Too Much, Too Soon And Matters Of More Consequence

Does anyone else think it is way too soon to pay attention to front runners in the Republican race?

Just a couple of days ago it was Romney.  He's gone.  Then it was Bush for about 32 seconds.  He's faded.  Now it's Paul Walker who until he gave a speech even people in Iowa didn't know who he is.

The men, and yes they are men rather than women, I'm interested in are at the I won't count it out stage and we're hearing little if anything from them.  That's just fine with me for a couple of reasons.

One it cuts down on the amount of time the Democrats will have to manufacture dirt and two, maybe the electorate won't be tired of them by the time the real race comes around.  Actually I hope there are some outliers in the Democrat Party too.  Any face other than Hillary and Biden would be a fresh face and one can hope with it would come with some fresh ideas too.  I have trouble believing every Democrat is wedded to Hillary though the current polls suggest this is in fact the case.

Back to the Republicans.  I don't understand why those who create disruption within party ranks don't understand the harm it does to their over all goals.  Or don't they really have any?  They are everything in themselves that they accuse the Democrats of being.  Obstinate to a fault.

Oh well, I'm not going to be following the rise and fall of potential candidates just yet.  I'm more interested in  what's going on in the world and how we're going to handle the turmoil. That's where the real concern is and unlike many of the candidates, it's not going to fade.

So, to the media, go ahead and continue to play enabler to the childish game of electoral politics.  The rest of us will find enough sources to keep informed about the real world - the one where the only game being played is which terrorist faction can make the U.S. look its worst.

If Not Us, Who?

There is a great column in today's NY Times  by Roger Cohen titled The Great Unraveling .  It is an unnerving summation of the world circumstance as it stands today.

It seems the world has ceased to know how to function in unity no matter  how dire the straits we face. The Russians have become aggressive,  Israel is in an uneasy cease fire with terrorists, Syria continues its civil war while the country implodes, the British are facing a major reshaping of their empire and our government is dithering about how much aid should be given to a region in dire need because one part of it hasn't formed a government of which it approves.

What has happened to us?  What difference what these people call themselves.  Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, The Islamic State, what ever!  They are all cut from the same piece of cloth.  Radical Islam. Their creed is all the same and eventually they will band together under one banner, that which is the most successful at achieving the goal they all share.

It isn't which group is more of a threat to us that should be the consideration.  It's the movement as a whole.  It must be destroyed and dithering doesn't get it done.  The way everyone is acting you'd think time is of no essence.  Heaven forbid we don't solve all the potential political ramifications before actually making a decision!

To Hell with politics.  Why can't we just do what's right.  The military has been quite vocal about what is needed.  The Powell Doctrine.  Hit hard, win and leave.  Win is the key word here.  No more pussy footing around, no more toying with populations.

The regional problems are going to remain.  They've been going on for centuries.  But we must let all those concerned within and outside of the region there is a limit as to what the civilized world will tolerate.

We will not tolerate madmen annihilating others merely because they believe differently when it comes to politics or religion.  We will not tolerate the capture, rape and selling of women. Nor the lashing of them nor stoning them to death. We will not tolerate the slaughter of innocent children because of their own or their parent's religion. We will not tolerate the inhuman executions of their captives, no matter nationality nor religion.

If they want to live in their tribal enclaves so be it.  We will not force democracy on them.  We will demand, however, that they emerge from their caves into the daylight of human decency and civilized behavior.

Should they continue to choose not to, we will eliminate them.  Pure and simple.  Expediently and timely.  You say war is uncivilized?  No.  What's uncivilized is the unwillingness to have the courage of our convictions.  Drastic actions call for drastic means.  Some one has to take charge.  It should be us leading the way.  Unfortunately it is not.  Courage is no longer in the vocabulary of politics.

And the enemy knows it.

Morsi Gets It!

I have yet to form a strong opinion on the whole of the Arab spring movement.  We have been witness to civilian uprisings, military crackdowns,  dictatorships falling and governments rising.

We've wanted people to have democratic elections and at times we've tried to influence them to no avail.  Sometimes we've seen our choice elected and disappoint.  We've seen others elected and surprise.

I think newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is one such.  There was much concern when he battled his own military for control.  There is concern that he is a member of the feared Muslim Brotherhood.  There was concern when it became known he was to attend the conference of non-aligned nations in Tehran.

The conference was of course a ploy by Iran to create an illusion of support against the crippling sanctions imposed because of its nuclear program, its support of Syria and its stand against Israel.

All I can say is Hallelujah, it failed.  In front of 120 countries Mr. Morsi condemned Syria's regime as 'oppresive and devoid of legitimacy'.  That is a pretty strong rebuke.  He went on to condemn all of the countries for their lack of intervention to stop it.

To emphasize what one can hope is a growing realization that things must change by their hand, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined in the condemnation of Tehran along with their threats to Israel and penchant for denying historical events - namely the Holocaust.

