McCain is in.
After threatening to announce his presidential run in April, Arizona Senator John McCain made the formal announcement today on the David Letterman show.
McCain's last run to the presidency for the 2000 presidential election was side tracked by George Bush who went on to win the election in the oddest way with hanging chads in Florida.
This brings up an interesting point of "What if."
What if McCain had won the primary in 2000. McCain is more moderate than Bush, so it would follow that the 2000 election would have been more cut and dried.
Oh, the Leftist extremists still wouldn't have liked McCain, but McCain appealed to most of the middle. McCain is labeled a firebrand because he seems to walk to the beat of his own drum.
McCain's firebrand politics have made the GOP leadership skittish. He was big on campaign finance reform that was a bipartisan effort with Democrat and Republican moderates.
Of all the major candidates, he cut against the popular sentiment and is the one most in favor of the troop surge. And what is better, he correctly placed the blame for the failures in Iraq not on George Bush, but Donald Rumsfeld.
What would have happened if McCain was president? First of all the Cabinet would have looked much different. McCain has his own thoughts and wouldn't be bullied by his own cabinet like George Bush was in the lead up to Iraq. Even liberals note that the problems with the White House was not in the man, but the cabinet and others in the executive branch. Paul Wolfowitz and the other neoconservatives (American Exceptionalists) hijacked the presidency after 911.
Although it isn't likely McCain would have gone into Iraq, but if McCain did, he would have sent at least 300,000 and possibly as many as 500,000 troops into Iraq. And if he'd done that, there would probably be less than 20,000 American troops in Iraq today.
McCain's major competitor is also a semi-moderate in Former New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani. Guiliani is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. A combination that resonates with Generation X.
With the Democrats ripping each other to shreds at the moment, McCain could possibly make it to the White House, just 8 years late.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
McCain Announces Presidential Run on Letterman
Two Steps Back in Chad
Why won't Chad accept UN peacekeeping forces on its eastern border near the Darfur region of Sudan? Is there sinister play at hand?
There are 200,000 refuges in eastern Chad that have fled the genocide ongoing in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Meanwhile the Janjaweed Arab militia based in Sudan has been crossing the border from Sudan into Chad to make calvary type horseback and camelback raids on refuge camps in eastern Chad leaving hundreds dead and over 100,000 homeless.
The UN is willing to put 11,000 peacekeeping troops in the area but Chad rejected the offer. The UN is also trying to place 20,000 peacekeeping troops in Sudan, but amazingly enough, Sudan is resisting.
The thinking is that the UN is using Chad to get into Sudan since Sudan has blocked the UN's efforts to place peacekeeping forces into Darfur.
The killing has mostly been Muslim on Christian. Sudan is 70% Muslim and only 5% Christian.
While Chad doesn't have the same makeup as Sudan, it still has a slight Muslim majority with a 51% Muslim population and 35% Christian.
It isn't likely that Chad and Sudan have a grand scheme for Muslims to eradicate Christians in the Darfur region, so why then doesn't Chad allow UN peacekeeping forces into eastern Chad to protect the refuges from Janjaweed Arab militia?
BBC Article
Genocide imminent in Chad.
CIA Factbook: Chad
CIA Factbook: Sudan
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Iran-About Ready to Crack?
US and Iran to attend conference in Iraq.
Some of the Iranian leadership is trying to back peddle as fast as it can from some of the statements Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made.
Although Ahmadinejad stated there was no turning back on Iran's nuclear program, others have different ideas. Uranium Enrichment is not a done deal according to Akbar Velayati the chief foreign policy adviser for Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Oh, and that whole Holocaust that didn't really happen? Well, it did according to Velayati.
Why the change in heart? First of all, Russia is in a bind with the American anti-ballistic missile defense expanding to Eastern Europe (Czech and Poland) and possibly Britain.
Russia was one of the big defenders of Iran, but now that they are trying to build nuclear weapons (or not) and shooting off rockets that could carry nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, the ABM system doesn't look like a waste of money after all.
The other thing that might be in play is the small armada US President George Bush ordered to the Persian Gulf.
Others believe it was the UN sanctions that sent Iran into a pragmatic spin.
Does this mean Iran has had a change of heart? Most definitely not. As previously mentioned America's win in Iraq is Iran's gain.
Iran should help stabilize Iraq to get the US out of the area and then build a Shiite based relationship with Iraq to build a foundation for Shiite power to build off of.
Although not much may come of the upcoming joint negotiations in Iraq, it may be the start of something. And if the US succeeds in getting Syria and Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq, look for the beginning of an new Shiite based nemesis in the Middle East.
Cheney: Pakistan Start Killing al Qaeda
Or the democrats will come after you.
It isn't a threat, it is a promise. Disenchantment with Pakistan's lack of effort in chasing down could lead to a cut in funding.
US Vice President Cheney doesn't travel much, but when he does, things happen. The last time Cheney visited a country (that we know about) was when he traveled to Saudi Arabia to discuss oil prices.
