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.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Friday, June 08, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Alito, Court Trash Fourth Amendment
Newly appointed Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito cast the decisive vote in greatly expanding the search and seizure powers of the police while crippling the Fourth Amendment in the process. (San Francisco Chronicle: Police intrusion for evidence allowed
Knock, announce not always needed, high court rules.)
The Supreme Court claims that police intrusions onto private property are already protected by other means, citing "the increasing professionalism of police forces" as one such measure. Forgive me if I don't trust the professionalism of the police force to be a deterrent in violating search and seizure protections built into the US Constitution. Professional or not, the police will take and use as much authority as they are granted and will continue to attempt to extend that authority. There is a very good reason that law enforcement and the courts are not in the same branch of government. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court is failing to provide the proper checks and balances against unlawful procedures by the police.
With today's ruling, any evidence seized during an unlawful search would still be admissible. It would no longer be considered tainted, thus eliminating any real need to avoid an unlawful search in the first place. With this ruling, the 4th Amendment suddenly becomes unenforceable.
Since the early 1970s there has been a constant erosion into the constitutional protections granted the citizens of the US. This ruling by the court is only the latest in a series of moves that transcend every administration since Nixon. Certainly aspects of the Patriot Act and the "security-mania" environment post-9/11 have fueled the move, but the truth is this erosion is not unique to either Republican or Democrat administrations nor is it something new. Both are equally guilty in eroding our rights. (Remember, it was Bill Clinton that issued executive orders authorizing the search of Section 8 housing without warrants on the grounds that they were funded by the government.)
If anyone wonders why the first and second amendments exist, this is precisely the reason. So where is the outrage from the press? Freedom of the Press exists to expose this type of abuse, to make the public aware of what's happening, and to stimulate the reactions necessary to counter it. The press should be all over this one, but somehow I doubt there will be much of a stir. Personally, I'm steaming. I very much fear that we are spiraling into a police state, and worse yet I fear that we're doing it with the consent of the people. Freedoms lost are never regained, and right now we're losing rights by the bushel.
Technorati: politics news Alito Supreme Court 4th Amendment
IceRocket: politics news Alito Supreme Court 4th Amendment
Knock, announce not always needed, high court rules.)
The Supreme Court claims that police intrusions onto private property are already protected by other means, citing "the increasing professionalism of police forces" as one such measure. Forgive me if I don't trust the professionalism of the police force to be a deterrent in violating search and seizure protections built into the US Constitution. Professional or not, the police will take and use as much authority as they are granted and will continue to attempt to extend that authority. There is a very good reason that law enforcement and the courts are not in the same branch of government. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court is failing to provide the proper checks and balances against unlawful procedures by the police.
With today's ruling, any evidence seized during an unlawful search would still be admissible. It would no longer be considered tainted, thus eliminating any real need to avoid an unlawful search in the first place. With this ruling, the 4th Amendment suddenly becomes unenforceable.
Since the early 1970s there has been a constant erosion into the constitutional protections granted the citizens of the US. This ruling by the court is only the latest in a series of moves that transcend every administration since Nixon. Certainly aspects of the Patriot Act and the "security-mania" environment post-9/11 have fueled the move, but the truth is this erosion is not unique to either Republican or Democrat administrations nor is it something new. Both are equally guilty in eroding our rights. (Remember, it was Bill Clinton that issued executive orders authorizing the search of Section 8 housing without warrants on the grounds that they were funded by the government.)
If anyone wonders why the first and second amendments exist, this is precisely the reason. So where is the outrage from the press? Freedom of the Press exists to expose this type of abuse, to make the public aware of what's happening, and to stimulate the reactions necessary to counter it. The press should be all over this one, but somehow I doubt there will be much of a stir. Personally, I'm steaming. I very much fear that we are spiraling into a police state, and worse yet I fear that we're doing it with the consent of the people. Freedoms lost are never regained, and right now we're losing rights by the bushel.
Technorati: politics news Alito Supreme Court 4th Amendment
IceRocket: politics news Alito Supreme Court 4th Amendment
Thursday, June 08, 2006
UN's Brown Whines About US Support
UN deputy Mark Malloch Brown openly criticised US support for the UN in a widely publicised speech yesterday. Brown complained that the US is undermining the UN and using it as a political tool without defending the UN against criticisms at home. According to Brown, "The prevailing practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the UN one way or another." (Telegraph: US failing to aid the UN, says Annan's deputy.)
Lose the UN? Could we ever get so lucky? Like the League of Nations before it, the UN's best course of action would be to fade into the distant memory of a failed history. Idealistic at best, the UN is an exercise in incompetence and a recipe for corruption. It is not the US that is failing to aid the UN, it is the UN that is failing itself.
The United States currently spends over $3 Billion on the UN; more than any other nation on the planet. The US also provides more troops for UN missions than any other nation on the planet. When it comes to supporting the UN, The US and the American taxpayer do far more than any other nation and bear a far higher burden than any other taxpayer. What Mr. Brown seems to fail to understand is that without the United States there is no UN. Just as the League of Nations folded without US support, so too will the UN.
It's high time we drove that point home. It's time we stopped using American troops as the UN's military force. Let the rest of the world take up that burden for a change. It's time we stopped wasting $3 Billion dollars per year on a grand debating society. That money is far better spent at home. It's time we reclaimed some prime real estate in Manhattan. Let some other nation host this collective body of leeches who's sole purpose seems to be to prolong any given crisis. It's time for the UN to fade into distant memory.
Lose the UN? Could we ever get so lucky? Like the League of Nations before it, the UN's best course of action would be to fade into the distant memory of a failed history. Idealistic at best, the UN is an exercise in incompetence and a recipe for corruption. It is not the US that is failing to aid the UN, it is the UN that is failing itself.
The United States currently spends over $3 Billion on the UN; more than any other nation on the planet. The US also provides more troops for UN missions than any other nation on the planet. When it comes to supporting the UN, The US and the American taxpayer do far more than any other nation and bear a far higher burden than any other taxpayer. What Mr. Brown seems to fail to understand is that without the United States there is no UN. Just as the League of Nations folded without US support, so too will the UN.
