Liberty or Death

What should Bush tell Miliki today?

Chris Core of WMAL in Wash. D.C. asked what would you advise Bush today when he speaks to Miliki?

An excellent question today Chris. The answer is “I am hear to help you, what do you want the US to do”? You mentioned Al-Sadr as the most dangerous man in Iraq today. Well, we made him a hero to his Shiite people. He is standing up to the Sunnis. At the same time we marginalized the moderate voice of Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq. What does Sadr want? He wants the Bathist, insurgent-harboring Sunnis neutralized. If you have time read the interview between Foreignpolicy.com and Sadr's number 1 guy Baha al-Araji. Go here:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3595&fpsrc=ealert061127

Sadr wants us to support the Shiites. Miliki wants us to support the Shiites. Sadr is willing to let the Kurds alone. Sectarian violence is a reality. We have to choose sides. Sitting on the fence means no one will listen to us anymore. The police and army have picked sides along sectarian lines.

Bush's goal to create stability in the Middle East was a correct one. His policies in Iraq won't achieve that. Stability in the Middle East means one thing; check the expansionist goals of Iran. That is what the moderate states fear the most. The choice is clear. Throw every resource we have behind the Shiites. Back them to the hilt, but let them do the fighting. Make a deal with Sistani, he is the real power behind the throne. We will help you if you cut Iran loose. Publicly support him. This will marginalize Sadr. When we removed Saddam we eliminated the only force checking the Iranians. If we leave with the Shiites under the influence of Iran, the Middle East will fall to Iran. They will have a new surrogate, or at worst a neutral in the Iraqi Shiites that we armed and trained.

That is the worst thing we can let happen and it does not have to be.

Liberty or Death

The Economic war of Terrorism

An article in USA Today reminds us of the old Pentagon shell game. It has been practiced since before I began working there in 1969. In order to hide the true cost of war every president defers maintenance to keep the costs down. But the bill comes due eventually. Everyone thinks the Persian Gulf is mostly sand. Not so. It is a fine dirt, the consistency of talcum powder, a substance that wears out equipment, especially engines quicker that any other in the world. The bill below is way understated but gets the message across.


By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
“The Pentagon needs $50 billion to $60 billion to re-equip and restore units returning from Iraq, says Leon Panetta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff and member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group”.

It should remind us that wars fought in many ways. The enemy is fighting the “little war”, the meaning of guerrilla warfare. Little means cheap. Our enemies are trying to drive us out of the Middle East, and will soon succeed. But they would be foolish to do so. We fight with the finest equipment in the world, lots of vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and electronic gear. Very expensive and it wears out. Our enemy fights with home made bombs, IEDs, and AK-47s. They cost next to nothing compared to our stuff. Less than 1 spy satellite.

A smart enemy would keep this war going as long as possible. At 80B for the war and a maintenance bill of 60B every year or so we will go broke or worse, do as all presidents do, defer maintenance and have the bill come do all at once. What happens? We have a defacto stand down. Everything stops and we spend 2 years repairing our equipment. Worse, while equipment is being repaired our units cannot train properly. 5 years of intense operations, robbing state side units to equip front line units, and minimizing training puts our military in a deep financial hole. I watched this Pentagon shell game in Vietnam and under the Carter and Clinton drawdowns.

But what about the navy? They should be fresh and ready to go. Nope, the pentagon robs Peter to pay Paul. In order to train you need to sail. But sailing costs a fortune in oil and maintenance wear. So one bright accountant 20 years ago figured out if you just keep the ships in port, you could save a fortune.

A smart enemy would make us put every ship we own at sea all the time and do to our ships what they are doing to our AFVs, wearing them out. How can you do that for next to nothing in cost? Simple, sink one or two oil tankers a year anywhere in the world. How? Use ocean going speedboats and hand held missiles. Costs nothing. Who did it? Could be anybody. Could be hired mercenaries. What happens? Two things. The cost of insurance skyrockets driving up the cost of gas and our Navy sends everything we have to protect oil tankers. Think a 2 million dollar tank is expensive to operate. Try multibillion-dollar ships.

Our enemy is very patient, they know from experience they can wear us down. Its called asymmetric warfare. It is more than body bags. It is also money.

Liberty or Death

Middle East Armageddon

A USA Today article says it all. You can add the recent assassination of a prominent Lebanese Christian to the list.

By Cesar Soriano, USA TODAY
“BAGHDAD — A week of unprecedented violence that claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives is prompting intensified efforts to develop a regional solution for the sectarian divisions rippling across the Middle East.
A key U.S. ally warned Sunday that conditions are deteriorating not only in Iraq but also throughout the Middle East. "Things are beginning to spiral out of control," King Abdullah of Jordan said on ABC's This Week. He warned of "the strong potential of three civil wars in the region" and called for action to quell violence in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
High-level meetings on solving the crisis were in the works. President Bush will travel to the region Wednesday for a summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, hosted by Abdullah in Amman, Jordan. Vice President Cheney made a brief visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani flies to Tehran on Monday to meet with officials of the Iranian government, suspected of aiding militias in Iraq.
In recent days, al-Maliki has been criticized by Sunni and Shiite leaders for not doing enough. Among the critics is anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army is one of Iraq's most powerful militias. Al-Sadr has vowed to withdraw his support for al-Maliki if the prime minister meets Bush this week”.

Conditions in the Middle East are now set for Iran to make its move. What you say? The article is talking about civil war. King Abdullah is talking about 3 civil wars. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is all the handiwork of Iran, the true evil in Middle East.

In 1979 Religious Mullahs hijacked an entire country. Was that the end of their ambition? No. What was the first thing they did? Test the US by seizing our embassy, an unprecedented political no no. What was our reprisal, a failed hostage rescue mission? What was the world’s reaction to a diplomatic atrocity? Nothing. Iran had the West, especially the US pegged, weak and naïve. Their goal was expansion, but it was left unsaid because conditions were not favorable to make an overt move. Now in recent days Iran has boldly announced their intention to be the new Caliph of the Middle East and to wipe Israel off the map.
The Iran Iraq war was a setback to Iran, but it proved they could fight the largest Middle East army, backed by American help to a standstill.

After the war Saddam remained Iran’s greatest deterrence to expansion. He was a secular leader that had his own ambitions. Iraq sits right in the middle of the Arab Muslim world. Saddam, getting mixed signals from the Bush 1 administration grabbed Kuwait. But Saddam was a military and diplomatic fool. Had he grabbed all of the Emirates and Saudi Arabia it is problematic that we could have rooted him out.

Almost no American knows that Saudi Arabia was a logistics dream come true. They had modern air bases and an entire unused modern port that they turned over to the Americans. This port had 4 lane highways leading off into the desert with no cars. How do I know? My boss inspected the facilities personally. Had Saddam grabbed these bases and made us come over defended beaches it would have been a very iffy thing.

The Americans jumped in and made Iran’s nemesis weaker, but Bush 1 called off the total destruction of the Iraqi army. He feared Iran. He knew Iraq was the counter balance to Iran. So Iran waited, content to build up a strong surrogate called Hezbollah.

But in 2003 a miracle happened. A bumbling altruistic cowboy named Bush 2 decided Saddam was a bigger threat than Iran. Why? WMD. What Bush 2 didn’t tell you was Syria and Iran also had WMD.

Bush 2’s goal was the best of intentions, a democracy that could stabilize the whole Middle East. A worthy goal but was it realistic? A dictator with an army could keep 3 cultures that hate each other under control. What could destabilize that? Destroy the army, disband the remains with their weapons and no jobs, and install a weak coalition democracy over three groups who hate each other. Also fail to remove radical clerics like Sadr. 3 years later fail to choose sides in sectarian hatred. Wear our troops down over three years chasing allusive Al-Qaeda, foreign combatants and Bathists protected by Sunnis. A perfect setting for so called civil war. But Bush’s stubborn insistence to support a united Iraq has driven the Iraqi Shiites into the clutches of Iran. The coming war in Iraq will be a war of expansion by Iran’s new surrogate, the Iraqi Shiites. 100s of billions of aid will soon be destroyed. At the same time Bush has erroded the will of the American people to fight in the Middle East, his greatest failure among many failures. But Bush is no dummy, but he is stubborn. He knew the American press would wear down the will of the American people. Long engagements went out the window with Vietnam. All Presidents know that. Americans will support quick victories, not endless fighting with no clear victory.

Iran should award Bush their highest medal for eliminating their only roadblock and giving them a new surrogate in the Iraqi Shiites. Meanwhile Hezbollah is stronger than ever. Iran is busy arming Hamas, another new surrogate and they have a very capable Syrian secret police to carry out assassinations in Christian Lebanon. Kill enough and the Christians will start a war they cannot win without American help. Peace loving Hezbollah and Syria will defend themselves against the warlike Christians.

All of Iran’s goals achieved by a bumbling fool named Bush. Bush’s stubbornness to achieve an impossible goal will remove America from the Middle East when we are needed the most.

King Abdullah has it wrong. Not 3 civil wars, but Armageddon. Chaos orchestrated by Iran and facilitated by a well meaning but naïve George Bush. The moderate states are so terrified they are beginning their own nuclear programs.

In 2003 Bush had the backing of the American people to do anything in the name of fighting terrorism. What were the best organized so-called terrorists, Iran and its surrogates; Wahabbism, which created Osama, all backed by Saudi money. What did Bush do to these serious enemies? Nothing. He attacked the Taliban and Iraq. With the Taliban now safely in Pakistan waiting for us to pull out, where can the terrorists turn to for help? Iran.

With Iraq gone the greatest threat to Iran is internal unrest. It was always there to be exploited by the US. What did we do in the last five years to cause further dissent? Nothing. What Iran desperately needs is an external threat. Bush’s last act as president will be to bomb the nuclear sites scatted through out Iran. There will be a lot of collateral damage. After the fallout settles the Iranian people will be united behind their thug leaders. Iran should then award Bush a second medal.

