Iran's bluster might be Obama's good fortune

Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Homuz, cutting off needed oil. Hawks will rattle their sabors as a gift of war-justification is presented in timely fashion. What better holiday gift than Iran asking for a military strike? Then while we're at it, we can bomb their nukes. Nah, not now boys -- settle down.

I doubt Iran is serious. This could be a gift for Obama, though, if he plays his cards right and is not the fanatic environmentalist he wants his green supporters to believe. In two months Obama will have to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline, and the Iran situation gives him a way to approve the pipeline. We can't depend on Iran not acting insanely, Obama can say, so out of necessity for short-term energy realities, he must approve the pipeline project. Obama can give his approval grudgingly and blame the crazy Iranian leaders, but who cares, as long he approves it.

Odds are that Obama wants to approve the pipeline, if for no other reason than to prevent union displeasure, and this is a very good rationalization to do so.

Republicans falling into Iran trap

Republicans are making a serious mistake by taking a hawkish position on Iran. Republican candidates and their supporters are using Ron Paul's non-interventionist position to frame him as weak on national defense, but this is a non-conservative, anti-limited government direction that's headed to nowhere. The public is looking for honesty and less government intervention, not another entanglement in the mideast. If we continue wasting resources we don't have in the mideast, we're going to collapse like the British Empire and the USSR collapsed when they became entangled in foreign affairs to the point of economic destruction.

I find it difficult to believe that the Republican candidates actually believe Iran presents a serious military threat to the US. We can destroy Iran many times over, and the last thing Iran wants is an attack from an America that's truly terrified of nuclear attack. Enough experts have testified that Iran is not the threat that many hawks have made it out to be, so I'm sure inside the Pentagon there's similar information showing Iran as a minor irritant. The Pentagon and the military/industrial complex, including big defense contractors, need Iran to represent a threat, though, to avoid cuts to defense, and to justify more military build-up. The military/industrial complex, after a decade of wars, is out of control, far more powerful than any true conservative should be comfortable with. Ron Paul is levelling with the American people. The other Republican candidates are pandering to an electorate they think loves tough talk and military bravado.

A nuclear Iran is no more of a military threat to the US than North Korea or Pakistan. Iran spends about 60 billion a year on defense while the US spends around 650 billion. What a nuclear Iran will threaten is our control of oil in the mideast, but this is a different threat. If we had a sane energy policy, we wouldn't have to worry about mideast oil, so, as Paul suggests, we need to go in a different direction. Bombing Iran right now would be insane, so the Republican candidates who heat up the rhetoric toward Iran are courting disaster. Yet, they make Paul out as the crank, the extremist who will put us at risk.

Iran is not going to bomb Israel either, because to do so would destroy Iran. Iran is blustering to gain influence in the mideast, but that's not our concern. The mideast will have to work out their problems. Our interference will only make things worse for everyone. We should be closing military bases and closing down Afghanistan operations, bringing our troops and our money home where they're both needed. Then we should create a free market for energy and close the book on the mideast. The countries of the mideast and every rag-tag terrorist operation know that if we are attacked again, nothing but destruction will follow. We have nothing to prove militarily -- the leaders of every country in the world know what we can do miltarily. That's enough.

Morning Joe 12/16/2011 -- Fundamental problems vs symptomatic problems

On Morning Joe today, after doing a little Newt Trashing, the conversation touched on many symptomatic problems in America, from healthcare, to lack of economic growth, to foreign entanglements, to demand vs stimulus, to government investment in the economy to education to spending and entitlements.

I can't address all these, but I'll touch on a few. The guests were Jeffrey Sachs, Donnie Deutsche, Julia Reed, Michael Steele, David Gregory, Eugene Robinson, Thomas Friedman and a probably a few other leftists I can't remember. Thank God Michael Steele was there for a different perspective. Yeah.

Scarborough, like many Republicans who have put up a faux anti-neocon position, showed his true colors as he criticized Ron Paul for his position on Iran in last night's Republican debate. The Republican insiders are taking off the gloves to attack Paul, now that they think Gingrich will fade, and because they think the public is on their side regarding Iran. Perhaps a majority of the public has been scared by the government campaign to make Iran our next devil to fight.

I remember in 2001, Leonard Piekoff on Bill OReilly's show was stating that Iran was at the center of terrorist beehive agitation -- O'Reilly called him a kook. The US sold Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as the devils we had to attack, and a military response to 9/11 was certainly called for -- however, a decade later, after al Qaeda has been scattered and weakened, the US military/industrial complex gears up for a new devil, Iran. Scarborough has called for an end to the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now he has serious concerns with Iran, and he believes Ron Paul is irresponsible when Paul says we shouldn't intervene and become entangled with Iran.