It's high time we drove that point home. It's time we stopped using American troops as the UN's military force. Let the rest of the world take up that burden for a change. It's time we stopped wasting $3 Billion dollars per year on a grand debating society. That money is far better spent at home. It's time we reclaimed some prime real estate in Manhattan. Let some other nation host this collective body of leeches who's sole purpose seems to be to prolong any given crisis. It's time for the UN to fade into distant memory.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Chavez' Luster Wearing Off
Peruvians voiced a resounding "NO" to Hugo Chavez in this week's election of Alan Garcia as President of Peru. In the weeks leading up to the election, pro-Chavez candidate Ollanta Humala had a commanding lead. That is, he lead before Chavez stepped in, attempting to assert his own stamp on Peru's elections. The move backfired, giving pro-American candidate Garcia the victory. (VCrisis: The impact of Alan Garcia's victory on the Latin American political scenario.)
Peru is not the only place where Chavez is starting to feel the heat. Attempts to influence elections in Mexico are being met with the same resistance as was seen in Peru. Given the choice between allying themselves with the US or with Venezuela, it's unlikely Mexicans will choose the latter.
Even Chavez' luster in Bolivia is beginning to wear thin. His attitude toward recently elected Evo Morales is being viewed by Bolivians as patronizing and, in many cases, downright insulting. Morales is starting to chafe at being perceived as a Chavez puppet while the Bolivian people are growing increasingly angry at Chavez' public antics that are seen to demean Morales.
Further south, Brazil and Chile want little to do with Chavez. The election of Garcia in Peru effectively presents a united anti-Chavez front controlling most of South America. Even Kirchner in Argentina is wavering in support of Chavez, accepting money from the Venezuelan government but offering very little in return.
Chavez may well find himself isolated. What was once seen as a tidal wave of anti-American sentiment south of the border has now rebounded into a very loud anti-Chavez chorus. Perhaps now Latin America will see that it is the support of the US, not socialist Venezuela, that can bolster their economy, improve their infrastructure, provide jobs, and educate their children.
Peru is not the only place where Chavez is starting to feel the heat. Attempts to influence elections in Mexico are being met with the same resistance as was seen in Peru. Given the choice between allying themselves with the US or with Venezuela, it's unlikely Mexicans will choose the latter.
Even Chavez' luster in Bolivia is beginning to wear thin. His attitude toward recently elected Evo Morales is being viewed by Bolivians as patronizing and, in many cases, downright insulting. Morales is starting to chafe at being perceived as a Chavez puppet while the Bolivian people are growing increasingly angry at Chavez' public antics that are seen to demean Morales.
Further south, Brazil and Chile want little to do with Chavez. The election of Garcia in Peru effectively presents a united anti-Chavez front controlling most of South America. Even Kirchner in Argentina is wavering in support of Chavez, accepting money from the Venezuelan government but offering very little in return.
Chavez may well find himself isolated. What was once seen as a tidal wave of anti-American sentiment south of the border has now rebounded into a very loud anti-Chavez chorus. Perhaps now Latin America will see that it is the support of the US, not socialist Venezuela, that can bolster their economy, improve their infrastructure, provide jobs, and educate their children.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
NH Nixes Driver's License Regulations
New Hampshire, the state with "Live Free or Die" written across the top of every license plate, is taking a strong stand against federally imposed standards for the issuance of driver's licenses. A measure prohibiting the state from adopting the federal standards passed the New Hampshire House and is expected to easily pass the Senate. The governor remains undecided, however there are certainly enough votes to override any potential gubernatorial veto. (Boston Globe: N.H. leads a rebellion against driver's license regulations).
Representative Neil Kurk said, "I don't believe the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identification card. We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify and eventually control."
Kurk is right on the mark. This federally mandated identification program is yet another knee-jerk reaction by Homeland Security that infringes on individual privacy, better enables the federal government to track and monitor every citizen, and does absolutely nothing to address the events that resulted in 9/11. When you look under the covers, absolutely nothing enacted by Homeland Security would have prevented those attacks from being successfully executed. What we have seen, however, is a non-stop erosion in our constitutional rights, our right to privacy, and our personal freedoms all under the false guise of increased security. The attacks on our way of life continue, only they are being perpetrated by a department that comprises part of our federal government.
Kurk went on, "It's not going to promote national security. It's not going to help us prevent illegal immigration. It's just going to help the government keep tabs on ordinary citizens. Remember, the 9-11 terrorists were in this country legally and had legally obtained documents."
Also correct. In fact, there would be absolutely nothing preventing any other group of terrorists from entering the country in the same fashion. They were here legally. They all had valid documentation. None of the measures implemented in the last 5 years would have kept any of them out of the country.
What worries me more than the measures being imposed by Homeland Security is the willingness with which people accept the non-stop erosion of our personal liberties. That erosion is a far greater threat to American values than any attack ever perpetrated by a terrorist organization, yet we the people are willingly embracing and encouraging it just for the illusion of increased security.
From the sovereign state of New Hampshire echo the words spoken by the Patriot Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Well spoken, Patrick.
Technorati: politics news New Hampshire Kurt Driver's License
IceRocket: politics news New Hampshire Kurt Driver's License
Representative Neil Kurk said, "I don't believe the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identification card. We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify and eventually control."
Kurk is right on the mark. This federally mandated identification program is yet another knee-jerk reaction by Homeland Security that infringes on individual privacy, better enables the federal government to track and monitor every citizen, and does absolutely nothing to address the events that resulted in 9/11. When you look under the covers, absolutely nothing enacted by Homeland Security would have prevented those attacks from being successfully executed. What we have seen, however, is a non-stop erosion in our constitutional rights, our right to privacy, and our personal freedoms all under the false guise of increased security. The attacks on our way of life continue, only they are being perpetrated by a department that comprises part of our federal government.
Kurk went on, "It's not going to promote national security. It's not going to help us prevent illegal immigration. It's just going to help the government keep tabs on ordinary citizens. Remember, the 9-11 terrorists were in this country legally and had legally obtained documents."
Also correct. In fact, there would be absolutely nothing preventing any other group of terrorists from entering the country in the same fashion. They were here legally. They all had valid documentation. None of the measures implemented in the last 5 years would have kept any of them out of the country.
