Showing posts with label Foreign Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Affairs. Show all posts

Friday, May 13, 2016

THE SANDBOX SYNDROME

FALLING LIKE DOMINOES
[HEADS IN THE SAND]

So, our fearless leaders think they can “solve” all the problems in the Mid-East and Persia! If all our past attempts are any indication, our fearless leaders are in for a rude awakening.
Does the civilized world need to eradicate scourges like ISIL?
                                                  You betcha!
Is the United States the only entity capable of handing out guns and pulling triggers?
                                                  I don’t think so!

Somewhere along the way, our foreign policies and perceptions got skewed toward making us believe this part of the World really wanted our style of governance, economy, and society. We collectively forgot that, to this day, much of the World is still tribal, and acts in ways that tend to baffle and frustrate us. In doing so, we tend to get other folks rather upset with our “exceptionality”. That said, the current state of terrorism is generally more of a threat to the Mid-East, Persia, Northern Africa, and Europe than it is to the North American continent.

The past is gone, and we can’t do anything to change that. What we can do is take a realistic and honest look at where things stand now; including governance, economy, and society in the Nation-States most affected by the current rash of terrorism. The United States, especially, should be sensitive to recognizing a people’s right to self-governance; governance that will most likely look very different from the one we chose. After all, didn’t we fight a little war back in the 1700’s to do just that? Our Colonies were originally created out of religious persecution in Europe, and our Revolution was fought over the Colonial exploitation of Great Britain. So, perhaps trying to control all the tribal factions in this area of the World is not what the “West” should be concentrating on. Hell, it’s like herding cats, anyway; a no-win situation.

One blatant truth that has run constant in the Mid-East and Persia is that Iran pulls the strings when it comes to dominating and solidifying the entire region. They have been it doing ever since the overthrow of the Shah in the late 1970’s. Apparently, they are a very patient people, and are slowly turning and twisting all the neighboring Nation States toward their religious caliphate. It is also apparent that the “West” has no idea of how to deal with type of religious expansionism. It seems Russia is in the same boat.

In trying to micro-manage the region, both the United States and Russia have attempted to slow the tide of Islamic Statehood. What has been lost is a focus on just how tribal/religious sects operate and govern their society and economy. Throw in misunderstanding and the greed for oil, and you have Super-Powers tripping all over themselves trying to exploit the region and at the same time keeping the peace, so their exploitations remain successful. The loss of focus on what is actually going on has led both Russia and the United States into quagmire after quagmire of armed conflict, which neither Country can afford, on multiple levels.


Taking all this into consideration, the World, in general, might want to reconsider the old “Domino Theory” (sic. twenty years of Vietnam for the U.S.; twelve years of Afghanistan for the Russians; centuries in Southeast Asia for China). This “Theory” has been used to mislabel many attempts to quell expansionism, colonialism, and exploitation. The “Domino Theory” certainly applies to modern day conflict(s) in the Mid-East and Persia. Take a very close look at Iran’s sponsorship of insurgencies and terrorist actions. Their actions are very quiet, slow, and patient, but completely insidious. It is deliberatively affecting the formation of one large, powerful Islamic caliphate ruled over by the powers in Tehran.

How does Iran do it? They slowly cement their ideology on a tribe-by-tribe basis. They do not directly attack the governments of neighbor States; they slowly create chaos and mayhem on a local level, and then duplicate the process from tribe to tribe, village to village, region to region. Their strategy is one of a ground up insurgency using religion and terrorism, instead of outright regime change (favored by the U.S. and Russia). I don’t know about Russia, but the U.S. has been warned of endless conflicts and armed quagmires for many years and by many Leaders and Heads of State. The most famous admonition I can remember came from Charles De Gaulle, President of France, in the 1961. He warned President Kennedy that warfare in Vietnam would trap America in a bottomless military and political swamp. Prior to that, ex-President Dwight Eisenhower mused that, having a row of dominoes set up, you knock the first one down, and the last one will fall very quickly thereafter. Eisenhower’s thinking led to the modern-day term; “Domino Theory”.