The Iranian media even went so far as to quit translating Mr. Morsi's comments and branded him as 'immature' and new at diplomacy.

Even though Iran has been elected to head the Movement for the next three years, there have been complaints about the cost considering the strain the sanctions have imposed.  Not that Ahmadinejad cares a whit about what the people think.  His hope was to negotiate oil deals with the delegates to ease their problems but success seems unlikely.

 Can it be that even rogue countries who don't like us any better than the Iranians finally recognize the poison in their midst?  Obviously Mr. Morsi does.

That leaves Iran with it's tried and true allies for what they're worth.  Venezuela, if Chavez lives.  Syria, if  al-Assad lives and the untested Kim Jong-un of North Korea. It's not a group I'd want to trust.  I'd expect they'd turn against me in a minute if it suited their purpose.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.  It would be the most promising action in decades if Iran's own neighbors brought it to heel.  Peace in the mid-east might then be more than wishful thinking.  If Obama is re-elected it will all be on their shoulders so they are indeed masters of their own fate.

The end of the tunnel may not yet be in sight, but the light from within seems to be coming from Mr. Morsi.  May he be successful in switching on the others.

We Have Nothing To Fear...But The Bush Administration

My more liberal friends, at least those who are still enthralled with President Obama, have continually admonished me to be patient ever since I began hedging my support.

The Obama administration has been in place for a few days shy of a year now. They own it all. Though the "Democratic strategists" who are often foils on the talking head shows don't seem to agree. Have you ever noticed that whenever asked a direct question they always fall back to what the Bush administration did? I've got a hot flash for them. The Bushies have been out of office for a year now!

Rather than "changing" what the Bushies did wrong, it seems to me they are continuing the same practices. Mainly, governing by fear. Take health care. Mandating that everyone buy insurance or face fines or jail time. If that isn't fear, I don't know what is! Add to that the uncertainty of a plan being put together behind closed doors that the President would like to have voted on the day Congress returns. That's darned scary!

That's pretty mild, however, when compared to the national security fiasco. Why is it the American public is being made to pay for their foul ups? It isn't the American public that didn't connect the dots. It was the administration! The Islamic radicals are not boarding planes in this country; they're coming from overseas. Yet we're being put through intrusive hoops of questionable value. It isn't the American public who had a Muslim Major counseling soldiers returning from combat. Counseling them about what? Killing Muslims! It was them!

Somehow they always manage to tie it back to the Bush administration. One thing they won't be able to tie back is the decision to try these Islamic extremists in our civilian courts. What if, just what if, one of them was to be acquitted? Maybe the underwear bomber. Due to inability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What we we do with him?

Sorry. This wouldn't even be close to a reasonable question if the Bush administration was still in power. No way. No how. I'm not defending Bush. I am saying Obama is proving to be very much the same. That to me is something to fear.

What Is The President Trying To Accomplish?

I really don't understand where the President is coming from. His missteps are becoming legendary in diplomatic circles. He bows to the wrong people. He declined to meet with the Dali Lama, he declined to join the King of Norway for lunch while in Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He snubbed Gordon Brown.

Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, he has returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British. This particular bust is from the British government's art collection and was lent to this country by Tony Blair as a sign of solidarity after 9/11. It sat in a place of honor in the Oval Office. Due to be returned after the end of Bush's administration, the British let it be known they'd like the Obama administration to keep it for the same reason. As a sign of solidarity. After all, they are our strongest ally in two wars, just as we were in the days of Churchill.

Bad manners? Yes and no. One, Obama looks to the European Commission as a stronger ally than individual countries. Our alliance with Great Britain is a relic, a thing of the past. Strange, since both France and Germany are not huge fans. It is Britain who has men fighting along side ours.

The second reason, and more troublesome, is a grudge. It seems Mr. Obama has a grudge against Britain for it's colonialist past. During this period his paternal grandfather was labeled a subversive in the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, detained and treated accordingly. That is somewhat akin to bearing a grudge against Great Britain for the Revolutionary War!

This from a man who has yet to send a cent to his family members who today live in an impoverished village in Kenya. It seems contrived.

I look at the support we've gotten from European nations as a whole versus what we get consistently from Great Britain and wonder if we're going down the wrong foreign policy path one more time. We picked the wrong side in the internal business of Honduras, the Cubans are unhappy with us again, Iran is seeing how ineffectual we are with quelling North Korea's nuclear ambitions thereby ignoring pleas for negotiations.

Over and above those implications, there is world image. He is no longer viewed as the super star he was. I find myself wondering if he is arrogant or ignorant of the ways of the world. Either way, someone needs to clue him in. Or does he choose not to listen?

Kaboom?

We misstepped in Honduras big time. Obama is getting ready for his photo op of the week which will be at West Point to explain his decision on troop levels for the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile the three musketeers of bad behavior are scurrying around right under our nose. One can only wonder what they're up to.

