THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

Authored by William Robert Barber

Although sobriety has many intrinsic values, one of which being clarity of cognizance, when the subject is the present status of US governing and governess, alert awareness does have its negatives. For example, consider the diverse problems that face this nation state of ours: Three wars, two of which have lasted nearly a score of years. Interestingly, the preeminent analysis (by the best military minds) is that meaningful withdrawal from one of these wars will not occur until 2014 and withdrawal is subject to that nebulous dictum, “depending on the situation on the ground.” The issues and concerns of our nation are numerous: Immigration, ObamaCare, raising the debt ceiling, entitlements, the seemingly never reversing high unemployment, securing the border. Obviously, without neglecting those peoples that blatantly just want to kill Americans, I could go on and on… but I think my point has been made. The price one might pay for soberness could lead to frustration at a minimum, even depression. So to those that believe I am drinking too much vodka these days I say firstly that the vodka is Belvedere and secondly Newt Gingrich’s most recent behavior is that of a sober man. Oh and so was that Wiener fellow… he was sober when he initiated, over many years, such extraordinarily stupid behavior we are now so overly familiar with.

Logic dictates that once a problem is realized one must find and implement a solution. This is the rational of western thought. So in order to solve the problems defined in the latter paragraph I need to find a perpetrator, a rat, a dirty no good to harness the blame. After that, if I was a progressive or a social worker, I could spend some time empathizing with the rat’s issue, finding the rat, the appropriate taxpayer funded therapy, and finally blaming Bush for creating the policies that drove this individual to act out such heinous anti-social behavior. But since I am not a progressive I can, without hesitation or concerns over the violation of civil rights, move into direct prosecutorial mode. So I charge the blame onto political ideologies that are purposefully manifested into the potent delivery systems known as the Democratic and Republican parties. These political parties have willfully, in the interest of power, prestige, greed, and let’s not set aside the overwhelming power of stupid, perverted the constitution of 1789 solely for the perceived benefit of their party.

Well, I have enjoyed the swallow of several vodkas. I can now read the comings and goings of the political sway that lies within the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. I might even tolerate an English interpretative analysis of American wherewithal enclosed within the Economist. But most importantly, my Belvedere has dulled my sensitivity to the reality of what’s happening. I still have a tough time tolerating what is tolerated by so many. On the other hand, them, the others, and those out there in the great Hinterland, despite the efforts of forces counter to my interest, I am still putting one foot in front of the other….

Clearly, the default position to not winning the presidency is to dominate the senate… we must stop the liberal progressivism of President Obama. There is no Plan B.

letter from a WASHINGTON POST staffer

Dear Bill,

I write today about the ever increasing pressure to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. A vote last week drove home the point that this is becoming more and more of a contentious issue. In a bill that was expected to fail by a longshot, the vote actually came to a close failure vote of 215-204, with 26 Republicans joining in the effort with all but eight of the Democrats. This was a significant step for the Democrats to step out against the President in opposition to his public stance. This bill essentially called for the Obama Administration to establish a plan this summer to accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and to pursue a negotiated settlement with “all interested parties”.

This is a substantial shift as just one year ago Congressman McGovern suffered a much greater defeat with 98 Democrats going against a similar piece of legislation. After the heightened coverage surrounding Bin Laden’s death, Americans are more aware that as Congressman Hoyer observed, “Many of the terrorists against whom we are fighting are no longer located in Afghanistan but are in disparate locations, from Yemen to Somalia to Southeast Asia.” This is one factual point that has provided a basis for the sentiment that the U.S. troop’s ongoing mission in Afghanistan is in part a futile waste of U.S. time and resources.

Although the situation in Afghanistan is complicated and may be hard for those without military experience much less inside intelligence information to fully understand or appreciate, there are a few basic observations that can be made. First, there multiple obstacles preventing the U.S. from making progress as intended. Second, Obama has failed to present a clear strategy that people, even those within his own party, can unify behind. For any issue in politics, messaging is always key to rallying support. The problem is that the Administration has not determined a clear exit strategy and therefore, they are unable to communicate a vision of a withdrawal method to the taxpayers who are funding these efforts. It is natural for Americans to grow anxious about an exit strategy when it is clear our troops are not making significant progress in regards to the stated purposes of the mission, namely “nation building”. The white elephant in the room is the fact that the U.S. Government is conceivably not revealing the true purpose for remaining in Afghanistan. This of course is the geographic proximity to a growing threat to the U.S., Pakistan. This is a country in which the core leadership of al-Qaeda is now located in addition to their develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. would not want to vocalize this purpose as it would further strain the delicate relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. However, there is logic in positioning ourselves in the region in a way that prevents the terrorist groups from growing in size and power. Since this purpose is still only hypothetical, I will just address the current challenges the U.S. faces in Afghanistan which are delaying an immediate exit.

