Bloomberg Leaves GOP

In a move that should come as no surprise to anyone, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has renounced his affiliation with the Republican Party and now classifies himself as an Independent. Rumors abound that the move is a prelude to his unannounced 2008 Presidential bid, however those ambitions notwithstanding, the move is certainly consistent with Bloomberg's own political beliefs. (Guardian Unlimited: Bloomberg quits Republican party.)

Originally aligned with the Democratic Party, Bloomberg reclassified himself as a Republican several years ago, however that mantle never really fit. Bloomberg's open support of gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control, and stem cell research are in direct opposition to the Republican platform. His post-911 property tax increase, while likely justified to counter the economic fallout from the terrorist attacks, also put him at odds with Republican handlers. It's no surprise that Mayor Bloomberg is uncomfortable under the Republican umbrella and has chosen to re-categorize himself as an Independent.

While he has not yet declared his candidacy for 2008, Bloomberg certainly appears poised to do so. Sources close to him indicate that the Mayor is prepared to launch a Presidential bid and has set aside up to $1 Billion of his own funds to support the campaign. (Washington Times: Bloomberg poised for third-party campaign.) Given the impact other third-party candidacies have had on prior Presidential elections, one must wonder what a Bloomberg candidacy will do to both parties in 2008.

Republican strategist Greg Strimple believes, "If he runs, this guarantees a Republican will be the next president of the United States. The Democrats have to be shaking in their boots." Well, to be clear, I would not expect a Republican strategist to say anything else. I'm not so sure that it's an accurate statement, however.

When you look at Bloomberg's position on key issues, it seems easy to conclude that he will draw more votes from the left than he does from the right. But that conclusion completely ignores the positions of the leading candidates in either party. Much of what he believes also falls in line with the positions of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of the Republican front runners. Should Giuliani or any of the moderate Republican candidates actually garner the GOP nomination, a Bloomberg run would draw as much from the GOP as it would from the Democrats.

The nation is very much divided into three groups right now. The Democratic party has definitely shifted pretty far to the left, at least in public rhetoric, but the Republican party is divided between the ultra-conservative right and a more moderate wing that is rising to the forefront in the campaign. The bulk of the nation, however, is right smack in the middle, and it is that faction that may well be drawn to a Bloomberg candidacy. With $1 Billion in his war chest before he even starts gathering campaign contributions, it would be folly to dismiss him as a viable candidate in his own right.

The one thing that is a certain outcome should Bloomberg declare in '08 is that the majority of the people will have voted against the 44th President of the United States. There are historical lessons to be learned regarding the impact of third party candidacies. Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39% of the vote. In fact, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in several states. In 1892, the Populist Party ran James Weaver and actually garnered 22 electoral votes, taking 8.9% of the vote. A showing like that in 2008 may be sufficient to send the election to the House of Representatives, something that has not happened in over a century.

Bottom line is, don't discount a Bloomberg candidacy. With his war chest, he is certainly a viable candidate in his own right. His political views are aligned with the majority of the moderate voters, making him attractive to voters from both political parties. When you look at the approval ratings of the Democratic controlled Congress coupled with the approval ratings of the Republican controlled White House, the only conclusion possible is that the nation is clamoring for a change in direction. It is not policy per se, it is the partisan rhetoric that has soured the nation's stomach on today's politics. It's business as usual regardless of which party is in control, and the nation is fed up with it. The nation may well be ready to embrace a third-party candidacy if for no other reason than to extract themselves from the partisan quagmire that has increasingly engulfed us over the course of the past two decades. Given his current state of funding, Bloomberg may well gain sufficient support to give both parties a run for their money.

Please do not interpret this as any endorsement of Michael Bloomberg on the part of The Grape's Vine. I do not support any of his positions on the major issues, and certainly do not endorse him as a 2008 candidate. Understand, though, that his candidacy must be taken seriously. He will definitely impact the 2008 election and may well be the deciding factor in determining who sits in the Oval Office in January of 2009.

Technorati: politics news Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg election election 2008
IceRocket: politics news Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg election election 2008

Passing Blame For Passport Delays

The Senate is becoming quite vocal in its criticism of the State Department for "excessive delays" in providing passports for US citizens. The current backlog is due to new rules requiring US citizens to hold a passport when reentering the US by air from Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean. In the past, only proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate was required. In January 2008, the rules will be extended to include any US border crossing including air, land, and sea travel. (Washington Post: State Dept. Faulted on Hill for Passport Delays.)

According to the Senate, the State Department failed to anticipate the huge surge in passport requests, resulting in the current backlog. The State Department lists 10 weeks as the current wait time for new passport applications. 56 senators signed a letter initiated by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) which read, "It is unacceptable that American citizens were missing trips because the State Department did not fully anticipate the increase in passport applications and take appropriate action to increase processing resources."

As a frequent overseas traveller, I have no sympathy at all for those waiting for passport processing under the new rules. The problem is not a failure on the part of the State Department. Rather, it is a failure on the part of the traveller to plan appropriately. The Department of Homeland Security did not announce these new rules yesterday. The announcement was made on April 5, 2005, almost two years before the rules went into effect! (New Passport Initiative Announced To Better Secure America's Borders.)

Virtually all tour providers, airline websites, travel websites, and State Department websites have been highlighting the new requirements for over a year. Warnings were in the newspapers and virtually any site related to travel in the summer of 2006 advising people to obtain a passport early if they intended to travel out of the country in 2007. Why is it the State Department's fault that people either chose to ignore the warnings or waited until the last minute to apply?

There is something sorely lacking in our society and it is called "personal responsibility". The State Department did its job. It provided adequate notification almost two years in advance. The travel agencies did their job in providing ample warning. The airlines did their job in highlighting the new rules. Who dropped the ball? Travellers that decided to wait until the last minute to obtain a passport. So is it truly unacceptable that their travel plans are being disrupted? No it's not. Travellers that cannot follow the basic rules for international travel are not victims of the system. The best course of action for these travellers is simple: stay home. Next time, pay attention to the rules and follow them.

Technorati: politics news Senate Lieberman Conrad passport passport rules
IceRocket: politics news Senate Lieberman Conrad passport passport rules

Socialized Medicine - Where Free Costs a Bundle

A comment on my previous entry is based on a topic of sufficient importance to warrant a separate post, not just a comment reply. The question posed by Silas Scarborough was, "Socialized Medicine - where is it?". It's a valid question in light of the rising costs of health care in the US, the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, and the devastating affect catastrophic care has on even affluent Americans.

The most fundamental problem facing socialized medicine has to do with cost. It's certainly not free, and as seen in other nations that do employ this method, neither does it guarantee adequate health care. Let's look at the UK first. The cost of socialized health care in the UK is based on income. The higher your salary, the more you pay. One responder to the question of how well it works there admitted to paying approximately $200 (in US dollars) per month, which is almost three times what I pay per month as a single employee. That makes sense since he's also paying for those that are unemployed.