This time Cheney is just telling Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf the cold hard facts. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai is frustrated with Pakistan's efforts and more importantly, a Democratic congress that may think it is not getting its money's worth isn't going to pay for a poor effort.
Musharraf does have to consider the radical element in his country (the man has more lives than a cat with the number of assassinations Musharraf has averted). And that is why the US has looked the other way when he makes statements that might not be in exact alignment with American policy.
But now is the time to put up or go home for Musharraf. If the Democrats really want to scare Musharraf they'd consider pulling the intelligence and the Special Forces units keeping him alive.
Note to Musharraf: Start killing the bad guys.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Of Missiles and Menaces
Just days after the announcement that Britain and the US have been in talks about extending the US Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defense, Iran takes first steps into space. The Czech republic and Poland are also in talks with the US over ABM defense. The ABM defense could protect much of Europe eventually, putting Russia in a technological hole.
The important character in the anti-ballistic drama is Russia for a couple reasons.
Russia has been more bellicose in its disdain for the US lately. And like a frightened dog who is cornered, the growls are more from fear than aggression.
The US missile defense system, although some say won't be able to shoot down modern rockets, will definitely put Russia in a financial bind. Russia hasn't had the money to recapitalize their ballistic missiles, so even if the US missile defense system wouldn't work against the latest missile systems, the US missile defense system must be a threat to Russia.
In fact Russian President Vladamir Putin states as much when he threatens that the missile defense system will create a new arms race. One that Russia cannot afford.
Russia does have a bargaining chip though. Russia's ties to Iran has been problematic for the US at the UN. Russia continues to frustrate US efforts at the UN to impose sanctions on Iran at the UN. Russia threatens to veto any sanctions the UN would consider that would impose on Russia's relationship with Iran.
Now that Iran is testing its space program with rocket launches it puts Russia in a bigger bind. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone on record making statements the West finds threatening. Although his intentions are hard to decipher, assuming Ahmadinejad means no harm would be unjustly naive and irresponsible. This is also why other Iranians in the government are trying to muzzle Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian rocket launch, along with the Iranian nuclear program justify the West's pursuit of an anti-ballistic missile defense system.
So while Russia may object to the US ABM program, until it can reign in its Iranian ally, its bark will fall on deaf ears.
Free Thinking Americans free delivery
Sunday, February 25, 2007
New SecDef Brings Sanity to GWOT
This is what the US should have been doing all along working in the background, helping other countries do our dirty work for us.
Oh, there are some that will complain that the US would just be using other countries to do the dirty work for America, but those are the same people who say we should have never invaded Iraq.
In the case of Ethiopia, America has had a long standing relationship with Ethiopia since the early 1900s. Although it has had challenges, since the early 1990s it has been solid.
American provided military support in the form of training and equipment to Ethiopia for some time. And it looks like those investments have paid off.
Although not on behalf of the US, but certainly encouraged by the US, the Ethiopian Army invaded Somalia as the Council of Islamic Courts closed in on the CIA backed transitional government. Although the US tried to play coy, the rest of the world knew the US had some part in the plot for Ethiopia to invade Somalia.
The point here is this is what the US should have done instead of invading Iraq. The concept behind Iraq (barring the WMD nonsense) of building a democratic society in a country that already had one of the most secular governments in the Middle East was noble, but a bridge too far. Although it isn't a certain failure, there were better ways to go about orchestrating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).
The most effective operation the US conducted was a CIA strike by an MQ-1B Armed Predator with a Hellfire missile on an al Qaeda target using Yemeni operatives on the ground for intelligence and tracking the terrorists.
The area of operations would have extended greatly throughout the world if the US had worked with other governments, like it did with Yemen and Ethiopia on these types of strikes.
Resources could have been focused more on intelligence finding the al Qaeda operatives and drying up the swamp of anti-American sentiment that creates the terrorist. One of the most important programs that need funding is human intelligence. The US needs to be working on al Qaeda operatives and seeing how devoted they are to there evil plots. It doesn't have to be the person calling the shots, the driver will do, and is actually preferred. If he feels slighted because his idea wasn't used in plotting against the US, the US needs to know this. The person planning the course of action isn't going to crack. Someone who feels slighted may give up information.
Also, there is a certain fear, or terror, this puts in the mind of the terrorist.
Watch therefore, for ye have not known the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man doth come-Matthew 25:13.This is a powerful statement and clearly illustrates that death from above has weighed on the minds of mankind for centuries. If knowing a terrorist plot may only create a smoking hole in his cave at any moment puts the terrorists mind on the defensive. A terrorist is no longer just plotting against a sleeping enemy, but knows he is being tracked by a dynamic enemy that has killed off fellow operatives with death from above and is working under a never ending fear. And although the fear may not be of death, it could be of not completing his mission.
The last and most important lesson that should be learned about the US-Ethiopian involvement has to do with world opinion, and manipulation the Information part of the DIME IOP. Information is a much more involved Instrument Of Power than the US has considered. World opinion is the gateway to operations, not just national sentiment. Although the US shouldn't be hamstrung by world opinion, there are consequences for not placing more weight on world opinion than the US has recently.