Liberty or Death

The Rich are the Golden Geese that Lay Golden Eggs for the Rest of America

Most everyone has seen charts of who pays federal taxes. This chart looks the same at the state and county/city level. Due to progressive taxation, in 2003, the top 1% paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax, while the wealthiest 10% bore 66% of the total tax load. The trend continues down the income scale to where 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes, and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire revenue (nearly 97 percent). Reference 1. That way the bottom 50% would pay nothing. But I forgot EITC. Some people actually get someone else’s money back. Another accounting shell game. Everyone who pays taxes thinks he is carrying his share of the load. Some even think they are productive citizens. Another government sham.

I used to think most of us were net producers until one little 'ol housewife in Manassas Va. woke me up with a 2 X 4. Remember when Disney wanted to put a theme park along 55 in Prince Willliams county. Disney showed how many jobs it would create. Everyone was buying it when this 1 lady stood up and devastated everyone with the truth. The jobs created would be low paying jobs. In our socialist society, she pointed out that through government services these new workers would actually cost the county taxpayers far more than the piddlly amount of tax they paid. When I look back, I now realize I was a net taker for a while. Now that I am older I am a net producer.

This gets us to the concept of net producers and net takers. When you are young and your kids are in school all but the rich are net takers. In addition to other services you receive for your property tax and sales tax you receive each year a whopping 5000 - 9000 dollars per child, depending on the state, for 13 years of primary education. 51% of a typical county's budget goes to schools, the state adds 11% and the feds add a measly 7%. A typical middle class family of 4 in the least productive part of their life cycle pays 5,000 in property taxes, house and cars, and another 2,500 in sales tax. They get back in county services 10,000 a year for school and another 3,000 in police, fire and other services. How can this be? The county would go bankrupt. Nope. When this family gets older their kids graduate and they are in the most productive part of their lives. So they pay more and get back far less. They carry the young. The county survives. Over a lifetime a family with a decent salary is a net producer even though it was a taker for 13 years.

Of course you have to have a salary large enough to become a net producer. Those with less are lifetime takers. With a few hours of research one could fix a break-even salary number by county. I won't. What becomes obvious though is that all the poor and most of the so-called middle class are net lifetime takers. So who carries the county? The Rich. The Rich are paying far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. What happens when the rich move? You get the rust belt, and in cities, slums.

My point is that the most important group of people in a county, state or nation is the rich, especially the very rich. You want to have a prosperous county, state or nation? Do everything you can to attract and retain the Rich. Forget the poor and middle class. They contribute a net minus to the welfare of the county, state and nation. I have not factored in crime; the poor commit 90% of crime. Or the cost of incarceration, 90% are poor. It is only the Rich that are providing the money to make a county prosperous or poor. They are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Do everything you can to keep these geese happy.

It would make sense that politicians would do everything to praise the rich and acknowledge their invaluable contribution to society. But they don't. Many politicians keep their jobs by pandering to the takers for votes. They take money from the Rich and give it to the poor and lower middle class to buy votes. Do the politicians thank and praise the rich? No. They disparage them; call them greedy. Call their wealth ill gained. They got wealthy at the expense of the poor. The Rich don't care about the poor. They only think of themselves. Given a chance these socialist Democrats aka Liberals like Charles Rangel would kill the geese for a quick grab of golden eggs. Forget the future. The fools. These socialists actually believe in the zero sum theory. That is, there is only so much wealth in the world. If the rich have more, the poor have less. It is all the Rich’s fault. The poor of the world vilify the US for taking all the worlds resources, leaving nothing for the poor. These socialists are also hypocrites. All congressmen and senators that stay a while become rich. So why pick on the rich? Votes.

So who are the Rich? There are a thousand definitions. We could quibble over what is a rich person’s income? A million a year. Everyone would agree with that. But I will be more conservative to make a point. I’ll talk about the top 10% who pay 66% of the taxes. 66% of 2 trillion is 1.3 trillion per year. Reference 2. But taxes are not the true indicator of the Rich. Some rich don’t pay any tax. A better measure is wealth. Reference 1. 10% of all people own 71% of all wealth. All US wealth is 13.8 trillion. Therefore the top 10% own 9.7 trillion dollars. Lets narrow that down a bit using reference 1, 46,000 people own 2.7 trillion dollars not counting primary residences.

What do they do with that money? First some facts. We have all heard the stories of how small businesses account for 90%all businesses in the US. Do they hire large wage earners? No. Lets be generous and say 10%. So who hires the net producers in the country? The ones who are the net producers and who carry on their backs the rest of the people in the US. The Rich, through stock, real estate, bonds and wholly owned businesses, again Reference 1.

What can we conclude? The Rich pay the country’s taxes and hire 90% of the productive workers (net producers). They also give most of the charity in the US. The Rich truly are the Golden Geese. A smart society would be doing everything they could to keep the rich motivated to remain American citizens. Where they have control, like immigration a society like the US can attract the most productive people in the world to the best society in the world. We do bring in professionals who are immediate net producers. India has a superior education system, but not superior paying jobs. We can go get them and others like them all over the world. Is that what we do? Nope. We bring in refugees, the poor and allow very poor illegals to pour across our borders. All are net takers. Why would our politicians deliberately choose takers over producers? Votes.

Are the Rich chained to living in the US? Yes and no. The rich want to live with the rich who speak English and have the same values they have, America. So lets say it would take a lot to force the Rich out. Why? Where else would they go?

Are we secure? Not hardly. We are entering the era of globalization. Mobile people yes, but more importantly mobile businesses and mobile capital. It is already happening. Emerging countries like India are producing highly educated professionals that speak English. More and more smart countries will be competing for the capital and the businesses of the American Rich. Fortunately, we have a little time. The Europeans have a lot of Rich. Old money. And they are far more socialist and abuse their rich worse than we do, they will be raided first.

The socialist liberals are all Democrats and they expert at giving your money to the poor in return for votes. Charlie Rangel can’t wait to raise taxes on the rich and half the rich are Democrats. Go figure. For the first time in our country’s history, the socialist liberals will be in charge of making the laws including the tax code. In the past it was always the moderate Democrats. How long will it be before they kill our Golden Geese and destroy our country? But surely the Republicans will keep them in check. Look at the past 6 years. These Republicans are gutless. They didn’t even make the Democrats actually filibuster. When the Dems threatened filibuster the Republicans caved.

Liberty or Death


Reference 1. Wikipedia the Number of wealthy

Distribution of wealth in the 21st century
At the end of the twentieth century, wealth is concentrated among the G8 and Western industrialized nations, along with several Asian nations. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the total wealth.
Due to progressive taxation, in 2003, the top 1% paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax, while the wealthiest 10% bore 66% of the total tax load. The trend continues down the income scale to where 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes, and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire revenue (nearly 97 percent).
Despite this, the distribution has been changing quite rapidly in the direction of greater concentration of wealth.[3]

I apologize for blogspot being unable to handle large spreadsheets.

Personal Wealth 2001:
Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of
$675,000 or More,
Type of Property by Size of Net Worth
[All figures are estimates based on samples--
numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars.]

State and local
Net worth Other real estate Closely held stock Publicly traded stock government bonds Farm assets Limited partnerships

Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount
(5) (6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (37) (38) (39) (40)

Total 7,357 13,833,590 3,453 1,483,808 1,179 1,228,657 5,475 3,492,512 2,073 877,867 726 356,921 747 408,577
Size of net worth:
Negative net worth [1] 32 -24,318 15 4,116 8 2,209 16 8,058 1 155 4 1,964 1 7
$1 under $600,000 1,509 680,767 621 140,049 182 29,826 900 68,119 99 4,623 86 25,522 56 2,428
$600,000 under $1,000,000 2,307 1,901,385 970 221,197 217 49,671 1,700 333,887 586 65,654 211 65,491 148 10,696
$1,000,000 under $2,500,000 2,569 3,837,583 1,267 451,974 448 203,715 2,042 814,725 925 191,683 304 128,713 300 43,421
$2,500,000 under $5,000,000 574 1,960,937 339 259,276 166 165,506 486 487,587 257 133,125 69 45,387 117 38,668
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 243 1,666,947 150 175,206 93 173,792 216 450,143 133 165,256 33 34,624 66 55,530
$10,000,000 under $20,000,000 77 1,053,973 56 96,322 39 154,327 71 300,377 46 99,247 10 15,628 32 40,503
$20,000,000 or more 46 2,756,315 34 135,669 27 449,612 43 1,029,616 27 218,124 9 39,592 26 217,325

[1] Includes individuals with zero net worth.
[2] Mutual funds with a single investment objective are grouped with
similar direct investments in this table.

Reference 2. Table 1 -- Internal Revenue Collections and Refunds, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005


Net collections
2005
1,998,850,893

Who wants Poor people? Want to Get Rid of Them?

Note: All references are at the end of the article.

Does anyone want to live among poor people? No, Americans want them to live somewhere else. In spite of universal American sympathy and government entitlement programs inspired by the War on Poverty, poor people have been around since 1776 and no amount of money has changed the number of people in poverty. The government use poor and poverty interchangably, yet the words have different meanings that are very important. Poor is a measure of income as defined by the census bureau and reported by the National Poverty Center Reference 1. They mislabel poor as poverty and vice versa. So what is poverty? Poverty is a culture, a set of values, a common behavior that is characterized by hoplessness, attitude towards work, destructive life styles and anti social behavior, drugs, crime and of course money. Poverty people are also poor but the similarities end there. Homeless people are poverty people not poor people. The vast majority do not want to change their lifestyle. Many well meaning groups have tried and failed. The numbers remain the same. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to distiguish the poor from the poverty. They tend to live in the same areas and go to the same schools. They government does not even try. They count them all together by income.