Fist, the U.S. has stated that our troops would be withdrawn when Afghanistan has a permanently stable and well-resourced government. After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, the Bush Administration made the decision to try to rebuild a relatively strong central government and to assist Afghanistan’s economy. Even at the January 28, 2010 “London Conference” and the July 20, 2010 “Kabul Conference”, two international conferences on Afghanistan, the focus was still on expanding and reforming the Afghan convernance.The problem with using this measurement as a prerequisite to exiting, is the fact that Afghanistan may never meet this objective. Current President Hamid Karzai’s failure to forcefully confront corruption within the government has caused a great loss of support by the people. The rife corruption has caused the Afghan citizens to even resent the Karzai government; completely undermining any faith they may have held that America could be trusted in their strategy of rebuilding stable governance. The two more recent corruption stories were that involving the Kabul Bank, and the U.S. sanctions imposed on the money trading firm New Ansari Money Exchange on February 18, 2011. In response to this, the Obama Administration and Congress have begun strategically urging Kazai to publicly confront government corruption. Karzai has in turn resisted these efforts and has become more suspicious of the U.S. motivations.

Secondly, there are several factions of conflicting governance currently controlling this country in various regions and capacities. Amidst the more organized, legitimate bodies, there are also individual “warlords”, local strongmen who wield personal militias and functionally destabilize the progress between the U.S. and Afghan officials. In newly released Defense Department reports in May 2011, they recognized the fact that our security efforts are being challenged by multiple armed groups. Until the U.S.-led offensives launched in 2009, the Karzai government was estimated to control about 30% of the country, insurgent’s controlled 4% officially and were considered to heavily influence or operate in another 30%, and finally local tribes and groups controlled the remainder. As of 2009, the Taliban had named shadow governors in 33 of 34 Afghan provinces. It is incredibly difficult for the U.S. to make progress when the citizens have such varied and divided loyalties to difference governing bodies. Certain regions continue to be potential safe havens for al-Qaeda forces, and therefore General Patraeus has stated the U.S. will not leave these areas. These threatening areas include Kandahar and Helman in the South and Kunar and Paktika in the East, along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, he U.S. has stated it would hand-over security responsibilities to Afghan Security Forces for seven areas of the country in July, even though there is no apparent solidified Security Force to hand off the baton to. The U.S. has failed to strengthen a central governing body that the citizens could coalesce behind. Unless a strategy to accomplish this is formed, the U.S. progress will continue at a sluggish pace at best.

Thirdly, there is the instability that is created by way of their drug creation and distribution, an issue that gets little media coverage. However, some consider the narcotics trafficking to be a core impediment to the U.S. missions. The trafficking of narcotics undermines the rule of law and provides large sums of money to the insurgency, which often times goes untraced. The Taliban makes between $70-$100 million per year off the trafficking of poppy or opium. As the Obama Administration has focused on developing and promoting alternative agricultural crops, the Afghans have turned away from the U.S. and instead to the Taliban for protection of their ability to earn income in what is one of the top industries for Afghans. This counter-narcotics approach has severely back-fired on the U.S. and given the Taliban more control among the locals.

The stated U.S. policy thus far has been to ensure that Afghanistan will not again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. The Obama Administration has asserted that it is pursuing a well-resourced and integrated military civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan leadership that is to be completed by 2014. To support this mission, an additional 51,000 U.S. forces were authorized in 2009 reviews to increase U.S. troop levels to 99,000. However, Obama has also said we intended to have a relationship with Afghanistan that will include military involvement long after 2014, an indication that the administration sees no foreseeable end to our presence.

Amidst the tension over this issue, is the continual increase in Government funding for expanded efforts. The House Appropriations Defense subcommittee just released their Pentagon budget bill for FY 2012 which contained $119 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government continues to spend a substantial portion of our defense budget in a country where there is a lack of clear vision for efforts moving forward. It is now time for the Administration to communicate their intentions to the American people, in a way that is nonthreatening to our security. At some point we will have to determine whether it is worth the billions of dollars and other resources spent to remain in a region when we continue to take one step forward, two steps back.

Sincerely,

Hill Observer

AMERICA’S NORTH KOREAN POLICY

Authored by William Robert Barber

“Wish it was so,” is not a pillar, keystone, nor buttress to any construct. Wishing is not a tangible. Wishing though at times entertaining is a whimsical endeavor. Nevertheless, the foreign policy initiatives of this nation mimic the whimsical; furthermore, if such policy initiatives were applied as a surreal convenience, the resulting sum of efforts would be futile. There could be no more perfect example of the whimsical and wishful than this nation’s capriciously lengthy dialogue with North Korea.