Who are these pesky fellows? The Castro boys, their student to the South, Hugo Chavez, and the new kid on the hemispheric block, Iran's Ahmadinejad. Here's a trio that ought to make your blood run cold. Let's just hope that's all it does!

When Mahmoud tells Hugo, "we're going to be together until the end", I have to wonder just what they have in mind. Especially when Chavez has just returned from an unannounced trip to Cuba. Both, according to the Jerusalem Post, entertained one another by denouncing U.S. imperialism and that "murderous arm of the Yankee empire", Israel.

I also quake when I read they're talking about a direct flight route between Tehran and Caracas! Think about it. If Iran is successful in getting it's nuclear program against all our efforts and they have a direct flight path to Caracas, it's only a hop, skip and jump to Cuba. It's even less of one from Cuba to the U.S. Kaboom!

Then there is Cuba. Cuba, who's Fidel mentored Chavez. Even though tensions have eased under Obama, the military might feels it hasn't been enough since they are still listed as a "terrorist" country. So what are they doing about it? According to Reuters , they began their biggest military maneuvers in five years because they need to prepare for an invasion by the United States.

Of course this is nonsense, the invasion part. When three bad boys who are little more than dictators in countries that have no free press, what are their people to think? Is our State Department busy trying to quell these fears? I hope so but could find nothing about it.

Perhaps our "free press" should take note. Perhaps it's time to get back to covering the news. What's happening in the world is not predicated on where the President is at any one particular time. It's predicated on what's happening in the world! Right under our nose. Is that so hard to grasp or is it just too much work? Covering party crashers is so much more entertaining.

Mixed Message From The U.S.

Anytime you see these three together expect trouble! President for Life wannabe's Manuel Zelaya, deposed President of Honduras, Daniel Ortega, about to be President for Life in Nicaragua, and their mentor, Hugo Chavez, successful President for Life in Venezuela.

Mr. Ortega recently packed his Supreme Court with like minded judges who circumvented their constitution limiting presidential terms to two. He then declared the ruling could not be challenged. The door is now open for him to run as often as he wants, and like Chavez, literally become President for life.

Our State Department and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to their credit, wasted little time in questioning this action.

Mr. Zelaya tried to do the same thing not so long ago in Honduras. The Congress and the Supreme Court of that country put a stop to it. Their duty was to uphold the Constitution of their country and they did. With the help of the military Mr. Zelaya was escorted out of the country and though back on Honduran soil, is less than welcome.

The U.S. soundly condemned legal activity in Honduras calling it a coup. I have yet to figure out why. The military, from all I've been able to find, had no role in the decision to remove Zelaya from office yet the U.S. is calling it a coup.

We've even gone so far as to cut off aid.

We now have two anti-American dictatorships brewing in South America. Why is it we aren't supporting the country that rejected it? Legally? According to their laws and their constitution? It was not a military coup!

It makes me wonder just what side we are on and why. Do you suppose entire countries may be wondering the same thing?

The Other Consideration - The Afghan People

There are three people who I listen to knowing they tell it like it is because they are in the midst of everything going on and have been since the outset. They are CNN's Michael Ware, NBC's Richard Engel and CNN's Peter Bergen.

Mr. Bergen had some interesting observations today on CNN.com .

We already know the American people have little taste for the war in Afghanistan. For that to change the President is going to have to leave the golf course and step up to the plate and make a decision on our mission there. Not only to satisfy the American people but, as is Mr. Bergan's second point, to provide the Afghanistan people a degree of security.

He points out that the last time they had any was under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. Otherwise they are subject to the whims of roaming gangs of ethnic and tribal factions engaged in their own civil wars.

The problem is, no matter who wins the run-off election, there are no Afghan forces anywhere near ready to provide that security. Thus it falls into our lap. Since al Qaeda has a friend in the Taliban, we're really fighting to hold back both factions from regaining ground in Afghanistan.

If this is the mission selected it's going to be a long, difficult slog, but at least the mission would be clear. To the American people, to the troops and to the Afghan people. If the commitment is made and the necessary troops deployed, the Afghan people may be more inclined to side with us for there will be tangible hope.

Perhaps it's time to suck it up and do what is necessary to stop the Taliban and al Qaeda aggression in it's tracks. It will be a long, difficult haul but at least an end will have been defined; a mission explained. Pussy footing around the issue has gotten us little but frustration and lack of morale. Not only from us and our troops, but the people of Afghanistan. It's time for the Americans' to be all that we can be, if the Army will permit me to use their phrase, and do it right. If it means more troops, then let's do it. What's the popular adage? Lead, follow or get out of the way. That's the American way. Or at least it used to be.

Policy - Where's The Substance?