What worries me more than the measures being imposed by Homeland Security is the willingness with which people accept the non-stop erosion of our personal liberties. That erosion is a far greater threat to American values than any attack ever perpetrated by a terrorist organization, yet we the people are willingly embracing and encouraging it just for the illusion of increased security.
From the sovereign state of New Hampshire echo the words spoken by the Patriot Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Well spoken, Patrick.
Technorati: politics news New Hampshire Kurt Driver's License
IceRocket: politics news New Hampshire Kurt Driver's License
Monday, April 17, 2006
Rumsfeld Under Siege
In an unprecedented show of discontent, a half-dozen retired generals have openly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. More significantly, some of the generals in this list participated in the pre-war planning for the invasion of Iraq and voice numerous complaints that the Pentagon was ignoring the advice of military commanders. (CNN: Pentagon fights back over Rumsfeld).
With the war now in its third year, there is growing discontent at home over the state of affairs in Iraq amid prospects for civil war and the implementation of a fundamentalist regime hostile to American interests. Rumsfeld is certainly the primary target for criticism since he is perceived as the architect of the pre-war plans.
There are two points that I hope are indisputable. First is that the military phase of the Iraq war was flawless. To overthrow Hussein's regime in the short time it actually took while completely dismantling the Iraqi military in the process is nothing short of phenomenal. By all accounts, the phase of the war far exceeded anyone's expectations.
Second, the post-military phase of rebuilding a new Iraqi government and stabilizing the economic and political environment in Iraq has been deplorable. Enthusiastic and Idealistic pre-war estimates that assumed the war would pay for itself using Iraqi oil and that the people would overwhelmingly embrace the US, not as occupiers but rather as liberators, have fallen so far short of expectations as to be comical. As successful as the military phase was, the post-war phase has been a travesty.
The question on the table, though, is should Rumsfeld resign? Sadly, I must answer yes to that question, but not for the reasons one might expect. I certainly do want to see those responsible for the post-war phase held accountable for that overwhelming miscalculation, but I don't think that someone is Rumsfeld. Rather, I'm concerned that the military has lost confidence in their Defense Secretary. When that happens, it's time to put a new man in charge. Support for Rumsfeld among active military personnel has been uncomfortably quiet, and this is a case where silence implies opposition.
Civilian control of the military is one of the fundamental pillars that support our freedom. For that to work effectively, however, the military must have confidence in those civilian leaders. That confidence has been eroded over the last three years. What is unfortunate is that the erosion is due, not to any military failures - there have not been any - but rather in our use of our armed forces for non-military purposes. Rebuilding nations after a war has never been our strong suit. Our military is designed to win wars, and it does that extremely well. The aftermath, however, is more problematic.
The constraints placed on the military in post-war reconstruction almost doom it to failure from the onset. What is needed in this phase is absolute martial control of the region. Instead, we're putting the military in the position of enforcing the peace while attempting to show a kinder, gentler side. It doesn't work. In fact, it's perceived as a weakness by our enemies and it's being exploited by the insurgency. It is only with an iron grip that stability will be restored in Iraq, and that is not something our leadership is willing to exercise.
So yes, Rumsfeld does need to take one for the team. He needs to set stubbornness aside and step down. It will not change anything in Iraq, however it will allow a new Defense Secretary to start with a clean slate. That may well be necessary to restore the military's confidence in their leadership.
Technorati: politics news Rumsfeld
IceRocket: politics news Rumsfeld
With the war now in its third year, there is growing discontent at home over the state of affairs in Iraq amid prospects for civil war and the implementation of a fundamentalist regime hostile to American interests. Rumsfeld is certainly the primary target for criticism since he is perceived as the architect of the pre-war plans.
There are two points that I hope are indisputable. First is that the military phase of the Iraq war was flawless. To overthrow Hussein's regime in the short time it actually took while completely dismantling the Iraqi military in the process is nothing short of phenomenal. By all accounts, the phase of the war far exceeded anyone's expectations.
Second, the post-military phase of rebuilding a new Iraqi government and stabilizing the economic and political environment in Iraq has been deplorable. Enthusiastic and Idealistic pre-war estimates that assumed the war would pay for itself using Iraqi oil and that the people would overwhelmingly embrace the US, not as occupiers but rather as liberators, have fallen so far short of expectations as to be comical. As successful as the military phase was, the post-war phase has been a travesty.
The question on the table, though, is should Rumsfeld resign? Sadly, I must answer yes to that question, but not for the reasons one might expect. I certainly do want to see those responsible for the post-war phase held accountable for that overwhelming miscalculation, but I don't think that someone is Rumsfeld. Rather, I'm concerned that the military has lost confidence in their Defense Secretary. When that happens, it's time to put a new man in charge. Support for Rumsfeld among active military personnel has been uncomfortably quiet, and this is a case where silence implies opposition.
Civilian control of the military is one of the fundamental pillars that support our freedom. For that to work effectively, however, the military must have confidence in those civilian leaders. That confidence has been eroded over the last three years. What is unfortunate is that the erosion is due, not to any military failures - there have not been any - but rather in our use of our armed forces for non-military purposes. Rebuilding nations after a war has never been our strong suit. Our military is designed to win wars, and it does that extremely well. The aftermath, however, is more problematic.
The constraints placed on the military in post-war reconstruction almost doom it to failure from the onset. What is needed in this phase is absolute martial control of the region. Instead, we're putting the military in the position of enforcing the peace while attempting to show a kinder, gentler side. It doesn't work. In fact, it's perceived as a weakness by our enemies and it's being exploited by the insurgency. It is only with an iron grip that stability will be restored in Iraq, and that is not something our leadership is willing to exercise.
So yes, Rumsfeld does need to take one for the team. He needs to set stubbornness aside and step down. It will not change anything in Iraq, however it will allow a new Defense Secretary to start with a clean slate. That may well be necessary to restore the military's confidence in their leadership.
Technorati: politics news Rumsfeld
IceRocket: politics news Rumsfeld
Thursday, April 06, 2006
India Nuke Deal Ill Conceived
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday to lobby for the President's plan to share nuclear technology with India. Now, this is not nuclear weapons technology - they already have that - but rather nuclear energy technology, a distinction Iran is attempting to sell in their own dealings with the world community. (Washington Post: Rice Appeals For Nuclear Deal for India).