President Truman decided it was in this nation’s interest to commit American blood and treasure to stopping the invasion of South Korea. So instead of dropping an atomic bomb or invading North Korea he and his generals, admirals, and politicians joined a United Nations endorsed plan. This plan was not tactically sensible or strategically sound. It was a mas-o-menos plan of pushing back the bully that pushed first. The invasion of the north upon the south was defended by UN forces (another descriptive for “let’s spill American blood”) as if this was a playground dispute.

Amazingly, to the chagrin of the political leadership in congress, the plan failed. American dead and wounded piled up. The North Koreans ran amok — it did not look good. Stage left enters General MacArthur. The general accesses the situation and executes a bold offensive (an amphibious landing at Inchon) that is so successful it pushes the North Koreans back to the Chinese border. Finally the dynamics of the war have abruptly changed; the invaders are pushed back onto the Chinese border.

However, contrary to MacArthur’s prediction, the Chinese enter the war by the thousands; Truman does not drop the atom bomb nor does he invade China’s mainland. Americans continue to be killed. No matter, Truman will not face the reality of a meaningful decision; MacArthur’s army and marines are overwhelmed and get pushed back… Americans continue to die. MacArthur is relieved of command. Thereafter, Truman’s term of office is ended; he retires to Missouri.

Enter stage right; Eisenhower is elected with the pledge that he will end the war. Note he did not say he would win the war. Well, he got that done. And the N. Koreans have abused this nation ever since.

In 1952, America failed in its obligation to eliminate a military aggressor. The crystal clear necessity was to ignominiously defeat the communist north. America settled for the wistfulness of convenience and the acceptance of an interlude instead of a victory. Now this gangster nation has weapons of mass destruction, distributed its technology, and will be a very real threat to the sector as well as the world for as long as there is a North Korea. Abuse has escalated to the deployment and possible detonation of a weapon of mass destruction. America has permitted an army of over 1 million strong to be managed by a rouge state and once again, we wish…

Of course this policy of “wish it was so,” continues; America is in this fix because we, despite our willingness to spill the blood of our people, spend the gold and silver of our treasury. We insist on evaluating the world not as it is empirically evidenced, but by how we wish it to be. It is as if we have produced, written, and directed a Pepsi Cola commercial wherein we conceive and implement our foreign policy. Well, at least we are not pledging to close down Guantanamo or procure our nation’s civil courts to adjudicate terrorist-killers of purposeful intent to kill innocents. At least we have not stooped to that sort of silliness and flagellation.

AND THEN THERE IS GOVERNING

Authored by William Robert Barber

Looks like the Obama inner circle of all powerful insiders havs slipped, stumbled, and fallen into a puddle of Chicago-style political muck. This time, the smartest of the smart have created a wholesomely negative issue, solely on their daft contrivance. Surely, given a few more days, the chief of staff, a sitting governor, a former president, and the presidential press secretary can huddle and blame this on Bush.

In spite of all the editorial dancing by enterprising novelist within and outside of the administration, the truth has raised its head above the chaos of politicking — and is biting into the Obama brand. Despite the solidly delivered Obama election pledge of a transparent above the political fray government, politics as usual have identified themselves within the Obama camp. Once again a principal politician feigned hopefulness when in pre-election mode — but delivered politics as usual in practice.

A citizen might call this an excellent example of fraudulent inducement. But then of course the media, the president’s lawyer, notable politicians, an array of appointed and once appointed would discount the charge of fraudulent inducement as “simply politics as usual”.

Of course the president has been under pressure. The North Koreans’ have decided to redefine their sea borders and in order to establish this new sector of sovereignty, their leadership decided to sink a South Korean vessel, killing 46 people. Naturally, Secretary Clinton voiced a complaint. She clearly was upset with the North; and as a consequence she articulated a no-nonsense response to Kim Jong Il’s aggression, which was globally broadcast and convincingly implied the cold sternness of Obama disappointment in the North Korean hostile action. This state department declaration was coupled to the notion that this act of violence could not go unattended. Sarcastically, that of course sent shivers down the spine of the martially aggressive North Koreans and certainly satisfied the concerns of the 46 South Korean families who had just lost loved-ones. This half-hearted, cowardly approach to a clear military provocation demonstrated the level of US resolve for the Chinese and focused the Japanese on the real-time risk of relying on America’s willingness to protect Japan.