The problem doesn't stop there, though. As that poster stated, "The service you are provided with depends on which area of the country you live in, we call it the postcode lottery. The more affluent areas, usually have better hospitals and shorter waiting lists." (How well does Socialized Medicine work in your country? When surgery is needed I understand that there is a long wait if the situation is not critical. How long do you wait for an office visit? What is the monthly cost? Are doctors and patients happy?.)

Well doesn't that sound familiar? So even in a country where everyone has access to health care, the quality and accessibility is still based on your own level of income and the affluence of your community. I can't say that I'm overly surprised. It's for this reason that British citizens that can afford it also maintain private insurance and don't rely on the socialized health care. In effect, they get the pleasure of buying their own and paying for those that "can't" afford it.

How about Canada, though? They have socialized medicine as well, and they are frequently the country that Americans point to as the shining example of how this should work. Well, in Quebec, public expenditure on socialized health care amounts to 29% of the provincial budget. 20% of that comes from a whopping 3.22% wage tax imposed on employers (not employees) and the rest comes from federal and provincial income taxes. It costs $1200 per year per person for this socialized system, so a family of four ends up costing $4800 per year.

Unfortunately, in Canada there is no option for private insurance like there is in the UK. It simply isn't legal. A private insurance company is not allowed to compete with the public system. According to Pierre Lemieux in Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience, "The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital."

Mr. Lemieux also points out one of the major flaws to this type of system, and it's one of fundamental economics. Since the perceived cost of health care has gone to zero, at least for those that allegedly don't have the ability to pay for health care, demand for that care increases dramatically. In Canada, public expenses for health care have increased at a rate of 9.4% annually since its inception in 1970. Because of the rising costs and increased demand, hospitals are unable to keep pace with technological advances. Between 1972 and 1980, the number of hospital beds in Quebec dropped by 21% due to budget cuts.

To control costs, Canada also instituted a ceiling on fees earned by General Practitioners. The net result is that these same GPs reduced the amount of time they spent with patients by 11%. How did Newton describe this? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...

The bottom line is that I agree we need to find a means of providing health care for those that truly - and I emphasize the word "truly" - cannot afford it. With unemployment under 4.5%, though, the number of people that are in that category are far fewer than one might otherwise think. Unfortunately, socialized medicine is not the solution. The net result of socialized medicine is a dramatic increase in the cost of health care coupled with a dramatic decrease in the quality of health care. That's not a combination I'm willing to endorse.

Technorati: politics news health care medicine socialized medicine
IceRocket: politics news health care medicine socialized medicine

FDA Barely Glances at Chinese, Indian Drug Imports

Despite the scrutiny placed by the FDA on American drug companies, imports of both drugs and drug ingredients from China and India are getting barely a glance. Both countries have seen a tremendous surge in drug orders, primarily for generic drugs from India and active ingredients from China. According to the FDA, they'd like to do more to inspect the imports, but they simply don't have the manpower or budget to do so. (Washington Post: FDA Scrutiny Scant In India, China as Drugs Pour Into U.S..)

When one considers the problems caused by imported pet food from China compounded by the tainted toothpaste also imported from China, one would reasonably assume that the inspection of anything coming in from the third-world would be the highest priority for the FDA. Apparently not.

Chinese and Indian imports are attractive here due to their extremely low cost. Of course, the low cost of those imports isn't surprising given the lack of workplace and health standards in those countries, the lack of pollution controls, and the all-but-slave labor that they employ. Naturally, those are the same reasons American manufacturing and technology are being off-shored to those same countries. Whether we choose to admit it or not, by supporting imports from China and India we are effectively supporting a modern day slave trade and child labor abuses that is not legal by any standard, international or otherwise.

In the case of drug imports, we are placing our own health at risk by accepting generics and active ingredients from countries that have already demonstrated their inability to maintain even the most basic of quality and purity standards in other exports. If I cannot trust them to safely ship pet food and toothpaste, how can I possibly trust them to sell me prescription drugs? Have we now reached the point that we are willing to sell our own health to the lowest bidder?

Our trade agreements with China and India have reached the point where they are now a national security problem. We have given these countries control of our industry, control of our technology, and now control of our health care. We are effectively selling America piece by piece, and we are selling it to nations that have never been our allies. Our trade pacts with the third-world are the greatest threat to our national security, yet most corporations, most politicians, and even most of average America is willingly participating in this national yard sale all under the guise of lower prices. Hopefully we'll wake up in time, but to date I see no evidence that we will.

Technorati: politics news India China trade FDA drugs
IceRocket: politics news India China trade FDA drugs

Iran Imposes Hard-Line Crackdown

Iran has implemented a series of crackdowns aimed at forcing the theocracy back to the oppressive cultural restrictions in place after the Islamic revolution in 1979. According to Human Rights Watch analyst Hadi Ghaemi, "Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated his goal of purging Iranian society of secular thought. This is taking shape as a cultural revolution, particularly on university campuses, where persecution and prosecution of students and faculty are intensifying with each passing day." (Washington Post: Iran Curtails Freedom In Throwback to 1979.)

The crackdown is hitting college campuses extremely hard. There has been increasing opposition to Ahmadinejad's policies, especially among the youth, and the official response has been detentions and the dissolution of campus social groups. Also targeted is public dress and behaviour deemed offensive to Islam with over 150,000 arrests having been made recently.

Part of the issue facing Ahmadinejad is a failed economic policy resulting in 20% inflation over the last 12 months and a 25% rise in gas prices. The latest crackdowns are intended to squelch the unrest being caused by the economic crisis and are seen as a means of preventing a significant political reaction leading into the 2009 elections.

What this means for us is that Iran is ripe for revolution. The student uprising in 1979 that brought about the Islamic Revolution has long since lost its luster. The younger generation of students is far more western in thoughts, dress, and culture than the previous generation, and the strict Islamic code driven by Ahmadinejad is not well received by the well educated population. Of great significance is the 25% rise in gas prices this year. Iran is an oil rich nation, however they only have one refinery. This makes their infrastructure vulnerable to a single attack, something that would cripple the Iranian economy. This exposure alone makes a revolution in Iran practical.

There are US efforts underway to support a Democratic process in Iran with $75 Million in US funds being diverted for that purpose. Unlike other nations in the Middle East, an Iranian democracy is actually in our best interests. The underpinnings of a cultural revolution have been in place for the past decade, and free elections would likely result in an Iranian government that is far more moderate than we have since since 1979. That does not eliminate the need for a revolution, however.