The US is on a new course though as the Somalia operations indicate and there is new hope for American international policy.
Free Thinking Americans free delivery
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Could Kalifornia Kill Democracy?
Controlling 55 of 538 total Electoral College Votes makes California the most influential state in the Union when it comes to winning the presidency or a party's nomination for th presidency.
To make its presence felt even more California is considering moving up its primary to just two weeks after the New Hampshire primary. Iowa and New Hampshire which is known for early primaries and small town campaigning will now only be known for corn and low taxes.
Iowa and New Hampshire have only 11 Electoral College votes COMBINED! That is only 20% of California. In 2012 no candidate in his right mind would campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire.
So what if California moved up its primary, how is that going to change anything? It controls 55 Electoral Votes whether it goes first or last. True statement however, it will definitely shade future elections to the left for the Republicans and Democrats. Howard Dean's 2004 presidential bid might have had longer legs if he'd made it to the left wing haven of California. And then with California behind him, Dean could have obtained the funding to have a stronger campaign in other primaries and possibly forced out more moderate candidates.
Looking at the Republicans, the liberal RINO (Republican in Name Only) sitting in the Governator's chair now says all that needs to be said. There never would have been a President George Bush if California got its hands on a semi-moderate John McCain.
Iowa and New Hampshire are two important states for the country to pay attention to. Because they hold early primaries, they take their politics serious. The rest of the country uses them to weed out the players from the fakers. Howard Dean is a perfect example. His campaign was over by the time the New Hampshire primary was over. Also, although the extreme left and right will disagree, Iowa and New Hampshire are pretty close to the middle on the political spectrum.
Finally, if California does move up its primary, why not have New York, another leftward leaning state, move up it primary to the day after California? That way with Iowa (11 votes), New Hampshire (4), California (55) and New York (31), 101 of the 270 votes needed to win (close to 40%) the race could close to being decided.
What is fair? That is hard to tell. What appears to be fair is every two weeks, over a 14 week period, there are relatively equal numbers of electoral votes (~50) given out starting with the smallest states and culminating with the 3 largest states (120 votes) the 16th week. So the first primaries would have several states and finish with California, Texas and New York. Liberals might have problems with this though because two of the more liberal states (California and New York) are left until the end. Still it is a better system than what Arnold Schwarzenegger is planning to impose upon the American public.
Moving the Californian primary looks like a mistake.
Free Thinking Americans free delivery
Republicans on a Roll, But Democrats Win
Fresh over their victorious block in Senate last week Senate Republican dare Democrats to bring it on over a vote that would repeal President Bush's authorization to execute the Iraq War.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt so confident that the much ballyhooed House legislation that disapproved of President Bush's Iraqi troop surge would pass through the Senate, Senator Reid called for a Saturday session.
The wheels on that efforts came undone when the Senate couldn't obtain cloture and therefore unable to prevent a filibuster by the Republicans.
Now, Senator Reid is not only trying to stop the surge, but repeal the whole war authorization. Now Senate Minority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell says, the Democrats are "trying to unring a bell."
However, the Vietnam War bell was unrung in 1970, so it isn't unprecedented.
Either way this is not going to pass, so why do it?
If the Democrats can undermine Bush's ability to execute the war and bring the troops home in defeat, this vote will matter. This piece of legislation will be evidence displayed in future elections that those who voted not to repeal the war effort should be politically shot and hung.
The vote has nothing to do with the troops or the war, it is about getting votes in the next election.
Advantage: Democrats
Friday, February 23, 2007
When the Gloves Come Off, Obama Goes Down
The glory of the 2006 election hasn't even cooled and the
bafoons running the Democratic party are in rare form.
Hillary is the one candidate the Republicans fear because she can capture the middle vote. Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the beginning, is not too far off from the left wing fringe of Howard Dean, who also opposed the war from the beginning.
The Republicans in 2003 were dancing on cloud nine as Dean soared in the polls. And like now, they keep hoping the Democrats kill their best chance at winning the White House by pursuing drinking the Obama koolaid.
When under the light Obama is not a pretty as he once was, and as the gnashing gets nasty, Hillary will double over Obama quicker than her husband can proposition an intern.
And now the Democrats are self destructing with comments Republicans can only dream of. As has been reported everywhere David Geffen stated.
Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.Dear Mr. Geffen, exactly how much did the Republicans pay you for that statement?
The funny thing about Hollywood is that they have fallen so much in love with themselves, they actually think they have something worthwhile to say. But I have to give credit to George Clooney. Although he supports Barack Obama, he isn't going to campaign for him because it would do Obama any good.
Politicians love Hollywood money, they don't like Hollywood commentary. Liberal politicians are smart enough to know that the lunatic fringe of Hollywood will not win any points with the democratic moderates. Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they are completely without morals as Hollywood is portrayed to be at the local Mini-Market checkout stand.
