Episode 78: Sanction This: Political Chess Games

Before I begin, I have an announcement: The L Comment is 1 year old today!! This blog is my 5th try at blogging and this is the first one to bear fruit. I want to thank all the readers of this blog for reading!! This blog has accomplished my main goal of having civilized political discourse with people from many political persuasions. And may I say, the kind of dialogue has FAR exceeded expectations. You guys are awesome, and I thank you very much for coming back for more debates!

Onto the news of the day, it seems Iran has come clean with a new nuclear facility being built. Now if Bush said Iran was developing a nuclear program and not Iraq, we’d have to re-evaluate history because he’d be right. I’m not surprised by this, and I doubt anyone in Washington is either, because all the candidates of the election brought up this possibility during the 2008 campaign. Furthermore, we already knew about one facility and its location, information that Obama has shared with Russia and China to get them on board to place sanctions on Iran.

From the same CNN article linked above, this passage is key:
"It is not at all surprising that Iran would want this news to come out now," Ingram said. "It strengthens their hand."

The fact that Iran has proactively informed the world helps Iran diplomatically in conducting nuclear negotiations, Ingram said, adding that to characterize this second facility as a covert operation is misleading. The Iranians have yet to start production at Qom and are revealing it before that happens.

"It will be seen as an indication that they are willing to play by the rules, and this will make it more difficult to persuade them to abandon enrichment," Ingram said.

I’m not a doomsday conspiracy theorist by any means, but we have to read between the lines here. Iran’s aggressive approach has failed every single time they’ve tried it. Now with the US, China, and Russia in the fledgling stages of a alliance here, Iran is backed against the corner. Typically when the enemy is backed against a corner, they fight harder than ever before. As Muhammad Ali proved, the rope-a-dope strategy works pretty well…

This is how I see this playing out. Iran pretends to cooperate. They follow all the rules, abide by the sanctions, and the world let’s go of the leash a bit. Meanwhile, in a cave somewhere, weapons are being developed. Now if they attack, their target will likely be Israel. If this happens, we have to defend our allies. If our relations hold up, we’ll have Russia and China, as well as England, France, and Canada as allied nations. Iran will have Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq as allies. That’s going be a really tough fight.

This development has made me revisit my previous post. Afghanistan is no longer about the Taliban. If this impending war happens, Afghanistan is going to be a very important piece. The equivalent of the center squares of a chess board. Having Afghanistan as an ally gives the US Allies a strong position on the battlefield. If the Taliban take over the region, a war with the Middle East will prove to be very difficult. Thus, in light of this story, I think it may not be a bad idea to fight the Afghan war because all of a sudden, we have a very good reason for winning that war. The objective is simple: eradicate the Taliban.

I hope to God that I’m wrong and this is all gross over analysis. However, if I’m right, or even 50% right, it is very possible the 2,000 year struggle in the Middle East may be over in my lifetime. WWIII may very well be called Jihad for real, perhaps Crusade II. The main advantage would be that this war is against countries, not ideology. There are parameters for victory and failure and its nation vs. nation, rather than nation vs. terrorism.

read more...

Episode 77: P.S. We’re In a War

If you take a look at the news programs and blogs of late, the topic du jour is healthcare, and rightly so, as we are nearing a vote that could have a profound impact on the lives of Americans for several generations to come. Diving deeper into the subject, we find a lot of hyperbole from both sides of the isle, using buzzwords like “death panels” and “if we don’t reform healthcare, you’ll die faster” etc. Taking a glance at the blogosphere I took a hiatus from for a bit, it seems no one is talking about the fact we’re in a war. And generals want MORE troops!

I’m having a lot of trouble understanding what a victory in Afghanistan looks like. Does it mean we establish a free democracy there that the people don’t want? Do we secure an oil interest that doesn’t exist in that country? Do we capture a rugged, mountainous region, with awful weather (really, really hot or really, really cold), and surrounded by enemies in each direction to gain some kind of tactical advantage?

I’m of the opinion that we need to cut our losses and just bring our troops home. After eight years, a few blown opportunities to catch the true enemy Osama bin Laden, and the non-existent support from home and abroad, there is no victory to be had in Iraq. Let’s say we found Osama tomorrow and he caught him, hung him, and put his head on a rusty iron platter (because silver would be too good for him), then what? Is the War on Terror, sorry, the War on Al Qaeda, over at that point? Did we really spend $10 Billion to capture and kill one man? As far as I’m concerned, bin Laden is a target of opportunity at this point.