Does the distinction really matter, though? Not in my view, and certainly not in the case of India, a nation that has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and who secretly developed and tested a nuclear weapon right under our noses. That foreign intelligence failure launched a mini arms race between India and rival Pakistan, and leaves the region smoldering in a temporary cold war that only awaits the removal of Musharraf to escalate into something tragic.
Coupled with the Dubai Port debacle, this plan to bolster India's nuclear capabilities underscores our government's true priorities in the grand scheme of foreign relations. When the balance sheets are tallied, it is the profit and loss line that wins, not the security line. India is a prime market for cheap labor, especially in the technology sector, they are now enjoying the many benefits of a relationship with the US in exchange for a cheap work force. National security be damned if it improves the bottom line for corporate America.
What suffers beyond our national security, however, is our credibility. It is difficult to take a hard line against Iran while rewarding two other nations (India and Pakistan) for developing and testing nuclear weapons in defiance of UN edicts against nuclear proliferation. It is difficult to sell the American public on the idea that our government's first priority is national security when, in the name of profit, we are willing to sell our ports to a Middle East government owned company and we're willing to enhance nuclear technologies in a nation that is a heart beat away from war.
Our dealings with India are ill conceived. It is not in our long term best interests to reward them for their nuclear proliferation. That is a headache that will haunt a future administration. It is not in our best interests to encourage the outsourcing of technology and call-center jobs to India. That move will come back to haunt the American worker and it may very well come back to haunt the economy as a whole. It will certainly hinder our foreign policy options when the aforementioned future administration is forced to handle the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan.
Many of the foreign policy problems we are facing today are the direct result of short-sighted or poorly planned initiatives on the part of prior administrations. Future administrations will be forced to deal with the results of today's poorly conceived and short-sighted dealings with India.
Technorati: politics news India Rice Condoleezza Rice
IceRocket: politics news India Rice Condoleezza Rice
Does the distinction really matter, though? Not in my view, and certainly not in the case of India, a nation that has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and who secretly developed and tested a nuclear weapon right under our noses. That foreign intelligence failure launched a mini arms race between India and rival Pakistan, and leaves the region smoldering in a temporary cold war that only awaits the removal of Musharraf to escalate into something tragic.
Coupled with the Dubai Port debacle, this plan to bolster India's nuclear capabilities underscores our government's true priorities in the grand scheme of foreign relations. When the balance sheets are tallied, it is the profit and loss line that wins, not the security line. India is a prime market for cheap labor, especially in the technology sector, they are now enjoying the many benefits of a relationship with the US in exchange for a cheap work force. National security be damned if it improves the bottom line for corporate America.
What suffers beyond our national security, however, is our credibility. It is difficult to take a hard line against Iran while rewarding two other nations (India and Pakistan) for developing and testing nuclear weapons in defiance of UN edicts against nuclear proliferation. It is difficult to sell the American public on the idea that our government's first priority is national security when, in the name of profit, we are willing to sell our ports to a Middle East government owned company and we're willing to enhance nuclear technologies in a nation that is a heart beat away from war.
Our dealings with India are ill conceived. It is not in our long term best interests to reward them for their nuclear proliferation. That is a headache that will haunt a future administration. It is not in our best interests to encourage the outsourcing of technology and call-center jobs to India. That move will come back to haunt the American worker and it may very well come back to haunt the economy as a whole. It will certainly hinder our foreign policy options when the aforementioned future administration is forced to handle the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan.
Many of the foreign policy problems we are facing today are the direct result of short-sighted or poorly planned initiatives on the part of prior administrations. Future administrations will be forced to deal with the results of today's poorly conceived and short-sighted dealings with India.
Technorati: politics news India Rice Condoleezza Rice
IceRocket: politics news India Rice Condoleezza Rice
Monday, April 03, 2006
Iran Girding For War
While the UN dithers, Iran is preparing for a military showdown with the west. The latest move comes in test firing a new torpedo, conspicuously similar to a 1995 Russian design, that is capable of targeting multiple ships and eluding radar. (Bloomberg: Iran's Navy Says It Successfully Test-Fired High-Speed Torpedo).
Meanwhile, efforts in the UN remain deadlocked with neither China nor Russia supporting any form of sanctions or military threat against the rogue nation. A recent UN resolution calling for Iran to halt efforts to enrich uranium was all but meaningless. It carried about as much weight as a letter to the editor in your local newspaper. Without the support of China and Russia, both nations with veto power, the UN will effectively remain on the sidelines.
The latest developments in Iran push us much closer to a US military response. The new torpedo, which was shown in Iranian media broadcasts this weekend, threatens shipping in the Gulf and would certainly be used as an economic counter measure by Iran once the shooting starts. Iran frequently attacked ships in the gulf during their 1980 conflict with Iraq and had numerous clashes with military warships patrolling those waters. This new torpedo raises the stakes in control of the major oil shipping lanes.
Also problematic is the risk this now poses for the US 5th fleet stationed in the Gulf. Until now, no nation in that region could touch US warships patrolling the gulf or using carriers in that region to launch air assaults against Middle Eastern targets. This torpedo traveling at speeds up to 233 MPH could change all that.
What is clear is that the US cannot afford to wait for the UN to move. Perhaps the best course of action now is to provoke Iran into firing the first shot; a Persian Gulf equivalent to the Gulf of Tomkin. All we lack at the moment is an excuse to take out Iran's military potential. A retaliatory response, unlike a preemptive strike, needs no UN approval to be justified around the world.
However we go about it, 2006 must see action in Iran. Giving them another year to develop nuclear capabilities or increase their defensive and offensive capabilities against US troops both in Iraq and in the Gulf makes absolutely no sense. Forget the UN. Russia and China have blockaded those efforts. The time has come to see which of our allies are willing to take a stand. Either way, unilaterally or with allies, we must address the Iranian problem now.