The last ten years have brought the Mid-East to a boiling point that has made the Iranian leadership ecstatic. As Russia, China, and the United States flex their diplomatic and military muscles in this region, Iran will force a tipping point that will look catastrophic to the rest of the World. The “Domino Theory” sets up like this:
1. Iran coddles Al-Qaeda and ISIL by furnishing them safe haven, training, weapons, and finances.
2. As the dominoes fall, Iran sets up "puppet" governments who force Sharia Law on the local tribes.
3. For the dominoes that prove a little tougher to topple, Iran foments Civil War to accomplish their mission.
4. Iran keeps Israel at bay by bolstering Palestine's military arsenal.
5. There are certain tribal areas that Iran will not touch until the very end of their jihadist expansion. Those left until the end will be: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and, possibly, Turkey.
6. Iran allows the United States to continue the destabilization in Pakistan. A job the U.S. seems to do well.
7. At some point, the Superpowers pull out of the Mideast, and abandon it altogether. The sheer cost of Nation Building becomes prohibitive for all concerned.
8. Pakistan falls to Iran, and Iran gets its nuclear weapons without having to rejoin their own nuclear program.
9. The U.S. is reluctant and slow to come to the aid of Israel. This leaves Israel no alternative but to take matters into their own hands, and all Hell breaks loose; especially, if Iran has secured Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

As all Hell is breaking loose, the United Nations will be called upon to come up with a viable plan of action. At this point, the most efficient plan would be for the United Nations to sanction and oversee some form of legal assassination. If such a plan were successful, after a certain number of assassinations, the Arab tribes might get the message and reject Iran’s intentions. This drastic step may be the only means by which to avoid mass collateral damage. This drastic step also needs the ownership of governments and militaries in the region.

Take a moment and consider Iran as our modern-day North Vietnam. Think back to Dwight Eisenhower’s summation that the Domino Theory was a real possibility in the Vietnam Conflict era. As in the current Mid-East situation, the U.S. was able to keep the dominoes from falling too fast, but, in the end, the result was exactly as Eisenhower had predicted. To this date, our Government refuses to equate the two conflicts. Unfortunately, those Americans with first-hand knowledge of Vietnam have no doubt about the similarities.

If Israel were to succumb to the new Islamic caliphates and end up in the Sea, Iran formally takes the reigns and declares the entire Mideast/Persian region a Supreme Islamic Caliphate. Iran will then control the land mass from India all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The big question to follow is who among the Superpowers tries to sneak in the back door and form alliances with the new Church Nation, and how will that work out? The next question is where does Iran take its Islamic expansion from here?

And, there you have your “Heads in the Sand”and your “Dominoes in the Desert”!

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Two and a Half years ago!...........It's finally happening!
                                Originally posted: Sunday, July 21, 2013 
As the United States plies its brand of “democracy” in the Mideast and Persia, the Church State of Iran is countering with spreading their unique brand of Islam. It has become painfully evident that the U.S. does not have a clue when it comes to understanding any other religion forms of Christianity and Judaism. The fate of all the Mideast, Persian, and neighboring Countries hangs in the balance. With most of Europe and all of Russia sharing in this demise, the longer this state of affairs exists, the longer western expansionist tendencies in the region will last, and the more dramatic Iran’s reaction will be. What is perfectly clear is that outside involvement in the Mideast and Persia is not about the oil. It’s not about human rights. It is about the total lack of understanding of the Islamic religion. This lack of understanding fuels a high level of fear that the political and corporate driven attempts to bring calm and peace to the region can’t seem to resolve. In this case, ignorance is not bliss; it is very dangerous to the world as a whole. There is a solution to all the turmoil that has been draining the human resources of too many Countries around the world.
The solution is three-fold in nature. The first part involves a concerted effort by all non-Islamic nations to do their best in understanding the true nature of the Islamic religion. This is not a religion that foments jihad, or any sort of extreme violence. As religions go, Islam is a very beneficent religion; loving, nurturing, kind, and forgiving. The second part of the equation involves the non-Islamic nations understanding and accepting that some folks prefer a Church State to that of a western style governmental structure. Not everyone wants to be like the United States; or, Canada, England, Spain, Greece, Russia, China, etc. Once these two are put into practice, Islamic governments around the globe will truly feel that they have a place at the table, and they aren’t going to be targets of colonialism, expansionism, or occupation.
The third part is a little trickier, but not out of the realm of possibility. This would be a legal form of State sponsored assassination. The “State” in this instance would ideally be the United Nations. As a world body, the U.N. should have the ability to remove singular despots from their perches as Kings, Emirs, Dictators, Grand Imams, Ayatollahs, etc. The benchmark would not include how a ruler got into power, but what he did once he assumed that leadership role.  Topping the list of determinants for assassination would be Human Rights, as describe by the U.N.; not described by any one member Nation, or private interest group. The U.N. would have the right to choose the “who, what, when, where, and why” for this action to proceed. In no way would any corporate influence be allowed to have any weight, whatsoever, in determining the specific action. Sorry, Dick Cheney. Sorry, Halliburton. Sorry, Exxon-Mobil.
This third part, being relative drastic in nature, would necessarily be preceded by diplomatic efforts to resolve the problem in a predetermined time period. Given the enactment of this third option, it would only take a few legal assassinations to let folks know that the world means business when it comes to peaceful coexistence. In defining “crisis intervention”, this type of action offers the absolute minimum of collateral damage to people, places, and things. Certainly, all peace-loving people would agree that lowering the “collateral damage” quotient is a desirable element in achieving World Peace.
The current situation in the Near-East and Mideast is not sustainable for very much longer. The next step will undoubtedly be an escalation of hostile takeovers that the world has never seen before. The entire quagmire will amount to a “domino effect” more damaging than that which occurred in Indo-China in the 1950’s, 60’s, & 70’s; an effect the United States has yet to recover from. And, of course, what happens to Israel is totally up in the air, as they will be surrounded by the opposition.