For all intensive purposes, Iran will soon add the atomic bomb to its arsenal of weapons. The attaining of this weaponry will validate Iran within the geo-political sector. It will establish Iran as the premier terrorist support nation and bond Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon into the Syria-Iran axis. As a collateral benefit to the madness of Iranian foreign policy, a policy that fits in perfectly with the Obama-Clinton ineptness and mind boggling disregard of the palpable, Obama offers weak disputatious of how the world should be. The discernable of what is offered amongst the midst of international diplomacy is the Obama policy of demonstrating American weakness at every opportunity. How many times does this nation state turn the other check and say (per TelePrompTer) “do it to me again, please”? This Obama-Clinton doctrine isolates Israel even more, negating even the fanciness of peacefulness.

But then, quite possibly, I might be too harsh. The president or ‘the enlightened one’ demands only one particular: that all nations, regardless of their varied and splintered Socio-religious-economic-political variables, simply inhale his elixir of Obama persuasion. If only these parts and pieces would adhere to the truth… the light and the way of Obama belief that the world will be nuclear free, Palestinians will gleefully enjoin with Israelites, Korea will unite, poverty will be stricken by the cheerfully given sharing of wealth, green energy will replace fossil, and Mexicans will stay in Mexico.

Offering the endorsement of a far flung network of liberal progressive intelligentsia, Obama is mystified as to the why-fore of any hesitation by his counter parties. After all, the UN stands at the ready — and according to Obama this is the forum for multilateral agreement. Additionally, he, the leader of the Western alliance, has personally pledged the tangible fact that George W is no longer president; plus he has assured the world that the US is no longer the cowboy unilateralist. Noticeably, the Russian and Chinese love the Obama Doctrine of “let’s all get along” by leading his department of state by the noose, whiles every now and then kicking him in his rear.

Well, there are these midterm elections…

PAX AMERICANA, Part II

Authored by William Robert Barber

Since the battle of Kadish, a military offensive, provoked ostensibly by Pharaoh Ramses’ concern for Hittite aggression, humankind has considered violent conflict as a viable method of achieving objectives. Ramses was certainly not the first to initiate strategic violence to further a goal. To be sure, one could trace the telltale sign of what was to come thousands of years before there was an Egypt. Neanderthals pictured on cave walls the utility of manmade weapons and tactics for hunting wild animals. While a new species evolved out of Africa, the Homo Sapiens effectively applied the very same utility that the Neanderthals did to hunting animals, to hunting their fellow humans. For these innovative, highly intelligent beings, the conveyance from hunting animals to hunting men was seamless.

From the beginning of recorded history till today, the reason to kill, maim, or enslave a fellow human is specious at best; at worst, the basis is arbitrary, deliberate and discretionary. The causation for humankind’s propensity for conflict bandies between the false premises of want and need. Without cutting and pasting thousands of years of historical documentation to prove my point, pride, glory, silliness, foolishness, evil intent, naiveté, love, hate, incorrect predilections, predisposed-presumptions and assumptions… Actually, the listing of why man willfully slay their fellow man is endless.

Humankind has the sense for reason and rationality and is fully capable of facilitating the nexus of deduction — logic and pragmatic sensibility. We have been taught to understand that all of these descriptive definitions enclosed within the previous sentence aggregate to form the differing between the super intelligent man and solely instinctive beast. But interestingly, this descriptive is profoundly contrasted by man’s constancy for violent conflict. This manmade irrational insistence for violent aggression has, for invader and defender, provocateur and responder, across all cultural divides, managed to create a scenario whereby the use of arms to achieve an objective, no matter the cost to life and property, has been validated as effective.

Order is the antidote for chaos. Chaos is never good; indeed, chaos maybe an indicator of evil. Order requires a dominance of force; however, the permanency or enduring spirit of order also requires a consensus of acceptance by the majority of the people. In other words, chaos increases in proportion to the abatement of order and inversely so; nevertheless, without positive overwhelming consensus, order cannot subdue chaos.

I therefore conclude that dominance by force of arms is the definitive surety for the continuance of peacefulness — and only America has the military wherewithal to offer such a dominance of force.

As I have previously stated, without popular acceptance, forcing peacefulness upon those that behave in a violent warlike manner will be more difficult then less. Consequently, America’s first step should be to forewarn and plainly declare its intention. The second step should be to invoice countries where US forces are based or patrol for the services of enforcing peacefulness.  Or in place of billing countries, the invoice should be directed to commercial entities not domiciled in the United States. The strategy of enforcing peacefulness is to have a greater portion of the cost of enforcement paid by those countries and or commercial entities that benefit from the enforcement services preformed. This invoice will be similar to an insurance policy’s premium for liability coverage. An example of such invoicing by US forces would be the warships protecting the flow of Middle Eastern oil leaving the Persian Gulf for deposit in foreign ports.

