KRAUTHAMMER NAILS IT!

KRAUTHAMMER NAILS IT!

 

Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-president-plays-small-ball/2012/01/26/gIQAWo04TQ_story.html?hpid=z2 to read how Charles Krauthammer does so.

 

I have stumbled around trying to express my own dismay over the very poor SOTU address given last Tuesday night by President Obama.  I called it dull and confusing, with no grand or even new, bold ideas.  Krauthammer calls it “small ball”.

 

He then calls the President for proposing the “Buffet Rule” taxation approach on millionaires as “redistribution simply for the sake of redistribution”.  He compares the new proposed “rule” to the failed Alternative Minimum Tax that we still cannot fix, in spite of its effect on middle income tax payers, not the super-rich.

 

Krauthammer also wrote, “The visionary of 2008 — purveyor of hope and change, healer of the earth, tamer of the rising seas — offered an hour of little things…” which really says it all.  Little things, particularly rehashed “little things” that do little or nothing to return us to economic prosperity or defend our nation adequately in the future.

 

This column by Krauthammer shows why he is a very good, and famous, national columnist, while I struggle along a simply a local blogger in Joplin, MO.

 

Good job, Mr. Krauthammer.  Now would you please tell the GOP candidates to stop arguing about a Moon colony and get back to things that matter for the upcoming general election!!!

MORE ABOUT LEADERSHIP

MORE ABOUT LEADERSHIP

 

Leadership is all about getting the job done correctly.  I don’t care if you are a CEO, President, a very senior officer (or for that matter a very junior one) in the military.  There is a task, a mission a goal to be achieved and good leaders accomplish the task or mission or achieve the goal espoused.

 

Say it another way.  Good leadership means “put up or shut up” in any circumstance, even for criminals that look too good leaders to tell them how to rob a bank and not get caught.  Hollywood ia full of those stories and so in history.  Good leaders MAKE good things happen and that is the ultimate test of leadership, making good things happen, regardless of who or what stands in your way.

 

Lenin was a fantastic leader.  He struggled his whole life to make communism a reality.  In that sense he was a spectacular leader.  But a great leader, no way in my book simply because he lead a nation to the wrong goals and they paid dearly for such leadership and “followership” behind that chosen leader.

 

History is replete with examples of leaders.  But the really great leaders that advanced the cause of civilization, you can count only a few in my view.  While his goals were wonderful, even Christ does not fall into the category of great leadership in my view.  We still do not have “peace on earth, good will towards all men”.

 

Which of course leads me to my critique of last night’s SOTU address by a failing leader, President Obama.  As I commented on the EC blog such a speech makes me sad as an American.  I do not want to see any President fail.  That means we the people fail no matter for whom we voted.  We are all in the same boat, like it or not.

 

Consider failure in military leadership in WWI that resulted in the slaughter of millions of men in the trenches.  Traditional tactics were to form an attacking force at least twice in size of the defending forces and then attack with “brute” force.  Overwhelm the opponent with sheer numbers.  It worked for centuries and a lot of generals won battles and wars using such tactics and leadership.  “Buck it up guys, we have the strength, now over the top and get the SOBs”

 

Well it failed time and time again, because of technology, specifically the machine gun, which could kill at ten or twenty times the rate of a tradition soldier.  And the war was ultimately won, not because of spectacular leadership.  Rather once the U. S. entered the war, no way could Germany match our manpower or output of machine guns as well.  Brute force won that war, American brute force, not leadership.

 

Not so in WWII but I will not give you a military history lesson in technology or tactics.  Brute force was part of our success in WWII but not the ultimate success.  Ike, Patton, Nimitz, Halsey, even MacArthur were great tacticians and in some cases strategists.  Ideas from such men won WWII, along with the Ideas of the Manhattan Project as well, call it technology from ideas if you like.

 

I saw a failing President last night as I listened intently for SOMETHING that I could support, politically.  Yet I heard NOTHING other than rhetoric, which anyone can support.  “I demand fairness”!!!  Well no s…, Sherlock.  We all want fairness or equality before the law for sure.  But fairness is NOT achieve by TAKING, using the force of government (or Robin Hood for that matter), from some and giving to others, chosen by government (or Robin Hood).

 

How about this for fairness.  Every person in America pays the exact same percentage of their income, all income, to the federal government to pay for the services provided by that government.  Do rich people and poor people need the same defenses against our overseas enemies?   I did not see Al Qaeda target only rich people on 9/11.

 

Do rich people use roads and bridges more than do the poor or middle class?  Not that I can see as I drive anywhere.  So everyone belly up to the bar and pay the same percentage of income, secretaries, bosses, workers, CEOs, you name it to pay for OUR government.

 

Who really cares whether your money (income) comes from capital gains, wages, criminal actions or whatever.  You receive money to “earn your living”.  OK, now pay a percentage so we can ALL go about earning our living under the protective umbrella of a federal government that holds foreign enemies at bay and prevents anarchy within our borders.  Sounds great to me.  We all pay our “fair share” as a percentage of what we make to OUR federal government, not just a government for slices of America.

 

And that “fair share” comes right off the top of total income, regardless of where the income comes from.  If you get money for food stamps then pay your fair share back to the government for giving you the food stamps.  If you get money from capital gains, pay your fair share of such income and it should be no more or less than what you pay as a percentage of your wages.  Secretaries, bosses, everyone pays a fair share of all income with NO deductions, to fund the federal government.

 

The “progressivity” of such a form of taxation is determined ONLY by how much income you receive.  Obviously the rich pay far more in total dollars than do the poor, but all pay something, to support our country.

 

But Democrats do not want such a form of federal income taxation.  Nope, they want to redistribute income across the board in America to be “fair”.  I suppose the ultimate goal is for EVERYONE to receive an equal share of our GDP, about $14 Trillion last year.  So doing the math that means everyone would receive $14 Trillion divided by 308 million people or about  $45,000 dollars a year for every man, woman and child in America in 2011.

 

WOW, my family of four gets almost $200,000 in 2011.  Man oh man can I and my family live like kings on such an income.  And all those millionaires have to live just like me as well.

 

THAT is what the President, in so many words, is calling for in his call for fairness.  The only problem is our GDP will soon go down to that of Somalia if we do so.  We remove the incentive to work hard and succeed by such a call for “fairness”.  Success in life is competition for resources, just like success in football is competition against other good football players.   Everyone gets a salary that can MAKE THE TEAM, but only superstars that win get the big salaries.  Is that “fair”?

 

I guess not so let’s reform how we pay football players through the force of government.  I bet NO ONE will watch the Super Bowl in such a case.

 

Americans LOVE winners and all Americans want to be winners.  That is traditional America in my view.  And good, traditional Americans hate to be on the “dole” or receive welfare.  I know a bunch of people like that from my childhood and I know them right here in Joplin today.