Monday, December 14, 2015

COMING TO AMERICA ?
Can you say, “U.S. National Immigration Policy”?

Over the course of two hundred and thirty-nine years, thirty-seven out of forty-four U.S. Presidents have tried and failed. The other seven, apparently, just didn’t give a damn. Do not lose sight of the fact that the U.S. Congress hasn’t been able to craft a workable solution either, so no political Party is above this short-coming.

The United States has been able to craft the World’s most powerful economy, military, democracy, and progressive society. The Nation has overcome Colonialism, slavery, women’s voting restrictions, Labor abuses, major diseases, one major economic depression, countless recessions, two World Wars, and a slew of natural disasters. Based on this short list, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that the Nation could come up with a comprehensive Immigration Policy that would stand the test of time (as the U.S. Constitution has). At the start of the Industrial Revolution, our Immigration non-policy was necessarily open to the masses. The U.S. needed a work force to fill the emerging factories, and build a solid middle-class for the Nation. This approach is no longer valid given the World economy and the U.S. economy in the twenty-first Century. No one who preaches the historic policies is dealing in reality; the Government needs to step away from that train of thought.


The solution might be multifaceted, and, as such, require folks from all corners and persuasions of the Political, Social, and Economic spectra to actually agree on something other than their own trite, insignificant agendas. A practical proposal would take “a little of this, and a little of that” to construct at least the framework of a comprehensive, long-term plan of action. This may best be served by, first, looking at the short-term; three to five years out. Follow this with a seamless transition to a long-term, permanent Policy, Legislation, and/or an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


There are a number of basic areas that need addressing
in the overall, larger picture of Immigration Policy:

Categories – Normal, modern-day flow of immigration; refugee immigration; student visas; tourist visas; business visas; any more that make sense; permanent vs. temporary; keep it simple; *based on the U.S. Constitution, there is a division between Church and State, so Church will not be a considered

Numbers – in each category, come up with an annual quota amount; leave some room for emergencies (war, natural disasters, etc.)

Tracking – U.S. citizens who leave the Country and end up in a war zone aiding, abetting, or fighting for the enemy will automatically forfeit his/her U.S. citizenship and passport/visa –they will not be allowed to re-enter the U.S., ever; for temporary entrants, a strict no nonsense verification method (a three month, or one semester, re-registration stipulation); any deviation from this will result in immediate expulsion and a ban on re-entry; certain restrictions on Social Services will apply

Entry - airports and seaports designated and fully  equipped to handle the processing of immigrants; as for the borders - the Nation must make a decision to stop invading other Countries with armed forced; The northern and southern borders can then be patrolled by the Army National Guard rotating on a State-by-State basis; Naval Reserve will help enhance to Coast Guard; the Air Force Reserve will secure the air space; this will guarantee that the Nation will have a  “well maintained Militia” as eluded to in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; appropriate, modern surveillance techniques and hardware will be used in all instances; ( a collateral spin-off might just be a gross reduction in drug and human smuggling across all four borders)

Path to Citizenship – a one-size-fits-all program; must learn to be proficient in English; residency rules will apply; birth in the U.S. does not make one a citizen until parent(s) fully fulfill their obligation; certain restrictions on Social Services between entry and citizenship



It is probably unrealistic to think about a Constitutional Amendment. The current state of the Federal Congress might preclude any meaningful legislation. That leaves a State-by-State nationwide referendum as the most viable way of achieving the goal. A simple 2/3rds majority should seal the deal. The referendum in each State will be identical; no changes allowed; and, definitely no “ear-marks”, or addendums. There will be no list of “exemptions”, thus closing out any attempt at creating “loopholes”. 