I'd like to think, above all, in his speech last night to Congress, President Obama was throwing down the gauntlet to Nancy Pelosi as well as chastising everyone else. The house bill is the only bill actually out there and what he described as what he expected, or assured, is far from H.R. 3200. For instance he assures us illegal aliens won't be covered, yet in H.R. 3200 they are.

Part of trying to do a great deal in a compressed time frame brings problems. Nothing really gets done, or if it does, it doesn't get done well. I won't rehash all the bailout deals, cash for clunkers, nor the stimulus program. All that has been speaking quite eloquently of their shortcomings for themselves.

I still have grave concerns about foreign policy. The Financial Times points out he has yet to take strong action on many of his campaign promises. The Afghanistan war is escalating and the death toll increases on a daily basis. More troops are to be requested for the "war of necessity". Yet, as is the case in Iraq, from where will they come? At one time Obama stressed that we must prevent al-Qaeda from regaining a stronghold yet recent press has us fighting the Taliban. They are not one and the same. Al-Qaeda is seeking safe haven, the Taliban seeks to run the country.

Secretary of Defense Gates states the US goal is to train Afghan security forces to take over and for us to recede to an advisory capacity. We see how well that's working in Iraq. Not so well.

Richard Holbrook, the President's special envoy to Afghanistan, says of U.S. "success", "We'll know it when we see it." Not exactly definitive!

In direct contrast to Gate's assessment, the U.S. has also dedicated itself to such goals as advancing women's rights, improving governance and cracking down on corruption and narcotics. Should this not be the roll of the U.S. Military, but rather the Afghan people themselves?

Pair that with an election fraught with fraud, it parallels the recent elections in Iran which returned a corrupt leader, and the powers behind him, to power. As for Iran, their nuclear ambitions are near fruition. What are we going to do?

Let's not forget Israel where Netenyahu has okayed new building in the West Bank in direct opposition to Obama's demands.

It's not looking good in the Middle East any more than it is on the health care front here at home. It is not only we citizens that are awaiting well grounded leadership rather than soaring rhetoric from the President. The whole world is waiting.

This Policy Is Foreign To Me!

When Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama side with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro I can't help but scratch my head. When they remained eerily quiet during the obvious electoral shenanigans in Iran, one wonders why the questionable support for a "wannabe" dictator in Honduras! That's the issue, the ouster of Honduran President Mel Zelaya.

According to the Wall Street Journal Zelaya tried to pull a Chavez and tweak the Honduran constitution to allow for him to become President for life. Just like Hugo.

The trouble is he didn't have the power. Though the law allows for the Constitution to be rewritten, there is a process that must be adhered to, including a referendum. Zelaya decided to call for it on his own though he had no power to do so and even went so far as to have his pal Chavez print up the necessary ballots in Venezuela and ship them to him.

The Supreme Court said, "Oh, no you don't" and ordered the military to see that the vote was not carried out. Zelaya then proceeded to break into a military installation where the ballots were being held and had them distributed in defiance of the Court.

The Attorney General stepped in, declared the referendum illegal and had Zelaya arrested, by the military, and exiled to Costa Rica.

It should be noted protests had already begun over his heavy handed tactics. Does any of this sound similarly familiar? He was also on the outs with church leaders and was about to be investigated to see if he was mentally fit to even be in office!

Reuters tells us Obama says the coup is illegal and that in our opinion Zelaya remains the democratically elected President. He's blaming it on a military coup though as I read both articles it would seem that the Congress and the Supreme Court were giving the military it's marching orders, well within their rights, after an attempted breach of that Constitution!

When asked if we would be curtailing aid, Clinton had this to say, "Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system..." What??

We were accused of meddling in Iran when we hadn't and probably should have. At least to the extent of criticising the brutal crackdown and questionable ethics of calling election while voters were still at the polls.

Now we choose to meddle in a situation that was being handled by a sovereign government according to their laws. We're siding with two bit dictators. That in of itself is frightening.

First we appear weak. Then we appear uninformed. Or two faced.

No wonder the likes of Ahmajinedad feel they can thumb their nose at us with impunity!

It's About The Power, Not The People

Everyone who knows about our problems with Iran knows that newly re-elected President Ahmadinejad does not rule the country. He is but the puppet of the 12 man Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. One would suppose that this august group listened to Obama's speech in Cairo. One would also suppose they rejected his outreach outright! While many may still be in awe of our new President, as is the media, our adversaries are not. This weekend's election seems to me to be a resounding rejection of all things western, especially the United States.

It has forced Obama to turn the other cheek only to get it slapped by our questionable ally, Israel. He must be stinging this morning as he tries to convince the AMA his health plan is a good one. Well, he does have two cheeks left.

In an effort to spin some positive news it is reported that Netanyahu's statement that he'd support a Palestinian state is a positive step. It's spin. Netanyahu put such harsh conditions on the possibility of it happening, it is as remote as a woman getting hold of the one for the family television! For starters he will not halt the expansion of the illegal settlements, wants to forbid the Palestinians a military and control of their air space. Right.

