. It is interesting to see the Japanese leadership fall on their swords in traditional fashion when things are not going well for their party. It also is one of the drawbacks of parliamentary systems ... government’s tend to fall all too often which leads to a certain amount of instability. I still think fixed terms are better ... more stable, even if the national media in the U.S. seems to start the campaign for the next election the day after the voters finish voting.

Then there was the massive earthquake down in Indonesia ... I imagine the first questions asked by Bush upon hearing this was: where is the nearest American aircraft carrier; where is the nearest American Marine/Navy amphibious ready group; and where are the Mercy/Comfort/Hope, the hospital ships. Once more, I suspect American forces will leap into the breach with little fanfare or recognition. Such is the way of things.

Last but not least, there is the “Patreaus Report.”

First, it really contained nothing new, nothing unexpected. All the usual suspects said all the usual things and things are pretty much status quo ante. However, I would recommend reading an Al Jazeera analysis for the story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/160735B8-6995-44FA-9891-274A29CF60E5.htm) for the “Arab” take on the story.

Another recommendation would be to read Newt Gingrich’s take on the report (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/POL20070911a.html) which I happen to agree with (for the most part). I respect Gingrich as a historian, political theorists and a political bomb thrower, but he has made too many enemies to be an effective leader and his public persona has been ground down to where he really seems to be fringe character these days. That is a long way from his heady days as Speaker of the House. Still, in this case, I think his assessment is right on the mark. Our political leaders have taken the eye off the ball and have lost sight at whom the enemy really is, how it fights and how long this “war” really is going to go on. That is the problem and it is going to sink us. No one seems to have a vision of how to fight this World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) or at least no one really has articulated a vision how to fight it. Iraq is just one front and, from the comments and actions from one side of the U.S. political spectrum, it is a front that the U.S. has no right to win on. We are just throwing away troops and money on a lost cause. Which leads me to ask what cause they would be willing to invest the lives of our troops and the wherewithal and resources to equip and supply them. Right now, short of tanks on the beach at Atlantic City or Newport Beach or Padre Island or tanks rolling across the desert toward Tucson or El Paso or Austin ... or across the bridge and through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, I don’t think some Americans think that military force is acceptable ... and I imagine in those cases they would be screaming that the U.S. just needed to negotiate in good faith and confess all its sins and give its wealth away to atone for those sins. I really believe that these people have lost track of the fact that the world they live in is not the same world the rest of us live in. To them I would say: There really are people out there who don’t care if an American is a liberal/progressive or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, worker or management; all they care about is that they intend to kill Americans and do harm to America in any way they possibly can.

It is beyond me how these Americans - as intelligent and as educated as I know them to be - can’t understand that America – the United States – is the object of a love/hate relationship with the rest of the world. For the most part, the rest of the world loves this idealized image of the U.S. and its culture as it is spread through books and magazines, TV and movies, CDs and DVDs, but, at the same time, it hates the U.S. culture because it is not their culture. It also hates the Americans because they keep demonstrating that they don’t really live up to the idealized but artificial image of who and what Americans are.

Yes, Americans can be arrogant ... but so can any other nationality you can name that is proud of their nation and their culture. American “exceptionalism” is not so exceptional, except for the fact that the American system is the most successful in history in providing for needs of its citizens. Look, even the poorest of Americans have a standard of living that far outstrips the poor in other countries. This is not to belittle the poverty (mostly of spirit) that can be found in the U.S., but it is to point out that there are very few, in reality, in the U.S. who lives in the grinding poverty that can be found in most Third World countries and even in some developed countries. This wealth is why a lot of the world resents Americans; that and the fact we keep telling people that if they would just follow our example, it, too, could be theirs. That plus the fact that we often fail to live up to our own ideals and standards, which makes others ask how can we follow such a flawed example.

Nuff ranting for now.

Random Thoughts 4

While perusing the news today, I noticed an article on representatives from Jordan and Egypt going to Israel to extend the hand of peace from the Arab League.

Could it be? It is a first for the Arab League to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. Now, Jordan and Egypt both have signed peace treaties with the Jewish State, but the rest of the Arab world still was advocating the elimination of the Zionist entity on the ancient lands known as Palestine the last time I looked. Of course, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah still are trying to wipe the Jews of the map ... or at least harass them to death.

The plan being offered by the Arab League apparently is the same one put forth by the Saudis not to far back ... which basically was to return to the borders prior to 1967, which basically were the borders offered the Arabs when the old British Palestinian Mandate was partitioned by the United Nations in 1948. Ironic, in a way, trying to return to the status quo ante of some 60 years ago.

Of course, the Arabs want the "right of return" of the displaced Palestinians (who the Arabs have kept as their pet refugees for the last six decades) to their old property in Israel. I am not sure the Israelis will accept that, not being privy to their councils, but I am not sure they should. The corollary would be for the Arabs to allow all the displaced Jews from their countries who found refuge in the Jewish State after 1948 to return to claim their properties and fortunes they had to leave behind when they left their homes.

The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Holy Land is a trice-promised place and holds places sacred to three of the world's largest religions (actually more, if you split the Christian church into its various denominations and Islam into its two major camps) which makes it difficult, if not impossible to resolve disputes over who should control what and where.

Many times I have felt that the U.S. should just step back and then let the residents on both sides fight themselves to a standstill and God sorts it all out. Sort of the old warrior motto; "Kill them all and let God sort it out."

The other thought I have on the Middle East peace process ... is why is the U.S. even involved in it (I know, OIL). No matter what we do, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Just look at Iraq and you can see it is a classic illustration of that. The world expects the U.S. to lead, but rarely wants to go where the U.S. leads ... it would be a sign of weakness if they did and would "compromise their independence." Yes, Virginia, the U.S. is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We do have the largest economy that pretty much acts as a primer pump for the rest of the world ... if it wasn't for the U.S. economy soaking up so much commerce, much of the rest of the world would be broke. For instance, if the U.S. didn't buy so much oil from countries like Venezuela, then people like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have the funds to play petty socialist king. So, the U.S. whether it likes it or not, is stuck ... it has to lead.

And it doesn't help that the U.S. military stands literally head and shoulders above all the others when it comes to training, equipment and professionalism. Thank you FDR and the Japanese for that. Before WWII, the U.S. didn't have much of a military, just a cadre of brilliant strategic and tactical thinkers. As a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, Truman and those who have followed them have vowed that the U.S. never would let its strength flag militarily and our armed forces would be second to none. And that pretty much has been the case ... well sort of ... we weren't prepared for the Korean War because we put all our eggs in the nuclear response basket. Pretty much the same can be said for Vietnam ... we had the wrong force for the wrong war. The 1970s were pretty grim and had a conventional war broken out in Europe, we and our NATO allies would have been hard pressed to hold back a Warsaw Pact onslaught ... although there are a myriad of questions whether the Warsaw Pact ever was a strong as we thought.

In fact, the last 60 years have been an aberration in that we have invested so much of our resources into maintaining military capabilities. You see, the distaste with which much of the progressive side of the political spectrum holds the military and military service is pretty much a time honored American tradition. It reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem that ends:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

(Tommy being the equivalent of GI Joe)

Americans have never be happy with a large standing military, but then there was a time when if you weren't a member of the local militia unit, you were really looked down upon; and there was a time when the elites saw military service (as a commissioned officer) had a noble obligation that was sort a requirement (at least hold a reserve commission). But the Regular Army or the regulars never have gotten much respect (and still don't).

I wouldn't go into my paean to today's young service men and women ... I will just say they truly are the best.