I have good news however. I know how to win the war on whatever you want to call it. The answer is so simple, you may kick yourself for not thinking of it sooner. The answer is to flat out leave Iraq. This is what happens when we do: The Taliban will declare our withdrawal as a victory. From an article from the NY TIMES, Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban was recently reported saying “Today we have strong determination, military training and effective weapons,” the message said. “Still more, we have preparedness for a long war, and the regional situation is in our favor. Therefore, we will continue to wage jihad until we gain independence and force the invaders to pull out.” Given Afghanistan’s nearly perfect track record of thwarting all forces that have invaded them for the past 2000 something years, I’m inclined to agree with him.

In response to our leaving, most of the “alliance” will also pull out. The Taliban will not attack America because they got what they want – the removal of western influence from their land. The Taliban will complete take over Afghanistan. Then one of two things will happen, their regime will be so suppressive, the world will have to rejoin the war effort under the banner of human rights (ie. WWII and Kosovo) or Afghans will spent about 5 years being miserable. If scenario 1 happens, the world will be dragged into another unwinnable war until a smart guy like me concludes we need to leave, and the process starts again and moves to scenario 2 – the Afghans will engage in a civil war against the Taliban. The people will rebel the oppression, and crush the Taliban forever. Then a coalition led by the U.S. will come back in a humanitarian mission to rebuild Afghanistan, establish a working democracy, and other nations in the region, empowered by Afghanistan’s success will follow suit.

The main point is, victory from oppressors have never been achieved from outside forces extinguishing the problem for the oppressed. From the Battle of Thermopylae, to the storming of the Bastille, to War of 1812, or from The American Revolution, Civil War, and Civil Rights movement, no struggle has been solved from the help of external powers. The same is true for Afghanistan. It has been said there’s no such thing as good wars, but there is such a thing as necessary ones. I think the only way to truly secure American security interests is to leave and let them fight their own battle. They will win, because the oppressor always loses in the end. We will win because we’ll have an ally and will be safer from terrorist attacks. The world will win because young people want to blog and twitter, and new governments in the region will rise that will allow their people to do those things.

Let’s refocus our lens back to the present day. We talk about how much money healthcare is going to cost, but I don’t hear those detractors talking about the budgetary black hole of the war in Afghanistan. The generals there want more troops which mean more money. We’re fighting an enemy that is damn near unbeatable with no real understanding of what victory means. It makes very little sense with respect to our domestic interests to continue to invest in a war with no end and no exit strategy. Wars cannot be fought unless the economy is in war mode. This means domestic production of tanks, armor, guns, bullets, etc. Wars shouldn’t be a part of the budget ledger like Medicare, Cash for Clunkers and office supplies. If we are unwilling to commit this economy into a war economy, then we should be equally unwilling to participate in this fruitless campaign. This doesn’t negate the tremendous work our soldiers do each and every day. It doesn’t make their deaths and injuries in vain. On the contrary, our missions have given us greater clarity on how to proceed. Perhaps this endless war in the Middle East may have a light at the end of the tunnel in our lifetime.

read more...

Episode 70: Change We Could Believe In

There is a problem in America. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to live these days. Food costs too much, money is hard to come by, if you’re sick and uninsured, you’re screwed, and every solution seems to be a short term fix. There is a lot of talk in the Obama administration about looking into the future, and I do believe they are doing that. However, their eyes are so far down the road sometimes, it seems they lose track of the short term goals that need to be accomplished in order to achieve the long term goals. Let’s look at some things that have happened in my short absence:

Cash for Clunkers
A government program to entice people to trade in their cars to buy fuel efficient ones by receiving a $4500 credit on a trade for an old car. The program cost $1 Billion dollars, and it ended a few days ago. Ford, Chrysler, and GM reported their inventory was, for the first time in a long time, very low which is great news. Is it likely those sales figures will sustain with the closing of the program? Probably not. If you give a mouse a cookie, it will eat it. In essence, we spent $1 Billion dollars to make far less than that on sales and fuel savings.