Technorati: politics news Iran torpedo Hoot
IceRocket: politics news Iran torpedo hoot
Meanwhile, efforts in the UN remain deadlocked with neither China nor Russia supporting any form of sanctions or military threat against the rogue nation. A recent UN resolution calling for Iran to halt efforts to enrich uranium was all but meaningless. It carried about as much weight as a letter to the editor in your local newspaper. Without the support of China and Russia, both nations with veto power, the UN will effectively remain on the sidelines.
The latest developments in Iran push us much closer to a US military response. The new torpedo, which was shown in Iranian media broadcasts this weekend, threatens shipping in the Gulf and would certainly be used as an economic counter measure by Iran once the shooting starts. Iran frequently attacked ships in the gulf during their 1980 conflict with Iraq and had numerous clashes with military warships patrolling those waters. This new torpedo raises the stakes in control of the major oil shipping lanes.
Also problematic is the risk this now poses for the US 5th fleet stationed in the Gulf. Until now, no nation in that region could touch US warships patrolling the gulf or using carriers in that region to launch air assaults against Middle Eastern targets. This torpedo traveling at speeds up to 233 MPH could change all that.
What is clear is that the US cannot afford to wait for the UN to move. Perhaps the best course of action now is to provoke Iran into firing the first shot; a Persian Gulf equivalent to the Gulf of Tomkin. All we lack at the moment is an excuse to take out Iran's military potential. A retaliatory response, unlike a preemptive strike, needs no UN approval to be justified around the world.
However we go about it, 2006 must see action in Iran. Giving them another year to develop nuclear capabilities or increase their defensive and offensive capabilities against US troops both in Iraq and in the Gulf makes absolutely no sense. Forget the UN. Russia and China have blockaded those efforts. The time has come to see which of our allies are willing to take a stand. Either way, unilaterally or with allies, we must address the Iranian problem now.
Technorati: politics news Iran torpedo Hoot
IceRocket: politics news Iran torpedo hoot
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Pakistan: Headache for Next President
Yesterday, Pakistan test fired a cruise missile capable of delivering either a conventional or a nuclear payload. The missile has a range of about 310 miles and is primarily seen as a deterrent in the ongoing struggle between India and Pakistan. (BBC: Pakistan launches cruise missile).
Pakistan made waves a few years ago when they joined the nuclear club and launched a flurry of diplomatic desperation talks including the US and India. A visit by Secretary of State Rumsfeld to both Pakistan and India managed to defuse the situation at least temporarily, but in all likelihood the current state of relative calm is only a brief interlude.
In a recent speech, President Bush made reference to Pakistan as part of an overall goal to bring Democracy to the "Arab World". (We'll gloss over the fact that Pakistan is not an Arab country. We know what he meant.) In my view, a democratic Pakistan is about the worst thing that can happen in that region. As things stand now, Pakistan will likely be the greatest headache facing the 44th President of the United States. Sometime during the tenure of our next President, there is the increasing likelihood that there will be a change at the top in Pakistan. That, not Iran and not North Korea, poses the greatest danger to the US and our allies.
A Democratic Pakistan - something I see as impractical at best and more than likely impossible - would virtually guarantee a fundamentalist Islamic government with very strong ties to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda. Pakistan being a nuclear power, that essentially means nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists; not a pleasant prospect.
While the present Pakistani leadership is cooperating with the US in the War on Terror, albeit with numerous restrictions that have hindered our ability to contain terror cells in that region, the populace openly supports radical Islamic terror groups. Many consider bin Laden and other leaders of al Qaeda to be heroes, not villains. Once Musharrif is out of power, and bear in mind that he has been the target of 4 assassination attempts, there is a strong likelihood that his successor will be very anti-American and is also likely to have closer ties to terrorist organizations.
When Americans take to the polls in the 2008 election, national security will still be the biggest issue facing us. Conflict with Iran and probably the status of Iraq will fill the headlines, but it is Pakistan that the winner of that election will have to confront. It is Pakistan, not Iran, that is the America's greatest threat.
Technorati: politics news Pakistan Iran
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Iran
Pakistan made waves a few years ago when they joined the nuclear club and launched a flurry of diplomatic desperation talks including the US and India. A visit by Secretary of State Rumsfeld to both Pakistan and India managed to defuse the situation at least temporarily, but in all likelihood the current state of relative calm is only a brief interlude.
In a recent speech, President Bush made reference to Pakistan as part of an overall goal to bring Democracy to the "Arab World". (We'll gloss over the fact that Pakistan is not an Arab country. We know what he meant.) In my view, a democratic Pakistan is about the worst thing that can happen in that region. As things stand now, Pakistan will likely be the greatest headache facing the 44th President of the United States. Sometime during the tenure of our next President, there is the increasing likelihood that there will be a change at the top in Pakistan. That, not Iran and not North Korea, poses the greatest danger to the US and our allies.
A Democratic Pakistan - something I see as impractical at best and more than likely impossible - would virtually guarantee a fundamentalist Islamic government with very strong ties to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda. Pakistan being a nuclear power, that essentially means nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists; not a pleasant prospect.
While the present Pakistani leadership is cooperating with the US in the War on Terror, albeit with numerous restrictions that have hindered our ability to contain terror cells in that region, the populace openly supports radical Islamic terror groups. Many consider bin Laden and other leaders of al Qaeda to be heroes, not villains. Once Musharrif is out of power, and bear in mind that he has been the target of 4 assassination attempts, there is a strong likelihood that his successor will be very anti-American and is also likely to have closer ties to terrorist organizations.
When Americans take to the polls in the 2008 election, national security will still be the biggest issue facing us. Conflict with Iran and probably the status of Iraq will fill the headlines, but it is Pakistan that the winner of that election will have to confront. It is Pakistan, not Iran, that is the America's greatest threat.
Technorati: politics news Pakistan Iran
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Iran
Monday, March 20, 2006
XXX Domain - It's Baaaack
The US Senate has once again taken up the call for a .XXX internet domain in legislation aimed at compelling President Bush to establish the world wide red light district. This measure was killed once before amid strong objections by Christian conservatives that were concerned the domain would make it easier to find porn on the web (if that's possible.) Proponents of the legislation claim it will make it easier for software to filter sights thus "protecting" children from seeing pornographic material online. Of course, that software won't stop them from finding the magazines under dad's mattress like our generation did. (Family News: .xxx Domain Bill Returns).