I was born and raised poor, but I did not know it until I was older. Why? I lived among my peers. My father instilled in me all the positive values associated with most Americans, honesty, a high value on education, dedication by my father to instill a belief that I my life was going to better (financially) than his. It was not until about 5th grade that I discovered that there were kids who lived with far greater financial wealth. But I never felt inferior or envious. I was their equal, and I proved by getting better grades in school. I was poor but not a person of poverty. How do you tell poor people from poverty people? Build two brand new project buildings, like the ones HUD built in the inner cities in the 70s. Put poor people in one and poverty people in the other. Come back 3 years later. The poor people’s project will look the same. The poverty project will be so destroyed that it is ready for demolition. The difference in the two groups of people could not be more stark.

So do we as a society want to get rid of poor people or poverty people? I think we would all say yes if there was a compasionate way to do it. Our society has embraced the war on poverty. We created government programs so we could throw money at the problem. We call them entitlements. 400B annually is spent on entitlements. Reference 2. This does not count charities which are substantial. Homeless people don’t seek entitlements, yet they live on barely nothing. Charities that hand out daily food, clothing and blankets keep them alive.
So how many poor and poverty people are there? Our census Bureau put the number at about 45M out of 300M. But these are poor and poverty people both. One of the defining characteristics about poor people is that most reject government handouts even though they are eligble. These tend to be in rural areas vice inner city projects. But the total number has remained a constant percentage until the change in welfare laws in the mid 90s forced some people to work to get assistance. 45M is now down to 38M. Reference 3

But I ask again who are the poverty people? No one can separate the poor from the poverty. But we do know that half of poor people as measured by the census bureau are transients. They are laid off, temporarily down on their luck people who move on and are replaced by another laid off family. So the numbers each year look the same. But these transients are poor people not poverty people. So the possible poverty people are less than 19M. What else do we know about poverty people. The 35 years of the war on povert has had unintended consequences. “ Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)” Reference 4 Also “Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and food stamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)”. Reference 5.

Well, how many poverty and poor children are there? The Census Bureau suggests 13 million. The vast majority live in single parent homes. Why? Sociologists don’t really know why single poverty mothers want babies. They are looking in the wrong place. Women want babies, it is irresponsible men that do not want to accept responsibility for children. They don’t want to accept any responsibility. What are some of the unintended consequences of single parent poor/poverty families? By law they are entitled to more entitlements. Entitlements are geared towards children. Up to a point the more children, the more money. Another disastrous consequence of single parent families is crime. “The number of single-parent families black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4)”. Reference 4. We could add others, such as school grades, truancy, gang membership and drop out rates.

What can we conclude? Poverty is persistent. People do care and give a lot of their charity and tax dollars to poverty. But we also see that throwing money at the problem just makes it worse. We as society will be spending 400B a year forever. To put 400B in perspective, that is the size of the defense department’s budget. Yikes!

So how do we solve the problem? First you need to determine where poverty people and poor people come from. Are they created by external forces acting upon non-poor families, the rich and middle class? With the exception of a few homeless people the answer is no. They are born to poor and poverty people, especially unwed mothers. Poverty people live together; they call them neighborhoods. There is no stigma for bringing a child into world that you cannot afford to care for. A woman’s parents are poverty, her friends are poverty and the men who get her pregnant are poverty. There is no one around to say shame. So there are no social or financial penalties for creating a poverty child. Before welfare, unwed mothers were ostracized by society. Their parents were expected to raise the child at their expense. But the migration of poor people into neighborhoods and entitlements have changed that culture.

What can we do? If all poverty and poor people disappeared, poverty would all but cease to exist. There would be no poverty people to create the next generation of poverty people. So how do we get rid of the poor and poverty people? Do we kill them or ship them to a desert island? Of course not. But, what if poverty and poor people stopped having children? Poverty disappears with the death of that generation of poverty and poor people. Since the social penalty is gone how does one incentivize these woman to stop bearing children? Money. How much? What ever it takes. 100B, 200B? The 400B in entitlements does not take into account the cost of crime. The annual cost of police, courts and jails for poverty is 185B. Reference 6. Poverty and poor people cause 90% of all crime. Does that mean we can eliminate 90% of 185B? No, but 100B is a good number. What about societal costs? 450B. Reference 7. 90% due to poverty people, perhaps, but let us be conservative, 300B. We are now up to 800B per year. But there are 38M poverty and poor people. Yes but only half are women. 19 M. So at the end of 50 years we get back 800B per year forever. So what would it take to get 19M women to go on birth control for 50 years? $1,000, $5,000, $10,000? The number is unknown, but 5,000 is a reasonable guess. That is approximately 100B per year. Make it 10,000, that is 200B per year. That is too much! Consider we are currently paying 800B per year for no return. Can we afford 200B a year? Ask any economist he would say you were crazy not to do it. 10 Trillion dollars over the 50 years then a payback of 80B per year? But wait, we don’t have to wait 50 years before the benefits begin. The number of kids on welfare start dropping in year 1. In 15 years crime would begin to drop because of fewer criminals. Plus I counted all poor as poverty. Yes they have children they can’t afford to raise, but instead of seeking entitlements, the family steps in. Parents and Grand parents pay for the kid’s upbringing.

What you say? The numbers are all smoke. I will agree that the numbers are fuzzy, considering the difficulty in counting. But they are the best numbers our government can produce. I did not make them up. Yes, but this is racist. There may be far more whites who are poverty people, but %age wise there is a greater %age of blacks and Hispanics in poverty. Who would howl? Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Catholic Church, social workers and democrats who rely on the votes of poor people. 90% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics vote democratic. Poverty is a big business and there are many who profit from it. Let them howl, they had 35 years and produced 0 results.

Why hasn’t anything been done before? Incentivising poor people to stop breeding is politically unspeakable. Why? Do poor people have a right to have kids they cannot afford to raise? Legally, yes and no. Morally, no. No one should have a child they cannot afford to raise and put the bill on their neighbors. That is utterly irresponsible. If this were explained to the American people, they would act emotionally at first, but after the facts sunk in they would agree because the facts are indisputable. Ask any poor person if they want to poor the rest of their life? Give them a way out and they will jump at it. Not 100%, but an overwhelming majority.

Why legally yes and no. This is how screwed up our society is. Can a poverty person adopt a child? Heavens no! You can’t dump a child on someone who hasn’t the money to take care of them. We have very strict rules for adoption. Social workers inspect your home, audit your finances, and screen you psychologically. Yet we have no rules against giving a child to a poverty person through birth. What is the difference? Emotionally a lot. Logically, none. When something illogical is ingrained into the fabric of society the first place to look is religion. Religion is the will of God. Logic is irrelevant. But if you pin down the Catholic Church, the strongest opposing voice, even they will admit that it is a sin to have a child you cannot support. They just never say it in public.

LibertyorDeath


References


1. National Poverty Center
2004 Poverty Thresholds, Selected Family Types
Single Individual Under 65 years $ 9,827
65 years & older $ 9,060
Single Parent One child $ 13,020
Two children $ 15,219
Two Adults No children $ 12,649
One child $ 15,205
Two children $ 19,157
Three children $ 22,543




2. Wikipedia Examples of Federal AidIn the United States of America, Federal assistance, also known as federal aid, federal benefits, or federal funds, is defined as any federal program, project, service, and activity provided by the US federal government that directly assists or benefits the American public in the areas of education, health, public safety, public welfare, and public works, among others. The assistance, which can reach to over $400 billion dollars annually,[1] is provided by federal government agencies, such as the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Health and Human Services, through special programs to recipients.

3. Wikipedia National Income
In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 15.73% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] while another 12.7% fell below the federal poverty threshold.[6]

4. The Cato Institute Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)
The number of single-parent families black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4)

5. studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)


6. Justice Dept.
Federal government spent more than $30 billion on direct expenditures for criminal and civil justice in fiscal year 2003. State governments spent over $61 billion and local governments spent over $93 billion.

7. Violent crime (including drunk driving and arson) accounts for $426 billion annually, and property crime accounts for $24 billion. (Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996, February). Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.)

Is it Equipment or Mission? A Dialogue

H said.

R. could do a much better job at explaining the physics of the situation than me. The solution of not getting shot works as long as you don't get shot. We have been finding out lately that even in asymmetrical warfare that not getting shot can even be difficult when you have huge technological superiority.

The Commander in Somalia should have had Bradley's and M1s, but someone higher in the chain figured you didn't need that fighting the tribes in Somalia. That just happened to be wrong.


Liberty or Death Reply

You are correct about the Bradleys in Somalia. The reason they were not there was this was a NATO or UN force where allies had the armor and since the Americans had not advised the French commander about this raid, he could not provide allied armor on short notice. I suspect that the American general was told to keep the raid a secret by the CIA. Telling a frog anything is the same thing as telling the enemy.

With regard to riding to contact, Bradleys trump Hummers all day long. I can't defend Rummy's decision to use Hummers; even armored Hummers vice Bradley's, but you don't need M-1's against MANPACs at short range. Both are targets and they will always shoot at the Bradleys. M-1's against MANPACs in a densely packed city where the bad guys can pop up among civilians is a no win scenario no matter what you bring to the battle. Somalia is one example. The Israelis found that out in Lebanon. The Mirkiva is a good tank. Not as strong as a M-1 defensively, but close and far superior to the armor on a Bradley. Tanks are very expensive and MANPACs are relatively cheap. So the issue is not the armor, but where you chose to fight.

If the bad guys can hide among the civilians, i.e. hide in plain sight at close range and the bad guys celebrate death not life you don't belong there. Any commander who puts you there is asking for what we have in Iraq. Even at a ten to one kill ratio, body bags + time + Drive by Media always equals an American defeat in the eyes of the American people.