Meanwhile the GOP is taking notes and lining up quotes like Mr. Geffens to throw right back at the Democrats during the general election.
The DIME IOPs
What is the DIME? And how does it relate to IOPs?
IOPs are national Instruments Of Power (IOPs). They are the tools countries use to get their way in the world.
They consist of Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic.
The Diplomatic IOP consists of treaties and agreements made between countries and involves negotiations and dialogue between countries. The six-party talks between China Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the United States over the North Korean nuclear program is an example of the Diplomatic IOP.
Other examples of the Diplomatic IOP include the French denial of airspace during the 1986 Libya raid OPERATION EL DORADO CANYON by F-111s out of Lakenheath. More recent examples are China and Russia blocking UN sanctions against nefarious countries like Iran and Sudan that are in their national interest to protect.
Diplomacy is considered a soft power. While the US is considered to be weak on Diplomacy, it is not the IOP the US is least effective wielding.
IOPs are rarely used individually. By combining multiple IOPs a synergy is built to make the total effect exponential. In the case of the six-party talks while the talks themselves were part of the diplomatic effort, the freezing of North Korean assets would be considered using the Economic IOP. Freezing assets is only one of the various tools in the Economic IOP. Other forms of the Economic IOP include tariffs, sanctions, embargoes and boycotts. The Economic IOP is a hard power as compared to Diplomacy which is a soft power.
The other hard power in the DIME is Military. The Military IOP goes beyond just deploying troops though. Sometimes it includes only increasing the readiness of the troop levels. Some examples of Military power include Military Presence, Show of Force and Deployment.
While increasing the readiness of troop levels might be part of the Military IOP, stating that troop levels are at a heightened state of readiness is a function of the Information IOP. Information is the other soft power countries have to use in their IOPs. Information is the one IOP that the US fails at the most, not Diplomacy. Most US literature on the Instrument IOP is written by the military and therefore has a distinct military flavor to it. Most of the discussion centers around getting information about the enemy, using that information to your benefit and protecting your information, intelligence in short.
The Information IOP must be looked at in a much broader sense. The military looks at Information on a tactical to operational level. At the strategic level Information comes in the form of world opinion. How well are you selling your story. Are you making it clear what your purpose is?
The US has poorly sold its story ever since WWII.
I'll look at Hezbollah as an example. While Hezbollah is a known terrorist group, some people will defend Hezbollah because of the social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) they have built for Lebanon. While the actual construction required economic power, the sentiment, is part of the Information IOP.
Is China a rising threat or on a peaceful journey? The Information they are putting out is they are on a peaceful rise. But when China shoots down a satellite, it damages the Information IOP, because the Information IOP goes beyond just Information, it includes the perception of the Information that is delivered. China contradicted the peaceful rise Information is was delivering the world when it shot down a satellite.
There was a story that in the 1980s the US was sending food to a starving third world nation and as the trucks offloaded the bags or crates, Soviets were marking out the USA in the "Gift from the USA" and marking "USSR." Although there may be no truth to he story, it clearly states that without the Information part of the DIME all the best intentions in the world could be fruitless.
No other country in the world contributed the resources the US did to the Pakistani earthquake victims. Although there are sure to be some US sympathizers in the area, in general, the population of Pakistan is not enthralled with the US. The information disseminated in the madrases is stronger than the aid the US offered.
With world sentiment so strongly against the United States, it is easy to conclude that the United States is not selling its story well and losing in the world opinion arena. Until the US makes a concerted effort in this arena, no matter what actions US takes, the US will continue to fail with the Information national Instrument of Power.
Which is the weakest US IOP in your opinion and why-please leave a comment.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Bush Crystal Ball: Budget Balanced
CSM: US deficit is shrinking, for now.
President Bush's crystal ball shows the budget balanced by 2012.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows a revenue surplus for 2012.
And interestingly enough, the liberal think tank, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, is willing to admit the budget is headed in the right direction.
"Right now, we're in some sense in a relatively good spot...We're in the sixth year of an economic expansion," a time when federal revenues often rise along with a growing economy.It is interesting that a liberal think tank came up with this because one of the secrets the government doesn't want the public to consider is that income tax revenues (taxes you and I pay) increase every year that the economy grows and taxes are not cut.
There are some assumptions though.
Bush's numbers are built on the assumption that US involvement in Iraq is going to dwindle rapidly. The Democrats are working as hard as they can to help Bush achieve this goal.
The CBO's numbers are based on Bush's tax cuts not being renewed in 2010. This will not happen. Tax lobbies will aggressively attack this issue in Congress just before the November 2008 elections.
The perception of raising taxes would be deadly for the Republicans and Democrats at that point. Going back to 2004, that is when Bush bought extra votes in Florida by handing out taxpayer money in the form of medicare entitlements. Making the tax cuts permanent would foster the same reaction.
Any Congressman or Senator who does not sign off on making the tax cut permanent will he highlighted by tax lobbies and suffer at the polls.