My opposition to this bill transcends many different levels. First of all, the US government has no oversight authority in the establishment of internet domains, and I'd like to keep it that way. Neither Congress nor the President have the authority to create an internet domain nor do they have the authority to require web sites to conform to any naming standard.
The internet has grown into an international entity that embodies the concept of free speech. The only thing any government can do is corrupt that free exchange of ideas. Whether or not any individual or government approves of pornography is irrelevant. Once a government regulates one aspect of free speech, the foundation is laid for that government to regulate all aspects of speech. I'm not willing to give them that beachhead by acknowledging any right of the government to regulate pornography on the internet. The issue is bigger than that.
Much of the pornography found on the internet does not originate in the United States and therefore is beyond the control of the US Congress. Legislation of this nature by the US Senate is just as bad as the legislation in China that required Google to filter certain search terms and the results displayed to Chinese citizens.
What it comes down to in its basic form is responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility, and this legislation is designed to absolve us of ours by limiting freedom. If people do not want to visit porn sites, the solution is simple. Don't visit them. If parents don't want their children to visit porn sites, the solution is equally simply. Be aware of what your child does online. In other words, be a parent.
Making it easier for filtering software to block sites is neither a good reason to impose government interference on the internet, nor in this case is it a valid argument. Porn sites typically carry more meta tags than you can count ensuring that any mention of a search term that remotely hints at sexual content will find their site. Today's filtering software keys off these tags to determine if the site's content should be blocked. That methodology is far more efficient and accurate than relying on the website provider to create their site with a .xxx domain name - something that is unenforceable by the US government.
With luck, there will be enough opposition once again to kill this measure yet again. Sadly, I'm not convinced it will stay dead.
Technorati: politics news .xxx xxx domain Senate pornography
IceRocket: politics news .xxx xxx domain Senate pornography
My opposition to this bill transcends many different levels. First of all, the US government has no oversight authority in the establishment of internet domains, and I'd like to keep it that way. Neither Congress nor the President have the authority to create an internet domain nor do they have the authority to require web sites to conform to any naming standard.
The internet has grown into an international entity that embodies the concept of free speech. The only thing any government can do is corrupt that free exchange of ideas. Whether or not any individual or government approves of pornography is irrelevant. Once a government regulates one aspect of free speech, the foundation is laid for that government to regulate all aspects of speech. I'm not willing to give them that beachhead by acknowledging any right of the government to regulate pornography on the internet. The issue is bigger than that.
Much of the pornography found on the internet does not originate in the United States and therefore is beyond the control of the US Congress. Legislation of this nature by the US Senate is just as bad as the legislation in China that required Google to filter certain search terms and the results displayed to Chinese citizens.
What it comes down to in its basic form is responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility, and this legislation is designed to absolve us of ours by limiting freedom. If people do not want to visit porn sites, the solution is simple. Don't visit them. If parents don't want their children to visit porn sites, the solution is equally simply. Be aware of what your child does online. In other words, be a parent.
Making it easier for filtering software to block sites is neither a good reason to impose government interference on the internet, nor in this case is it a valid argument. Porn sites typically carry more meta tags than you can count ensuring that any mention of a search term that remotely hints at sexual content will find their site. Today's filtering software keys off these tags to determine if the site's content should be blocked. That methodology is far more efficient and accurate than relying on the website provider to create their site with a .xxx domain name - something that is unenforceable by the US government.
With luck, there will be enough opposition once again to kill this measure yet again. Sadly, I'm not convinced it will stay dead.
Technorati: politics news .xxx xxx domain Senate pornography
IceRocket: politics news .xxx xxx domain Senate pornography
Friday, March 17, 2006
NASA Priorities Completely Backwards
NASA researches are expressing dismay and outrage over the latest budget priorities as current projects and future missions are scrapped in favor of dead-end projects. NASA has focused its current budget on maintaining the Space Shuttle program through 2010, finishing the International Space Station, and developing a replacement for the Shuttle. Budget casualties, however, are deep space missions such as Dawn, a project intended to place a probe in orbit around Vesta and Ceres. (Astronomy: Scientists sound off on NASA budget).
The most successful and scientifically beneficial missions since the Apollo program have been the planetary and deep space missions, yet these are precisely the missions now being cut in an ill-conceived attempt to keep the Space Shuttle program on life support. Despite the relatively low cost of sample return missions such as Stardust which recently returned particle samples from a comet, these types of missions are unpopular with NASA administrators and are now on the chopping block.
Repercussions to Project Dawn's cancellation are being felt across the pond as well. The European Space Agency who also had a vested interest in that project is angry at NASA's decision to cancel the project and views it as a sign that the US is no longer a reliable space partner. Said Gerhard Neukum, the ESA's head of the Mars Express image processing team, "This was not a good way to treat things in terms of international cooperation. Things are degrading, and I'm not the only one who feels that way."
NASA's priorities are definitely backwards. The Shuttle program is dead, but apparently the NASA administrators are not willing to release the body. The ISS program is so scaled down from its original design as to be all but worthless. The future of all space programs is not near earth exploration, but rather interplanetary research both manned and unmanned. Current NASA administrators clearly lack the vision to lead the floundering US space program in that direction, however. A change in leadership within NASA would be refreshing and would be most welcome both here and abroad. Given NASA's current direction, there are few prospects for the US leading any major initiatives in space exploration. With the European and Chinese space agencies on the rise, losing that initiative may prove to be an extremely costly mistake.
Technorati: politics news NASA ESA Space
IceRocket: politics news NASA ESA Space
The most successful and scientifically beneficial missions since the Apollo program have been the planetary and deep space missions, yet these are precisely the missions now being cut in an ill-conceived attempt to keep the Space Shuttle program on life support. Despite the relatively low cost of sample return missions such as Stardust which recently returned particle samples from a comet, these types of missions are unpopular with NASA administrators and are now on the chopping block.