Healthcare
This debate is just about over. The democrats lost control of the message and never got it back. During the campaign, Obama made it personal. He told the story of his dying mother who was arguing with insurance providers on whether her treatment would be covered because of pre-existing conditions. That was a great place to start the debate. During the campaign, Obama weathered the accusations and slander storm by sticking to the personal matters – the single mother with 3 children who works three jobs and attends all the PTA meetings, the elderly couple who saw their life’s work vanish in the stock market crisis, the teacher who has to teach 45 children in a small classroom that is 60 years old and in terrible repair. Now, he is going on the attack, playing the blame game, pitting democrats against republicans, and pretty much abandoned the spirit of cooperation he promised.

While I’m thinking of it, wouldn’t make a lot of sense to give small businesses the money for healthcare? They could split the costs of healthcare to make it more affordable to small businesses, offer free healthcare to Americans 18 and under who have social security cards, and provide unemployment health insurance like we do with jobs. That way, every business HAS to have a healthcare plan (which would be private) so every working American has healthcare. Unemployed Americans file for free healthcare using the same conditions for unemployment – showing they are actively looking for work, make less than X amount of dollars, etc.

The Economy
Jobs are still being lost at alarming rates. He campaigned to create or save 3 million jobs by creating more jobs at home, reinvesting in our infrastructure, rebuilding our schools, paving the way for 21st century innovations, and getting broadband access to every American. Yet he wants to tax the rich, tax businesses (mostly the larger ones), and still hasn’t fully addressed the banking situation that makes it difficult for small business owners to operate their businesses. Let alone effectively tackling the healthcare issue to ease the burden off small business. There is no shame in a democrat lowering taxes for businesses, especially small businesses, as long as we make provisions to reform the system and close the loopholes that help people to unfairly and unjustly benefit from the system.

The War
I have a deep post coming up on the war very soon. I’d like to ask my readers, on a scale of 1 -10, 10 being the highest, how much do you care about catching Osama bin Laden at this point? Personally, he has been downgraded to a “Target of Opportunity.” We lost 76 of our brothers and sisters in arms since the new Afghanistan plan. The exit strategy is just as non-existent as it was with Bush. While I’d never suggest they are fighting this war for nothing, Obama is going the absolutely wrong way about this war. Oh yeah, we’re STILL in war aren’t we…

I’ll defer to Nate Silver and his bulls-eye-accurate polling abilities for the actual numbers, but living in New York again, I live amongst the richest and poorest in the country. Going strictly by unscientific observation, I have concluded:

There is an inverse relationship between those who favor Obama and those who don’t, such that the less money one makes the more they love Obama and conversely, the more money one makes the less the like Obama.

For the middle class, it depends on your region and socio-political philosophy. While I’m upset with Obama, I do think that with much fine tuning he can regain control of his agenda, because I personally believe in doing things for the common good. However if you are of the belief that one’s treasures are his own, and it is solely his choice to decide who to share with, you probably don’t like Obama. The good news is Obama’s policies are consistent with his actions for his whole political career. He has spent his political life as the defender of the little guy, trying to get them to a point where they can compete with those of higher socio-economic status. He was especially successful with this approach early in his career as a community organizer, and was able to translate those results in the Senate. However as president, he must realize that diminishing the socio-economic gap is not the way to long-term economic prosperity and longevity, it is instead a by-product of invigorating the middle class. We saw this in the 90s with Bill Clinton. Part of the reason why crime was so low in my city of New York was a lot of people had jobs! It wasn’t catering to the poor class that generate jobs, it was creating opportunities for lower-middle class people to create the jobs that employed the poor class, thus lifting them up into the middle class, and lifting the once lower-middle class up a bar as well!

Such government programs like clunkers for cash, or local city programs like Jobs Corps do stimulate movement in the lower echelon of the socio-economic chain, but government programs have never been a suitable way to garner long term improvement of unemployment. They were intended to be ways to train employees for better jobs in private enterprise. When a government program is not used as it was intended, it becomes a serious drain on the state, which is exactly the opposite of what we need right now. In order for Obama to achieve his vision, he needs to get the middle class in action and now! No more arguing, finger pointing, and partisan crap. I think we all want the same thing, so let’s put our heads together and make it happen, starting with getting private enterprise back in the fold.

read more...