If you wonder why the Palestinians are so bitter, study the map above to see how the Israeli's have grabbed off territory since the original Partition in 1947.

None of this has anything to do with the Holocaust, though everything is couched in that excuse. This is about power and territory. Netanyahu is betting the Obama administration will roll over and play dead or get so mired in the muck it will be as ineffectual as past administrations.

I expect he is correct. There's not much we can do about the situation in Iran other than wait and watch. There isn't much we can do in Israel but wait and watch. We don't seem to have the stomach for meaningful sanctions nor the cutting off of funds. In our case war is not an option. We'd not fight the Israelis under any circumstance and we haven't the manpower available to go full bore against Iran.

That leaves open the worst possible scenario. They'll go against one another. That would be a holocaust that would make the one the Jew's suffered pale in comparison! Something akin to Hades in the Holy Land.

Be Careful What You Wish For!

I often wonder if either politicians or the media "get it". The current news cycle seems to be little more than whether or not we should torture. Chris Matthews almost drools at the thought of really getting the bad guys. It's frightening.

There are always the "What if you knew the bad guys had information about an imminent attack. Would you torture them to get the details?" questions. Gene Robinson is the only one I've heard question, to Lynn Cheney no less, just how anyone would have that information in the first place.

There has been little discussion regarding just what actually comprises torture other than water boarding. Then the discussion turns even more political. Has Obama waffled on the release of "enhanced interrogation" photos? What ever became of the promise of transparency in this administration?

As M*A*S*H's Colonel Potter would say, "Horse pucky"! Obama's military commanders strongly urged him to reconsider his inclination to release the photos. Wisely, he listened. Reconsidering and changing ones mind is not waffling! It's showing good judgement when a wise argument has been made.

Why anyone would want to see what we've actually done or contracted to have done is beyond me. That isn't the point. It's the perception the rest of the world will have. More importantly the perception the Islamic world will have. It needs no help to make it more negative!

Forget the argument as to whether or not torture actually works. I'm sure there are times it does and times it does not. The point the military commanders are trying to make is that our enemies can and will give worse than they get. To put our service men and women at greater risk than they already are would be irresponsibly reckless.

Photos speak volumes and are fair game to be interpreted in any manner the observer wishes, be it accurate or not. Those so anxious to have them released would do well to remember not only the Islamic rage that accompanied the Abu Ghraib fiasco but also the emotions that are stirred, even today, of the Holocaust atrocities. The Jewish community will never let it go. Why should the Islamic community be any more generous with what they see as a total humiliation of their religious beliefs.

Jon Stewart summed it up one night when he explained he understood the rage and shared the same blood lust, but the point he made is one we should all consider. This country is better than he is.

I will never understand a culture that is so fanatical that it will stone to death it's own people. And worse. Or behead captives like Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and so many others.

I do understand that flame of hatred is no ember. It is burning strong and flares out of control frequently. Why should we add fuel to it by releasing photos which would be proof positive that there was a day our country was not better than the sum of it's peoples' rage?

What Do We Do In Afghanistan Now?

It is getting more and more difficult to find news to comment on with the all Obama all the time syndrome that the media seems determined to perpetuate. When I do, however, it's likely to be a doozie!

Such is the case today when I found that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, running for re-election, has chosen a warlord to be the senior of his two running mates.

Do you see a pattern here? When Lebanon had free elections they chose Hezbollah. The Palestinians chose Hamas. After a few tries we settled with Iraq's choice of al-Maliki. Do you get the idea that maybe the people of those countries, such as they are, don't give a care as to who we think they should elect?

According to The National Post there are a lot of very upset people over this choice. One could hope Karzai's theory is to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but I fear it's more an indicator of who really runs Afghanistan.

I decided to see what I could find about Mohammed Qasim Fahim and came across a website tiltled Warlords of Afghanistan . It was not a comfortable read.

As a general reference it tells us of an Afghan saying, "What you do to your enemies today, you will do to your friends tomorrow." That's not a pleasant insight to their character!

It goes on to tell us Fahim is an "awkward looking and personally unlikeable man with a temper problem. At present he is a threat to the U.S. plan for Afghanistan."

Karzai is weak and holds sway over little more than Kabul yet often scolds us for the manner in which we are helping him in his fight against the Taliban. Though Fahim was Karzai's defense minister, there is little trust between the men. That the U.S. backed Karzai over Fahim for the presidency in 2002 doesn't help.

This is one of those "I don't envy Hillary" moments I have quite often. It's also a "does Obama have clue what he's doing here" moment!

We know Karzai wants to be re-elected. If he is, what plans might Fahim have for him? These two are strange, but expedient, bedfellows. The larger problem is that we're in bed with them. This is truly the stuff of nightmares!