 

I also know people that HAVE to receive welfare to “get back on their feet”.  Fine.  Pay it to them and let them get back on their feet.  But continuing to pay them while they sit on their butts, no way.

 

Well, they say, “I cannot find a job and therefore…..”  Baloney.  Take a walk with me sister or brother and I will FIND you a job in about a day or so.  You may not LIKE the job, but a job with a pay check it in fact will be.

 

Bu the job will not allow me to keep my house, my car, my big screen TV, etc. and thus why should I work at such wages.  Well, go find a house, car or TV that you can afford or give up one or the other in the meantime until you get back on your feet.

 

But then I won’t be able to get to work without a car or be homeless without a house.  Baloney again.  Rent a bicycle to get to work and if you must, live in Souls Harbor until you get your first pay check, then go rent a home for you and your family.  Let’s see, minimum wage is $7.50 per hour times 40 hours a week in dollars per week, less 6.2% ($18 per week) gives you $282 per week or $1182 a month.

 

People can actually live on such an income.    Maybe not the way they WANT to live, but live, they can, at least in Joplin.  Get two people working, Mom and Dad, in the household and just think. Over $2000 a month after taxes to live.

 

But that is not “FAIR” according to the President.  Many Americans disagree.  So he sends his troops storming the trenches of the GOP, a la WWI, and cannot achieve a victory.  Well whose fault is that, the GOP or the leader that keeps doing the same old thing and failing every time?

 

Well folks, that is what I heard last night in the SOTU address, a “general” sending forth his troops en masse, so to speak, to be gunned down by opposing machine guns just as before.  THAT in my view is terrible leadership, on a battle field on in political combat which is almost the same thing.

 

AT LEAST, Mr. President, don’t tell your followers to continue to “storm the trenches of the opposition” and hope that brute force will prevail.

 

Instead, get smart, devise a “flanking maneuver” or “something” to defeat you sworn enemy, the GOP.  But as many Union Commanders found, failed Union Commanders, there is a very smart opposing general, whose NAME is not yet known, but whose tactics and strategy are already well known, that, like with Jackson at Fredredesburg found a dirt road in the wilderness to outflank you.

 

OK you say, we still won the war.  Yep a great leader, Lincoln, won the war.  Are you up to HIS caliber?  No way, President Obama.  A Lincoln you are NOT.  Even your quote from him last night showed how shallow you really are.

 

Even if I thought you policies were the best for America, which I of course do not believe, I STILLL would not vote for you because of your FAILURE TO ACHIEVE YOUR POLICIES.  That Mr. President is simply a failure of LEADERSHIP, and I hold you in low regard for such, despite all your rhetoric.

MY ADDRESS TO AMERICA

MY ADDRESS TO AMERICA

 

Note:  Here it is if I was the President

 

“The State of the Union SUCKS because of our political divide.  Well I intend to fix it and here is how I will do so.  Call it a return to our basic values as Americans.

 

The disparity in wealth in America is too high.  Fine, go fix it individually.  WORK to gain your own wealth and compete with your fellow Americans in doing so.  Government will not intervene in that competition other than to define clearly the appropriate boundaries of liberty to prevent anarchy.

 

If you choose, for whatever reasons to not work, fine.  Go to your church or other “caring” institutions for your needs, real or imagined and compete with the others that choose not to work for such benefits.

 

If you CANNOT work for good reasons, we the people through government will lend a helping but not an all supportive hand to improve your ability to work.  But you as an individual must WORK to achieve your own goals and not rely on we the people to provide all the comforts you desire.

 

You already have public education, good roads and transportation, an abundance of things that will help you along the way.  Take advantage of then and WORK to pursue your own happiness.

 

Now for you very few that in fact cannot work for various reasons beyond your control, including past bad choices.  Fine.  We the people will provide for you until you die as a matter of compassion.  But don’t expect to watch a big screen TV in the process.  We only pledge to keep you pain free to the extent allowed by medical science and keep you “comfortable” in terms far better than comfort is viewed in the rest of the world.s

 

So it is up to you as individual Americans to pursue your own happiness.  We would love to help more, as compassionate Americans, which most of us are, but we the people can only do so much.  The rest is up to you.”

 

Anson Burlingame

Presumed President giving the SOTU address and never to be elected again!!!

INCOME INEQUALITY

INCOME INEQUALITY

 

What does that slogan mean?  Obvious is it not?  Rich people have more money than poor people and then there are those in the middle, trying hard, in some cases, to become rich.  The poor would probably settle for just being in the middle.

 

My assertion is that society has always been that way, at least since we started using money.  Actually even in barter trading societies, some had more to barter with than others.  The better hunters had more to eat than the lesser members, lesser at least in terms of being able to hunt.  When we moved to more stable communities those with the most or at least best land, grew more than others.

 

Human society has always entailed competition between other humans to get “more”, first for themselves, then for their families and later on for their communities.  In all cases the best “hunters” came out on top.

 

But that is not FAIR scream liberals.  The good hunters should give more to those that are not so good at hunting, gathering, growing, or producing things that others want to buy, with chickens (barter) or money.  Of course if half the tribe has nothing to eat and is starving and the other half has more than they can eat, some accommodation was reached, even in early societies.  Human compassion played a role as well.

 

But in those ancient societies who made the decisions of who gave what to whom.  In most cases it was the good hunters, the strongest members of the tribe.  Later on governments, the appointed tribal leaders made such decisions.  But who became such tribal leaders?  Why of course the best “hunters”.

 

Religions tried to make a difference in such inequity.  All religions promote “giving to the poor” and use religious institutions to do so.  But despite the dictates of the gods or God, such “charities” were never enough for the poor or those that in fact were not poor but wanted more for themselves.  Thus the struggle continued.  There was the occasional Spartacus, Robin Hood, a particular “church”, some other groups promoting good will and charity, but again for a very long time the inequity continued in human history.

 

Something changed in the world in the late 18^th Century.  Both the American Revolution and the French Revolution made dramatic change in how governments were to be formed and thus provided the ability to govern.  America’s way prevailed and the French receded back into chaos and Napoleon, the best “hunter” in all of Europe for a while.  A little later we had Hitler try his hand.  And of course there was Lenin and his crowd that tried to equalize the inequity.  And look how all that worked out for the societies being so lead and the world in general.  Would you want to have been a part of any of those societies?

 

Europe, post WWII decided to “split” the differences between total government control over distribution of wealth and “hands off” of such wealth distribution.  We thus saw the formation of social democracies, some call them flat out socialism, to determine wealth distribution.