The military understands this, our elected officials don't. That is why I will keep harping for a change in strategy on how military forces should be used. Shoot and scoot. Occupation in bad guy cities is always a non-starter. The Russians have supplied and taught the sheet heads how to assemble very good IEDs. Up till last year that accounted for 85% of the casualties. Now the Russians are supplying and training effective snipers. So the casualty ratio will swing more to bullets as time goes on.

On the other hand, occupation in the wild terrain is a break even. That is why Iraq not Afghanistan is going to defeat us.

Since our politcos are too stupid to learn, American generals need to go to the media and tell it like it is in very plain English "Never send American troops into occupied cities ever again". Period. What they say now are things like, "it is very difficult". That is code the politicos understand but not the American people. So stubborn leaders like Bush can say things like "it is going to take a long time". Until the American military become more blunt with politicos we are going to lose every war we fight.

The bad guys are well aware that war is a test of will between one culture and another, not one’s fighters against the other guy’s fighters. They know we are a culture that values life, has drive by media and a public that influenced by sound bites and pictures. Islamics celebrate death. American politcos are too political to heed this. So the military has to go directly to the American people and say, "no more occupation of civilian populated areas against bad guys that look like civilians". Double that for Islamics. 6 months and get out.

With the political events in Iraq of the last 30 days, Miliki declaring the Shiite militia off limits, the current Bush strategy can never succeed. We need to change strategies or go home. Of course Miliki is going to drag this thing out. We are pouring billions in military and reconstruction aid into Iraq each year. Only a fool would want that to stop.

We have a commander in chief that is so stubborn that he was willing to throw Republican congressmen and senators to their graves for supporting him. And all for a war we will lose. Even if the Iraqis could take over security tomorrow, Bush has driven the Shiites to Iran.

Bush objective, a self-sustaining free democracy that would serve as a buffer against the radicals and protect other so called moderates. Current outcome. A corrupt democracy, dead Sunnis and millions of Shiites under the influence of Iran and to become a new surrogate in addition to Hammas and Hezbollah. Hundreds of Billions of dollars and American blood wasted for another political failure.

Bush is not that Poor a History Student

The following is a quote from yesterday’s USA Today.

“HANOI (AP) — President Bush said Friday the United States' unsuccessful war in Vietnam three decades ago offered lessons for the American-led struggle in Iraq. "We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush said shortly after arriving in this one-time war capital.”


No historian would agree with Bush’s statement. We could have stayed another 50 years in Vietnam and not gained an inch. He knows that or his advisors know that. So why is saying it? He is desperately looking for an analogy that would resonate with the American people. Vietnam was over more than 30 years ago. The only thing any young American remembers is from Hollywood movies. Those that were there or watched it on the drive by media saw only ugly death. Politically this is at best stupid; at worst it is a poor attempt at rationalizing his failed policy in Iraq.

What impression did he make on the Vietnamese people? The American president is an uneducated idiot. It can only confirm that the white house is still as stupid as it was in the 70s.

The following is also a quote from the same USA Today article.
"We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take awhile," the president said. He called the Iraq war a "great struggle" and said, "It's just going to take a long period of time for the ideology that is hopeful — and that is an ideology of freedom — to overcome an ideology of hate."

Who is our president, Bush or Uncle Ho? “great struggle”? Did he read that on the plane to Vietnam from one of Ho’s speeches? “a long period of time”, an ideology of freedom — to overcome an ideology of hate." It is time for Bush to go back to the ranch. James Baker must be going nuts. He was brought in weasel word an exit strategy for Iraq and his boss says this stupid statement. Toni Snow, you should have resigned in protest; you know how stupid this statement is.

First it is just flat wrong. Freedom overcomes hate? Does that mean a free society has no hate? Tell that to any black man over 40. But lets just assume that his brain malfunctioned when he said these words. What did he really mean? What hate in Iraq is to be overcome? The hate against America? He wants the same American troops who killed thousands of Iraqis on their way to Baghdad to be embraced by the widows and fatherless children? Good luck. Does he mean the hatred against all infidels that is inspired by Orthodox clerics? That will happen about the same time as Bible belt Christians embrace abortion.

But lets assume he got one right and he is talking about the sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis. Violence can be crushed to a minimum with a ruthless police state. Ask Uncle Joe Stalin if he had any sectarian violence in the multicultural Soviet Union. But Bush is not talking about violence he wants to eliminate hate. What is the lesson of history? When will Arabs stop hating Zionists? When will the Irish embrace their British persecutors? When will the Turks and Greeks on Cyprus sit down and share a lamb barbecue? Has not happened yet. Give it another 100 years. The Irish have been hating since Cromwell. Woops, that is long time.

Forget Bush, we don’t need to end hate to have a success in Iraq. We just need to end the sectarian violence and remove all those pesky foreign combatants and the Bathist that are killing Americans. How long? Lets use Bushes Vietnam example. There is no sectarian violence in Vietnam. Did freedom do that? No, a brutal police state that killed off all people of influence in the old South Vietnam and maintains order with ruthless police violence.

So what is really going to happen in Iraq when we leave? And I guarantee you it will be before the 2008 election. The Shiites will be engaged in serious sectarian violence again the Sunnis. Our refusal to help the Shiites has already driven them to Iran. When the bullets run out of targets, Iran will have another large surrogate in the Middle East. The Shiites can be a direct threat to Kuwait and the other moderate Arab oil states. Yes Virginia, another massive American defeat.
What will history say 30 years from now? A dictatorship friendly to the US might have worked for a while. Democracy was the cause of a quicker defeat. But defeat was inevitable. Why? We are infidels. Any thought that we have or will have friends in the middle east won’t be until all of Orthodox Islam converts to reformed Islam. When will that be? One can argue about the numbers, but 60% conversion in 1000 years is a reasonable estimate.

Is there a single educated person in the world who thinks the policy Bush related to in the above speech would work?

Libert or Death

How to Fight Illegal Immigration for Free

The following quotes are from an article in USA Today


“The Nevada town of Pahrump is taking a stand not just against illegal immigrants but flags they may bring with them.”

“The elected town board in the remote Mojave Desert community voted 3-2 on Tuesday to enact an ordinance making it illegal to fly a foreign nation's flag by itself. “

“The law passed as part of a package of measures that also declared English the official language of Pahrump and denies town benefits to illegal immigrants.”

"We don't have any" benefits, town manager David Richards says. "If we ever have any, they'll be denied to illegal immigrants."

“Rasmussen said the ACLU would probably take legal action against the town.”
"People are nuts out there," she says. "Totally nuts."

In the absence of Federal enforcement of illegal immigration laws local cities are trying to do it themselves. Hazelton Pa. is another recent example. But the ACLU will destroy this grass roots movement. How? Aggressive law suits with massive numbers of lawyers that run up huge legal bills and a court system that allows them to collect those fees if the win. This is formidable intimidation to small cities with few legal resources. Most capitulate without a court fight. This is wrong.

Solution, congress needs to pass a law that allows states, counties and cities to pass their own laws with regard to illegal immigrants. They need to do that before Jan. It should be easy if there is the political will. It costs congress nothing. It is totally American; let the people decide their own fate. It will save the federals billions and allow them to pass the buck on dealing with illegals so that they can still pursue the Hispanic vote. It is not inflammatory, racist or partisan and is politically neutral.

Liberty or Death

Understanding the True Enemy in Islam

It is extremely important for the American people to understand all the bad guys in the Arab and Persian Middle East. There are a lot actors and they have different motivations and goals. The American public desperately needs an education on the players and judging from Bush's Invasion of Iraq the US government needs to be educated as well.

Top down. There are nations and governments. The governments of most Middle East Nations want us to just go away and have us buy their oil. Some hate us. Demeanor towards the US could change in a heartbeat with the assassination of moderate leaders. Pakistan has a dictator who supports us (sort a ), but one bullet could turn Pakistan into the most dangerous Islamic fanatic nuclear power in the world.

No Middle East nation is homogeneous. They began as a bunch of tribes. Tribal bonds are still strong today. The populations of every nation are mixed ethnically and religiously. This mixture is a source of friction and many times violent. Jordan, the most moderate state has a 70% Palestinian population. Iran is only 57% Persian. Cultures like the Kurds straddle 4 national boundaries. Moderate Gulf states imported large numbers of immigrants to do the dirty labor for the oil rich natives. These immigrants now exceed the native populations. Clearly a dangerous mixture. Everyone hates the Palestinians who are a complex mob of homeless people. That is one reason they all hate Israel. Israel pushed the Palestinians out when they moved in creating a greater Palestinian problem for the moderates.

Take away the oil money since 1950 and you have a bunch of very poor guys 3rd worlders. You can substitute UN money (mostly US) as the Palestinian oil. This creates a two class system of the rich and powerful and the dirt poor, another source of friction.

All societies in the Middle East are capable of producing suicide bombers. This completely bewilders Americans. How many suicide bombers could the US produce? This alone should tell you that there is a fundamental cultural difference between Islam and Judeo Christians. Islam is a religion still in transition from a violent crusading religion to a peaceful religion. The Koran and Sharia law authorize violence in the name of Allah and called for by authorized clerics. Judaism and Christianity have completed their violent phase. No more burning of witches, heretics and mandatory state religions. No more popes leading armies like Mohammed.

Islam is also very insecure. Remember the Mohammed jokes. If you are a Moslem try writing a book critical of Islam. Got a death wish? Islamics who renounce their religion are heretics and automatically receive the death penalty under Sharia law. Regardless of what moderates say, Moslems are very insecure, quick to insult and believe that violence is justified by Islam when they are wronged.