America needs to assume global responsibility for peaceful dispose; every nation on earth will benefit and certainly the poor, wretched, disenfranchised, and persecuted. For instance, pirates will be destroyed from within and without; warlords forced to rule with respect for human welfare or else face the wrath of US arms. The People’s Republic of North Korea must be deposed from any authority and operational function; this state is nothing less than rough criminal nation.

Any and all allies of America will directly aid assist, manage a region or target at their cost, or pay an annual fee for the compelling of peacefulness on those who need to be compelled.

Obviously, more than a simple few think me a bit touched for even contemplating such a strategy. To them I say that for the greater part of modern American history, America adhered to a piece meal, head in the sand, let them do it to us first, policy of denial; American politicians closed their eyes to the world and its reality. Didn’t the first half of the 20^th century kill millions of people? Did we not fight two world wars? Was not the First World War the war to end all wars? On a global basis there have been a number of conflicts, wars, and lethal violence; clearly, the cost to peacefulness has been extreme. America must finally visualize the world as it is — not as it wishes it was — and act.

PAX AMERICANA

Authored by William Robert Barber

America is the world’s guarantor; the only super power in the world with the means to indemnify against any hostile action anywhere on the globe. American forces are dispersed on every continent, in every seaway our ships and submarines are present. Many nations depend on the presence of US forces as the additional surety that their much needed resources will reach their ports; world-wide commerce, to some material effect, would be jeopardized if not for the force of US arms.

The effectiveness of US arms is not only important for commerce. For example, how much of a deterrent would NATO be to aggressor forces without America? Would the UN even bother to meet without American participation? Would the world be safer without America’s lead in its military alliances? Since 1945, the world is safer not because of America’s force of persuasion; but, because of its force of arms. Obviously, a show of force is never enough; it must be coupled with a willingness to commit such forces to combat.

The American military insures that oil arrives in Japan, Korea, China, and on to its shores. New York and Miami represent the international business city of choice for Europe and all countries south as Texas; Los Angeles is the gateway to the Pacific and Asia. America is the largest consumer nation that has ever existed; it also has the most lethal sophisticated, combat experienced armed forces in the world. Only America’s martial forces are distributed all over the globe; unlike any other nation in the world, America is ideally suited to enforce peacefulness.

Since history has been recorded, warfare has existed. Violence is the addition of humankind. For reasons unreasonable, even irrational, there are nation states that are hell bent on creating chaos to merely service their wanting. Nation states are prompted into the compliance of peacefulness not by some internationally accepted moral obligatory but by the use of power. Power is used to compel.  The power to compel must provoke the counter party into compliance; anything short of abrupt and immediate compliance is simply diplomatic gimmickry.  There are alternatives to military intervention that may compel a belligerent nation to peacefulness; nevertheless, tradition has proven, without the unilateral willingness to use military intervention, other forms of persuasion are no more than an ineffective ruse.

North Korea survived the Korean Conflict because America lacked the will to complete the task. Today Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran is positioning itself to evangelize the Middle East with its branding of Shiite hegemony. Soon, Iran will have the nuclear capacity to deliver an atom bomb. Syria is eager to control Lebanon.  All did, do now, and will continue to support America’s enemies; such support certainly includes Israel’s nemesis Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian militant factions. Iran has reached over as far away as Venezuela so to embarrass the United States. At its pleasure, Iran by military and political means, strives to destabilize Iraq.

Selling to the same consumers, China is in competition with India over labor pricing and manufacturing. India fears Pakistan and their ambitions in the Kashmir. Pakistan is fighting a war to keep the Taliban at arm’s length. Pakistan is a nuclear armed nation that has no respectful regard for US interest; factually, the country is politically unstable and its people are ambivalent to American aid and assistance.

Russia is managed with an iron hand by Putin and company. The ideal for Mother Russia is to control their historical sector of influence. Their interest is not restricted to former members’ countries of the Soviet Union but the ultimate prize of prizes is to manipulate the European Union; this manipulation, in their mind, is achievable through the controlled distribution of natural gas and oil.

The only country on earth that can effectively counter these threats to peacefulness is America.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Geithner, Holder, Clinton, and the man in the White House have bridged the distance from election promises to ongoing policies.  For these servants of the people, Obama policy is no longer the simple consideration of a campaign promise.  Time on the job has eclipsed these wannabe elected politicians into the measurable.  The liberal-progressives won the election; as a consequence, they have enacted a number of distinctively marked ‘result of Obama’ principles of action.  They have been in office the better part of a year — the time has come to consider their effects and results.