Medicare reform and other healthcare costs could throw a wrench into the numbers. As the baby boomers retire, healthcare and medicare costs will skyrocket unless some healthcare reform is passed.
Also, with the greater number of retiring baby boomers, the workforce required to generate the same Gross Domestic Product will dwindle. This requires some rational immigration reform.
The other danger is that as the budget gets closer to being balance, Congress will have the urge to spend money on building the bridge to nowhere.
If the government insists on being fiscally irresponsible, I'd rather see it in the form of tax cuts. That way I can build my own bridge to nowhere with the money rather than having the government build it for me.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Border Crossing Complexities Perplex Illegals
IHT: Flow of illegal immigrants to U.S. starts to slow
Efforts by the National Guard and a fence are stemming the flow of illegal aliens to the US across the Mexican border.
"It's become much more difficult," Valenzuela said, echoing the comments of dozens of other migrants.
Using caught illegal aliens as a meter to gauge illegal alien crossings, depending on the area, illegal crossings have dropped by a quarter to two-thirds.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff isn't ready to declare victory, but he expects some of the illegal organizations, drug traffickers and smugglers, to suspend operations to see how long the US can continue the surge operations along the Mexican border.
This of course will depend on how long the fickle US population will pay attention (and tax dollars) to the border operations. If the problem appears to go away, and the National Guard goes home, illegal crossing will likely increase.
Conventional wisdom amongst the Border Patrol veterans once believed controlling the entire US-Mexican border is impossible. However, with sufficient funds, some think it could be accomplished.
The new measures range from simply putting more officers out on patrol to erecting stadium lights, secondary fences and barriers of thick, steel poles to stop smugglers from racing across the desert. The Border Patrol has deployed hundreds of new guards to watch rivers, man surveillance cameras and guard fences.
Illegal aliens no longer get a free trip back to Mexico only to try crossing the border the next day either. The US has started charging and sentencing illegal aliens in federal court and tossing them in jail for a two week period.
"Coyotes" or smugglers will have to start charging more for their services, this will make it too expensive for some to come across the border. It is also making the crossing more dangerous for the clientele. Murders have increased along the border. It appears the Coyotes are the culprits. Why this is happening is unknown. Do they rob the clientele and leave back for Mexico, or are the clientele endangering their operations?
Of course, there is a better way to fix the illegal immigration policy in America.
America's Win is Iran's Gain
Iran’s Chance: U.S. Troubles in Iraq Create Opening for Regional Shift - New York Times
From the very start of the American occupation of Iraq, at least some in the Bush administration saw an opportunity to curtail the influence of Iran’s radical Shiite leaders by producing an alternative, moderate center of Shiite Islam that would effectively neuter Tehran in ideological, political and strategic terms.Poor intelligence, although not entirely President Bush's fault, not only caused the wiff on WMD in Iraq, but possibly a larger blunder.
- Remove Radical Sunni Leader (Saddam Hussein)
- Change name of city named after Radical Sunni Leader (Saddam City)
- Rename city (Sadr City) in honor of Radical Shiite Cleric (Muqtada al Sadr)
True genious. Only a government official from the State Department could have come up with that one. Removing one radical leader for what?
Until 2003 Iran felt insecure as the only major Shiite state in the region and being surrounded by mostly Sunni states. Handing Iran a Shiite state right next door, the one that actually fought a near decade long war with Iran, is a give only the US could deliver.
Faced with more than 100,000 American troops next door and a White House that pursued a policy of pre-emptive war, Iran’s leaders moved quickly to try to prevent the United States from gaining a permanent foothold.Why the Iranian would have problems with this is uncertain. Looking beyond the first order effects, which the US as well as Iran, failed miserably to do it is apparent that Iran would be better off. What did the US want to do? Set up a democracy. OK, let's count up the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and figure out who is going to win that battle.
Suggested Course of Action: Player-Iran. Effective immediately-provide statements necessary to buy time from UN on nuclear weapons program. Effective immediately-provide all aid to US and Iraq to secure Iraq in order to satisfy US requirements to redeploy troops back to United States in order to eliminate immediate threat to Iran from American troops. Once violence is subdued convince Iraqi leadership US is no longer needed or welcome. Upon redeployment of US troops begin developing greater Shiite coalition with Iraqi leadership to pursue Shiite Muslim Jihad. Once a stronger union with Iraq is developed, and while US still considers Iraq and ally begin joint nuclear weapons program with Iraq. Share just enough of the program to make sure Iraq would be implicated in any sanctions, while keeping as much of the program as possible under Iranian control. Desired endstate-consolidate Shiite power in a Iran-Iraq alliance that controls a greater portion of Middle East oil.
Free Thinking Americans free deliveryIran's Incompetent Oil Industry needs Foreign Aid
Iran’s Dire Oil Straits
Iran is an energy bonanza (NYT) in [foreign investors'] eyes: Its underdeveloped oil and gas fields, the world’s second largest, need outside expertise, capital, and technology.Simply put, Iran has oil reserves. However the country, as evidence would point to, is so poorly run that Iran is incapable of investing the revenue it receives from oil sales into infrastructure.