Since the Shah was removed from power, Iran has been governed by the religious arm, not the political wing. While Ahmadinejad may be the president, it's actually Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who rules the country. No significant changes can occur in Iran without first removing Khamenei, and it will take far more than free elections to accomplish that. What is needed is a political coup not unlike the one that deposed the Shah. Increasing our support for dissident student groups, providing them arms, and providing them funding is our best course of action. A direct US intervention in Iran would be counterproductive. In fact, it was our intervention in Iraq that resulted in the reactionary election of Ahmadinejad in the first place. Rather, the revolution must come from within Iran, and the likely source of that revolution is the current crop of moderate students.

With the Iranian economy already being drained, it is also beneficial to drag them further into the conflict in Iraq. Having their resources drained by their support of the Shiite insurgency would further compound their internal problems. We could help this problem along by encouraging Sunni insurgent raids across the border into neighboring Iranian positions. The weaker the Iranian economy becomes, the greater the likelihood of a revolution to overthrow Khamenei. Such a revolution would deal a severe blow to the radical Islamic war effort since a good deal of covert support and funding is coming from Khamenei's government.

Iran is already spread pretty thin. They are supporting the Shiite insurgency in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza. The drain on their economy appears to be nearing the breaking point. Now it's just a question of how best to nudge it to drive the population into rebellion.

Technorati: politics news Iran Khamenei Ahmadinejad
IceRocket: politics news Iran Khamenei Ahmadinejad

Senate Stymies Energy Progress

The Senate took a series of actions yesterday to cripple or kill any progress towards a meaningful energy bill that would address current supply issues while working towards more efficient future energy measures. At the forefront was an amendment by Senator John Warner (R-VA) to authorize off-shore drilling along the Virginia coast in a search for additional natural gas reserves. The Senate killed that measure despite Senator Domenici's (R-NM) assertion that, "John Warner's bill would be the first energy bill to produce energy." (Washington Post: Senate Rejects Va. Offshore Drilling.)

The major objections came from Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) over concerns that an oil spill off the Virginia coast would cause excessive damage to the New Jersey shoreline. I'll pause a moment to allow my readers to recompose themselves.

Okay. Just so we're all clear, the state of New Jersey, with a series of major oil refineries running through the state's central artery, is concerned about an off-shore spill in Virginia. Never mind the heavy dependence New Jersey has on refineries, and never mind that the ports around Philadelphia just to the south of New Jersey are also lined with oil refineries. The potential for a shipping disaster in either of those locations that would impact the New Jersey coast far outweighs any risk imposed by drilling off the Virginia coast. Instead, all this constitutes is partisan political obstructionism. So instead of actually doing something to increase our own supply while reducing our dependency on foreign sources, we are once again handcuffed by partisan politics. Why am I not surprised?

The Senate didn't stop there, though. Also rejected was a proposal by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) that would require utilities to increase their use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, or bio-fuel. That measure was blocked by the Republican side of the aisle, so let's not assume that obstructionism is a solely Democrat tactic.

Of course, what would a meaningful energy bill be without some safeguards for our special interest groups? Now, when it comes to protecting the wallets of the auto industry, the Senate can certainly act in a bipartisan fashion. On the surface, legislation supported by Carl Levin (D-MI) and Christopher Bond (R-MO) sounds good. It requires cars to achieve an average 36 MPG and trucks to achieve 30 MPG by 2022. Oddly enough, this is supported by the auto industry, so a closer look is required. As it turns out, this measure replaces one that would have resulted in a requirement for both cars and trucks to achieve 35 MPG in 2020 but increasing the requirement to 52 MPG by 2030. No wonder the auto industry likes the new measure! I'm certain the average consumer would benefit more from the original, however, but the average consumer has no lobby in Congress.

So the net result is business as usual in the US Senate. Action on a meaningful energy bill is effectively stalled thanks to partisan politics, and measures beneficial to major industry replace those beneficial to the American consumer. Is there any wonder why the approval ratings of both Congress and the President are approaching all-time lows?

Technorati: politics news Senate energy
IceRocket: politics news Senate energy

Troop Surge Appears Ineffective

A Pentagon report released yesterday reveals that the level of violence in Iraq has not decreased since the implementation of a US troop surge intended to stabilize the country. While the amount of violence did initially decrease in areas where the US troop presence was focused, it simply resulted in a migration of violence towards other areas in which the US was not overly active. (Washington Post: No Drop in Iraq Violence Seen Since Troop Buildup.)

While the concept of a troop surge to quell violence does sound feasible on paper, the reality is that the actual increase was insufficient to address the problems in Iraq as a whole. It also did nothing to resolve the underlying political problems with the Iraqi power centers, and realistically that must be resolved before there is any hope of an end to the sectarian violence that is plaguing the region. A series of goals were set before the Iraqi government with the intention of settling the political and sectarian strife, however those goals have not been met and neither is there any apparent movement towards addressing them.

It is far too simplistic to view the violence in Iraq as being directed at the US. In fact, the US is a very minor target in the overwhelming majority of attacks. Rather, the problem is urban warfare between the Shiite and Sunni factions, a conflict that dates back centuries. Whether or not there is a political or military solution to that problem is in serious doubt. While it is a popular view today to point to the Hussein era as a period where that strife was contained, that is an extremely inaccurate view of the reality of the Iraqi political landscape during the Hussein years. Remember, the US and Great Britain maintained a "no-fly" zone in southern Iraq to protect the Shiites from attacks by Hussein's military. A similar "no-fly" zone was maintained in the north to protect the Kurds from Hussein's attacks. The iron-fist wielded by Hussein in the 90's may have applied to the Sunni Triangle, but it started to crumble fast the further north or south you traveled outside of Sunni controlled areas.

The situation in Iraq right now is not one we can solve militarily. Rather, it will need to be sorted out internally, and that likely means allowing the civil war that has been building since the 1920s to play itself out. British Imperialism followed by covert US intervention during the Iran - Iraq conflict simply put the inter-factional strife on hold. The stranglehold in the Hussein era was already beginning to unravel in the late 1980s, and it has now boiled over. To point the finger at current US military action as the cause of that unravelling is to deny the events that took place throughout the 1980s and 1990s. We certainly hastened it by removing Hussein and the bulk of the Iraqi military, however the knot was untied long before we arrived on the scene.

Now that it has reached the point of open conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites, the best course of action we could take at this point would be to step aside and let them fight it out. With Iran covertly supporting the Shiites, it's unlikely the Sunnis could prevail in that conflict, but until they settle it themselves there is not a lot that we can do other than get caught in the crossfire. At some point we will need to deal with the Iranian problem, but in the interim it is not necessarily bad for the US if Iran becomes increasingly tangled up in a Shiite versus Sunni civil war. As we can attest from our own experiences, that type of conflict can be a significant drain on internal resources.