Saturday, August 10, 2013

Iraq in retrospect

Iraq in retrospect               8/8/2013
 
                    
A recent essay in Political Science Quarterly [1] caught my eye and, having read it, I can say with some degree of certainty that no one in Washington, DC has a clue as to what went wrong with our actions in Iraq. I recall that, after a little “shock & awe” had rained down from the sky, the word out of Washington was that this certainly was not going to be another Viet Nam. We were told by the Beltway intelligentsia that Regime change was a good thing, and, once we had rebuilt Iraq in our image, the world would be a safer place. I find it mildly surprising that these words were uttered from some of the very mouths that told us we were winning in Southeast Asia fifty years hence.
How soon we forget that the identical theories and practices used in Viet Nam were also used in Iraq right from the beginning. Both conflicts centered on Nation States lead by questionable characters. Both lacked a Congressional Act of a Declaration of War and saw the Executive Branch flex its muscle; changing the rules by which this Country is constitutionally supposed to go to war. Both conflicts had their own unique style of a “surge”. Both conflicts dealt with secular tribes at all levels. You can nit-pick at some of the details. Yes, most of the logistics were a little different, given modern day warfare. Yes, the soldiers who fought the battles were trained and equipped a little differently, again given to modernization. And, yes again, Communism is just a little different from radical Islam. Yet, none of that takes away from the fact that the American public was sold down the river one more time. Why do we insist on drinking the Kool-Aide every time some politician thinks it would be good for the Military/Industrial Complex to throw a little armed conflict into the mix? Based on history, yes, we are just that stupid.

What were the leaders saying during these times of armed conflict?
John F. Kennedy, 1961
“Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, support any friend…to assure the
survival and success of liberty”. [2]


                      “Kennedy received conflicting advice with regards to Vietnam.                                                           Charles DeGaulle warned Kennedy that Vietnam and warfare in Vietnam would                             trap America in a “bottomless military and political swamp”. [2]


“In 1961, Kennedy also agreed that an extra
1000 US military advisers should be sent to
South Vietnam to help train the South
Vietnamese Army.” [2]

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  These decisions and the one funding the South Vietnam’s Army were not made public because they broke the agreements made at the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [3] What happened in “Camelot”, stayed in “Camelot”.  Yes, everybody’s darling of a President lied to us, too. Shocked? Don’t be. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld all lied about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. There seems to be a historical pattern when the U.S. Government decides it has all the answers to other people’s problems, and unilaterally decides a shooting war is the most effective way to deal with the situation.
Other timely quotes from the notable players
Ho Chi Minh to the French
“You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, 
but even at those odds, you will lose
and I will win.” [3]

                                                   Dwight D. Eisenhower
                                                  “You have a row of dominoes set up;
                                                  you knock over the first one, and what
                                                  will happen to the last one is that it
                                                  will go over very quickly.” [4]

John F. Kennedy
“Now we have a problem in making our 
power credible, and Vietnam is the place.” [5]

                                                Lyndon B. Johnson
                                                “Our purpose in Vietnam is to prevent the success of aggression. It                                                   is not conquest, it is not empire, it is not foreign bases, it is not                                                         domination. It is, simply put, just to prevent the forceful conquest of                                                 South Vietnam by North Vietnam.” [6]
 ********************************************************************************
Saddam Hussein

                                                      Saddam Hussein
                                                      “We are not intimidated by the size of the armies, or the type of                                                       hardware the US has brought.” [11]

George W. Bush
“Iraq is no diversion. It is a place where 
civilization is taking a decisive stand against 
chaos and terror, we must not waver.” [12]

                                                      George W. Bush
                                                     “The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.” [12]

                                                                                                    George W. Bush
                                                                                                    “Mission Accomplished” [13]

George W. Bush
“I sent American troops to Iraq to make its
 people free, not to make them American.
 Iraqis will write their own history and find
 their own way.” [14]
And, while Rome burned.............