Repercussions to Project Dawn's cancellation are being felt across the pond as well. The European Space Agency who also had a vested interest in that project is angry at NASA's decision to cancel the project and views it as a sign that the US is no longer a reliable space partner. Said Gerhard Neukum, the ESA's head of the Mars Express image processing team, "This was not a good way to treat things in terms of international cooperation. Things are degrading, and I'm not the only one who feels that way."
NASA's priorities are definitely backwards. The Shuttle program is dead, but apparently the NASA administrators are not willing to release the body. The ISS program is so scaled down from its original design as to be all but worthless. The future of all space programs is not near earth exploration, but rather interplanetary research both manned and unmanned. Current NASA administrators clearly lack the vision to lead the floundering US space program in that direction, however. A change in leadership within NASA would be refreshing and would be most welcome both here and abroad. Given NASA's current direction, there are few prospects for the US leading any major initiatives in space exploration. With the European and Chinese space agencies on the rise, losing that initiative may prove to be an extremely costly mistake.
Technorati: politics news NASA ESA Space
IceRocket: politics news NASA ESA Space
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Bush Reaffirms First Strike Policy
In a 49-page report to Congress, President Bush reaffirmed the US policy he enacted in 2002 which provides for preemptive strikes against nations potentially planning an attack against the US with weapons of mass destruction. (Union Tribune: Bush security strategy reaffirms strike-first policy, sees Iran as possibly greatest threat).
That policy has come under fire of late with critics citing faulty intelligence in Iraq as an example of why preemption doesn't work. Until 2002 US policy had opposed launching preemptive strikes and was the cornerstone of our waging the cold war. However, given the number of rogue nations that either have nuclear weapons (such as Pakistan) and the number of rogue nations such as Iran that are trying to develop nuclear weapons, a policy of preemption is absolutely required. A nuclear equipped Iran or a fundamentalist regime change in Pakistan are worst case scenarios that would most certainly prompt a US preemptive strike.
President Bush commented on the policy saying, “When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.”
The President is correct. What is needed in addition to this policy, however, is significant improvement in our intelligence gathering capabilities within rogue nations as well as a restoration of our credibility with regards to foreign intelligence. The argument for war in Iraq is seen world-wide as a failure of US intelligence (despite the same conclusions being drawn by France, Germany, Spain, and Great Britain) and that public perception will certainly make it more difficult to sell a skeptical world on the need to act preemptively elsewhere.
Iran is one of the nations benefiting from the loss of foreign intelligence credibility. Efforts to sanction Iran - or even merely warn them not to develop a nuclear program - have stalled in the UN Security Council. Neither Russia nor China support any measures that appear at all confrontational. While their motives have little to do with foreign intelligence and more to do with their strong economic ties to Iran, the fact that the US has lost credibility has contributed to our inability to gain more widespread support for sanctions.
Still, the policy of preemption is sound. It does not make sense to wait for the enemy to strike first when the results of that strike could be a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack against US interests or allies. If that means acting unilaterally or without the support of the UN, then so be it. US foreign policy is set in Washington, not in New York, Paris, or Brussels. In the final analysis, the President reports to the American people, not to the United Nations. It is our responsibility to ensure that rogue nations do not gain the ability to cause harm to US interests. If that means acting while the UN stumbles along in endless and fruitless debate, then we will do just that.
Technorati: politics news Bush preemptive UN Iran Iraq
IceRocket: politics news Bush preemptive UN Iran Iraq
That policy has come under fire of late with critics citing faulty intelligence in Iraq as an example of why preemption doesn't work. Until 2002 US policy had opposed launching preemptive strikes and was the cornerstone of our waging the cold war. However, given the number of rogue nations that either have nuclear weapons (such as Pakistan) and the number of rogue nations such as Iran that are trying to develop nuclear weapons, a policy of preemption is absolutely required. A nuclear equipped Iran or a fundamentalist regime change in Pakistan are worst case scenarios that would most certainly prompt a US preemptive strike.
President Bush commented on the policy saying, “When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.”
The President is correct. What is needed in addition to this policy, however, is significant improvement in our intelligence gathering capabilities within rogue nations as well as a restoration of our credibility with regards to foreign intelligence. The argument for war in Iraq is seen world-wide as a failure of US intelligence (despite the same conclusions being drawn by France, Germany, Spain, and Great Britain) and that public perception will certainly make it more difficult to sell a skeptical world on the need to act preemptively elsewhere.
Iran is one of the nations benefiting from the loss of foreign intelligence credibility. Efforts to sanction Iran - or even merely warn them not to develop a nuclear program - have stalled in the UN Security Council. Neither Russia nor China support any measures that appear at all confrontational. While their motives have little to do with foreign intelligence and more to do with their strong economic ties to Iran, the fact that the US has lost credibility has contributed to our inability to gain more widespread support for sanctions.
Still, the policy of preemption is sound. It does not make sense to wait for the enemy to strike first when the results of that strike could be a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack against US interests or allies. If that means acting unilaterally or without the support of the UN, then so be it. US foreign policy is set in Washington, not in New York, Paris, or Brussels. In the final analysis, the President reports to the American people, not to the United Nations. It is our responsibility to ensure that rogue nations do not gain the ability to cause harm to US interests. If that means acting while the UN stumbles along in endless and fruitless debate, then we will do just that.
Technorati: politics news Bush preemptive UN Iran Iraq
IceRocket: politics news Bush preemptive UN Iran Iraq
Monday, March 13, 2006
Bush To Promote Iraq Progress
Facing the lowest popularity numbers of his presidency, President Bush will take to the airwaves in a series of speeches designed to garner public support for our efforts in Iraq. The speeches come at a time when polls show the largest number of Americans to date questioning a successful outcome in Iraq and expressing displeasure with the President's handling of the war.
Recent polls show that four out of five Americans believe the conflict in Iraq will escalate into civil war; an opinion that increasingly appears more like hindsight than prognostication. With armed conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis on the rise, it would be a hard sell to convince most Americans that Iraq is not already embroiled in a civil war.
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in the sales pitch to America is the administration's continued insistence that a democratic Middle East is the right approach. Few Americans believe that Democracy can flourish in Iraq. Recent elections in the Palestinian Congress emphasize the perils of promoting Democracy in a region where terrorism and anti-American or anti-Israeli sentiment has popular support. Thoughts of Democratic elections in Pakistan are enough to give even the most optimistic supporter of the policy nightmares for weeks.