Neocons, conservatives of all stripes and progressive hawks say that Iran's nuclear program is now the most serious threat in the mideast. All the Republican candidates, except Paul, say we must stop the nuclear developement. How? Some are suggesting military strikes, but none have said what should actually be done about Iran. They say Iran's leaders are unpredictable and dangerous. If Iran used nuclear weapons, they'd be wiped out, and the crazy men theory doesn't hold water. North Korea's leader and the leaders of Pakistan are just as crazy and dangerous. What about China and Russia? Why are we focusing on Iran? If Israel is concerned with Iran's nuclear development, then Israel has the capability to deal with the problem. How is America's national security threatened by Iran? Does anyone think that Iran can develope the military capability to threaten US security? What would Iran gain from attacking the US?

I understand the American people's relationship to our military and the desire for a strong national defense, but we have the greatest defense system in the world. Any nuclear attack on the US is an act of suicide for the attacker. We've been blackmailed by mideast countries from the beginning of our country, and we've failed in almost every attempt to push our will on that region. These countries have learned how to threaten, lie and manipulate until they get what they want from us. We've supported ruthless dictators, we've gone to war, we've given aid and technical training, we've bought their oil -- we've done everything but leave them alone to deal with their own problems. If we think bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will creat more security for the US, we're as delusional as we've always been when it comes to foreign policy. We'll start playing whack a mole as China and Russia support one mideast nation after another, keeping us in the no-win power games in that region. We're being led along by countries who would love to see us decline and collapse. They are draining us of resources, and we're going along with the plan. Paul is right -- get out of the mideast and stay out. No one in the mideast is crazy enough to attack America with nuclear weapons. But because our government always keeps that possibility floating, we allow the State to expand its power, and that power bleeds over into other areas as we give up freedom after freedom. When we get to the point the State says it has to suspend all our freedoms to deal with the threats from even crazier countries or terrorist groups, don't say that Paul and others didn't warn you.

If Republicans continue to ignore our Founders' warnings about foreign entanglements, we'll stay bogged down in the mideast, and it will drain us dry.

Later, Jeffrey Sachs and Tom Friedman talked about fundamental solutions to restore the weakened American economy. Friedman said, and Scarborough agreed, we need a long term plan to deal with spending coupled with a short-term stimulus effort to spur demand. Sachs said that stimulus and dealing with Medicare are not comprehensive solutions-- Sachs says we have to address the entire healthcare system, raise taxes, fix education and to invest in America. In other words, Sachs wants government to control healthcare, redistribute wealth, guide the direction of infrastructure and industry, through more regulation, and gain more control over education to make sure the right kind of education is offered. No one on the panel suggested allowing healthcare to work in a free market, abolishing capital gains taxes, removing regulations which hurt small businesses and protect large corporations, and allow private solutions to address our failed State education system. Hardly anyone in the political class, outside libertarians like Paul, is looking to really limit government power and create a free market, despite the rhetoric from Republicans. The question is whether the American people are learning enough to understand the need to limit government power and can connect the welfare/warfare State with lose of freedom and the creation of economic stagnation and decline. If the people can directly connect the welfare/warfare State machine with economic decline, high persistent unemployment, failed education, rising healthcare costs, small business suppression and crippling national debt, then the public will look for representatives who will roll back statist advancements, bring our military home to protect our borders, and then hold the representatives' feet to the fire.

The media campaign to focus on the problems with Republican primary candidates diverts attention away from the current, continuing, statist path of the government and the continuing damage done the the economy and our freedoms. There wasn't one word on Morning Joe during the part I watched about the law that will allow government to hold an American citizen in detention indefinitely with no trial. There was no talk about Corzine and his government connections. There was nothing about Fast and Furious or government investments in failed green energy companies or the Fed's continuing manipulation of money or the failure of statism in Europe or China's growing bubble from the kind of "investment" Sachs is recommending. But, you can be sure that Gingrich was talked about, and Paul was dismissed as a crank, and they all laughed at the clown show in the Republican primary race, and they said if only Mitch Daniels would run! Yep, that's we need -- Mitch Daniels. It's so simple. I love how the Left and the Centrists advise the Republican Party -- it's nice of them to want to help those poor Republicans. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I do know that Republicans aren't the only ones who need help.