On foreign policy, better described as the Obama-Clinton diplomacy of hopefulness, the great persuader and his trusty Secretary of State are deeply committed to a foreign policy of national humility.  By incorporating the craftiness of first publicly apologizing for the Bush era specifically, but also for America’s unilateral behavior in general, this Obama-Clinton approach to interfacing with the international community is followed up with attentive listening and deep solemn contemplating.

How is this strategy working for the administration?

China will not devalue its currency or meaningfully participate in denying Iran the utility of its resources.   The former Red Menace will not discourage North Korean hostilities in favor of US policy.  Instead, President Hu Jintao warns Mr. Obama of the obvious:  Rising deficit, the negative effect of a devalued dollar, while complaining of a 20% decrease in his country’s export.

As Russia is pursuing its interest, which includes contracting with Iran so to harness and control the natural gas market for export to Western Europe, Obama is sidelining Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia, the former colonies of the Mother Russia.  Russia understands the Obama weakness, knowing he will never apply unrestrained American power.  As evidence, this American president — while in a time of war — stated that he is not interested in victory.

North Korea is a wild card.  At the very worst, North Korea could, for reasons unreasonable, fire that nuclear armed missile.  The only nation with the military might to deter such an act is the United States; but they too, understand that Obama will hesitate.  North Korea is a gangster nation.

The far left of the liberal progressive Democratic Party is weary of tolerating a continuance of the Afghanistan war and rue the ploy of the good war in order to defeat Bush’s Iraq war.  They want the force of arms harnessed and the expending of treasure to cease.  After all, they have other places to spend those billions of dollars.

Inclusive of the rudiments of his foreign policy, Obama seems to conceptualize that the solution to America’s international concerns resides in reorganizing the country’s domestic issues.  If his administration could just, by what ever means, spread the wealth, socialize the economy, enable green energy, revive unions, legalize the illegal immigrants, and nationalize healthcare, all the nations of the world would offer their friendship and cooperation.   I do believe that after the dust of this liberal-progressive socialist administration settles, when blaming Bush will no longer suffice, when the Republicans, Tea Baggers, independent voters, and capitalistic profiteers have had enough of the Democrats libelous innuendos, I do believe one will discover — because the media elite will never concede such a factual — that the Obama-Clinton foreign policy is indefinable because it is functionally indiscernible.

Though one may try, the reality is that one cannot understand the material thesis or the logic of the Obama Doctrine.  Where is the logic?  What is the motivational goal of those policy makers?  Do the creators of Obama-Clinton foreign policy have an end game?  Or is it that the end game is so sophisticated, so enriched by cerebral magnification that the only answer for the unwashed non-Harvard schooled is to have the faith of Saint Paul and simply believe in President Obama?

When will American patience end? How much longer are we going to accept, even begrudgingly, this administration’s constancy of real world naiveté?  Obama’s foreign policy is nothing less than a proliferating variety of runic distortions and needlessly opaque affirmations that lack any basis of practical relevance.

The president and his ideologues live in a world apart, an alternate state of wish-it-was-so.  This Obama belief-theme, coupled with Fabian Society objectives, is regretfully not an academic exercise in possibilities.  This is a policy, vigorously applied and wantonly designed to effectively abate US power and prestige; it will result in this nation’s eventual loss of sovereignty.  The Obama-Clinton duo does not live in the empirical factual.  Indeed, they prefer the mystical sublime of the mythological; their ideal is a synthesis of reality.  Mr. O. and Mrs. C. have created a play-pretend of a world; a place where nation states can debate, a place of neverland where the merits of humanism, kindness, love,  and mutual respect override all instincts to the contrary.  A place like the United Nations befits their ideal.  Of course the United Nations is not such a place — but these two would never permit facts to reset their ideological absolutes.

If foreign policy issues should not be enough of a cause for the Obama administration: Unemployment is soaring, the Obama solution is to have a summit.  This is madness.  Well, actually madness is allowing terrorists, the very same fellows that masterminded the killing of thousands of Americans, the very same constitutional rights as those of the people they killed.  That sort of madness, perpetrated by a clueless politician masquerading as this nation’s chief law enforcement officer, does directly endanger the citizens of New York City and the nation.  And then there is Geithner…

AMERICA’S POLICY OF DENIAL AND HALF-MEASURES

Authored by William Robert Barber

I am 65 years of age; old enough to have fought in the Vietnam War. If I was 85 years old, I could have fought in WWI; if 76, I could have participated in the Korean Conflict. If 99 years of age, WWI and if just a little older, the Spanish-American War. Sadly, the children of those that fought in Vietnam are now killing, dying, maiming, and being maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since its inception, America has engaged in a number of benchmark hostilities; these events coupled set the standard of this nation’s history. Withstanding America’s long and consistent narrative of warlike behavior, it would be wrongheaded to suggest that successive administrations, from different political affiliations that extend as far back as the Spanish-American War, was all war-mongering Philistines, indifferent to utilizing peaceful means to settle conflicting interest.