Just What Are We NOT Abandoning?

I love this graphic by Arthur Hochstein that appeared in Time . It's as ambiguous as the headline that reads Clinton To Iraqis: US Not Going to Abandon You .

What do I see in it? One of two things or maybe a combination of both. One, the Americans pulling the last of their assets from the war torn country or the final putting in place of a long time presence Neither is ideal.

We already know we've built a kazillion dollar embassy complex that's larger than the Vatican. It's unlikely we're going to abandon it. Even without the diplomatic corp in place, merely the manning of it will take a huge American presence. Plus the military contingent that will be assigned to protect it.

On the other hand, we've vowed to keep to our time table on combat troop withdrawal. Clinton did indicate our future involvement would wear a different face. One of reconstruction more so than destruction. It will matter little. One side will continue to destroy what the other builds.

This was in response to the Iraqi government's concerns now that it's evident that their security forces aren't yet up to the task before them. That in itself is disturbing considering all the manpower and money we've invested in training them. Either they are very slow to lear, they don't want to learn or we are lousy teachers! We've been at this how long? Yet, who can blame them? Enlistment in any form of national security entity is inviting an early demise!

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Iraq is still a divided nation at best. We had to "buy" Sunni co-operation. The Shia led government continues to sabotage their efforts to gain a modicum of equality in not only governing, but defending what too is their country. Then we have the "al Qaida in Iraq" influence that reaps the blame and the glory for everything that is not comfortably explained away with other rationales.

The suicide bombings are escalating once again, some of the more rash citizens fear the withdrawal of our troops for they know full well what's coming. Lot's of very learned people have warned of this for a very long time.

When Secretary Clinton says, "There is nothing more important than to have a united Iraq. The more united Iraq is, the more you will trust your security services. The security services have to earn your trust but the people have to demand it."

Sheesh. This is right out of "Idealistic Outcome 101" from the school of "How to Successfully Withdraw from a Mess of Our Own Making" .

Just once I'd like to see an administration, any administration tell it like it is. These people do not want peace, they want power unto themselves - all sides. The same scenario is gelling in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Has Obama learned anything? The indications are that he has not.

Clinton's vision may not be a pipe bomb; it is a pipe dream!

NATO Is A Toothless Tiger!

The more I pay attention to what's happening in the world the less I understand. Take the matter of Somalian piracy. Ever since the U.S. Navy Seals took out three pirates to rescue an American cargo ship captain, piracy has escalated.

What is it about the fact that piracy is a crime under international law and that every nation in the world has the legal authority to take action, that isn't being understood? It does not matter that the pirates are, in many cases, teenagers, nor that they're doing it for the ransom money, not an act of war. Does that mean we shouldn't arrest any criminal unless their actions are deemed an act of war? Well, shut down our jails and prisons. Every criminal out there has been given a pass.

On the other hand I don't believe for one minute that Somali teenagers are savvy enough, nor wealthy enough, even with their share of the ransoms, to engineer these raids along with the acquisition of arms and boats. Rocket launchers aren't exactly front and center in your local gun store. Even in Somalia I wouldn't think. In other words, there are some heavy weight adults involved in this.

I listen to the explanations of why cracking down is so difficult. They're covering a whole lot of ocean. Well, yeah. So why not follow the advice of those who suggest snugging up the shipping lanes, form convoys and provide armed escorts for those ships? Any ship choosing not to join a convey does so at it's own risk. Pirates who approach a convoy do so at their own risk. What's so difficult about that?

It's a solution Dogwalk would have come up with! Too simplistic no doubt.

Cost? Negligible compared to what it's costing in ransom, grounded ships and crews and lost revenue. There are enough private security agencies like Blackwater to provide the personnel.

The recent episode that was carried out by Canadian forces and NATO ended up in letting the pirates go. Why? The ships were part of NATO's anti-piracy mission.

The Canadians said the pirates cannot be prosecuted under Canadian law because they did not attack Canadian citizens nor were they in Canadian waters. The explanation went on to say when the detention of a person is involved it quits being a NATO issue and becomes a national one.

Is this thinking skewed or what? We're talking about International law here. NATO is an international organization. If it's members become hostage to national law in an an international issue, what's the point of NATO even existing?

Would it make sense for NATO to sit down with it's member nations and sort this out? The numbers, as I write this, include at least 18 ships and 310 crew being held. Who knows what's happening today. I haven't had been parked in front of the television.

I don't know. Why do we have to make everything so difficult? Haven't we yet learned that hand wringing accomplishes nothing?

The Good Old Days; Well Maybe Not...

I still remember how often my Mom would extol the "good old days" in our conversations. I even find myself falling into the delusional trap as I age in this chaotic world of ours. Two articles in this morning's paper reminded me of how skewed memories can become.