 Richard M. Nixon
 “I'm not going to be the first American
 President to lose a war.” [7]

Henry Kissinger
“We believe that peace is at hand.” [8]

“We didn't lose Vietnam. We quit Vietnam.” [9]

Donald Rumsfeld
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.” [15]

Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney 
What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action.” [16]

                                                                      Tommy Franks 
                                                                      “Probably we'll think of Bush in years
                                                                       to come as an American hero." [17]    
Barak Obama
“Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have. We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” [18]

( to be continued…….)

***********************************************************************
How much did Vietnam cost?
19 years:
The answer to this depends on how you do the accounting, or who you ask. There are as many estimates as there are “people who know”.
What items do you included in the "cost" of any War? And do adjust for inflation to compare apples to apples? Our Nation spent 828 billion (1975 dollars) on all military operations during the Vietnam War, which is $5 trillion (2008 dollars).

Viet Nam casualties: [19]
58,286 KIA or non-combat deaths
303,644 WIA 
1,645 MIA 
725-837 POW 
30% of wounded service members died of their wounds

How much did Iraq cost?
7 years:
There are Analysts and “talking heads” who put the cost of the War at $80 billion. They go on to quote a figure of $10 billion per year to hold the place together. The true cost of the Iraq war: is probably more in the range of$3 trillion to $3.5 trillion.



Iraq casualties: [20]
4,452 KIA and non-combat deaths
31,928 WIA
1 MIA
8 POW’s
The enemy:
In both cases, the enemy masterfully engaged in “guerrilla” warfare with the use of “booby traps” and “hit & run” as effective tactics against superior forces.





The outcomes:
In both cases, a negotiated cease fire preceded the withdrawal of American Forces. In both cases, the U.S. Government was humiliated and vowed never to wage a similar war.

                          
While researching quotes and figures, I ran across this article by Major Garrett, “How We Could Do More For Our Vets” [21] [22].  I wasn’t aware of his concern of, and writing on, Veterans issues, so this article definitely caught my attention. I have included three excerpts from his essay that I feel capture the essence of what the American public needs to know about the men and women who fight their wars.

“According to the Census Bureau, there are 2.5 million 9/11-era veterans. Their rate of service-connected disability is 26.7 percent—far higher than the 20.2 percent rate for the 7.5 million Vietnam-era veterans. The reality is most veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite being deployed multiple times, have returned and will return alive. In the Korean War, 2 percent of combat veterans died. In Vietnam, it was 1.7 percent. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it is currently 0.3 percent. This is the result of professional training, precise mission execution, and breath-taking advances in battlefield medicine.”  [21][22]

“Combat veterans need better service, and they need it now. Their lives wither while they wait for the bureaucracy to process payments for that which they lost on the battlefield. Annual increases in appropriations won't do the trick. Combined annual spending on veterans' care is now more than $140 billion. That figure is up 41 percent from 2009—and we're still way, way behind. Combat veterans deserve better.” [21][22]

“I propose paying those costs up front. Now. With debt. Debt that's inexpensive and that can render real and permanent benefits to those who deserve it most. We can sort out the details of who qualifies and for how much. That is easy compared with summoning the political will now to acknowledge the costs, admit the politics of paying them will only become more precarious in the years ahead, and biting the debt bullet now. The debt that is owed is real. We can and should repay it—starting now.” [21][22]

I am dumb-founded by the fact that politicians in this modern era can fool all the people all the time when it comes to sending our young men and women off to fight and die on foreign shores. It probably shouldn't surprise me. After all, less than 1% of the Nation’s population sees fit to don the uniforms of our Armed Services. This is certainly not the 1% that the “occupy” movement speaks of. This is the 1% who, when they return to civilian life after their stint in the Military, can’t find a job, can’t pay the rent, can’t put food on the table for their Families, get thwarted at every turn by a Veterans Administration who is supposed to help. And, God forbid if they own a house. The bankers don’t seem to care that it is illegal to foreclose on a Service Member in most instances. It’s not their family, or their kids, being tossed out in the street.
The citizenry of America are the only ones who can change this dilemma into a positive force for peace. Perhaps, our Society does have to reach rock bottom for us to act in any meaningful way. There will always be disagreements between people, tribes, sects, states, and countries. And, the dialogue may get heated from time to time. That’s alright. We can survive that. Possibly, someday, we will come to realize that hurling words at each other is a lot less harmful than hurling bullets.
Bullets tend to have a finite quality about them.

Toenotes:
All images are from "Google" images.
[13]= I’m not even going to toenote these!