Authored by William Robert Barber

Mindboggling, bewildering, amazingly dumb, and downright ignorant is the concept of peace at anytime; much less peace in our time. The very idea that peace (as a foreign policy goal) is an attainable probability is an absolute absurdity. Realpolitik dismisses peace as outright naiveté — a dangerous strategy and a silly forethought. Yet, although, and still the intelligentsia unapologetically touts peace as its ultimate goal, the raison d’être of a nation state’s primary obligatory, and most profusely, those who profess to know just about everything (wonks of the department of state for one) pronounce peace as the moral-ethical priority of an enlightened society.    

For those of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton legacy, the very ones that underwrite, regulate, and administrate the workings of the government dismiss the available volubility of documentation to the contrary and continue to profess peace as feasible. After all, they who behold MBAs and JDs have degreed that peace is the rational extension of humanness, of intellectual enlightenment; conclusively therefore, these of Noblesse Oblige lineage (the ones that run the show) have confidently surmised: Rational deduction reasons that peace is reasonable thus attainable.

I say that peace is mythical as well as a convenient illusion void of all empirical evidence as to its attainment; further, peace as a stated policy goal is nothing more than a rhetorical utility extensively used as a reason for violent conflict; an excellent example of such rhetorical utility is WWI: “The war to end all wars.” Since humanoids learned to fashioned and bound stone to stick, millions of humans have died directly or indirectly from the purposeful misdirection of establishing peace in the name of war.

The intrinsic behavioral dysfunction that prompts one to rob, deceive, murder, and lie on an individual basis is the same — although exaggerated dysfunction that prompt nations to, under the ensign of manifest destiny, xenophobia, theocratic intolerance, ideological incongruity, or a myriad of other such ‘causes to act violently’ predicaments that render the idea of peace as a foreign policy goal impossible.  

Amongst nation states the great persuader is not kindness, personal niceties, nor offers of understanding and friendship. The great persuader is power coupled with the will to act. Power if uncoupled from the will to act disadvantages the nation with power; such a disadvantage eventually disables the persuasion of power rendering the nation in common denomination with the not-as-powerful.

The choice is self-evident: America is either the most powerful nation on earth or not. If the choice is “not” then another nation will take its place; the weaker will either submit or conflict. Prudence and analytical reality compel America to be the most powerful nation on earth. Therefore a foreign policy that is as unrealistic as the ridiculous notion that peace is an attainable goal only misdirects costly efforts, wastes resources, and corrupts time spent. Further, when one accepts peace as an attainable goal one expends treasure, resources, and blood in the hope that the particular counter-party will be converted to civil sensibility, rational deduction, stop the violent behavior, and act reasonably. The key word is hope. Hope is not a tactical or strategic policy; hope is emotional wishfulness.

My assumption is that peace as a goal is so impeded in the American psyche that my thoughts will be dismissed and disregarded; nevertheless, I have expressed my thoughts on the subject and found accordingly satisfaction in doing so. Obviously, my concern is that as Secretary Kerry and President Obama seek compromise with America’s enemies and pseudo-allies in the interest of peace the result will be diminished U. S. power while eliminating this nation’s will to act from its quiver of steal-tipped arrows.


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.


Hill Observer


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.


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…


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 20th 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.


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.