 

Now look at Europe trying to figure out what to do next after about 50 years of experimenting with various forms of socialism.  Bottom line is that “grand experiment” is failing rather fast now and Europe is stuck between a very demanding and angry populous and leaders that have no idea where to find the money or productivity to quiet that anger.  Some simple economic laws (don’t spend more than you make) have begun their inevitable domination of such experiments, political and economic.

 

Anyone with any sense and understanding of at least modern history know full well that communism failed, miserably.  Now we see the approaching failure of socialism, in various forms, though some deny the inevitability of such ultimate failure.  Well my view for that latter group is just wait a few more years.

 

Where I ask today are the RICHEST societies in the world at least on a per capita basis.  Would you be surprised if I pointed to various Islamic countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?  Following the dictates of the Koran those governments have GIVEN tremendous wealth to their populations.  EVERYONE is wealthy in such countries simply because of OIL.  And those governments have been able to afford to BUY the support of their various populations simply because of the wealth generated by oil.

 

Now that is a nice trick if one has enough oil wealth to pull it off.  But few have such intrinsic wealth just sitting there for the taking.  Most other countries have to WORK to produce their wealth and thus comes the big rub.  Who today is willing to work the hardest to grow and gain more wealth, nationally?  Might I suggest China and India for starters.

 

America charted a whole new concept in terms of achieving wealth.  It began with the idea that all men (and later women and slaves) begin the “race of life” equally and all are free to PURSUE happiness, which of course would include wealth.  Not too many really happy but impoverished people.  Religion tries to fix that point but always falls short in doing so.

 

America felt that government was to ensure the freedom and liberty of all Americans, so they could in fact pursue their own happiness, as long as it did not infringe on the happiness of others to a great degree.  For sure our founding documents NEVER suggested that government was responsible for wealth redistribution of any sort, initially.  Government ONLY kept the boundaries of liberty and freedom set wide enough for all men (later women and slaves) to pursue their own happiness.

 

And look what happened.

 

So what seems now, based on polls, to be the greatest concern of Americans?  Yep, the distribution of wealth.  The rich have too much and the poor and even the middle not enough, according to the poor and middle.  They want more and the rich don’t want to give it to them through at least the force of government.  Sounds sort of historical, does it not.

 

Well there is the real fight for the November 2012 of our next President.  And tonight we will hear how the current President and candidate to be the next one wants to go about redistributing wealth in America.

 

One side, the GOP has already said how they want to do so.  They want the traditional American way of unleashing the freedom and liberty of ALL Americans to pursue their own happiness/wealth.

 

But tonight we will hear, in so many words, why that is not good enough and thus the force of more government will be required to redistribute the wealth.  First question to ask as you listen tonight to the SOTU address is where in the Constitution is such power provided to the federal government, to redistribute wealth.

 

I KNOW, it is called promoting the “general welfare”.  My response is “general” means EVERYONE.  Sort of a rising tide lifts all boats type of approach.  Not many sailors amongst our Founders but most as well lived near the sea and thus would understand what is meant by such a modern saying.

 

And you know the really sad part of what we will hear tonight is nothing new.  President Obama’s approach has already been tried, in Europe on a grand scale.  He will not say it but what he will propose is for us to be “more like” Europe in terms of redistributing wealth to help the “poor”.

 

Over the past 50 years our country has moved, very slowly, to become more intent on redistributing wealth and now we have no more real national wealth to do what we still want to do.  And now we have a President that will push us even harder to redistribute more wealth so we can do more for the poor and middle class.

 

Whem he calls for us to do so, forget the Constitutional mandate to do it.  Just ask him where he will get the money to achieve his goals.  My view is the money is just not there no matter how rich we think we are as a nation.  And there are a few very strong “hunters” that will take their wealth elsewhere and do just fine in the taking, not matter what government tries to do, unless we elect Lenin to try for a while.

Tonight, the President will give us many anecdotes of the poor or middle that have paid a lot to the government in terms of percentage of income.  He of course will NOT talk in terms of absolute money provided to government, some 70% of all government income tax revenues from the rich.  Nor will he talk about the almost 50% that pay NOTHING to the federal government revenues collected by income taxes.  Nope, he will only focus on the “greedy rich” and call for their paying more to government in an attempt to redistribute wealth.

Well Mr. President, one of your potential competitors recently gave 15% of his wealth to charities.  Find a few liberals that can match that contribution, such as maybe you big gun, George Soros.  I would love to hear those statistics.

PRESIDENTIAL CHARACTER

PRESIDENTIAL CHARACTER

 

Ok, readers, let’s have a little conversation of the history of the “character” that counts or is of no consequence for our American Presidents.

 

How many past American Presidents had extramarital affairs, or children born out of wedlock, or had sexual intercourse (or “lesser” forms of sex) before marriage?  I don’t have the slightest idea and don’t give a hoot either.  I look only at their record as President in public, not what they did in their bedrooms.  What do you look at in the history of good, bad or great Presidents?

 

How many Presidents drank too much or used whatever “drugs” to calm them down in history.  I know one or two, Grant coming to mind in terms of his drinking habits, but not others.  Ford we know had “two martinis” with his alcoholic wife each night, but did that affect his ability to govern?  I doubt it.  And for sure Betty did not seem to try to govern with all her martinis.

 

How many past Presidents were really rich men?  I hear recently that one of our best Presidents, Washington, may well have been the richest man in America in his day simply because of the property that he owned.  So what, I ask?  Who was the poorest man to ever be our President?  I have no idea and again, don’t care.  It is what he did while governing that counts for me.

 

How about “empathy” and what kind of “empathy” really counts for our Presidents in the past?  I know of no historical standard to measure the “empathy” of any past President, do you?  Again, it is the policies of the Presidents that made them good, bad or great, is it not?  No, I doubt that we have ever had a sociopath as a President, a man with NO empathy.  But as far as levels of empathy, who really cares?

 

So what I ask is all this turmoil over “character” in our campaigns today?  Is it personal character, like how a wife or wives are treated?  You can certainly give Bill Clinton at least a couple of black marks on that count and JFK gets a whole page that is all black, as well.  So what, again?  Ronald Reagan was divorced but I never heard any arguments over his “character”.  Sure lots of disagreements over his policies, but were such policies driven by how he treated his ex wife?

 

I believe character does count in all of our Presidents.  But for sure it is not the type of behavior that is called a “character flaw” today in their private lives.  I see Herb Cain with a man of very strong “presidential-like” character in terms of his resolve and forcefulness.  But look what happened to him.  I think we lost a good candidate over those other “character” debates.

 

I want a STRONG man to be my President and yours as well.  I want to know where he really stands on matters that count, not some wishy washy politicians that stands all over the place depending on who he is talking to.  If a man wants to form a “rainbow”, I want to know exactly which colors make up his “rainbow” and how he will UNITE all the colors therein to form a full spectrum of all the colors, not just his chosen ones.