Many of the Middle Eastern Islamics still follow the beliefs and actions of Mohammed directly. We can argue whether that is violence coupled with religion or religion coupled by violence. The result would be the same, violent spreading of Islam since Mohammed. Islam holds little distinction between religion and government. There are secular leaders, but they must submit to the will of religious clerics. Iran is a perfect example. Secular President under the thumb of clerics. Civilians can run for office, it is a democracy. However in order to run you must be approved by a board of clerics. Dissidents need not apply. Iran is a special case; it has openly called for the death of Americans and Zionists since 1979. It also is a country hijacked by religion, thereby providing wealth and power to extreme clerics.

Extreme is an incorrect characterization. Since Islam began as a violent religion and is still in transition, the so-called extreme or fanatical clerics are the original Orthodox. The peaceful clerics are the reformed. Make no mistake religion is the defining factor in Middle Eastern culture. All other traits are subordinate in most of society. One could say the same thing about the bible thumpers in the Southern red states, but they obey the same law as all other Americans. Not true of the Middle East. The Orthodox still follow Islamic law, the Sharia. To those people the secular laws are subordinate. Try holding hands with a woman in public in Saudi Arabia. Religious police have the right to cane you on the spot. Secular laws may prohibit killing of Infidels on Islamic soil. Sharia does not. Orthodox Islam believes in the sanctity of death, not the sanctity of life. When an authorized Orthodox cleric calls for a Jihad against another culture those who die in that cause go directly to paradise and receive 70 virgins.

This Orthodox culture is strengthened by Madras schools founded by Saudi Wahabbists and funded by Saudi rich. Read their textbooks. From the first grade on they are taught more and more complex ideas on hate. By graduation the have been taught death to Infidels especially Zionists and Americans. There are Madras schools in the US and the rest of the world, wherever there are Islamics.

You cannot reason with Orthodox Islam. They do not want the something traditional thugs want, power and wealth. They want the world to be Islam or dead, especially Israel and America. Education, military experience and arms are a part of the capabilities now available to the Orthodox clerics. Education brings chemical, nuclear and biological technology. So Orthodox Islam has both the means and the motivation to kill us. What is missing? Organization and leadership.

Recent years have seen a radical change in these missing elements. Orthodox Islam now has access to charismatic leaders and organization. Osama is smart, the Iranian president is smart, Hamas is smart and Hezbollah is smart. With one bullet Pakistan leadership would be Orthodox and smart. All of these guys are organized. Saud financial leaders and other moderate rich are smart and a great asset to the other organizations. American Muslims like American Irish fund Orthodox Islam. But it is unclear whether Orthodox Sunni clerics are organized. Shiites defer to bloodline Imams and have an internal hierarchy.

Why are we number two on their hate list? The Zionists are number one because they stole Islamic soil. Islam requires all the faithful to throw all Infidels off Islamic soil. We are number two, first because we support the Zionists, because of our decadent culture and are a cowboy nuclear super power that can wipe anyone off the map in 1 minute.

For the past 6000 years the key to defeating an enemy culture was to defeat the leaders and their organizations, typically armies. The Japanese culture was radically different. They would have gladly fought to the last person, atomic bombs or no atomic bombs. Their Emperor, a near deity intervened for one reason, he did not want the Japanese culture wiped off the map. The Japanese people hated us because their Empower said so. They stopped hating us because the Empower said stop. For almost all other cultures throughout history it was the leaders and organizations that precipitated violence against another culture. The people were not demanding that the Gauls be wiped out. One ambitious general decided that. The Catholic Church's Jihad to make the entire world Catholic or dead finally came to an end when the people were given alternative leadership. The people were never the driving force of Catholic Jihad. The leaders were. Christianity believes in the sanctity of life. But what about Islam?

The history of Islam is important to understand. Orthodox Islam has never been defeated, it has only been contained. It began in an Arab culture that was prosperous and educated, more so than the west. Twice Europe almost became Islamic. Once with the Moors and again with the Ottoman Turks. The Islamics leaders and capabilities were exhausted. What happened? In the lull, the west raced past the Islamics in education, technology and population. By the end of World War I, Islamic capabilities were in decline and Christianity kept getting stronger. While in the dark ages, capabilities wise, Islam began the transition from total war to pockets of peace. The lack of charismatic and capable leaders brought back the ascendancy of tribes. Moderate Imams began to appear and gather followings. But that transition was not complete when, after World War II Britain gave the Islamic world self rule and unlimited wealth, oil. At first moderates controlled that wealth. The next phase beginning with the 60s saw the advent of Islamic thugs, not true believers but opportunists. They showed the world how a tiny few could do great harm to the West. The methods were hijackings and bombings. They hid among the rest of Islam and were funded by what we called radicals. We called them terrorists. Legally, we equated them with criminals. We pursued them as criminals. Accountability was individual.

What also happened after World War II is that the Jews stole Islamic soil from the Palestinians, both imposing a refugee problem on Arab states that did not want them and violating Sharia law. The Zionists are a continuous source of hate that can be focused by leaders and organizations. Two conventional wars were fought to drive them out. Then the moderate secular leaders accepted their existence. This was anathema to Orthodox Islam. You won't find compromise in their play book, only violence and patience.

Lets race forward to current time. Islam is still in transition, what is new is that the Orthodox have gained more and more access to wealth that can buy the capabilities of destruction. They may use the methods of the thugs of the 60s but they are not terrorists. Their goals are not terror or ransoms, they are not thugs. Their goal was and still is the spread of Orthodox Islam. Orthodox Islam lives side by side with moderate Islam. Their center of gravity is Orthodox clerics. They are now supported by Charismatic leaders and organizations. This organization is developing WMD, which Orthodox Islamic would use in a heartbeat. Remember they sanctify death not life.

So how do you stop Orthodox Islam? As long as they are dispersed among moderate Islam you cannot eliminate them with conventional means. You can nuke the whole Middle East and the problem will cease to exist. That is the only external solution that would totally succeed. You can also defeat them by attacking their center of gravity, their Orthodox Clerics. The British last year passed a law that allows the police to deport any cleric who preaches hate, violence and destruction. Try to find an Orthodox cleric among the Kurds. You won't. Whenever one opens shop they are visited by the local militia and run out of town.

Reform could come from within and the West could accelerate that by incentivising moderates to eliminate the Orthodox clerics. Is this realistic? Not today. First the public of America and its leaders have not a clue. Europe is waking up, Britain being first. But even France is beginning to crack down. But would Europe support the killing of Orthodox clerics. Not yet. America, no way. We have no idea what the real enemy is because our leaders refuse to speak it in public. Most are too ignorant. Jack Wheeler asked prominent members of homeland security, the intelligence community and congressmen what the difference is between Sunnis and Shiites. Nobody new. After reading this you will know more than you government.

So what is a clueless America to do? Containment. Given sufficient time Islam will go the way of Christianity. Afghanistan and Iraq are Bush's attempt at containment. He has also captured 140M dollars Islamic dollars out of trillions. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have safe havens in Pakistan. In 3 years, utter failure. Islamic money has diversified, seize all the oil and there will still be sufficient wealth to fund Orthodox Islam. What is the Afghan Opium trade worth? Have Americans destroyed a single one of those poppies? No, we don't take this threat seriously. Instead of crippling the infrastructure and organizations of Orthodox Islam, we attack a secular Iraq and drove the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to Pakistan. Rummy and Bush did not give the generals the 3 divisions they asked for. Therefore, We did not have the force to bag the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

What has Islam been doing while we have been fiddling? Iran will have big nukes within a year. One bullet in Pakistan will create an Orthodox Islam with big nukes and missiles that work. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into formidable organizations under the control of the Iranian clerics.

What can America do? After 9-11 Americans would support Bush doing anything to punish the Middle East. That support is gone. He has wasted it. Our only hope is for the Islamics to make a mistake. That is to attack us or Israel in a serious but not fatal way. Either with WMD or massive infrastructure damage, but not a knock out blow. When that happens, the American people will give our commander in chief the green light to retaliate with massive force. But do you see any political leader on the horizon who has that will or the knowledge to know who and how to attack?

I welcome any and all criticism, it critical that we get this right. Our lives depend on it.

Liberty or Death

Proper Use of Military Force a New Direction Dialogue

1.V said

The defense of South Korea was viewed by many, including Joe Stalin, as a war between the US and Russia. He had taken Eastern Europe and all of China. How far could he push the US before we pushed back? We pushed back hard. There was never another conventional invasion of a non-Communist country. Besides, the North Koreans killed US soldiers in combat. To have NOT whacked them back would have been VERY bad form, tit for tat-wise.

On the Shiite thing, the US is blamed for Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, as little sense as that makes. If the Sunnis are massacred in Iraq, we will be blamed for THAT, too. The American Right Wing will sit there and tick off a string of factoids that prove we were not directly responsible. The entire rest of the world, starting with the American Left Wing, will just keep shouting "post hoc, ergo proptor hoc".
But I think we should cut and run as efficiently as possible now. Once you have made it clear (e.g., by having the Opposition Party win the national elections) that you don't intend to continue the war to a successful conclusion, you have no hope of saving face. You just REALLY want to avoid more photos of panicky soldiers fighting to get on the last helicopter out of town.

Oh, I keep meaning to mention this. The Strike and Retire approach to military intervention that you keep proposing has 1 big operator: the French. If you are an ex-French colony and you develop an unstable situation, the 2eme REP (Regiment Etranger Parachutist) will be there tomorrow to settle your hash. NOBODY messes with the Legion. And the government in Paris makes it clear that the troops are there ONLY to prevent unnecessary bloodshed. No free Hershey bars. No new plumbing. As soon as the local forces are back in control, the troops get back on their planes and LEAVE. But everybody understands this, and there are NEVER any complaints about French intervention. Even without air support, a few companies of Legionnaires can whip a few thousand armed thugs. Are you sure you're talking about American forces and not the French?

Back in Gulf 1, Classic, there was 1 brigade of French in the Coalition. They were given the far left flank, out in the middle of the desert. I kept expecting them to just disappear for a few days and then show up in Baghdad. I considered them to be the real threat to Saddam's army.