With the sanctions Iran has brought upon itself from building its nuclear weapons program, foreign investment is hard to come by.
Royal Dutch/Shell, for example, has its sights on Iran’s South Pars natural gas field but has held off from sealing a projected $10 billion deal (RFE/RL) for fear of compromising its stake in U.S. markets.And depending on how Iran responds, further UN sanctions could be in Iran's future.
Iran's oil production is so poorly managed that Iran is a net importer of refined oil. Fuel rationing is now in place in Iran which doesn't set well with a population that is already suffering "double-digit inflation and unemployment."
The irony is that Iran may need nuclear power for peaceful purposes. In fact Iran's oil exports could cease by 2015 if foreign investment isn't secured.
This paints a very dim picture for the future of Iranian leadership. The current leadership could suffer the same demise the current government imposed on the the Shah in the late 1970s. The demonstrations against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be only the beginning.
Free Thinking Americans free delivery
Monday, February 19, 2007
Rumsfeld "Worst Ever"-Cause of Iraq Fiasco
I've discussed before about how poorly a job former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did prosecuting the war in Iraq.
Now, Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, has unleashed his tongue on the former SecDef.
"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement...Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause.
This is nothing new for people in the military, or regular readers of Free Thinking Americans. Critical missions were scrapped by Rumsfeld in order to promote his idea of a light quick hitting military.
Rumsfeld came into the Defense Department with an ax and began chopping. He believed the future of the military was not in the Cold War era large standing army. Like the Europeans who've dismantled their militaries (and since suffered the consequences) Rumsfeld felt the US should leverage technology and Special Forces to achieve most military goals.
Then came Iraq. Several Desert Storm generation generals believed Rumsfeld would require a massive force of up to a half million to successfully invade Iraq. Rumsfeld disregarded the advice and went with his own instinct.
Two missions the US did not have enough troops for were securing the Syrian and Iranian borders which has proved problematic throughout the war. And there were not enough troops to secure the streets of Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. For more on this read Generation Kill or One Bullet Away.
This explains why McCain is for the troop surge, although he would probably want to deploy 200,000 more rather than just 20,000.
However, McCain surely knows that with the results of the November election, the possibility of sending in 200,000 additional troops is a political impossibility, but he also believes all is not lost.
Hope for Somalia
Anti-terror force being developed for Somalia.
The chaotic state of Somalia has been wading through war and chaos for 16 years. Some of the Somalian population is tired of war and willing to accept any entity as its leadership just to end the fighting. This was the opening the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) used to try to take over the country during the summer of 2006 before being chased out of the country by the Ethiopian Army just before Christmas 2006.
The Muslims quelled the violence temporarily, but after threatening to invade Ethiopia, Ethiopian leadership ordered the Ethiopian Army into Somalia to eradicate the Islamic forces.
With the Muslims gone, violence threatens to return. But now the Somalian transitional government has announced the formation of an 'Anti-terror force' for Somalia.
The Ethiopian trained unit of 700 troops consists of police and military units. The force is intended to repel terrorist attacks in the Somalian capital of Mogadishu. The attacks are thought to be carried out by Islamic forces. But after 16 years of clan warfare, the cities are loaded with weapons, so pinpointing offenders will be difficult. It has been reported that an AK-47 in Mogadishu costs less than $20 US.
Initially after the ousting of the UIC, the transitional government demanded that all weapons be turned in. This declaration was met with hostile resistance. For some, walking the streets of Mogadishu without a weapon would make them feel naked.
Additionally, the African Union (AU) is trying to put together 8000 troops from its members to help policing the war torn state of Somalia. So far the AU only has about half the requested troops.
So far only Uganda, Burundi, Nigeria and Ghana have contributed a total of 4,000 soldiers to the mission, that will replace Ethiopians who have started to withdraw.
Uganda's parliament has approved plans to send 1,500 troops.
Although the anti-terror troops may address the Islamic terrorists how effective it will be against the ongoing clan warfare was not addressed. Until the clan warfare issue is solved, Somalia will likely face a violent future.
Free Thinking Americans free delivery
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Solution to Iraq? Oil Found in Western Iraq!
Iraqi Sunni Lands Show New Oil and Gas Promise
In what could be a major break in the unrest in Iraq, oil and gas reserves have been found on Sunni lands in Iraq. Oil reserves are relatively abundant in Shiite and Kurdish lands of Iraq. Up until now, there have been little signs of the same natural resources in the Sunni controlled lands of Iraq. This has led to one of the biggest hurdles to Iraqi unity. Shiites and Kurds want to keep their oil revenues, but that would shut out the Sunnis. Under the Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, the Sunnis received the majority of oil revenues.