Iraq withdrawal -- Obama's missed opportunity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16186136

This is an excerpt from Obama's North Carolina speech regarding the end of the Iraq War:

Recalling the roadside bombs and sniper attacks of the insurgency, he said: "Everything that American troops have done in Iraq, all the fighting and dying, bleeding and building, training and partnering, has led us to this moment of success."

"The war in Iraq will soon belong to history, and your service belongs to the ages," he added.

Success is not the right word, although the military did an excellent job with the tasks they were given. It's become apparent that America's military is the best in the world. Most of us will never know what some of these men and women have gone through, and most of us couldn't withstand what they've withstood. History will decide whether this war was successful from a leadership perspective. The troops successfully carried out their commands, and that goes without question. But whether the war was a "success" depends on what our leaders hoped to accomplish. If removing Hussein from power was a goal, that was a success accomplished years ago. If making Iraq a stable ally in the region is a goal, then there's no success. Obama missed an opportunity to talk about the Iraq War in grown-up terms that address our confused and misguided foreign policy.

I could be wrong, but I don't see any evidence that Iraq will approach anything close to stability, but that's not the fault of our troops. Our troops are good, but they could only do so much, and now they are gone. They should have been out of Iraq long ago, and I believe history will show they should've never been ordered into Iraq. I'm not a weak-kneed dove who always shies away from war. Sometimes war is necessary to protect a country's sovereignty and existence, and when war becomes necessary, it's good to have a military like America's military -- however, we weren't protecting our country through the war in Iraq, and if I said differently out of fear of being disrepectful to our military, I'd be dishonest, and our military deserves better. Perhaps it will be shown that our involvement in Iraq had other positive consequences, but Iraq was never going to attack America.

What we can learn from Iraq is that such drawnout battles in the mideast are misuses of our military. It pains me to say this, because I personally know people who've sacrificed and suffered in Iraq, but,they also know that nothing much has been accomplished that will last. I've seriously considered all the justifications from Iraq War apologists, but these justifications are built on patriotic wishful thinking and not the reality. The movement in the mideast is toward consolidation of Islamist power, and although there are warring factions within Islam, and although there will likely be wars between factions in Iraq, the evolution is toward Islamist unity under the control of a central force which can make the mideast a force on the world stage comparable to Europe.

The claim is made that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein, and that is true for now -- as I said, though, that was accomplished long ago. It can be said that nation building allowed the Iraqis time to build an infrastructure to maintain sovereignty, but this is where I disagree. Iraq will likely fall under the control of Iran, and, depending on who's out of favor, it's not certain at all that many Iraqis will fair better than when under Hussein. It's also far from certain that the volatility from that region will be lessened because of the Iraq War. Furthermore, it's far from certain that our part is over.

If Iraq unravels and Iran pushes its will on the country, there's a good chance that we'll re-enter Iraq, even if with a reduced number of troops. Obama can't afford to let Iraq implode, although he can't really afford to do much else, either, but the Generals will think of something. Here's an unfriendly article that gives an idea of the anger that still exists over the Iraq War:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/us-withdrawal-iraq-beginning?newsfeed=true

I'm just glad our troops are coming home. Let's keep them from going back. It's a no win situation.

Iran and nuclear threat

Those who minimize the threat of Iran to Israel and America are told by neocons and progressive hawks that Hitler's threat was minimized too. This is not a good rationalization for American intervention in Iran. At the time of Hitler's ambitions, it was reasonable for Germany to think its imperialistic plans were valid -- it was at the end of many imperialist expansions.

Today, however, when considering the threat of nuclear attack, it's inconceiveable for any country to initiate a nuclear strike -- it's instant suicide, especially for a country like Iran. I don't think anyone in American intelligence truly thinks Iranian leaders are completely mad and suicidal. Iran is an insecure country on the brink of collapse building up street cred in the mideast through bluster and support of a few rag-tag terrorist organization. These terrorist organizations can do harm, but neither they nor Iran can obliterate Israel, and surely not the US. We are building up Iran's image in the mideast by treating them as a real existential threat to Israel.

Our leaders are playing a power game in the mideast, but it's not a true effort to prevent nuclear attack. If the major powers actually believed Iran would initiate a nuclear attack and that it's bound to happen in the next year or two, they would have already acted.

The sooner we use our resources toward energy independence and economic growth at home and stop playing, aiding and abetting the power game in the mideast, the sooner Iran will implode and the mideast will be forced to rethink their forms of governance. Iran is a backwards country on the verge of breakdown -- all we have to do is leave them alone and stop pretending we're frightened of their nuclear capabilities. This power game in the mideast has been an American sport from the beginning, and it's way too expensive for a country 16 trillion in debt.