 

And that “rainbow” consists of a lot more than “colors”.  It should combine all the socio-economic, defense, entitlement (for exactly who) and a host of other things.  Who as our next President will UNITE America, not further divide it?  That is the kind of character that matters to me.  Good character of the sort about which I speak is demonstrated in great LEADERSHIP, not what a man does in his bedroom.

 

Ike was a great wartime leader but he “fooled around” on Mamie during the war.  So what?  Had MLK lived a full life he MAY have been a great AMERICAN leader and not just one for a downtrodden slice.  But we will never know that for sure, now.

 

The past President with the most “character” as we seem to want today may well have been Jimmy Carter.  Do you want HIM back today?   Heck, he admitted to depravity for reading (or looking at the pictures in) Penthouse magazine, for crying out loud.  Had he spent all his time as President simply looking at pictures of naked women, he would have been a far better President, perhaps, than he was!!

 

Yes, character counts for any President, but we best decide which type of “character” we are looking for in our debates.

THE GOP DILEMMA

THE GOP DILEMMA

 

And a HUGE dilemma it is for the GOP, now.  Romney versus Gingrich, establishment versus insurgent, moderation versus hard line rhetoric, money versus message, and a host of other differences between the two men, only one of which will now win the GOP nomination to run against President Obama in November 2012.

 

Dan Blatz, a Washington Post columnist says it much better than I can.  Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-vs-gingrich-highlights-gop-unease/2012/01/22/gIQAF35KJQ_story.html?hpid=z1&sub=AR  if you are so inclined.

 

He muses among other things over who BETTER could bring the GOP to closure in real unity behind one candidate.  He speaks of being able to bridge the gap in GOP politics, not yet national politics, to bring the very disparate wings of the GOP together.  Daniels, Halley Barbour, Huckabee, Christy are all part of that bridge, in his view.  Jeff Bush and Mario Rubio are included as well, based on their ability to win elections and govern effectively in a diverse state such as Florida.

 

Romney in particular seems to be moving the focus of his campaign now.  He has begun to attack Gingrich as a FAILED LEADER, considering his “resignation in disgrace” as the Speaker of the House and the ethics investigation years ago.  His claim is that the GOP members in the House and Senate, all of course Washington insiders, rebelled against Gingrich’s style of leadership.  He for sure has a point in such attacks.

 

Will Gingrich in the White House have so many “grand ideas” that no one will be able to figure out which one to support?  Will Gingrich be all over the political map in grandiosity such that the nuances of policy and legislation get lost in the debates that really matter?  Great questions to ask, in my view, and then Romney has to show why he can do a much better job as a national leader than Gingrich.

 

Romney, if nothing else as both a business man and a governor has shown that he is a problem solver, not a strict ideologue.  Yes, in his “heart” he is against abortion, but when governing in a very liberal state he had to pick the battles he could win, despite his personal sentiments on a given issue.

 

To me that is a great way to govern, knowing when to fight and win or simply let less important issues go the way of the vast majority.  I saw an ad last night game about hunger.  It said “If you cannot feed a hundred people, then just feed one.”  Abortion is like that, in my view.  If you oppose abortion, then simply don’t have one or allow a member of your family to do so.

 

Of course that will not satisfy the zealots supporting choice or life, both of which want government to make universal decisions for all of us.  Well Baloney for this conservative that wants more than anything to get government FARTHER away from my personal choices and the way I make or spend money.

 

More than anything THAT is why I so strongly oppose the Sanctimonious Santorum, whom I now call the “little twerp” as well.  I don’t want a President that calls for “bedroom police” or telling me with the force of government how to make my own moral decisions.  In fact I soundly reject that whole wing of the GOP, the Rita Cromwells (local pro-life zealot) that routinely vote Republican. 

 

To me they are the ideological equivalents of blacks that vote Democrat all the time.  Neither faction has anywhere else to go with their ideology, which is NOT mainstream American ideology.  It is single issue ideology that should NOT sway the majority of sensible Americans concerned about ALL Americans, not just “slices”.

 

My greatest concern at this point is the battle for the 2012 “heart and soul” of the GOP, a candidate near the mainstream of American politics or one more to the right of that political center of gravity, will ultimately be destructive and drain the financial coffers of the GOP.

 

The BIG fight, in my view is over the political “heart and soul” of America, politically.  That will be the fight in the general election, a clear choice between something “right or left”, liberal (progressive) or conservative, individualism or collectivism, constitutionalism or “whatever we feel like today” in American government at the federal level.

 

I believe Romney may now have a key point to make in the Florida campaign.  He has admitted his mistake in letting his taxes be an issue, the failure to release his returns.  He is going to fix that now and publish old returns and provide estimates for his 2011 federal taxes.  Great!  Then let Gingrich try to make a big deal over how successful Romney has been in making money or using the free enterprise system to earn a lot of wealth.  That assumes of course that there is nothing close to being illegal in the returns released.

 

The debate of “you made too much money in your life” versus “you failed in a position of high leadership in government” is a debate that the first point SHOULD lose, hands down.

 

And frankly folks is that not the key point to debate in the general election between liberal and conservative?  America KNOWS that Obama’s policies and lack of leadership have done harm to this country.  And he of course will NOT run on his success, which is almost non-existent economically.

 

No the President will attack the GOP candidate and the entire Party as “fat cat” supporters, greedy, only caring about the rich, etc.  Sure sounds to me like how Gingrich is currently attacking Romney.

 

I for one would like to have that argument when it really counts in the general election, not between two men that both will call for limiting the size and scope of government to set America back on the right track to future prosperity, economically and as the leader of the free world.

 

How about this tact for the Tea Party zealots in the GOP.  Focus your strong ideology for the right wing of conservatism on your individual CONGRESSIONAL races.  Use the strength of the Tea Party to win a solid majority in both the House and Senate in November 2012.  You came close to doing so in 2010 so renew your focus of those races.

 

But back off the push to the far right in the race for the White House.  Your positions are too extreme for the majority of ALL Americans right now, in my view.  Put your money and your collective mouth as a wing of the GOP to sustain a solid majority in the House and do all you can to achieve at least a majority in the Senate.

 

If you do that and Romney is the President, I have all the confidence in the world that America will move back to the center or even somewhat to the right of center in politics.  And that is where we should be on January 20, 2013 after we BEAT OBAMA in the race for the White House.

 

And never fear, those of you on the left.  No way will the GOP win 60 seats in the Senate and you will be able to filibuster all you like, just as the GOP did to prevent “disaster” in 2009 and 2010 when Dems held the majority in all three “seats” of federal government.

 

Americans as a very strong majority do not want the extremes of either liberal or conservative government ideas to prevail.  I KNOW how that grates in the minds of the extremists on both sides, but it is a simple and prevailing fact in American politics for 237 years, in my view.