Given a choice, it would be better for the US should the Sunni factions prevail, however. As a whole, the Sunni sect is less fundamentalist, less fanatical in their interpretation and application of scripture, and overall tends to be more tolerant of western ideas than their Shiite counterparts. Morocco is a good example of a Muslim country that is tolerant of non-Muslim internal populations and is extremely pro-western in its policies. Morocco is a predominantly Sunni population.

Unfortunately for the Sunnis in Iraq, the regions they control have no resources of value to the west. The Shiite territories contain oil and Iraq's only port, while the Kurdish territories contain oil and border a major NATO ally that is more vital to the West than anything Iraq as a whole has to offer. All things being equal, the US would likely champion the Sunnis and put a quick end to the conflict. With natural resources and political realities in the mix, however, we do not have that luxury and will be forced to deal with a likely Shiite victory in the south and central portions, and a Turkish / Kurd battle in the north.

In the interim, we need to step out of the middle. It is not a defeat in Iraq if we recognize that a Shiite and Sunni conflict should not involve US troops, and that we will withdraw until such time as there is a legitimate Iraqi government with which we can deal. I am currently at a loss to find a reason for US troops to attempt to quell a civil war that is truly inevitable. It's better for us all around if we step back, let them fight it out, and then deal with the winner. If it ties Iran up in the process, so much the better.

Technorati: politics news Iraq surge Shiite Sunni Kurd
IceRocket: politics news Iraq surge Shiite Sunni Kurd

Special Interests Wage Energy Bill War

While the Senate debates an energy bill that is already receiving veto threats from the White House, Senate Democrats are drafting a second measure that would earmark $10 Billion in loans for a coal to liquid fuel project. That bill has significant support among Senators from coal rich states, however it is meeting a great deal of opposition from the environmentalist lobby who oppose both coal mining and the greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor) that the coal to liquid conversion would generate. (Washington Post: Democrats Push Coal-to-Liquids Energy Plan.)

The conversion of coal to liquid fuel, while inefficient from a process standpoint, is a viable means of increasing the non-petroleum based fuel additives without placing additional demand on the food supply as would occur with increased use of bio-fuels. Granted, it is not a permanent solution and efforts to develop a new energy source are still required, however any measure such as this that would decrease our consumption of oil based products is certainly worth investigation.

All energy proposals currently on the table are receiving widespread criticism from a variety of sources. The White House opposes a measure to mandate MPG minimum requirements. The auto industry opposes a measure to mandate increased fuel efficiencies. Environmental groups oppose a measure that does not significantly increase the standards for emissions controls. Simply put, there appear to be too many conflicting power groups - including lawmakers on both sides of the aisle - for a viable energy plan to make it into law.

The Democrat proposed coal to liquids measure is already struggling from other leading Democrats, including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)who wants to include greenhouse gas emissions control in the measure - something which would make the entire process unworkable. Since water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by volume present in our atmosphere and since water vapor is a natural byproduct from organic chemical reactions, it seems to me that the two measures are mutually exclusive. That alone may make it impossible for this measure to even make it out of committee.

What it all means is that legislators on both sides of the aisle want to talk tough on energy. At the same time, there does not appear to be any desire on the part of those same legislators to set an energy policy that is both viable and productive. With the House and Senate equally divided, special interests groups all lobbying against different aspects of any energy bill that comes up, and the White House vowing to veto any bill that sets concrete standards, it seems clear to me that nothing at all will be done for the foreseeable future.

Technorati: politics news coal coal to liquid Senate Democrat
IceRocket: politics news coal coal to liquid Senate Democrat

Bush Eyes Mullen for Joint Chief's Head

President Bush's top choice for Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, may signal a subtle shift in the administration's strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mullen, currently head of the US Navy, has been voicing concern for some time that our extended involvement in Iraq is putting excessive strains on the Marines and Army. (Washington Post: Nominee to Head Joint Chiefs Sees Current Strain on Military.)

The argument is not a new one, however it is an abrupt about-face for the President to appoint one with such views to head the Joint Chiefs. Admiral Robert J. Natter who attended the Naval Academy with Mullen described him as, "A realist [who] would say this is as much a political issue solvable only by the Iraqis as it is a military force issue partially solvable by the U.S. military." That would seem to signal a shift in the administration's focus from a military solution towards a more political solution, assuming one is even achievable in that region.

While a new perspective at the top is certainly a welcome change, we as a nation should be more concerned that a four-year engagement involving approximately 140,000 US troops should pose that great a strain on the military. Indeed, while nobody will argue the hazards of serving in Iraq, by all standards the engagement there is extremely light compared to past wars involving the US. If this engagement has strained the marines and army, then it is high time we addressed that problem and restructured our military to support a sustained conflict.

Vietnam lasted for 7 1/2 years with 4.3% of the US population enrolled in the military. World War II, the Korean War, the American Revolution and the Civil War were all as long as our current engagement in Iraq, and there can be little doubt that the actual amount of combat in those wars was astronomical compared to anything we face today in Iraq, yet the current structure of our military is straining to maintain 140,000 on the battlefield. That is a problem.

The last time we had to mobilize for war we instituted a draft. Unfortunately, the draft concept is flawed from the start. It breeds corruption and pretty much guarantees that only the poor or minorities will end up serving. Oddly enough, the draft was conceived to prevent just that, but never underestimate the ability of the human race to corrupt and abuse any bureaucratic system. In any case, I do not advocate a draft since there is no legitimate reason to believe that it would be any less corrupt, any less racially and socially biased today than it was in 1970. Instead, what I advocate is Universal Military Service.

In my view, every American has an obligation to serve his or her country. When a US Citizen turns 18, then it is that American's obligation to enter military service for a period of not less than two years. No exemptions, no deferments, no objections. Every American serves regardless of race, creed, gender, financial status, or any other category by which people avoided service in the 1970s. Service in the military should also be a prerequisite for obtaining US Citizenship and even for obtaining a visa that extends beyond five-years.

It is time Americans gave back to this nation instead of standing on the backs of a select few. It is also time that we recognize the short-comings of an all-volunteer force with regards to long term conflicts. Take Admiral Mullen's concerns to heart, and develop the plan now to address our ability to maintain a sustained conflict. You can be sure that our enemies will not sit idly by while we gear up when the time comes.

Technorati: politics news Mullen Admiral Joint Chiefs military
IceRocket: politics news Mullen Admiral Joint Chiefs military

Senate Energy Bill on Calendar

Senate bill S.1419 introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is now on the Senate calendar for consideration. (Washington Post: The Senate's Energy Bill.) There are five key points in the bill, each of which merit discussion:

• Require the use of 36 billion gallons of bio-fuels by 2022.
• Raise automobile fuel standards to 35 MPG by 2020.
• Criminalize price gouging of petroleum fuels during energy emergencies.
• Boosting energy efficiency standards.
• Improve international cooperation on energy.

