One aspect of Presidential power that would be useful

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/eleven-years-after-911-terror-effects-persist/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

After all this time too many Americans are still frightened by terrorists and the probability of another major attack. Too many Americans still want to fight the War on Terror as if 9/11 happened yesterday.

We have given Presidents much power, more than they should possess, but one aspect of power that could be very useful is if the nect President could help Americans move on with 9/11 -- not forget it and those who died, but to honor those who died by being courageous and fighting for our liberty at home against an encroaching, powerful State and a military/industrial complex that is out of control with cronyistic corruption.

One day there will be an accounting of the last ten years from a completely sober, objective perspective, and the American people will look foolish as it's realized that those in power have used 9/11 for purposes of personal gain. The remianing terrorists are not the threat they are made out to be -- they are nothing but fanatics bent on violence. After our excellent military's last response the terrorists have no intentions of inviting a greater response. They will hit us when we stay unprotected in their backyards, but if we bring the troops home, they will not follow. They depend on our fear and need for security. We have to move past the fear and politely tell our government that enough has been done overseas -- now defend the homeland and give our liberties back.

War drums and hyperbole

When someone on the Right goes too far with slippery slope arguments and has us all under communist rule in a few years if Obamacare is not repealed, they are castigated and ridiculed by more reasonable and sober thinkers -- however, this morning, Romney was asked what he will do about Iran, and Romney went from Iran's blustering to Hamas and al Qaeda with nuclear weapons threatening America. Patriotic warriors and progressive hawks do this all the time, and hardly anyone calls them on the hyperbole, yet Ron Paul is called an extremist because he does call the hawks on the hyperbole and takes a more reasonable, sober approach.

If Iran developes a nuclear bomb, will they arm Hamas and al Qaeda with nuclear bombs, and will these terrorist groups obliterate Israel and attack America with nuclear weapons? What do you have to believe to accept this scenario as viable? First, you have to believe that Iran is going to create a nuclear and delivery capacity necessary to be a real threat to our national security, then you have to believe that Iran would arm terrorists with the weapons and delivery mechanisms, then you have to believe that the terrorist groups would use the nuclear weapons against Israel or the US.

Who in the world stands to gain from a nuclear attack on Israel or the US? No one. Also, Israel has the nuclear capacity to deter attack through assured mutual destruction. Given this fact, the hawks' whole argument is predicated on terrorist insanity -- we have to believe that at the leadership levels, there are insane men who will destroy themselves, their families, their countries and their religion just to bomb Israel or the US. If Iran arms the terrorists and has led the nuclear attacks, Iran will be destroyed. Who would even back the idea of Iran attempting to destroy Israel and the US? Not China, because China depends on our economy being strong in order to sell us their goods -- the same with Russia, India and many other nations. Europe certainly wouldn't stand by, fearing they are next. It would be beyond insanity for Iran to put itself in a position against the world to start with, but if they actually launched an attack, Iran would be nothing but a memory.

These scenarios are fantastical, and it's easier to believe that America could turn red. Seriously, these hawkish nightmare scenarios are just as kooky and extreme as the rightwing fear of Obamacare creating communist rule. America doesn't have to live in fear -- we're better, more reasonable and courageous than that. The hawks are simply justifying expanded military intervention for other purposes, but national defense is not one of those purposes. 

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.

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.

What happened in Pakistan? Why are we there?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284210/what-happened-pakistan-jonathan-foreman

Jonathan Foreman at NRO lists three possibile causes of the incident between US and Pakistan forces at the Afghanistan border in which 24 Pakistan military personnel were killed by a US drone attack. It's highly likely it was an accident, because the drones have killed many un-targeted, innocent people so far.

Spencer Ackerman at Wired wrote this:

If the Pakistanis deny the U.S. its airspace, though, that’s a much bigger deal. Operationally, it might not matter that much, since the Pakistani army doesn’t operate in North Waziristan, let alone bring anti-aircraft guns in the area that the drones would have to dodge.

But it would mean that the U.S. is actively prosecuting a war on Pakistani soil against the wishes of the Pakistani government. The next Hellfire missile fired at a suspected terrorist will send a four-letter message to Islamabad.

And only escalation will follow. The Pakistani border force already helps the Taliban fire rockets at U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan, actively or passively. Those troops have already endured a four-fold increase in rocket attacks since 2010. The Pakistani military might move closer to outright cooperation with the Taliban, or attack U.S. helicopters chasing insurgents back across the border — prompting more U.S. reprisal. That’s how the U.S.-Pakistani relationship circles down the bowl.

If this escalates and the shadow-war in Pakistan comes out into the light, this will bog us down in that region even more. What is our mission, and how is this helping America's national security? Do we simply want to control that region, or is there a real threat to America coming from that region? Do we believe that terrorists from Pakistan or Afghanistan will attack us again on our soil? This would mean suicide for both nations. I imagine they just want us to leave -- they've been punished enough, and I see no reason to suspect that they have any intentions of attacking America. They might be irrational in many ways, but they aren't suicidal. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking us at home. Besides, if a terrorist attack in America happens, it could originate in many countries outside Pakistan and Afghanistan.