The development is likely to have significant political effects: the lack of natural resources in the central and western regions where Sunnis hold sway has fed their disenchantment with the nation they once ruled.Sunnis are pushing for a strong central government so that oil revenues will be shared equally throughout the country. If there is a loose tie of autonomous states, the Kurds and Shiites could keep the majority of oil revenues for themselves.
This oil find could make the point moot.
However, there is still a war going on and revenues from this find are well in the future.
Even if companies can develop the fields, it could be years before the necessary wells can be dug and pipelines built to move the oil and gas from the fields.Additionally, there is now evidence that Sunnis are conducting preliminary attacks in Iran that could lead to escalated violence in the Shia controlled Iran.
Free Thinking Americans free delivery
Deployment Debate Defies Democrats
IHT: Democrats weigh their next move to try to rein in Bush
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, on Saturday called the Iraq war "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country." That drew a sharp retort Sunday from Tony Snow, the White House spokesman.Someone needs to remind Mr. Reid of a little legislation called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in which Congress authorized President Lyndon B. Johnson used shady reports to escalate American involvement in the Vietnam war.
Over 58,000 Americans died during the Vietnam War. People were drafted into the Vietnam War. The Iraqi War is fought with a volunteer force.
Mr. Reid is very far removed from reality if he believes the Iraq War is "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."
The Democrats have been trying to attack the Iraq War by restricting funding. The problem with this is the perception that the Democrats then look like they have pulled the carpet out from under the troops that are fighting the war by not providing them with the supplies they required to execute the war.
"I don't think there's support to cut off funds," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "I think that sends the wrong message."Coming up with a bill to remove the authorization for President Bush to conduct combat operations will have problems getting passed also.
If Senate Democrats were unable to pass a nonbinding resolution against the troop increase, Levin acknowledged, "it may be even more difficult to get a binding resolution passed."Bush is still the president and still has a veto.
Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he saw no chance for a bill deauthorizing the Iraq war. "I believe the president would veto it and the veto would be upheld," he said.A do nothing congress is in store for the American public for the next two years. Remember, even with a Republican House, Senate and Presidency, Bush wasn't able to push through Social Security Reform or Border Control issues he requested. The Republicans didn't hold a supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate to circumvent cloture and end a filibuster.
In Saturday's vote, the Democrats failed to attain the same supermajority even with seven republicans defecting.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Hillary Hounded by Anti-War Democrats
Democrats demand retribution from Hillary Clinton for 2002 Iraqi war authorization vote.
“For the life of me I don’t understand why she can’t say, ‘I made a mistake, I was misled, the country was misled, the intelligence was manipulated,’ ” said Robert M. Shrum, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry in 2004. “I think there’s this tremendous desire in her campaign not to get into a position where you’re identified with traditional Democratic views. But this is now a party that is strongly antiwar, and is desperate for change on big issues like Iraq and health care.”This statement appears to be one of the major problems in US politics. The translation of it would state, "Why can't she just say what the public needs to hear (disregard whatever she may think) so she can win the Presidency and get on with it?"
Clinton has stated that, like Kerry, if she had the information that developed later, she wouldn't have voted for the war. And that probably goes for 90% of the rest of the Congress.
What kind of penance does the Democratic Party demand?
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.You mean a politician may actually stand up for something they believe in? What a novel thought. I can see why the public wants to hang her.
The twist is that Clinton is positioning herself to win over the moderates. The Democrats would have a very difficult time winning the general election with Illinois Senator Barack Obama as their candidate. That would be the equivalent of the Republicans turning down Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in lieu of Pat Buchanan.
A leading Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, has defended the current war plan with language that could appeal to primary voters but perhaps hurt him in a general election. Mrs. Clinton is running, in part, a general-election strategy — taking positions on Iraq that might appeal to independents and some Republicans.In the field of contenders the Democrats have to offer, Hillary Clinton has the best shot at winning the presidency, if they allow her to run.
Are the Democrats making the same error the Republicans did? Will they shift too far to the left and leave middle ground open for a moderate like Giuliani to claim?
Not So Fast My Friend, Senate Rebuffs House Rebuff
Senate fails to pass House resolution on war that was meant as a political statement against President Bush's Iraqi troop surge.
Senate Republicans today blocked a floor vote on a House-passed resolution that expresses disapproval of President Bush's plan to send thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as a procedural motion to cut off debate on the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed.
The Senate had seven Republicans join all the Democrats calling for an end to debate and go to a vote. The vote fell short by 4 (56-34 with ten Senators not voting). Can you say "Do nothing Congress?"
Of note is, Independent Senator, Joseph Lieberman, who joined Republicans against the Democrats. Lieberman is a former Democratic Senator and 2000 Democratic Vice President Candidate.
[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid charged that by blocking the resolution today, most Republicans "wish to protect President Bush from an embarrassing vote." He described the GOP arguments as "diversions" intended to "turn the Senate into a procedural quagmire."