Let me begin by saying that I do not in any way oppose the energy debate this bill will foster, nor am I opposed to the intentions of the Senate or the bill's sponsor with regards to the reformation of our energy policy and energy standards. To be sure, both our policy and standards are in serious need of reform. There are, however, some shortcomings in the bill as it currently exists that I wish to discuss.

36 billion gallons of bio-fuels by 2022

On the surface, this sounds both logical and feasible. The more we increase our use of bio-fuels, the less we rely on petroleum or petroleum byproducts for our energy needs. The problem with this approach, however, is that it introduces conflicting needs for grains (typically corn) that could be used for either food or energy. By linking food grains to energy, it creates an economic dynamic that raises the price of a low-cost food source to the much higher level of an energy source. While I agree with the spirit of the bill - find a viable alternative to petroleum products - I do not agree with the use of bio-fuels for this purpose. This section of the bill requires modification such that it does not create a relationship between food crops and energy crops.

Raise fuel standards to 35 MPG by 2020

Is there anyone in the nation that does not support this portion of the bill? Given our current technology, there is no legitimate reason not to implement these standards. In fact, there's no legitimate reason to wait until 2020 for those standards to be realized. This portion of the bill has my full support.

Criminalize price gouging

While I agree with the spirit of this clause, I'm not sure how to enforce it or even define it. Is what we are seeing today truly price gouging or is it the natural course of a free market? One of the most disturbing trends that I see today is not the upward spiral of gasoline prices. Rather, it's the lack of any corresponding downward spiral of gasoline demand. Previous logic held that gasoline consumption would decrease as the price increased. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, that has not held true. Some of it is our absurd propensity for over-sized vehicles under the false illusion that they are somehow safer. But that is not the whole story. The fact is, Americans are on the road longer today than they were a decade ago, even if the length of the commute (in miles) has not increased. There is much more traffic congestion today than a decade ago. There is also a significant amount of road construction along key arteries, especially in heavily populated areas. For me personally, my daily commute has gone from 30 minutes round trip to 90 minutes round trip, even though the distance remains the same. So consumption is actually flat or increasing while prices continue to rise.

The other issue with this section of the bill has to do with the composition of the price of a gallon of gas. In my home state of RI, the local gas station makes on average 8 cents per gallon of gas. That's a bit low when you consider that the station is really making a 2.7% profit on a gallon. The station is certainly not price gouging! The state, on the other hand, is making 43 cents per gallon in taxes! That's a 14.5% profit per gallon. So who is doing the actual gouging? Is it the station or the state? Some would argue that it's the oil refiner, but I'm not even sure that's true since the wholesale price is being set in free market auction at the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Don't get me wrong, I support the spirit behind this portion of the bill. I just don't know how to define gouging or how to enforce it.

Boosting energy efficiency standards

This one's a no-brainer. Improving our overall energy efficiency benefits everyone. It benefits the consumer, and it benefits the manufacturer. The challenge, however, is a conflict between energy efficiency and emissions controls. Unfortunately, the two do not work well together. Improving emissions, controlling pollution (both air and water), and adhering to ever increasing safety and environmental requirements costs energy. Now, I am not suggesting that we ignore the environmental aspects, however we either need to achieve some happy balance between the two or we must refocus our attention on more efficient forms of energy in the first place. Nuclear energy is a good example of that. One of the best ways of improving our overall energy efficiency is to revitalize our nuclear energy programs. It's by far the most efficient energy source we have given today's technology.

Improving International Cooperation on Energy

Good luck with this one. Oh, it sounds great on paper, but the reality is that there are too many competing interests for this to happen. When you look at the developing countries of China and India, their energy consumption is focused entirely on the growth of their economies. China has already stated that their first priority is economic growth, even if that flies in the face of energy efficiency or pollution control. The harsh reality, though, is that international cooperation must include China and India or the debate is pretty much a non-starter. What I have not seen anyone propose is a viable means of bringing China and India into the fold. Until that happens, International Cooperation will be a cute slogan but nothing more.

In summary, there are many aspects of this bill that I support. There are other aspects that need work as outlined above. What I am still waiting to see is a requirement from either side of the aisle that we address the real problem, that being the lack of development towards a new renewable energy source that will meet our long term needs. To date, none of the solutions proposed - bio-fuel, wind, solar, hydrogen cells, even nuclear energy - come close to fulfilling that requirement. So that challenge remains. Let's see some research funding aimed at developing a new fuel source that can bring us will into the 21st century.

Technorati: politics news S.1419 energy Reid senate
IceRocket: politics news S.1419 energy Reid senate

Military Talks "Post Occupation" Plans

There is now talk in military circles about a smaller "Post Occupation" force in Iraq that does not constitute a total US troop pullout, but also does not maintain current troop levels. The goal is to move roughly two-thirds of the troops out of Iraq by late 2008. (Washington Post: Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq.)

My readers can attest that you would be hard pressed to find a more ardent supporter of our actions in Iraq than I. Despite that unwavering support, I find it very difficult to understand the logic behind this "Post Occupation" concept. There's something we seem to have failed to learn from history. It takes roughly twenty four hours for an army of liberation to become an army of occupation. While the people welcome you with opens arms when troops enter the city to oust a tyrant, those same people awaken then next morning and ask why you're still there. That is what happened in Iraq.

In the eyes of most of the Arab world, and likely the world at large, any US troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future will be considered an occupation force. I don't care if that force is 200,000 strong or down to a mere 40,000, it will still be viewed as an army of occupation. Worse yet, with the smaller numbers projected by the end of 2008, our troops will be ill equipped to maintain any order in the areas they do occupy.

Whether or not the current situation in Iraq may be viewed as a civil war is largely semantics. The fact is, there are three faction groups engaged in a violent power struggle, each using the US military both as pawns to engage their enemy and as targets to ferment unrest. Perhaps the best course of action at this point is to allow the three factions to fight it out, then deal with the winner. Continuing to leave US troops in the middle of those three factions without any clear long term objective does not make much sense either politically or militarily.

What concerns me most about the "Post Occupation" force plan is what appears to be a lack of long range planning. Arguably, that has plagued us from the start, but to suggest at this point that we can discuss post occupation while maintaining a troop presence there is ludicrous. It would seem to me that we are merely setting up our troops to be even more of a target for the various insurgencies without giving them sufficient manpower to safeguard their own positions. As supportive as I've been of our actions in Iraq, I do not see how it is possible to support this "Post Occupation" plan without the prerequisites of a stable Iraqi government, a strong Iraqi military force, a strong Iraqi police force, and an end to the insurgency that is currently plaguing the region. Until those prerequisites are met, there is no "Post" anything.