POWER VERSUS POWER

POWER VERSUS POWER

 

Like it or not, that is the world of geopolitics.  Actually it is the world of domestic politics as well.  And for sure, because “war is politics by other means” military power comes into play WELL BEFORE WARS EVER START.  If you disagree with that view, then read no further because you sure won’t agree with anything else I write herein.

 

“Gentle persuasion” is in itself Power, the power of gentle persuasion, the power of pointing out right and wrong, gains and losses, or other “gentle” discussions of going one way or the other.  Parents, good parents, do so all the time and so do countries in their diplomatic outreach to other nations.  Many problems around the world are solved, geopolitically, in such a manner, but of course such never makes the headlines or even the “back page” of news or TV.  It is simply routine, and thus boring, diplomacy.

 

But sometimes gentle persuasion, showing understanding and respect, as in a parenting (or diplomatic) situation is not enough.  Diplomatically “discussions” move to “frank discussions” and the temperature in the rooms around governments involved goes a few degrees higher.

 

Once at that point when disputes are involved, a more aggressive form of power comes into play.  Everyone at the table, parents or diplomats understand already how “big” the other party might be in terms of power available, at least on a macroscopic level.  If the United States becomes involved with say Yemen, everyone there knows who the “big guy” is.  But how much power the “big guy” will exert becomes the big question.  And the game moves upward to test those limits.

 

How important is the issue, how far will one side go before giving up a few options, what is the bottom line for each side, that is when no further options be given up all become important questions.  Diplomats and good parents know quite well how to read those signs from another country or a stubborn/angry child.

 

But of course sometimes frank discussions fail to resolve the issue.  Particularly in geopolitics both sides simply leave the table and await further developments.  That usually does not happen between parents and kids however.  In such a case the matter is brought to a head and parents lay down sanctions.  OK, fine you are grounded.  End of discussion and the POWER of that sanction determines the outcome in the parenting dispute.

 

Not so geopolitically, most of the time.  In fact I have never heard of one country telling another that they are grounded.  I don’t think that is in the diplomatic dictionary.  But sanctions sure are in that dictionary and sometimes they are used, usually gradually applied in hopes both sides can return to “frank discussions” a step back from more intense confrontation.

 

Consider all the “frank discussions” going on in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  But when they became of no use to the United States, JFK slammed down a big sanction called a naval blockade.  And it worked.  Time was of the essence and he did not “fool around” with milder forms of sanctions, like we won’t send Cuba any gasoline or whatever.  Nope, he leapt into the breech so to speak and there we were on the brink of war.

 

Consider the Soviet position in the approach to our imposition of a naval blockade.  EVERYONE in the build up KNEW we had the naval power to do so, impose a blockade on Cuba.  As well EVERYONE knew   the Soviet Navy could not overcome that blockade.  The only question at the time is would the U.S. USE that power.

 

AFTER we applied that power the only question remaining is how far would the Soviets choose to go to make us back off.  Many options were open to them, particularly in Europe where THEIR land power dwarfed NATO land power at the time.  But they chose not to escalate further and the crisis was resolved.  POWER versus POWER and in that case we “won”.  But for sure it was scary and not a time to “blink”.

 

Well folks that is exactly where we are today vis a vive Iran.  We are at the point of POWER versus POWER and right now we are applying more POWER, economically.  For several decades we have tried the diplomatic approach and failed time and again to achieve a level of even “frank discussions”, much less gentle persuasion.

 

Thus some years ago we, along with our allies and even the UN got out a noose and put it around the neck of Iran.  It was first a very loose noose and no one became too worried about harming anyone.  But over the years, in a bipartisan manner we have tightened the noose around the neck of Iran and it is really starting to hurt and cause real harm, economically to Iran.

 

Now why did we choose to “get out a noose” years ago in the first place.  The first reason as I recall was over the Iranian “exporting of terrorism” into other Middle Eastern countries.   And of course they are still doing so, even more so today.  Look at Bahrain, Yemen and now Syria today while recalling what still goes on in Lebanon today and many yesterdays ago.  In fact many observers believe that is the BIGGEST STICK that Iran has in its bag of POWER, applying covert, terrorist type pressure on other countries.

 

In a sense that is the Iranian noose around the western neck, so to speak and they are doing all they can to tighten that one.  Again, POWER versus POWER.  And of course we have escalated our use of POWER, though most used to refer to it as “peaceful power”, because we and our allies do not want Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons.  For years we have said we would do so, use economic sanctions, and now we are doing it so it really hurts.

 

For sure there is very little power, economically, that Iran can apply to the western powers.  As well they are fairly isolated diplomatically with only Russia and China standing somewhere behind them.  But NO ONE is sure how far behind or close those two might be standing today.  Potential power versus actual power might be that situation.

 

So here we are today in our POWER (economic, military, diplomatic) versus their POWER (terrorism and military).  And our noose is much tighter than theirs at this point.  So what next we all ask and wonder?

 

Well in the extreme case, Iran could “go nuts” and try to apply its own military power to break the stalemate in escalation.  Their threatened next step, clearly stated is to close the Straits of Hormuz.  That is an attempt to use MILITARY power to apply economic disaster to the west (No more oil from the Persian Gulf).

 

 

In a sense such a crazy military move would be akin to the Soviet Union trying to impose a naval blockade on the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The Soviet navy could never make such military be effective however.   As well, Iran on its own can no more close the Straits of Hormuz and KEEP them closed for more than a week or so IF WE choose to respond with our current naval and airpower alone (no land power needed).  Iran knows that and we know that.

 

 

 

So what next, again?

 

 

 

Right now President Obama has called their bluff regarding the threatened closure of the Straits.  Right after they issued the threat he sent an aircraft carrier and one cruiser right past their noses in those Straits as a “show of force”.  Obama did not in any way blink when Iran made their threats of closure.

 

 

 

And now every arm chair diplomat, economist or military tactician is wringing their hands over “what next”.  Obama has also for now at least NOT backed off on the current tightness of his noose.  Sanctions are proceeding as planned so far.  But many are now questioning that approach, keeping the noose tight.

 

 

 

Well guess what, folks, IF we now loosen our noose, even a little, that is a big BLINK in a POWER versus POWER situation.  Blink now, by loosening current or proposed sanctions and we go right back to where we began this latest confrontation, lesser power versus lesser power, but still with HUGE Power available, later on to Iran.  That new and later power is of course NUCLEAR power, something no Middle Eastern country (except Israel) has ever achieved and we are trying to prevent.

 

 

 

Iran has nowhere near the power to pull a “Hitler” (invade Poland).  At least before even attempting such an armed excursion outside of its territorial limits (even Iraq), Iran would have to pull another “Hitler” and sign a treaty with Russia or China to bring them (at least one of them) to stand by their side, not behind them.  I don’t think that will happen, do you, an alliance of sorts, including military power, with Russia and/or China, and Iran.  Not for a long while in my view.