Instead, I think the world is, has been, and more than likely will always be, a hostile environment. I also believe that peace as commonly defined is a delusion. Factually, peace has not ever existed and does not now exist. To push the denial just a bit further, I do believe that peace, as popularly defined, is unattainable. If one agrees with these hypotheses, then it follows that a foreign policy designed to establish or attain peace is an illusionary goal, unworthy of effort.

Our current policy is immersed in issues of lethal proportion. I deduce that there has never been a more dangerous time for America. Religious zealots of Muslim origin have submitted to a doctrine of holy war against the West and specifically against the Anglo Christian peoples of the world. It is their intent to destroy the Judeo-Christian alliance by either converting or killing them.

This nation has many enemies which would include North Korea, Iran, Syria, and their martial compatriots. These are the very same provocateurs of terrorism that pledge destruction while complimenting such pledges with exemplifying horrific behavior. To negotiate with those that espouses destruction as a means to their end is not only a waste of effort but takes the nation off focus. Just because our state department creates an unsubstantiated assumption that such negotiations are in the interest of peacefulness, does not mean that in real terms such actions will transmute a negative into a positive. Such head-in-the-sand approach to reality is only an acknowledgement of wishful diplomacy which will never substitute artful statecraft.

Our present action and counter-action will not settle our disagreements; at best our efforts only prolong the inevitable. At worst, putting off the inevitable (war) only strengthens the counter parties’ military might and enforces the counter parties’ belief that as part of their diplomatic efforts, America will not utilize military might to achieve a goal. Clearly, the Obama administration will not go to war to preserve or protect America’s interest. As a consequence, any and all efforts are not sufficient of a deterrent to counter North Korea, Iran, or Syria’s intent on executing war-like measures detrimental to this nation’s interest.

The Obama administration did not set a precedent; even Bush would not commit American might as it should have been deployed. America somehow has taken on the presumption that the exercise of power is inherently a limited act. How absolutely absurd; but is that not our policy?

At a minimum, at least since the ending portion of WWII, our administrations, in unison with congress, have tasked our armed forces with missions that they deem necessary while hampering our forces’ ability to wage war.

For example, Eisenhower’s decision to allow the Russians to take Berlin; Roosevelt and Truman’s ineptness at understanding Russian intentions while dealing directly with a brutal dictator — the very same person that signed a treaty with Hitler and participated in the invasion of Poland; Stalin was a rat and still, these two presidents looked away from the obvious. Imagine, America had the strongest navy and army in the world, logistically in place, with the atomic bomb — and within five years after the end of WWII, freedom-loving peoples still lost China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin.

We committed our forces to Korea to stop and impede an invasion from the north. Right there, at that very moment, this nation’s leaders should have known we were in trouble. Stop and impede is not wiping out the root of North Korean aggressiveness. It is instead the equivalent of pushing the bully back rather than smashing him in the nose, gouging out his eyes, and breaking both his arms. Today, because of our faint-hearted unwillingness to destroy North Korean command, control, and political hierarchy, North Korea is a rouge totalitarian nation armed with nuclear weapons.

Eisenhower enabled the CIA to recruit, train, and arm Cuban dissidents; he promised air support for their invasion. Kennedy permitted the invasion to go forward but reneged on air support… the invasion failed. This demonstration of weakness and timidity, this blatant disregard for those lives within the invasion force, bolstered Castro’s image and prestige. Domestically and throughout the world, Castro confirmed that America can be managed and manipulated; it also verified that American resolve is limited. Khrushchev and his politburo were watching.

President Kennedy is credited with ending the Cuban missile threat — which only existed because we did not invade Cuba!

Laos and Vietnam are other examples of America’s inability to commit to a foreign policy task; at the time, we actually believed that a show of force was enough. How very silly of us. Such harebrained behavior all stems from a canon of foolish naïveté; this American doctrine of naïveté established precedence that is very hard to overcome. After all, our presidents want to be re-elected or revered; elected representatives want the wind at their back; the entire objective is retention of power, therefore the concern is safeguarding political interest. Hence, a guiding rule of the elected applied: Controversy in any form should be avoided.

From a strategic, even tactical prospective, in order to disable the North Vietnamese from invading the South Vietnamese, the United States should have invaded the North. That should have been the minimum requirement for engagement; if congress disapproved of such an invasion then it would be clear that America could not support the South Vietnamese people. But once again the policy half-measure won the argument and 58,000 or so Americans, not to mention many thousands more of Vietnamese, lost their lives because of the bewildering incompetence of the administration(s) and congress(es).