Congress a procedural quagmire? Next thing Mr. Reid is going to proclaim is that there is no Santa Clause or Easter Bunny and that politics is mostly games and theatre.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) took aim at the House resolution and the rare Saturday Senate session that Reid called to consider it. "I would argue that we're not working," he said. "We're having a theatrical political debate that is doing more harm than good...The reason we are here on a Saturday playing stupid political games," Graham said.
I guess Graham beat him to the punch.
Graham accused the Democrats of fearing a vote on cutting off funding for the troops or voting on Senator Judd Gregg's motion that pledged not to cut troop funding. This would put the Democrats in a political bind of being against the war but supporting the troops and having to explain why they didn't adequately fund the troops.
Sunnis Attack in Iran
BBC: Clashes reported in Iranian city
Clashes between armed militants and police have erupted in the south-eastern Iranian city of Zahedan, state media have reported.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past has accused President Bush of creating the Iraqi war to cause the Muslim world to turn itself into an area wide Sunni-Shi'ite clash. This could be the events Ahmadinejad thought of when making the accusation.
While the Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq is well documented, there is new evidence that Iran is starting to suffer from the Sunni-Shia rift.
Zahedan is the capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It has a substantial Sunni Islam Baluch community.
The city has been the focus of low-level unrest, with several security force members being killed in the last two months.
There is also evidence that US weapons were used in the attack.
Although the weapons used might have been manufactured in the US, it is unlikely they were US supplied. Similarly, just because Bush found Iranian weapons in Iraq, it doesn't mean that Ahmadinejad himself put them there.
"The gang has been ordered by some foreign states [US?] to plant bombs in specific places and escape the country simultaneously," Gen Ghaffari said.
The Sunni attacks in Zahedan had minimal physical impact.
The governor of Zahedan, Hassan ali Nouri, told Fars news agency that the explosion was caused by a percussion bomb - a device which produces a large bang but causes little damage.
But the bang may come in the Information part of the DIME IOP (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic-Instruments of Power).
If Sunnis in Iraq were to spread the Insurgency from Iraq into Iran, this is the exact kind of story the media must produce.
This is also the small thread of commonality Bush and Ahmadinejad have to negotiate with. Bush and Ahmadinejad would both like to see the Sunni uprising in Iraq and Iran settled.
Although working with Ahmadinejad may be difficult, If the Bush administration went straight to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei there may be common ground. Khamenei, although not a supporter of the US, is on record for not condoning the antagonistic remarks of Ahmadinejad.
The low level attacks are also a classic way to start a revolution. There may not be enough Sunnis to escalate, however, the method usually starts with terrorist attacks that lead to an insurgency and eventually a civil war. Most Americans should be well aware of this revolutionary evolution not only from witnessing it in Iraq, but from its own revolution in the late 1700's.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Bush Bashing Just Begining
The House vote is only a start for the Democrats who salivate over destroying the Bush Presidency and building a Democrat empire in the US government.
"This is an important moment," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and is now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "And it's an important moment not only about what's in the past, or even in the present, but also what might be happening in the future."
The Democrats have seized the day and started to clip the wings of the presidency. Pelosi's House plans on tying Iraqi war funding to extensive limitations on "standards for training, equipment and rest between deployments." The Democrats intend to make the president's troop 'surge' an impossibility.
This precedent could create a new standard low for the Executive Branch in the balance of power on military issues.
House Puts on a Show
Democrats Crow over Bush's political grave.
Nancy Pelosi's House has passed a non-binding (and the meaning of this is a hot debate-ranging from meaningless rhetoric to political statement) resolution, that supports the troops yet cuts their funding.
The country has tired of the war and the November elections showed that. Now the new Sheriff wants to show who's boss.
"Congress should assert itself . . . and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, any president to go into Iran," [Pelosi] said.
And in a very odd and twisted way Congress wants to say oops, we made a mistake.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday he will seek to repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to wage war in Iraq and substitute legislation that would narrow the mission of troops there and begin to bring some home.
Although there may be precedent to this type of legislature, it seems odd. "We're going to take back what we said five years ago."
To be fair, here is the rhetoric from the left.
"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon," proclaimed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "Our troops are working together to secure our nation, and we in this House must work together to secure our nation as well."
And the right.
"Our enemies will be the only ones satisfied by this debate," warned Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the Republicans' chief deputy whip. "They will have received all the political rhetoric they require to convince their followers that complete victory is at hand. Just imagine, how many Islamic radicals will be inspired to continue the fight by a Congress that says we support the troops but not the mission we ask them to perform?"
Keep in mind this is all political posturing.
There are few, if any, noble politicians. This debate is not about Iraq, funding, or troops.
This debate is about political positioning for the next election. Both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans, are trying to appear to have "the" answer, to be "in tune" with the American people.
Back when the resolution was originally passed many jumped on board because it would be political suicide if, then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had ordered in enough troops to win the war like most of the military suggested. If by 2004 Iraq was stabilized and our troops were returning home. those who had opposed the war in 2002 would have had a exceedingly difficult time expressing their failed views and winning any election.
As it tu