 

 

 

Now remember all you folks calling for “peaceful” means to urge Iran to come into the fold of the international community and not try to gain nuclear weapons.  We have been using such “peaceful” means for a long while now.  And THIS President, not President Bush, has gone further in a “peaceful” attempt, but still a tighter “peaceful choke hold”, to achieve western objectives.

 

 

 

The loudest cry against such longer term U.S. application of power (NOT REAL POWER), is from a GOP Presidential candidate saying our efforts to prevent Iran from going “nuclear” make no sense and we should just stop trying and let Iran do as Iran sees fit in terms of having nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

Some people, maybe a lot, agree with that complete change in U.S. efforts over several decades to “contain” Iran.  But I don’t think any next President will heed such advice.

 

 

 

To me it seems we have three choices at the moment.  We could loosen the noose” on proposed sanctions and return to the status quo before this last round of sanctions was negotiated.  In other words, “blink”.

 

 

 

We could just keep the tightness of the noose as now agreed upon by our allies and let Iran make the next move.

 

 

 

Or we could escalate even more by tightening the noose even further, in many different ways, some suggested by Gingrich in particular.  No, he is NOT saying go to war now with Iran or “bomb” Iran’s nuclear facilities.  If you listen carefully you will hear him call for more “peaceful” but “covert” things like flooding Iran with cell phones.  My, my.  Would Iran go to war if we gave all the citizens of Iran an Iphone to communicate with the outside world?  Generate a little “Arab Spring” like POWER on the Iranian government.

 

 

 

How about providing some satellite “power” into Iran to allow greater worldwide internet access?  Is such possible?  I don’t know but it sure sounds like an idea to consider.

 

 

 

And then of course there is the real covert activity of which we are quite capable.  Someone is doing it right now in Iran by killing nuclear scientists.  I seriously doubt we are behind such at the moment but who knows of sure.  Is it an option, you bet it is?  Did not Iran just try a similar but unsuccessful attempt in DC not long ago except the target was a Saudi, a country that will do all it can to eliminate Iran as a power broker in the Middle East.

 

 

 

So a Saudi, Israeli, maybe even Iraqi motorcycle rider attaching bombs to passing cars today?  Who knows but should we be raising Cain over such actions, today?  I think we should sit quietly and watch what happens next.  My point of course is we can play the covert power game just as well or better than Iran if they choose to fight in such a manner.  And un-American as it sounds, we can say, “WHO US?” when Iran accuses us of such deeds.

 

 

 

Remember it is POWER versus POWER and both sides can do so.

 

 

 

So there, in my view, is where we are today and the various and many options available to us for the future.  Now why do we have such options?  Well simply stated, is we have developed and sustained the POWER, diplomatically, economically and militarily to still prevail when challenged.  Right now all it takes is the vision and will power to achieve our goals.

 

 

 

I would also suggest that President Obama has a wealth of power, of all sorts, today, because BUSH (and others) gave it to him on Jan 20, 2009.  Thank you President Bush, and others for providing us the power today.  Hopefully we will not diminish it in the near term so the next President no longer has all the options currently held by President Obama.

 

 

 

But let Obama does as now he seems to be proposing a la cuts in the military, well good by Straits of Hormuz at least in about 10 years if his views prevail.  Sure hope we are no longer dependent on Persian Gulf oil at that time!!

 

 

 

We are seeing a real geopolitical power struggle encompassing far more that Iran and the United States.  Much of the world’s current supply of oil is at stake.  The balance of power between Sunni Arabs and Persian Shias is also at stake.  How the Arab Spring turns out is at stake.  And relations between the United States, Russia and China are at stake.  It is geopolitics on a grand scale, perhaps not seen since the lead up to WWI and WWII.

 

 

 

And in particular, like before WWI, there are “trip wires” all over the place.  Tensions are now high enough that a simple error or act could cause escalation to the actual point of war, a relatively small and quick war at sea in and around the Straits or Hormuz, or something much larger.

 

 

 

Oh, that is too dangerous many in America now say.  And such geopolitics is not the way America wants to conduct foreign affairs as well.  Well folks the Cold War was an even grander scale of global geopolitics and we won that one.

 

And please don’t forget why we chose, in a bipartisan way, to proceed down this road with Iran.  First stop their export of terrorism, which we have not done, and now stop their acquisition of nuclear weapons.  If we decide to now back off in our pursuit of such objectives, consider the consequences ten years from now.  Iran will still be exporting terrorism on an increasing scale AND they will have nuclear weapons to hold us at bay.

 

 

 

Consider what Saudi Arabia might do with such a change in the balance of power in the Mideast if the above were to occur.

 

 

 

Equally as well, in ten years if President Obama has his way with defense cuts, we will not have the naval power to keep the Straits of Hormuz open in any case.

 

 

 

At that point the POWER versus POWER calculations become almost upside down from today it seems to me.  Bottom line is the country must listen very carefully, to Ron Paul and his way, the President’s current path, or changes to the current path one way or the other for a GOP President.

 

 

 

Simple domestic politics should NOT be the deciding factor in such a complex problem and one should NOT take one minute sound bites as facts to make a decision.  It is too complex for such trivial discussion to dominate American decisions at a critical point in time, geopolitically.

 

 

 

For me, I take the view, for now, that we keep the noose at its current level of “choking”.  As well we should continue to “show the flag (or SEA POWER) that have and must maintain in the region.  Then sit back and let Iran take the next step.  We KNOW what we have in terms of POWER and so do they.

 

 

 

All they can really do at this point is hope that we “blink” and back down with the POWER already being applied.  Or they can “go crazy” and hope we double blink and hide.  Hitler did exactly that (he made England blink over Austria) and look what happened a year or so later.

 

 

 

As a final comment, I hope you note the lack of the use of the word Israel in most of this essay.  This is OUR fight right now and we are not so engaged simply to protect Israel.  Nope, the stakes are much higher than simply Israel right now.

 

 

OUR GREATEST STRATEGIC THREAT

OUR GREATEST STRATEGIC THREAT

 

To me it is DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.  Ok, a possible nuclear attack would be more devastating for sure in a moment’s notice.  But deterrence against such attacks, capable of being delivered today ONLY by Russia or China is remote.  The loss of foreign oil supplies is not at all remote however.  Just close the Straits of Hormuz for a week and watch gas prices double at the pump, in a heartbeat.

 

Oh, my, Anson, you mean DEBT is not our biggest threat?  You have been warning of the “cliff” for so long I thought that was all you were concerned about.  That is what the EC would say, for sure, but he never comes “over here” any longer and if he tries it “over there” I am always around, “lurking” and commenting as well to keep him straight (which is impossible, I admit).