Soon, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver and America is immersed in the utility of the same head-in-the-sand foreign policy; a policy of half-measure and denial. This administration (not unlike the many that preceded Teddy Roosevelt) will not accept the reality of world affairs and as a consequence, there are two distinctive operating dimensions. One is the department-agencies of state and the other real-time reality. Neither seems impaired by the existence of the other.

However, unlike the foreign policy challenges of yesterday, this time the threat has the biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to choose from. This particular threat has demonstrated its resolve by killing thousands of innocents (regardless of their sameness of religion); what they want, no sane person or state can give them. There is nothing to negotiate over, no other options are open to the West, except deterrence by any and all means.

But instead of addressing the issue unilaterally and head-on, the Obama administration is contemplating self-invented options where no option exists. Obama will inevitably break with half-measure and just execute a full measure of denial.

Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon; neither Israel nor the United States will act to eliminate this threat to Middle East stability. There will be no embargo or blockade, the UN will accept an Iranian declaration that these weapons are for defensive measures only; Obama and Clinton will submit to the UN acceptance.

Iranian prestige will rise, particularly amongst the hard-line fringe of Islamic militarism. Syria notes the weakness and re-establishes final control of Lebanon. The political-terrorist tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas will be validated; by any and all means the radical elements of Islam will dominate over the moderate. The stage will be set for WWIII…

OBAMA’S PROMISES OF CHANGE

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the final of the final, after all the campaign hoopla about “change we can believe in”, it is now apparent that the electorate’s vote for Obama’s version of “change” has resulted in a federal deficit three times greater than the previous. Despite the Obama economic team’s forecast of no more than 8%, unemployment is now nearly 10%. Unequivocally, we who have not drunk the Obama elixir understand that his economic advisors were incorrect in their math, mistaken as to the effect of the Obama stimulus, and downright erroneous as to its forecasted result.

I ask: Does the result of Obama’s last nine months in management instill confidence? What about the specifics of his economic emphasis and directives? Does the guarantee of universal health coverage via a single payer system evoke more fear than comfort?

We now know that the candidate Obama feinted (during the campaign) a center-left political standard; wherein, once sworn in, President Obama has been identified as a politician imbued with Marxian ideals. An example of his socialistic intentions is found within the top of his domestic agenda — Healthcare reform; when the legislative proposal includes government control of 16 to 20 percent of the national economy, the government has imposed National Socialism.

By his own volition, the president has appointed a number of “workers of the state”, dubbed “czars” by the media. These are people whose primary obligation is to aid, assist, and promote the president’s general policies. Of course once one scrutinizes the background and political ideals of some of these appointees, a prudent person might have cause to be concerned. The concern hedges around the number of czars (32), as well as the background of the actual person appointed; thankfully, not all but a few of these appointees have very strong Marxist influences. Is this not a reflection on the president’s political leaning and inclinations? Why is the president attacking Fox News?

I do remember the Obama pledge of transparency coupled with CSPAN access; during another one of his many campaign speeches he includes as a tangible example, a promise to post pending legislation on the Internet 3 days before the vote is taken. That promise, along with the promise that his administration would not hire lobbyist — well that promise of the president has gone into the waste basket along with transparency; now, we of the electorate understand the meaning of Obama’s promise for change one can believe in.

Just recently the president (March of this year), with clear definitive language, declared Afghanistan a war this nation cannot afford to lose. With pomp and vigor he declared a new military leader as the right general to implement the winning strategy of counter insurgency. In short order the general studied the terrain and situation and presented his plan with requirements. One of these requirements was a substantial increase in troop strengt — which did not go over well with the liberals and the left of Obama’s political base. You see, everyone on the left of center understood that declaring the Afghanistan war, the real war on terror, was a ruse to inflict as much political damage to Bush’s war in Iraq. The political left does not want to defend American interest in far flung destinations; they want the UN to deal with such matters.

Russia must be rolling over with laughter as to this president’s and Sectary Clinton’s foreign policy; Putin is on top of his game all the while humiliating the United States at every turn. The Putin game is about European Domination via an energy monopoly. After all, between Russia and Iran they control, in the region, the majority of natural gas resources; no need to play nice with the United States, with Obama and Clinton; Russia is well represented.

President Obama recently suggested that he needs time. Time for the stimulus to take effect, time to pass his socialist economically costly legislation, time to clean up the mess Bush left behind, and time to right the wrong the rich capitalist levied on the middle and poor class of Americans. Well, this nation has no time to implement economic policies that counter sensibility, nor the time to inflate the deficit beyond the means of prudent management.

We Americans handed Obama an electoral victory and expect more and better than his present effort.