I grimaced at bit at a photo of Obama with his hand on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez's shoulder at the Summit of the Americas. It made me think about how dangerous appeasement can be. This type of "touchy feely" diplomacy requires a delicate touch lest it be considered such. Right above the photo was headline Freed radical cleric seeks Islamic law for Pakistan.

Pakistani President Asif Aki Zardari, along with Parliament, released this man from prison. It's important to remember Pakistan is fast becoming a failed state under the leadership of a man who achieved the Presidency on the back of his assassinated wife, Benazir Bhutto. She was corrupt. He was known as Mr. 10%. The implications are obvious.

Just recently he allowed the reinstatement of Islamic law in the Swat Valley. Now, in one more concession, this man who is supposedly an ally, has released this cleric who had barely cleared the prison walls before beginning his drive to spread Islamic law nationwide. This is a chilling event for our efforts to curb the Taliban and eliminate safe havens for al Qada. How the Pakistanis can forget what Islamic law is all about is beyond me. I can think of nothing more oppressive. Especially for women.

It isn't just Pakistan either. The law recently passed in Afghanistan giving men renewed power over their wives has created a chaotic response. The most disturbing part of protests, however, is when some women actually sided with the men in pelting the opposition with stones. What sort of memories does this law evoke in those women? Was their life that good? Or have they effectively shut it out because it was anything but? I haven't a clue as to how they think. That's a large part of the problem.

The cheery morning paper brought it even closer to home and I have a hunch the good people of northern Idaho will not even consider appeasement. Another headline read Racist group leaves fliers on lawns. It would seem the Aryan Nations have once again raised their ugly heads. A local neighborhood has been targeted for recruitment.

Many of us who live in the area know the movement did not disappear with the death of one time leader Richard Butler. This was as recent as 2004! Heck, he even ran for mayor of Hayden shortly before he died and one of his henchmen ran for city council but couldn't vote. He was in jail. For assault on a Hispanic in a grocery store parking lot.

The organization split, part going to Pennsylvania and part to Alabama. Some remained. I know how the people here feel about them. They will never think of their heyday as the good old days. It will always be a source of embarrassment to the community.

What does one circumstance in Pakistan have to do with another in northern Idaho? Both are doing it under the guise of religion. How so? The fliers were signed "Aryan Nations Church of Jesus Christ Christian".

Ouch.

High Seas Piracy Is No Johnny Depp Movie

If Somalia was an oil rich nation would the United States allow the piracy on the high seas, that has gone on for years, continue? I doubt it. My guess is we would have invaded it long ago for some obscure reason.

However, this nation of 9 million, mostly Islamic, people is as poor as dirt. They're a nation of thuggery and war lords. The life expectancy for men is 47 and for women - 49. Their main exports are livestock, that which hasn't starved, bananas, hides - probably from the livestock that has starved, and fish. Their main source of income seems to be fishing and piracy.

So why has it taken an act of piracy on a U.S. flagged freighter to get our attention? Or is that reason enough? Fortunately, the Captain who was being held hostage has been rescued and three of the pirates are dead thanks to the Navy Seals.

I've been listening to the reports for days now with explanations of why this has been such a delicate situation. Other than the fact we wanted to get an American out alive, I'm not convinced the explanations are entirely valid. I don't have to be an expert in the shipping business nor an international whiz kid to know that this is costing the world billions in lost cargo and ransom, not to mention the cost of insurance and other sundries too many to list.

Here, from our very own Coast Guard is as concise a description of piracy as I could find:

Because piracy is a universal crime under international law, every nation has the legal authority to establish jurisdiction over piracy and punish the offenders, regardless of nationality of the perpetrator or the victims, or of the vessels involved. This has been a basic tenet of customary international law for centuries, and is also enshrined in treaties such as the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1846 and 1851 have recently extended this authority to include acts committed within the Somali territorial sea, and have sanctioned the apprehension of suspected pirates and their supporters found ashore in Somalia.

Sunday the Navy did what it should have done long ago. They eliminated the perpetrators. We're always looking for and bemoaning the lack of international cooperation when it comes to our national interests such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflict between the Islamic middle east and Israel. Why are we less concerned with the strife that runs rampant in countries like Somalia and the starvation and genocide running rampant in too many African nations?

Is it because we aren't "directly" affected? But we are! Think about what the shipping industry means to every nation in the world? How can we, in good conscience, turn a blind eye or a deaf ear? Consider all the ships that the pirates are holding, not to mention the crews. What's it doing to those awaiting the cargos and what's it doing to the families and loved ones of the crews? For that matter, it has to put a dent in the sum to be divvied up by the pirates when the ransoms are paid. It costs a lot to keep ships afloat, cargo's unspoiled and men alive.

The lack of comment from Obama on this particular incident was deafening. The lukewarm response from Secretary of State Clinton wasn't much better.