 

I hope I need not go into a lengthy discussion about “what if” foreign oil stops flowing into America.  I leave that for you to figure out.  Let it just be said by me,  OMG!  Turn off the cars, baby and maybe even some of the lights, as well.

 

So what to do about that big threat, how big, I leave it to you to decide?

 

Step one, no more oil fired electrical power generation in this country in say five years.  Convert such power stations to coal or natural gas, period, as a first step and pay the increased electrical bills while doing so.

 

Second start NOW to build nuclear power generating stations.  Start digging NOW and obtainwork permits and licsences through an accelerated federal and state review process while digging.  Within five to ten years we could have enough new nuclear stations on line to ELIMINATE the need for any oil fired stations.  As well if the environmentalists scream loud enough about Global Warming, we can start down the path to eliminate coal fired plants in the mid-term, say 10 – 20 years from now.

 

Someday, MAYBE, solar, geothermal or wind power MAY create enough energy to reduce the number of nuclear generating stations in the distant future.  Fine.  Let the technology develop to do so and see what happens.  BUT, don’t hang our hats on such new technology now.  We don’t have time to wait.

 

So that takes care of electrical power generation, near, mid and far term.  But what about transportation?

 

Tougher problem for sure as we will not be building nuclear powered cars anytime soon!

 

Well right now I say HYBRIDE vehicles, as fast as we can make them.  At least we move to 50 mpg instead of the current 20 or so.  That reduces our demand for gasoline by over one half, in a heartbeat, so to speak.

 

But how you ask can we get consumers to buy such smaller cars today.  OK, liberals, I join you and call for a “whooping” increase in the federal tax on gasoline.  Use the money to build better transportation infrastructure that you have been crying about for a long time.  But please, no more investments in Solyndra.  You, the government did not know what you were doing in that case and I doubt you could improve much in the future, picking and choosing companies to develop technology.

 

We also know right now how to use Hydrogen power for vehicles.  But that takes huge infrastructure changes in refueling stations to make it happen across the country.  There is another opportunity to use the windfall gasoline taxes.  Build or incentivize the building of Hydrogen stations where current gasoline stations currently exist, across the country.  Tough job but doable at least for the mid-term, 10 – 20 years from now.

 

Acutually, in my view, Hydrogen powered vehicles is a long term solution.  So in this case, fix the mid-term problem and you have the long term problem solved as well with nothing “fancy” needed.  Nope it just requires someone to make a decision then work hard to implement it.  Government can FORCE that decision by driving up the price of gasoline through taxes to make consumers and producers of other fuels (batteries and hydrogen) cost effective in the future.

 

Just think what might happen, just in the Middle East if a U.S. President stood, as JFK did 50 years ago.  Instead of going to the moon, this time our President would say “In ten years no foreign oil will enter the U.S., ever again, period”.  OK, Kings X Canada.  Build the pipeline which I now authorize and we’ll let you keep pumping oil to us but only for transportation.  And we will help by building some refineries “up north” to protect our Sand Mountains at the same time!!!

 

Opps, I must ask, do we still know how to build a refinery??  I hope so but it has been a while since we have done so.

 

One brave speech, one brave step for America by one President.  Then kick the EPA and anyone else in the pants, which any President can do (Heck, appoint ME as the head of the EPA) to make it happen.  Sounds a lot easier, technically, that flying to the moon.

 

Oh, I forgot.  CUT OFF any subsidies to “Big OIL” right NOW, unless those subsidies go into U.S. oil and natural gas exploration.  That alone saves us maybe a few $ Billion each year as we proceed with vision and courage to a new frontier of energy for America.

 

Oh yeah, one other thing.  Get the heck out of the way, Senator Reid and open Yucca Mountain.

NOW A REAL DEBATE, ALMOST

NOW A REAL DEBATE, ALMOST

 

Rick Perry has now dropped out of the race for the GOP nomination.  All that is left to be done, and SC will do so, is for Santorum to drop out as well.  Thanks, for all the sermons guys, but it is time for the GOP to make a real decision, be moderate or be really tough from the right (without all the religion thrown in) to decide whom to run against Obama this year.

 

Said another way, we will have two men and an idiot to choose from as GOP voters in the primaries (probably after this Saturday’s primary in SC).

 

I for sure will be watching what now unfolds, intensely, very intensely.  HOPEFULLY the two men (forget the idiot) will stop the BS and get down to the nuances of their respective policy debates on the economy, defense spending, Iran (right now), entitlement reform and the other real issues to be decided in the coming general election.

 

No more “low blows” guys.  No more “vulture capitalist” snide remarks.  No more sound bites against one another for Dems to replay ad naseaum in the coming months.  Just good, sound policy differences so we can all within the GOP and conservative community make our decisions.

 

Thank you Governor Perry for a wise decision.  And for Senator Santorum, I hope you make the same one very quickly.

 

As for the idiot, Ron Paul, just keep it up until you really lose the primaries.  But if you even think about a third party option, I hope a predator drone finds you real fast!!!

 

IF it comes down to only Mitt and Newt, I will withdraw my full support for Mitt and await the final outcome, even if it takes going to the convention in August to make that final decision.

IRAN

IRAN

 

I attempt herein to set the broad stage of our interests in Iran, both as a matter of national interest to the United States and to the Middle East region itself.

 

First I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read http://app.en25.com/e/es.aspx?s=1483&e=421192&elq=dcd196d6f6d0493c901dc7f6418c880b.  It is the most comprehensive essay (contained in the magazine STRATFOR) that I have seen in a long time on this subject.  It sets the stage to view the conflict currently raging just within the Middle East between Shia and Persian Iran and the Sunni and Arab States surrounding it.

 

I have written a proposed editorial for the Globe on this subject but wait to see whether it makes the “cut”.  It is almost impossible to address this issue in sufficient depth in a short editorial.  I expand on it herein however.

 

Go back to the 1500’s in Europe and the initiation of huge geopolitical conflict that raged for at least a century between Protestants and Catholics.  Then consider the Shia and Sunni conflict in the Middle East today within such a context.  In my view there are great similarities.

 

No, I am not an expert on the theology of any religion, much less the differences between Shia and Sunni Muslim views.  But I do know they are huge.  Just the 8 year war between Iraq and Iran is enough to demonstrate such geopolitical differences with religious views being at the source of the arguments.

 

As well of course there are the ethnic differences between Persians and Arabs.  Those differences PRECEDE the formation of the Islamic faith, probably even before a western Greece entered the stage of history.

 

Persian and Arab, Shia and Sunni are a cauldron of differences and have been in play for a very long time.  And within the context of just the Middle East we see them today, in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria to name just a few.