2. Liberty or Death Reply

There is a time to hold them and a time to fold them. Korea was the wrong battleground. Why? Because Uncle Joe had maneuvered us into fighting surrogates with American lives and treasure, while the real enemy was untouched. Never fight the other guy’s surrogates on their own ground. Use asymmetric warfare. Don't pit America's finest against peasants. That is what I keep harping about in the use of military force. There has to be a legitimate military target. North Korean and Chinese peasants are not a legitimate military target.

If they attack Korea hurt them somewhere else like food embargoes or naval seizers. Take every one of their cargo ships and kill any combatant that came out in blue water. We had overwhelming naval superiority in 1951. Don't fight on land against their strength. Fight on the water with NATO's strength.

With regard to Iraq you have only two choices. Regardless of which you chose, the Sunnis are toast. Nothing you or Pelosi can do about that. So help the Shiites and move them away from Iran. Or cut and run and have the Shiites solidly in the Iranian sphere where they can threaten the rest of the Middle East through a new surrogate. Your choice.

Strike and Scoot is pure punishment. Who cares if we leave a mess behind, that is not our strategic objective. Our strategic objective is to live up to our cowboy super power image. Mess with us and one bad guy goes back to the Stone Age. How many bad guys do we have to trash before the other bad guys leave us alone? It also cheap in lives and treasure.

Right now the Chinese are shooting lasers at our satellites. We are doing nothing. How about stop it or no trade. Asymmetric warfare.

Use of Military Force as a Deterrent to Future Aggression, a Dialogue

1. V said

I think your idea for simply turning the Iraqi Shiites loose on the Sunnis right after the invasion would have smelled too bad. As it is, the whole invasion stinks, on the international scene. It demonstrates that we were openly and directly responsible for fomenting genocide would not do a lot to improve our image.

2. Liberty or Death reply

Your right Americans would howl. But that is not what you do. You train and equip the Shiites and do no harm to the Sunnis. Stay 300 miles from the Sunni triangle. You pack up and leave. The Shiites are going to kill the Sunnis with us there now or with us gone. We can't stop it today. No one is going to blame the Americans. The will rightly blame the Shiites. Why help the Shiites? Our lack of help has driven them squarely into the Iranian camp. Bad outcome. This could and still might be avoided by supporting the Shiites via the Iraqi government who is supporting the Shiites anyway.

3. V said

I will agree that it SHOULD be possible to blockade North Korea into submission, but we clearly have no hope of doing that. It's really great to know that our presidents and State Department have used the 30 years since the fiasco in Vietnam to increase our political leverage in the Far East. I'm not actually recommending any US attacks on North Korea. Instead, I'm trying to argue that the US attack on Iraq made LESS sense than a similar attack on North Korea. In the same way that Castro and Dear Leader Kim will simply die of old age EVENTUALLY, Saddam was isolated and bankrupt and would also have died of old age, eventually. There was no clear threat. There was no urgency. Bushie and Da Boyz simply had always wanted to knock over Iraq and so they did. That's the WHOLE story.

4. Liberty or Death Reply

Completely agree. We just need to ring North Korea with destroyers carrying the anti ballistic missile version of standard arm in case he does go nuts. Catching ICBMs in the boost phase is the easiest kill. Mach 5 is tuff.

5. V said

I have a book written in the 1950s about the Italian invasion of Greece in 1940. It was written by an Italian general who explains in the introduction that the reason he wrote the book was that he had begun to hear people seriously suggest that there had been any rational reason for the invasion or any planning. So he decided that it was necessary for him to help set the facts straight. There was no reason. There were no plans. Benito simply WANTED to conquer Greece and he was bored that weekend. And Adolph and those horrid Germans had shown him up with their blitzkrieg across France (Mussolini was an Italian nationalist who hated Germans as one of his fundamental principles.). The New Roman Empire was going to blitzkrieg through Greece and stage a triumphal Roman parade through Athens. Boy, THAT would show those barbarians in Berlin!

6. Liberty or Death Reply

Did catch Hitler by surprise. Aren’t allies a bitch? A neutral Italy and a Japan on its own, with peace overtures to America in public would have delayed American entry into Europe by as much as a year.

7. V said

I can't support your ideas of fighting short, violent wars and then leaving a mess for the locals to clean up. Not because I disagree with the problems of contested occupation, but because I can't imagine any threat to American national interests that requires such an invasion in the first place. If such a threat existed, then we should be serious enough about resolving that threat that nukes and a formal declaration of war are part of the planning from the very beginning. And a decent set of War Aims. And an Exit Strategy. Violating the territory of sovereign countries is a serious matter. The US should start acting like we understand it's serious when we do it.

8. Liberty or Death reply

Disagree, there are and will be (not often) when we just want to wreck a country as punishment for a crime against us. Afghanistan is an example. But we should have gone further. We should have taken out the southern and eastern tribes when we went in, and then gotten out. Yes, the Taliban would come back and reorganize. So what? We go in with the northern alliance and wack them again. An invasion is cheap in blood and treasure when compared to occupation. America will always accept short decisive victories. You don't even need congressional approval. Americans supported Panama because it was fast and victorious. No congress. Any debate over whether we were justified to invade was academic. It was over. Even the Dems and the liberal press could not get the American people mad at Reagan even though Panama was not harming the US. I think you misunderstand the American people. They will always support a quick victorious war. It’s when you drag in the congress, the UN and especially the American media in advance of any action that the support of the people gets undermined.

9. V said

I don't view American leaders, especially Bushie the Lesser and his barons, as weak-willed. I do think that they don't believe that they can be honest with the American people about what the heck they were trying to do and why. Oh, and of course they're stupid. ("dumb" means you lack mental horsepower. "stupid" means you have no idea how to USE your mental horsepower. The Bushites aren't dumb.) If Bush simply told Americans WHY he wanted to knock off Saddam, we would have impeached him and sent him off to the funny farm. Since he knows he can't tell us what he really thinks, he and Da Boyz shopped around ideas until they found a combination that it looked like they could sell.

Similarly, FDR had always desired to have a war with Germany. He knew that his reasons for desiring this war, which would have as its purpose the fulfillment of the punishment that Germany escaped in 1919, wouldn't excite most Americans, especially those citizens who lived west of Philadelphia and didn't grow up loving England as "the mother country". So FDR simply lied about his war. What its purpose was. What "victory" would mean. Lying to the voters is always the FIRST choice of American politicians. It is, how you say, an American Tradition.
Other than The Revolution and stomping Southerners during the Civil War, which was a great idea, and maybe Korea in 1950, I can't think of another American war that was justified or worth the investment of blood and treasure. Since we aren't very good at it, we should probably stop doing it altogether.

10. Liberty or Death Reply

I disagree with you about Korea. A communist South Korea is the same threat as a communist South Vietnam. Should have never gone into Korea. How was Korea different from Vietnam?

Is the Iraq War Legal? A Dialogue

1. H said

> Yes. I've heard the rumor that the WMDs were moved to
> Syria. I don't happen to believe those reports.
> Considering what I know about Saddam, I have serious
> doubts he would have shipped such weapons to a
> neighboring country. As you may recall, he sent his
> Air Force (120-140 planes) to Iran during the First
> Gulf War. You may also recall that after the war he
> got back NONE of those planes. I have never been
> convinced that Saddam would let anything as valuable
> as WMDs out of his control.
>
> I would be more willing to consider those WMDs buried
> in Iraq. However, the fact that all we have found was
> some old chemical artillery shells in the entire time
> we have been in Iraq. We have captured heaps of
> records. However, we have never found much in the way
> of actual weapons. These weapons may exist, but I
> kind of doubt it.

2. Liberty or Death Said

"The invasion was a success in three weeks with few
> casualties and cost."
>
3. H said

I would actually disagree with this assessment.
> First, we got screwed on our deployment because Turkey
> would not allow us to deploy through the North end of
> Iraq. Indeed, we had to move troops quickly to the
> South and they did not have time to adequately work
> up.

4. Liberty or Death reply

The Turkey diplomatic debacle had no effect on the outcome of the military campaign. The military achieved their objective in three weeks. Army gone, Saddam gone.

5. H said

Second, we had enough troops to defeat the Iraq Army.
> However, we did not have enough troops to hold the
> ground we took. This lead to looting that was
> somewhat problematic for us. The Iraq Army troops
> taking their weapons with them while walking away from
> the war. This allowed some forward thinking guys to
> walk off with huge stores of explosives that we could
> not secure. Of course, we magnified this error by
> firing the entire Iraq Army without back pay. Nothing
> like letting all the trained soldiers in Iraq leave
> with their weapons and without their pay. I blame
> Bremmer for that little mistake.

6. Liberty or Death Reply

All true but not the military’s fault. Bremmer, Rummy, Condi, Cheney, but most of all Bush.
>
7. Liberty or Death said

"No Middle East nation is anything more than a
> collection of rival societies and tribes."
>
8. H Reply

I think you have this exactly right. We have put
> ourselves in the middle of this mess. Right now, the
> Islamic Jihadists are all concentrating on the
> occupying power (the United States of America.) When
> we leave, I fully expect them to return to their
> favorite occupation of trying to kill each other.