The troop reduction plans as stated appear to be more political than anything. It's not coincidental that the target listed was late 2008. As I recall, that would be right around the next presidential election. It is bad enough that our troops are currently being used as political pawns by the three warring factions in Iraq. Let's make absolutely certain that they are not used as political pawns here in the US. Our troops deserve far better than that. They deserve our support and Congressional funding sufficient to do the job. Most importantly, however, they deserve a clearly thought out long term plan that includes achievable objectives that justify their deployment into a war zone. When I hear this latest "Post Occupation" nonsense, I have to wonder how far removed we are from the latter.

Technorati: politics news Iraq post occupation military
IceRocket: politics news Iraq post occupation military

Pakistan Duplicitous on Nuclear Pact

In what has to be one of the world's greatest ironies, Pakistan has agreed to join the US and Russia in combating global nuclear terrorism. Well, almost. As Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman Tasnim Aslam said, "While joining the initiative, Pakistan has declared that the Global Initiative does not cover Pakistan's military nuclear facilities or activities." So Pakistan is willing to combat global nuclear terrorism while choosing to ignore one of the greatest potential sources of said terrorism, their own nuclear facilities. (The Hindu: Pak. to join global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism.)

On paper, Pakistan is penciled in as a US ally in our current war against Radical Islam. The reality, though, is that Pakistan is the source, training ground, and refuge for the radical Islamic groups that threaten the rest of the world. Terrorists in Pakistan breed faster than cockroaches and they are just as difficult to exterminate. While it may be true that Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf is a US ally, on paper at least, it is also true that his conversion to our way of thinking came at gun point, and it is equally true that the US does not hold favor with the overall general population in Pakistan. Truly treating Pakistan like an ally is absurd.

In 2004, a former Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted to running a vast nuclear proliferation network that provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. What was the official response from President Pervez Musharraf? He pardoned Khan and called him a national hero. So much for our ally, Pakistan.

Make no mistake about it. Pakistan is a terrorist state with nuclear capabilities. Worse yet, the only thing that stands between them and a fundamentalist radical Muslim regime is Musharraf, and his hold is tenuous at best. Once he is out of the picture Pakistan will be run by the Radical Islamic elements that we are fighting world wide. A nuclear equipped Pakistan simply means that it is inevitable that the terrorists prosecuting their side of the Radical Islamic War will also have nuclear capabilities.

Musharraf cannot currently control his population, nor does he appear to have any real desire to do so. It is only a matter of time before the US is forced to deal harshly with Pakistan. They are providing safe haven for our enemies, they stymie any attempts by the US military to pursue our enemies into Pakistan, and they have already admitted to providing other rogue nations with nuclear technologies. How much more proof do we need that Pakistan is itself a rogue nation?

So it is nice to hear that Pakistan will join the US and Russia in a global fight against nuclear terrorism. I say we start right there, in Pakistan. Eliminate their nuclear capabilities and we've already accounted for the major source of nuclear proliferation to other rogue nations in the region. Once that is accomplished, we can focus on the other major source of nuclear proliferation to rogue nations: Russia. But that's another topic for discussion.

Technorati: politics news Pakistan Russia nuclear terrorism Musharraf
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Russia nuclear terrorism Musharraf

DHS Wants Tighter Visa Rules for EU Visitors

On the same day that the State Department is suspending passport rules for air travel from Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean, the Department of Homeland Security is calling for tighter entry requirements for travelers entering the US from the EU. Many European nations enjoy a reciprocal visa waiver status which means a traveler from the EU may enter the US using only their passport. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, however, wants these visitors to register online 48 hours in advance of their flights to the US in the mistaken belief that this will prevent terrorists from entering the country. (The Post Standard: U.S. official: tighter visa rules for EU.)
First of all, these travelers from the EU already have airline tickets. The flight manifests are already allegedly being checked against anti-terror lists to identify passengers that may be potential threats. When they arrive at Passport Control in the US, the travelers are already photographed, fingerprinted, and again checked against a list intended to identify criminals, those wanted for crimes, or suspected terrorists. So we already have multiple checks allegedly in place to prevent suspected terrorists from crossing our borders. Well, all except entry from Canada and Mexico since a passport isn't required at those border crossings, and in many cases there are long undefended and unmonitored swatches where you can cross at will. But that's a different story.

Now, the various law enforcement agencies are already complaining that they are not able to keep up with checking the airline manifests, even though most flights are booked weeks or months in advance, not 48 hours. In fact, if you do book 48 hours or less in advance, you get the pleasure of "special security screening" that tends to be a bit more intimate than your average traveler would prefer. So how is this new online questionnaire supposed to improve things?

It stands to reason that this will now require yet another layer of government workers to process all of these online questionnaires with only 48 hours in which to do so. The FBI can't do it with the airline manifests, and that simply involves a name and address cross reference check, but we are somehow expected to believe that we can effectively implement another bureaucratic layer fully staffed to process these online forms quickly and efficiently. Right. Forgive me if I tend to be skeptical whenever I think of government efficiency.

Aside from the bureaucracy angle, it's also quite impractical for the traveler. The assumption Chertoff is making is that all travelers to the US will have Internet access 48 hours prior to their flight to their overseas flight. I can personally attest that such an assumption is absurd. I've taken a number of overseas trips in the past few years where I've had no online access - or been anywhere near a place with online access - for over a week prior to my flight to the US, let alone 48 hours. One such trip was actually in Canada! Granted, that's not covered by Chertoff's absurd proposal, but think about it for a second. Canada! I spent a week on a tundra buggy out along Hudson Bay watching the polar bear migration. There was nothing resembling Internet access on that trip until I flew from Churchill to Winnipeg, arriving at the hotel only 5 hours - not 48 - before I had to leave for the airport for my flight to Boston.

Once again, the Department of Homeland Security is looking to impose regulations that, had they been in effect in 2001 would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the terror attacks on 9/11. We seem to keep forgetting that the terrorists were in this country legally and had been for some time. They had all the proper paperwork. They had the proper visas. None of the rules either imposed since 9/11 or proposed recently - such as this absurd online registration proposal - would have prevented them from entering the US legally or from carrying out their terror attacks. Let me know when the DHS comes up with something of substance. As it stands now, I'm getting sick of allocating our tax dollars to a department that has added no value whatsoever to either our national security or to our ability to prevent future terror attacks.

Technorati: politics news Chertoff visa EU Homeland Security travel
IceRocket: politics news Chertoff visa EU Homeland Security travel

Putin Offers Sleight of Hand Deal

Faced with unwavering resolve on the part of the US to develop a missile defense shield in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has reversed course to propose a "partnership" in the venture. The Russian proposal, though, is to simply use an existing radar station in Azerbaijan (currently under Russian lease) rather than building new US controlled radar stations in the Czech Republic and elsewhere. (Washington Post: Putin Offers to Join Missile Shield Effort.)