 

Think of it as similar to Catholic Spain sending the Armada to attack Protestant England as the type of geopolitical battle with religion, regional (European) power, commerce, you name it, all up for grabs in the 15^th and 16^th Centuries in Europe.

 

Today in the Middle East there are two centers of gravity, the real focal points of power, competing in the current conflict.  They of course are Iran and Saudi Arabia, Shia and Sunni.  The lynchpin of such power is OIL, which provides the wealth to obtain economic and military power to overwhelm the other side.

 

Is it thus any wonder why Iran today will do all that it can to exert Shia influence to capture ALL Iraqi power in government, simply to have total control over Iraqi Oil for a starter.  Saddam held dictatorial sway over the Shia population in Iraq for decades and now that he is gone, the power base of the entire Iraqi government is up for grabs.  And Iran is grabbing all it can get, for sure, today in Iraq.

 

The same power struggle is going on in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen today as well and Saudi Arabia is the source of resistance to such Shia incursions into traditional Sunni controlled countries.

 

And of course the United States has a role to play in such a conflict and we are struggling to decide how to do so.  “What if” only for an example, the U.S. had been a major power in the world in the late 16^th Century and at least as a government was “areligious”, meaning we took no side in the arguments between Catholics and Protestants.  How would we have acted in Europe during say the 30 year war, or in supporting either England or Spain when the Armada set sail against England?

 

Would or should we have “taken a side” in such long and brutal conflict or simply sat on the sidelines and watched?  Of course OIL was not an issue in the 16^th Century.  But for sure it is today.  So how does OIL affect our decisions in the Middle East today, given our own need for the oil?  As well consider if today we needed NO OIL from anywhere in the Middle East today.  How would that affect our foreign policy in that region today?  (Think Keystone Pipeline decision as just an example of our confusion, today)

 

I leave those questions for readers to consider and decide for themselves for the moment and move to the next broad point to consider for the U.S. today in our current arguments with Iran to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

 

Note that the FIRST issue above was NOT addressed in the clip recently shown on the EC blog.  That panel ONLY addressed U.S. actions and debates over what to do to prevent Iran from “going nuclear”.  I must as well note that IF IRAN became a nuclear power, alone (except Israel), in the Mideast how that would affect the current balance of power between Persian/Shia and Arab/Sunni States.  Self-evident is the answer to that question, in my view.

 

The clip I mentioned on the EC blog was a panel discussion on “Good Morning Joe” recently.  Bob Woodward, David Ignatius and Z. Brzezinski were the panelists.  All three expressed grave concerns over our current efforts to “choke” Iran, economically.  They also pointed out how dangerous Iran could be if they chose to take military action in response to economic sanctions.  There was much “gnashing of teeth” in their concerns.

 

Woodward for example went all the way back to Japanese decisions to bomb Pearl Harbor because we were cutting off oil and rubber supplies to Japan, before they decided to strike back militarily against the United States.  He then postulated the reaction if Iran suddenly decided to close the Straits of Hormuz to oil traffic to the world.

 

Certainly all three panelists raised appropriate questions to be considered over how hard we should “choke” Iran with sanctions and attempts to isolate them from the international community.  But, unfortunately, there was NO ONE on the panel to discuss options to “choke” Iran even harder, short of military actions.

 

What if for example an articulate Saudi Prince had been on the same panel?  Whole different range of debate would have ensued for sure.  As well what if Gingrich had been present as well?  Again the range of options addressed would have been much broader, in my view.

 

But of course the EC selected that clip as if the panel was the sole authority on the subject with all arguing, essentially, against more strident positions on the part of the U.S. today to prevent Iran for gaining nuclear weapons.

 

For example the President recently cancelled a joint Israeli/United States “exercise” to demonstrate our military power in the region.  Gingrich called that a terrible response on the part of the President.  So obviously the EC tried to use the “clip” in an attempt to show how “crazy” Gingrich would be if he became the next President.  Pretty superficial attempt on the part of the EC in my view and I call him on such trivial attempts to diminish legitimate debate on a very important issue.

 

For reasons that certainly can be argued against, President Obama and his administration have decided that Iran must NOT be allowed to gain nuclear weapons.  They have instead chosen to tighten the economic noose around the neck of Iran to prevent such weapons to be introduced into the balance of power calculations going on in the Middle East.

 

So the question now becomes “how tight do we (and our allies) make that noose that we hold around Iran’s neck”.

 

NO ONE is suggesting that we go to war with Iran right now.  NO ONE is suggesting that we bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, “surgically” right now.  But some are suggesting we NEVER disavow such future options as well.  And even the President recently exhibited a show of force in the region by sending in an aircraft carrier to show the flag and its awesome power, about 10 miles off the Iranian coastline in the Straits of Hormuz.

 

Was that “too much” power presented?  Should he not have done so, make a “show of force” to someone being “choked”?  Such points can certainly and reasonably be argued either way and the “clip” shown by the EC did not come close to the range of arguments needed for laymen to understand the dilemma faced in that volatile region, today.

 

Woodward said it best, in my view, on the panel.  Our situation with Iran, today, is very complex, more complex than since the revolution that put in place the theocracy in Iran long ago.  We are now moving to a POWER vs. POWER situation between the U.S. and Iran, military power, nuclear power, economic power, and all the other levers of national power that might be brought to bear.

 

Oh, most say, those Iranians are crazy and we cannot push them too far.  Well Hitler was also crazy and England did not push him far enough it seems, initially, and look what resulted.  And yes, in my view, our situation in Iran today COULD be the spark to ignite WWIII, which no one wants.

 

No doubt, this debate over how much to “choke” Iran or how far to “back off” from what we are doing today will be a huge debate in the upcoming general election.  That is unless Iran “shoots from the hip” and decides to close the Straits of Hormuz using military power BEFORE our election next fall.

 

But if they try that stunt, a real act of WAR, we will in all likelihood be in ANOTHER WAR, at least from the seas, to keep those Straits open for the world.  My supposition is that President Obama COULD NOT tolerate such military action by Iran and he would be forced to respond with massive sea and land based airpower as well as nuclear submarine and carrier based sea power, to keep the Straits open.

 

So the argument today is how to prevent such a catastrophe but still prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.

 

OR we could really change course as suggested by Ron Paul and say “So what, if Iran gets nuclear weapons”.  Well read the above again to answer that question for yourself.

 

In closing, I assert that this is a very complex situation today and the nuances of our approach to Iran and the region are VERY IMPORTANT to consider.  Such nuances cannot be fully debated in a “clip” particularly when all sides are not present in such a “clip”.

 

I respect those three panelists as men of substance in understanding foreign policy, a VERY complex subject.  But there is much more to consider and I have tried above to inject such consideration into our “little” local discussion about geopolitics, nuclear weapons, Iran, the entire Middle East and where America must stand in that very broad range of policy considerations.