9. Liberty or death Reply

Don't equate the Islamic Jihadists with the tribes. Your right the tribes will go back to killing each other, especially in Iraq. The tribal leaders have no control over the Jihadists. They are the product of waco clerics and there are a lot of them and Saudi money in the billions is supporting them. They are a direct threat to the US.
>
10. H Said

A look at this map is illustrative:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_demography.jpg
>
> I expect the Kurds will hold the North. They will use
> their oil wealth to buy weapons from the Soviet Union.
> I expect the Shia will take over the South and middle
> of the country. I expect them to buy their weapons
> from the Chinese. I expect both of them will spend a
> majority of their time shooting at the Sunnis.
> Without oil or the use of the Iraq Army, I think the
> Sunnis are going to have a rough time of it. I expect
> them to be all way to busy to be planning attacks on
> the US.
>
11. Liberty or Death said

"These goals should have the same status as our
> constitution and the Declaration of Independence."
>
12. H said

Actually, why can't the goals be the basic principles
> as laid down in the Declaration of Independence?
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
> are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
> these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>
> All men created equal? Yupper. That would be a tough
> value to stand up and be counted on. If we had
> couched the Iraq War in terms of helping the Iraq
> people find their life and liberty, I might have
> supported the effort a bit more.
>
> Or perhaps some of the goals as set down in the Bill
> of Rights:
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their
> persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
> unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
> probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
> particularly describing the place to be searched, and
> the persons or things to be seized."

13. Liberty or Death Reply

But that is not relevant. The goals are the 2006 collective will of the American people. You can't legislate that. It is innate right of every individual to think for himself. I have just enumerated what I think the majority of Americans believe.
>
14. H said

Shouldn't this apply to those who talk on the phone?
> I don't believe the NSA asked for a warrant when they
> started searching the private conversations of
> Americans.

15. Liberty or Death Reply

Sure they did. They followed the previsions of the Patriot Act.
>

16. H Said

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
> the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
> impartial jury of the state and district wherein the
> crime shall have been committed, which district shall
> have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
> informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to
> be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
> compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
> favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
> defense."
>
> Have those guys down in Quantanamo received their
> speedy and public trials yet? Have they been informed
> of the nature and cause of the accusations against
> them? Have they been provided counsel for their
> defense?

17. Liberty or Death Reply

Enemy combatants do not come under the protection of the US Constitution. Never have. They come under the protection of International agreement such as the Geneva Accords, if they meet the qualifying requirements. They don't. Bottom line they have no legal status. What the Supreme Court did recently in giving the Gitmo guys Habeas Corpus was wrong and congress should over rule the court.
>
18. H said

I've sworn to defend the Constitution of the United
> State several times in my life. I made that oath
> without reservation and fully knowing the consequences
> of that action. Although I don't consider the
> Constitution a perfect document, I find the values are
> values I can defend.
>
> The current Administration seems to treat the
> Constitution as guidance and not the law of the land.
> For that reason, I will not be sorry when they have
> gone.

19. Liberty or Death Reply

I am afraid you have yet to provide a case where Bush violated the law. Any law.

Dialogue on Iraq


1. V Said
You somehow seem to define "imperialism" to mean, "conquer and occupy ground". That isn't necessarily true. Dominating a region, telling people what to do and when to do it, is still Imperialistic. America has been a VERY Imperialistic country from the early days of the Revolution.
Democracies fight wars like women: we fight in emergencies and we fight to the death. No, "well, if you give me Lorraine, then we'll call it even." Our leaders therefore have to keep ANNOUNCING that The Nation is faced with an Emergency that REQUIRES the expenditure of the Nation's blood and treasure. When the voters realize that they've been lied to AGAIN, they get REALLY ticked. After that point, the point at which the voters realize that they aren't getting an explanation from their leaders about what "victory" MEANS, well, if America doesn't plan to WIN the silly war, then there's no point in playing at all.
Some decades back I heard a most instructive comment on Vietnam. What happened in the late '60s was NOT that America wanted "peace". What happened instead was that Middle America concluded that the idiots in Washington, and the generals in Vietnam, had no plan or intention in WINNING over there. Washington was willing to commit enough forces to keep the bloody thing GOING, but they were NOT willing to commit enough force, including diplomatic force against the French and English who were still trading with North Vietnam, to WIN. The American people then only wanted to know 1 thing: when do you plan to bring the boys home? As always, the "leaders" refused to answer this question because they stupidly believed that it somehow weakened our negotiating position. Real governments objectively assess the situation and fish or cut bait. The Germans concluded before Christmas 1914 that WW1 could not be won, and they IMMEDIATELY began sending out peace feelers. France and England were of course not interested in peace. They were going bankrupt fighting the war and could only pay their creditors (i.e., the silly Americans) if they got HUGE reparations from the Germans. Both sides understood the situation. The Allies simply lied about it in the newspapers.

2. R Reply
This preamble – seems to establish that you know a lot about a lot; but it is wrongly placed to infer that the rest of the letter is true. It stops making sense here.

3. V said
I have seen NOTHING to indicate that Saddam had any WMD, except perhaps some leftover poison gas that RUMSFELD sold him back in the '80s. We invaded a sovereign state and deposed a government with less justification than Hitler had for invading Poland or Russia.

4. R Reply
This paragraph is poppycock. 1. I read Seth Carus’s “The Genie unleashed” in the mid 80’s and know exactly how the Iraqis made their poisons. He draws a flow chart of the ethylenes, etc., and which European nation/company sold what. 2. The US enhanced Saddam and we owed it to society to unmake him, please see Ahmadinejad’s (yes the Iranian President) letter to President Bush.

5. V said
The Iraqis, and the rest of the world, don't believe for a second that the US invaded Iraq to "give them Democracy". Everybody knows that the US invaded Iraq because we felt like it and Saddam was easy pickin's. We come off as a bully, not a Liberator.

6. R reply
The theory was isolation. Isolate Iran and Syria (see the geography) with one more war. Sorry. The goal is to cause Hairabahists to have to cross many unfriendly borders. I think. I saw this right away.

7. V said
As proof of this, for the foreigners who rationally analyze facts, North Korea was a bigger threat to the world in 2003 than Iraq, and still is. If the US was aiming to save the world, our cowboys would have knocked off North Korea. But they would have put up a FIGHT.

8. R Reply
Probably a bigger threat in 2003 – certainly they could have provoked a response. Are you inferring that Iraq isn’t weaker because we attacked them? Seems confusing. Isn’t the goal of giving NK some space to try to help China practice on the world stage? NK is an area close to their homeland that they can practice on. They are awkwardly stumbling forward, but are making progress – but I do have great hopes. I think some of their behind the scene actions are pretty cool.

9. V said
So we picked on a guy who couldn't defend himself and was not a threat. It's pretty bad when the Pentagon is using intel that's so obviously faked that ITALIAN intelligence is laughing at it.

10. R Reply
Attack weakness is often a sound strategy. Get the Hirabahist crazies to come to you. Fight ‘em with warriors not civilians. But this is the essence of a strategy that has to be unstated. The Saudis were initially quite happy to lose their rebels; they opened their border and said that they weren’t. Unfortunately for the Saudis, their surviving veterans come back after eighteen months of combat training (about one in ten) and these rebel leaders are many times better than they were when they left.

11. V said
The US defends itself PRIMARILY by being the strongest ECONOMIC power on the planet. We are SO big and SO rich that most foreigners are happy to just figure out a way to make money trading with us. Beyond the money, they look on us as stupid, boorish, uncultured and a prone to military adventurism. Um, kind of like how our comedians tell us we should view the French.
Atheist America can't fight a Crusade, especially if it's going to take more than a year or 2.

12. R Reply
Last two paragraphs are mostly correct. Except our comedians probably don’t think of the French as being adventurous anywhere except with schoolgirls.


13.Liberty or Death Reply to V

I agree with almost everything you say Vince. I would quibble with terminology that "Dominating a region, telling people what to do and when to do it, is still Imperialistic" is Imperialistic, but it happened and I don't care about semantics.

Your comment on WMD needs to be qualified. Your logic does not add up. The question is not whether the WMD existed, but where is it? It existed in1991. We destroyed a lot of it in Shiite Iraq. You are proposing that Saddam destroyed his existing WMD stockpiles and made no others from 1992-2003. Not finding WMD is not proof that it does not exist.

There are other people in the Intelligence business other than governments. Its big money. Jack Wheeler runs the most successful private service. His MO is humint, which he developed over 30 years. His clients are many of the world's leaders including the US. Unlike the CIA if he does not deliver good poop then he does not get paid. He is rich, because he delivers. He stated that the WMD was moved to Syria in 2003 before the invasion. Very believable. There is precedence for this in 1991. Saddam moved his Air Force to Iran even though he lost it. Why Iran? Syria was part of the 1991 coalition and would be obliged to shoot them down. Also General Sada, a top Saddam man said on Fox News Monday “Saddam moved his WMD to Syria before the war”.

Based on the facts, the best you can say is we don't know where it is. Wherever it is, it is not in the hands of friendlies. Plus it is academic. Syria has and had their own WMD stockpile. So does Iran. Iran has 16 nuclear weapons that they got from the old Soviet stockpile that is still unaccounted for. These are small tactical nukes, not city busters. They are very patient. They think time is on their side and they are very busy building weapons grade plutonium and have 1000 Russian nuclear advisors to help them make nukes that work the first time, not like Korea.

Korea is an indirect threat to the US. They cannot harm us directly. They can harm us indirectly by selling weapons. That is why they fired off their new missile and tested a nuke. In order to sell them, you have to prove that they work. At this point they are not worth a dime. When Bush announced his axis of evil he was signaling to the world that we had the right to wack three countries. What did he do? He wacked one, using conventional means. He and Rummy have not a clue what asymmetric warfare means.

Korea is very easy to punish. Baby Kim stays in power only as long as he can pay off his circle of supporters. The guys with the guns. This cannot be done with Korean money; you can't buy anything with it. His lifeline is the selling of commodities, mostly weapons in return for luxury goods and cash. 90% of this trade goes by ship. Japan was a major trading partner in non-weapons commodities. China does not want the world to discover they are the main accomplice in Korea's illegal arms trade. A complete naval embargo can be easily and cheaply put in place. We have had a lot of ships there already. No casualties. But the world would howl. The Korean people are starving. Not our problem. The Korean people all sincerely call Kim "Dear Leader". There is no internal opposition. But we could create one by cutting off the circle of power's access to goodies. We also tell China and the world it is China's responsibility to feed the Koreans. Any starvation is one their hands. Korea is China's client state. There is nothing China can do. Their economy is totally dependent on trade with us. We are just too stupid to leverage that vulnerability.