The publicly stated intent behind the European missile shield is to defend against potential long range attacks from Iran. Russia's position on the missile shield is that it would signal a new arms escalation from the West and would require the former Soviet empire to re-target its own missiles back towards European nations. The offer to engage in a missile defense partnership was proposed several times by the US, first by Reagan as part of the SDI project and again by President Bush in 1990. The partnership offers continued through the Clinton administration and into the current Bush administration. Until yesterday, all partnership offers were summarily rejected by Russia.

What yesterday's offer by Putin does, however, is not introduce a partnership. It places control of the entire missile shield project directly into the hands of Russian controlled facilities and personnel. Fortunately, there is no US commitment to accept this sleight-of-hand, and it will likely fall apart before Air Force One even leaves European air space.

One of the biggest problems with the proposed deal is centered around Russia's economic and military ties with Iran, the very nation cited as one of the reasons for the need for the shield in the first place. Iran does not currently have long range missiles capable of reaching Europe, however the technology to develop such missiles is currently being provided by both Russia and China. Existing Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles with a range of close to 3000 kilometers were developed with Chinese and Russian assistance. Additionally, Russia is the primary supplier of Iran's current nuclear technology research which, as you may be aware, is the subject of much angst in the UN Security Council.

Forgive me if I don't trust Putin's motives in proposing this partnership. I'm a bit skeptical about using Russian staffed radar facilities to monitor a nation with whom Russia is directly partnered. President Bush may have looked into Putin's eyes and seen a good and honest man. When I look into them, I see a KGB hard-liner that is still pining for the good old days of the Soviet Union. The only response practical with regards to the Russian partnership offer is a resounding "Nyet". They are more than welcome to work with us in developing the missile shield using new facilities throughout Europe, but there is absolutely no way we can accept the use of an existing facility under Russian control at the expense of those newer developments. Let us not forget the old Russian proverb that says, "Trust but verify". Let's not be overly naive about Putin's motives. Let's not be foolish enough to trust Iran's ally in the development of an anti-Iranian missile shield.

Technorati: politics news Iran Putin Europe missile shield Russia
IceRocket: politics news Iran Putin Europe missile shield Russia

G8 More of the Same Rhetoric

The G8 Summit today focused on the two key issues of emissions controls and energy efficiencies. Some papers in the US and indeed, around the world, are heralding an agreement between the US and Germany with regards to emissions limits. (New York Times: Europe and U.S. Reach Climate Deal.) I would advise those papers to read their own articles on the subject before jumping to that wild conclusion.

What effectively happened today with regards to emissions controls is that President Bush gave Chancellor Merkel a political bone by agreeing to "seriously consider" a European proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% between now and 2050. While I'm certain that Chancellor Merkel will make good political use of that statement, it is truly a statement without substance. There is no commitment involved at all when one agrees to seriously consider a proposal.

The reality is that any global agreement involving the US will hinge entirely on the President's offer to bring China and India back to the table. There's good reason for that, since the US cannot agree to any emissions controls that will potentially increase the cost of manufacturing here until China and India make similar agreements. The economic implications of such an agreement without the two most rapidly developing nations are staggering. We simply can't agree to it without putting similar constraints on them. The US has already lost too much manufacturing might to third-world countries thanks to cheap (bordering on slave) labor. To pile emissions control restrictions on US manufacturing without similar constraints on China and India would cripple what little manufacturing remains in this country. So if the Chancellor truly wishes agreement on emissions control, she had best work with us to get China and India back to the table. There is no agreement without them.

The topic of energy efficiency also surfaced, and I'm a bit perplexed by the US stance on this one. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Chancellor Merkel's chief energy advisor, expressed concern over the status of a German proposal to increase energy efficiency by 20% before 2020. The stance taken by the US is that efficiency goals should be set individually by each nation, and that it should not be a global mandate. The logic behind that escapes me.

Increasing energy efficiency simply makes good economic sense. It follows logically that, as the efficiency increases, the cost of energy decreases. That has to be good news for American business as well as the American consumer. Why would we not support a 20% goal by 2020? Even without the economic potential, it makes good political sense. When the average American thinks "energy", they immediately think of gasoline prices, even though the two are not directly related. Championing an energy efficiency policy would play very well heading into an election year whether or not the goal is actually achievable.

What it all comes down to is this, though. We are in the midst of yet another G8 Summit, but there is nothing new and nothing of substance forthcoming. The script is the same, it would seem. G8 leaders arrive, they are met by protests and riots, they sit around and pontificate over global warming, emissions controls, and energy prices, and they ultimately go home with nothing having been actually decided or agreed upon. Somebody wake me when we decide to get serious at one of these summits. For now, it's almost as bad as reading the latest in the Paris Hilton jail saga.

Technorati: politics news G8 greenhouse energy global warming
IceRocket: politics news G8 greenhouse energy global warming

Immigration Bill Support Wanes

A compromise immigration bill just barely survived a series of challenges in the Senate yesterday. Attempts to add numerous amendments to the bill were narrowly defeated, while a single amendment to shut the program down after 5-years barely passed on a 49-48 vote. (Washington Post: Immigrant Measure Survives Challenges.)

Whether or not the bill ultimately passes is largely irrelevant. Like most of what is coming out of Congress, the bill attempts to morph multiple problems into a single solution that in reality accomplishes virtually nothing. There are three fundamental problems facing us today with regards to immigration policies, and those three problems need to be addressed separately.

First, we have the problem of illegal border crossings which allow people to enter this country without the proper documentation. Regardless of what happens with the other two issues, that problem needs to be solved immediately. There is no legitimate reason for any person to be able to cross our border without proper documentation. Large swatches of our borders both north and south are largely unprotected, so crossing into the US without attracting attention is much easier than the average person would believe. Those borders need to be secured and they need to be monitored. Until that is done we will continue to have an illegal immigration problem. Passing more legislation is laughable without first securing our borders.

The second problem has to do with tracking long term visitors to this country and dealing with those that have exceeded their visa limits. The challenge this presents very quickly turns into a privacy issue. There aren't many - if any - ways to track non-US citizens without also tracking US citizens, and I certainly don't advocate that. We already have enough of a Big Brother environment here without additional tracking imposed on everyone's movements. There are, however, some steps that can be taken to mitigate the problem without becoming too intrusive. There needs to be a requirement for proof of citizenship or proof of legal status when seeking employment, obtaining a driver's license, renting an apartment, buying a home, etc. That is reasonable and will help identify people that are not here legally whenever they engage in a major activity. It won't catch everyone, but it will certainly catch more than we do today. In any event, this issue must be solved and, while it is tied to the first issue, it is in fact separate and should not delay the resolution of issue one.