I'm glad this one has been resolved. Will there be another? Heck yes. As this was going on another ship had been taken. Is this not just as much an international crisis as the "possibility" the Iranians' will have nuclear capabilty all too soon or that Netanyahu, Israels' latest Prime Minister, is threatening to stop them if we don't?

This is happening now, in real time. We have the right, under international law, to act. Will we? Or will we keep the blinders on until it's another American flagged ship?

We're Tolerating This Why?

I really get angry every time I read an account of the violence against women in countries in which we are fighting. Another Dogwalk solution. Maybe I ought to change the name of my blog to Dogwalk Solutions. A simple, non-sensical way of problem solving! Either they outlaw their barbaric treatment of women or they can go it on their own. No aid. No troops. Nothing from the U.S.. Nada!

Late last week I read where there is a new Afghan law that makes it legal for a man to rape his wife. They have even put a time frame on it - the right to have intercourse every fourth night and that the wife is "bound" to respond to her husband's desires. No wonder the opium trade flourishes. Women probably indulge to escape the miserable existence they are forced, by law, to endure!

Politics? You bet. It is reported President Karzai, whose joke of a government we're trying to keep in place, signed the law to bolster his chances for re-election. How much more disgusting can it get?

Quite a bit. A video is making the rounds of a Pakistani woman being publicly flogged . Pakistan, the "ally" who is supposedly helping with the Afghanistan war. Pakistan, who just cut a deal with the Taliban to reinstitute Shiia law in the Swat Valley to keep the peace for themselves.

A spokesman for the Swat Taliban defended the punishment but conceded it should not have been done in public and should have been carried out by a prepubescent boy. Nothing like instilling acceptable behavior in the young!

Why do I write about such topics on Sunday? Maybe as we sit in church contemplating good and evil we might consider what is repugnant to us is law to those we would defend.

All I can do is repeatedly ask, "Why?"

Charm Vs. Protocol

After the hubbub over Michelle Obama touching the Queen, I decided to see what other gaffes have been made. In our country the Obama's have huge approval ratings. They are bright, articulate and attractive. I like them both. That being said, they would be wise to get a protocol officer in place. Citizens of other countries, not to mention their leaders, may not be as inclined to take such breeches in stride. The Obama's might be viewed as arrogant or even disrespectful even if not so intended. Being a little more traditional in their gift giving might also be a good idea. DVDs that don't work on the British system really doesn't cut it.

I did a quick search to see what gaffes have been attributed to them. I found ten for Barack. Only eight seemed at all worth mentioning. The most arrogant, I think, was the presumptuous use of a Presidential Seal look-a-like during the campaign. Other than that they were all slips of the tongue that any one of us could make with no malice intended. Like the comment about his bowling being best suited for the Special Olympics or the Nancy Reagan seance comment.

Others were simply interpretations of what he said spun to suit the purpose on whoever was commenting. That goes for the misquote of Michelle's "proud of her country" statement too.

Actually, I'm quite pleased with the President and his spouse thus far. I listened to his post G-20 summit news conference and liked what he had to say and the way he said it. I'm going to criticize his actions when I feel they deserve it along with the actions of his appointees. It's my right as a citizen. I'll also praise when praise is due. That too is my right as a citizen.

In a world where many will be waiting for the charm to fade, however, I'm merely suggesting more attention to protocol will give less fuel for the fire.

Pelosi And The Pope - Does Either One Get It?

As I've watched Hillary's love tour progress around Asia I've found myself wondering if we really need a Secretary of State when we have all these Congressional delegations doing much the same thing. After all it's a redundancy of effort and an expensive one. I have no idea how many people are in Clinton's entourage, but Nancy Pelosi has seven other Democrats in hers! Not counting staff of course.

Nancy Pelosi? What the heck is she doing in Rome on my dollar? It's bad enough Obama is flying around on his big plane anywhere and everywhere. As is Hillary. I may think it's being a bit over done considering these economic times, but it is, at least, a part of their jobs. But Pelosi? She's a legislator! Supposedly she is talking with top Italian officials about the economic crisis and other "leading issues", whatever they may be. Oh, yes, she's talking to them about the environment and the situations in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. Right. How many troops do the Italians have committed? Or is it just chit chat?

I'm sorry. It's bad enough we, who pay our taxes and mortgages yet see the value of everything we hold dear diminish, are asked to bail out the deadbeats, but to also have to fund automatic pay raises and worldwide boondoggles is more than I can swallow. Enough!

Other than great food, wine and good shopping, what is she getting for our buck? An admonishment for every Catholic office holder who might dare to be pro choice? This from a man, and he is merely a man, who reinstated a Bishop who fervently denies the truth of the Holocaust? Talk about not getting it!

Everyone in the country is being asked to pay for the excesses of others. That should include government officials. There is not a one of them that can understand our pain unless they suffer a bit themselves. So far I'm not seeing it.