But Bush blew his one chance. He threw away all of his chips in Iraq. Right after the axis of evil speech he could have done anything. Now he can't do anything.


14. Liberty or Death Reply to R

Russ "Hairabahists". Are they something new to me or do you mean Wahbbists. The waco Saudi clerics.

I agree with most of what you say but I hope you don't agree with the theory to attract all the wacos to Iraq so we can fight foot soldiers against foot soldiers. Fighting a war of attrition against an enemy with unlimited foot soldiers, even at a 10 to 1 ratio is a losing proposition. The most important weakness of the American military and the politcos who misuse them is the will of the American people and the American press.

One lesson of Vietnam was that America could no longer fight a war that was not won in 6 months to a year. The whole world has become expert in using the media and disinformation to undermine the will of the American people. This last election was the price of ignoring that lesson. When we need to use military force we have the capability to stomp anyone in 6 months or a lot less. 3 weeks for the Iraqi army and 3-4 months to round up the Bathists.

Any strategy that requires Americans to be in harms way for years is a political non-starter. If Bush's strategy was to create a democratic buffer between the bad guys, he failed before he started. The Kurds are no problem to the US. With the right support they could be allies. The Sunnis and the foreign fighters and to a lesser extent radical Shiites are the source of all the American casualties. Bush failed to understand the Shiites are going to kill the Sunnis; either with us there or after we are gone. We should have used that to our advantage. We should have independently cut deals with the moderate Shiite clerics in the South and the Kurds. We should have withdrawn from Sunni land and let the Shiites and Sunnis go at it. We should have trained armies for the Shiites and Kurds. All the oil is in the North and South. We needed to kiss up to the Shiites regardless of how distasteful, to keep them from coming under the influence of Iran. This would have succeeded because of all the Middle East countries; Iraq has the strongest nation identity and the least control by the clerics. They don't want to be controlled by a foreign power. But I suspect that opportunity has now been lost.

What will happen is a disaster. Miliki won't let us touch the Shiite militias. Our refusal to support the Shiites has driven them to Iran. When the American people and the Dems pull us out, there will be a new American enemy vice an ally of convenience.

In spite of a brilliant military, Iraq will be another American disaster. One man is to blame, Bush.


15. R Reply to Liberty or Death

Hirabah is the Arabic term for Unholy, Unjust War. It is starting to be used instead of Jihad. The Wahabbists are the ultra reactionary guys who started in the 1800’s in Arabia and supported the Saud family as you say.

Middle East Dialogue, Some History


1. V said

The only comment I would make on this is that Kurdistan will be a landlocked nation surrounded by enemies. The Turks and Iranians hate Kurds as much as Saddam ever did. The creation of American-back Kurdistan would 1) demonstrate to both the Sunnis and Shiites that the real purpose of the American invasion was to dismember Iraq, 2) encourage trouble amongst the Kurdish minorities just across the borders in Iran and Turkey. I suppose they can always ship their oil south, and pay 50% tax to the Shiites. So I don't think Kurdistan is viable, long term.
There is also the problem that the Kurds are also Sunnis, rather than Shiites. Kurds simply aren't Arabs, ethnically. So I don't see much future for an Autonomous Region of Kurdistan under a Shiite-majority national government.
I don't know of any history of Middle Eastern countries fighting each other. They hate Israel because the country was stolen, but I don't think Syria has ever fought Iraq, for example. And the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Omanis, and even Yemeni simply never fight anyone. Yemen had a civil war or something? There is perhaps some lingering hate of The Turk, but I don't think the Turks look south much any more. The Kurds are generally hated for, among other things, being the "cossacks" for the Turks during the Ottoman Empire. If you got too uppity, they sent in the Kurds.
For simply centuries, if not millennia, The Levant, aka Lebanon, was a model of peace and harmony with Christians and Moslems living together and agreeing to disagree on the weekends. Then non-Lebanese people decided to have a war there, causing uncounted billions of dollars in property damage. Lebanon is properly a province of Syria. I don't understand why there is such a big deal about Syrian "occupation". Would an American occupation be better? Dinky Lebanon can't afford to defend itself, and so there are lots of Lebanese who own guns, including stuff you can't generally buy at the Sporting Goods department at WalMart.

2. R said.

I was talking to Israelis the other day and they say that they used to go to each other’s parties and houses in the thirties and forties. It was the creation of a democracy that the Arab rulers hate and they use other reasons to inflame the people. As long as power remains in a few hands the Arab elites are comfortable that they won’t have uprisings and peoples rebellions. This was a new way for me to look at the issue because I thought it was racial/religious. Most Israelis do not think so, according to my guides.


3. V said.

Um, I kinda thought it was the opposition to the Zionists. In 1935 there were something on the order of 30,000 Jews in Palestine, and 1 million Moslems. The Zionists were the terrorists. The Moslems were acting civilized. The English army was trying to hold open violence down. The English government was trying to get more Zionists to move to Palestine. The Moslem government officials (Palestine was a Protectorate. The Moslems were allowed to have a pretend government under the English governor.) They were strongly opposed to the arrival of more Zionists because the announced intention of the Zionist movement was to steal control on the country.

After 1945, the English simply failed in their attempts to control immigration to Palestine, regardless of Palestinian complaints. When they thought they had enough guns, the Zionists staged a coup and installed a Socialist Theocracy, under which Moslems and Christians were second-class citizens. Zionists are, among other things, Socialists. The locals looked on this coup as an invasion by Europeans.

I understand that in the Moslem tradition religious leaders are also normally civil rulers, because Mohammed was, um, both king and pope. And I understand that Mohammed had direct, personal combat with Jews early in his career. (Um, Mohammed was a bandit? Many of the local merchants were Jews? Something like that.) So there is not much of a tradition of peace and harmony between the 2.

During the centuries when the area was completely controlled by Moslem governments, I believe it was remarkably peaceful (ignoring Napoleon's invasion of Palestine in 1797 or something). Small numbers of Christians and Jews lived there under no particular threat, and it was possible to make a visit, as long as it was clear that you weren't some kind of conquering crusader. "And kill Infidels" was of course a fundamental principle of the Moslem religion, but this was tempered by the Middle Eastern tradition of Hospitality to Travelers.

In 1918, the Arabs had every reason to believe that the English had helped them win a war of national liberation against The Turk. As with many other silly natives who have dealt with the Imperial Englanders, the Arabs found out that they had been suckered. The Englander had wanted them to help with the FIGHTING, but the Arab lands were then put under the control of English governors, and Syria/Lebanon was given to the French, for no particular reason. This did not make for a lot of happy campers amongst the Arab veterans who had fought side-by-side with the English. Colonel Lawrence was of course disgusted when he found out that he also had been snookered, by his own government. So he accepted the promotion and medals because it got him a private cabin on the ship home, and then he quit.

I believe that many Middle Eastern Moslems are really nasty people, in cruel, bloodthirsty kinda ways. And I believe that many of their governments are remarkably corrupt and generally incompetent (perhaps worse then even Italy). Syria is run in a very nasty manner. I would hate to be a middle class shopkeeper there. But they get to decide how they want to live in their own countries. Simply thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Palestinians had their land stolen by the Israel government. This theft continues today as an organized policy of the government. There was/is a law in Israel that if a veteran wishes to attend a seminary and become a cleric, his entire tuition is paid by the government. Some years back, an Israeli Moslem (Palestinians who did not flee the fighting are of course nominally full citizens of what has always been their country) who had finished his time with the army applied under the program. The Theocracy went into shock. His application was of course rejected. The program existed ONLY to train rabbis at public expense. They thought everybody understood this and it showed remarkably bad manners for this guy to make a scene by exposing the rampant religious discrimination on which the government and its laws are based. He was a soldier. He refused to back down. He appealed. I think the case was headed for the Israeli Supreme Court. I never heard how it turned out.

As GK Chesterton said on Irish Home Rule, "Better a bad government of your own than a good government of someone else's."

4. R Reply to V

You are probably right that it is ultimately Zionism. This idea of anti-democracy might have been for US consumption. But it was given to me by several tour guides.

I believe that self-rule is desirable, even if shoddily performed (the US practiced with the articles of Confederation and our Civil War) – I am glad that we only have one displaced people in the US. Any acre in Middle East has been ‘owned’ by dozens of peoples. So the Israelis are not the first, but they aim to be the last. Who knows? As an aside, Israel is a jewel – I crossed two other borders, Jordan and Egypt. Jordan was ok, Egypt was very ugly. Tourist police to prevent bus hijackings and half-built hotels (I have since found to avoid taxes, not because they couldn’t finish them).

But this leads me to a conclusion. Most of our models of what is normal do not necessarily apply there. Not that logic is thrown out, but some of our ideas of cause and effect probably are. Everyone tells the story differently.


5. Liberty or Death Reply to R 2

R, I think the Israelis you talked to over generalized. There are many regimes that fear democracy because it would mean the end of their despotic rule. Most of those states we call friends. The people of the Middle East don't care one way or the other. The desire for democracy is not an innate human trait. As you recall from the proceedings of the constitutional congress proceedings a monarchy was seriously considered. Iran is a theocratic democracy. It is not a free democracy, but the civil government is a democracy. They just answer to the clerics, but this is informal. The Palestinians are a democracy. Hamas no friend of Israel, working within the democratic system won the elections.

No Arab is going to look to Israel as a role model for government or anything else. A significant %age of the population hates the Jews for what they are. Iran was not preaching to the choir when they said they would remove Israel from the map. This hatred is religious not form of government.