The third problem is what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here. Some estimates claim 12-million but the actual number is irrelevant. The point is, they are here, they are illegal, so what are we going to do about it. Well, here's where I'm going to shock my conservative peers. What we do is make them legal. It is not practical, nor is it cost effective, to attempt to track down 12-million people using government, military, or police resources. The only way to identify the current illegal aliens is with their cooperation. Therefore, it must be in their best interests to come forward and obtain legal status. Imposing fines, requiring the head of household to leave and apply to come back, etc. is absolutely absurd. That only provides incentive to remain below the radar. The bill as offered is ludicrous.

Yes, I realize what I am advocating amounts to amnesty, and that does effectively reward 12-million or so people for breaking the law. It is, however, practical and cost effective. Unless the people already here have a reason to come forward, an assurance that they will not be separated from their families, and an assurance that they will not be financially penalized, identifying the 12-million already here will never happen. So as distasteful as it is, amnesty is really the only viable option.

So where does that leave us? Well right now it leaves us with an immigration bill that is laughable. It leaves us with a bill that will not address the people already here, will not prevent additional illegal border crossings, and will not provide for the tracking of people holding expired visas. About the only thing it provides is a political feather for senators heading into an election year, but like most campaign rhetoric, it truly holds no substance.

The challenge is still before Congress to address the immigration issues. I also challenge them to address them as three separate and unique problems that must be solved. As long as all three issues are bundled into a single piece of legislation, progress towards a viable immigration solution will be stymied.

Technorati: politics news immigration senate
IceRocket: politics news immigration senate

D-Day Remembered

Today marks the 63rd anniversary of D-Day, a day when over 2500 allied soldiers were killed and another 8000 were wounded in the heroic effort to liberate France from Nazi occupation. Defense Secretary Gates marked the day with a visit to the Normandy American Cemetery where 9837 American soldiers are buried, most of whom died either on D-Day or in the days immediately following the start of the invasion. (USA Today: Pentagon Chief Honors D-Day Troops.)

Rarely do I use the word "heroic", and rarely do I assign the hero label to any group of individuals. For the soldiers that executed the invasion on the Normandy beaches, however, words like "hero" and "heroic" hardly seem sufficient. Imagine just for a moment being in that first wave of amphibious landing craft heading for the beaches. Imagine for a moment knowing that the full might of the Nazi defense lines would be focused entirely on you. Imagine hitting that beach knowing your chances of surviving the next few moments were next to nothing. Yet these soldiers did precisely that, not because they were ordered to, not because it was their job, but because they knew that their sacrifice was essential if France was to be liberated from Nazi oppression. Indeed, the men and women alive in 1944 are not known as "The Greatest Generation" for nothing.

Why, though, with our troops currently engaged in a seemingly endless conflict in Iraq do I choose to focus on events 63-years past? Because the efforts of those servicemen in 1944, the sacrifices their families endured, and indeed the hardships and sacrifices we as a nation endured then are more relevant today than ever. In 1944 on the beaches of Normandy, our troops were fighting on foreign soil against unbridled evil. They were fighting an enemy that was systematically attempting to eradicate entire races in their quest for world dominance. They were fighting an enemy that was focused on the subjugation of all of Europe, and despite popular belief, also had its hateful eye on the United States.

Today we face a similar enemy with similar goals. We face an enemy that seeks the eradication of not only an entire race, but also of entire religions. We face an enemy that would reshape the world into their image, and not only has its sites set on the United States but has actually attacked us here and seeks to do so again. The difference today, though, is that the enemy does not have a single head of state. Rather, the enemy is scattered, with each pocket of soldiers more fanatical than the last. The enemy does not wear a uniform and does not wage war along a standard front using traditional weaponry. Indeed, the enemy we face in 2007 is far more dangerous than the one we faced on the beaches of Normandy in 1944.

What's worse, though, is that today, unlike 1944, we as a nation do not think or act like a nation at war with a deadly enemy. We complain about Iraq being a quagmire, and we lament over the soldiers and civilians killed in homicide bombings in Baghdad, but we lose sight of the larger picture. 19 civilians were killed by a Fedayeen car bomb yesterday in Fallujah, and that garners a lot of press and results in even more "we shouldn't be there" rhetoric. But how many of you reading this know about the 15-year old boy murdered by Islamic radicals today in Thailand? How about the courthouse bombing in Algeria today that killed one person and injured 8 others? You haven't heard of those? Well surely you know about the Afghan doctor that was beheaded yesterday by Sunni extremists, or the female head of a girls school in Afghanistan that was killed yesterday by Islamic fundamentalists? No? Well, that is at the heart of the problem.

Make no mistake about it, we are at war, and I don't mean in Iraq. We are at war world wide against Radical Islam. Iraq is getting the headlines these days, but Iraq is only one location in the global war against an enemy that seeks to destroy every religion except their own brand of Radical Islam, and to subjugate every nation in the name of Allah. The anti-Iraq crowd will continue to count the American casualties since our invasion and overthrow of Hussein. Well, here's another count that is more significant, at least to me. As of this date - June 6, 2007, Islamic Extremists have committed 8508 acts of terror since 9/11. We are at war, folks. Let's make sure we win this one.

Technorati: politics news Normandy D-Day Islam Muslim
IceRocket: politics news Normandy D-Day Islam Muslim

Muslims Object to Villain Tag on "24"

It appears that the current season of '24', the popular action drama now in its 7th season, is once again upsetting Muslims. Without going into too much detail on the plot, this season's villains are radical Islamic terrorists waging war inside the US. This has Muslim organizations across the nation screaming "foul". CNN: Muslim's Protest '24'.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Muslim community is upset with the way they are portrayed on a fictional TV show, yet they seem to have no objections to the actions of their own number in real life. The reality is, there is far less anti-Muslim sentiment in the US today than you might reasonably expect given the actions of Muslim radicals world-wide.

The silence of the Muslim community both here and abroad is deafening when a radical Islamic group commits a homicide bombing - killing innocent women and children in the process - or when they destroy a church or mosque. Well, by their very silence they are condoning that activity. If the Muslim community wants to change their image, then the Muslim community needs to become vocal in their opposition of the antics that are tarnishing that image across the world.

'24' is simply depicting very viable terror scenarios as part of their series. Like it or not, the primary terrorist threat today comes from radical Islam. If the moderate element within the Muslim community wishes to divorce themselves from the actions of their radical counterparts, they are more than welcome to do so. Join us in the fight against these extreme terror groups. Remaining silent, however, only makes you part of the problem.

Technorati: politics news Muslim terror 24 Islam
IceRocket: politics news Muslim terror 24 Islam