Democracy is not a form of government suitable for everyone, nor is it in our best interests to promote popularly elected governments in every part of the world. The sad reality is that there are times when a dictatorship is the right solution, not just for American interests, but also for the betterment of the people in that region. Iraq is one of those places where a call for Democracy virtually guarantees continued armed conflict.
The President will have a very difficult sales pitch to make in his coming speeches. He's going to have to convince a skeptical public that progress is being made in Iraq while news reports continue to show a country backsliding quickly into civil war. He's going to have to convince a skeptical public that promoting Democracy in Iraq is the right approach while the lessons learned from Hamas' recent election show that Democratic elections do not always turn out in our favor. Most importantly, he's going to have to convince us that we are capable of sustaining our efforts in Iraq while the likelihood of military action in Iran continues to increase. It will be a tough sell at best.
Technorati: politics news Iraq Bush
IceRocket: politics news Iraq Bush
Recent polls show that four out of five Americans believe the conflict in Iraq will escalate into civil war; an opinion that increasingly appears more like hindsight than prognostication. With armed conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis on the rise, it would be a hard sell to convince most Americans that Iraq is not already embroiled in a civil war.
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in the sales pitch to America is the administration's continued insistence that a democratic Middle East is the right approach. Few Americans believe that Democracy can flourish in Iraq. Recent elections in the Palestinian Congress emphasize the perils of promoting Democracy in a region where terrorism and anti-American or anti-Israeli sentiment has popular support. Thoughts of Democratic elections in Pakistan are enough to give even the most optimistic supporter of the policy nightmares for weeks.
Democracy is not a form of government suitable for everyone, nor is it in our best interests to promote popularly elected governments in every part of the world. The sad reality is that there are times when a dictatorship is the right solution, not just for American interests, but also for the betterment of the people in that region. Iraq is one of those places where a call for Democracy virtually guarantees continued armed conflict.
The President will have a very difficult sales pitch to make in his coming speeches. He's going to have to convince a skeptical public that progress is being made in Iraq while news reports continue to show a country backsliding quickly into civil war. He's going to have to convince a skeptical public that promoting Democracy in Iraq is the right approach while the lessons learned from Hamas' recent election show that Democratic elections do not always turn out in our favor. Most importantly, he's going to have to convince us that we are capable of sustaining our efforts in Iraq while the likelihood of military action in Iran continues to increase. It will be a tough sell at best.
Technorati: politics news Iraq Bush
IceRocket: politics news Iraq Bush
Sunday, February 19, 2006
On Vacation Until March 8th
I will be on vacation without access to the internet until Wednesday, March 8th. The Grapes Vine will continue its daily commentary at that time.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Hamas Abandons Peace
Hamas formally took office today, taking control of the Palestinian Parliament. Mahmoud Abbas, current Palestinian leader, asked the Hamas leadership to recognize existing peace deals with Israel and to continue down the roadmap to peace. Mushir al-Masri, a leading Hamas legislator, rebuffed the call, saying that negotiations with Israel were "not on our agenda." (CTV: Hamas takes power, rejects calls for peace talks).
Israel is expected to respond on Sunday with additional sanctions against the Palestinians and is expected to seal off the Gaza Strip to keep out thousands of Palestinian workers. There can be little doubt that the prospects for peace in that region are now slimmer than they were in 1967 before the 6-day war.
Hamas is also besieged by the US who on Friday warned other Iran and other Islamic nations not to fund Hamas. Iranian support for Hamas may well be another point raised in the UN when sanctions and military action are brought before the Security Council.
What is clear is that Hamas - and by default the Palestinian people - now find themselves isolated. With the US and Israel turning the financial screws, it's questionable how long Hamas can maintain control. It's also almost a certainty that terror attacks will continue against Israel. Now that those attacks will be coming from the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority, Israel's response will hardly be measured.
The Palestinian people are about to learn a very harsh lesson. With democracy comes responsibility. The Palestinian people have chosen to elect a terrorist legislature. That is certainly their right, but now they will have to live with the consequences of that ill-advised decision. By choosing to put in office a terrorist government, they have chosen to forfeit all funding from the US and allies. They have chosen a path that may well lead to war. They have chosen a path that will isolate them from the rest of the world.
Certainly, that is a risk we take when we promote Democracy in parts of the world that are not accustomed with governing themselves. The Palestinian people are free to choose whatever leaders they wish. That is the right granted by a Democratic government. Now they will learn the consequences of making such an irrational choice, however. Hopefully they will learn this lesson before it's too late.
Technorati: politics news Hamas Israel Palestine
IceRocket: politics news Hamas Israel Palestine
Israel is expected to respond on Sunday with additional sanctions against the Palestinians and is expected to seal off the Gaza Strip to keep out thousands of Palestinian workers. There can be little doubt that the prospects for peace in that region are now slimmer than they were in 1967 before the 6-day war.
Hamas is also besieged by the US who on Friday warned other Iran and other Islamic nations not to fund Hamas. Iranian support for Hamas may well be another point raised in the UN when sanctions and military action are brought before the Security Council.
What is clear is that Hamas - and by default the Palestinian people - now find themselves isolated. With the US and Israel turning the financial screws, it's questionable how long Hamas can maintain control. It's also almost a certainty that terror attacks will continue against Israel. Now that those attacks will be coming from the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority, Israel's response will hardly be measured.
The Palestinian people are about to learn a very harsh lesson. With democracy comes responsibility. The Palestinian people have chosen to elect a terrorist legislature. That is certainly their right, but now they will have to live with the consequences of that ill-advised decision. By choosing to put in office a terrorist government, they have chosen to forfeit all funding from the US and allies. They have chosen a path that may well lead to war. They have chosen a path that will isolate them from the rest of the world.
Certainly, that is a risk we take when we promote Democracy in parts of the world that are not accustomed with governing themselves. The Palestinian people are free to choose whatever leaders they wish. That is the right granted by a Democratic government. Now they will learn the consequences of making such an irrational choice, however. Hopefully they will learn this lesson before it's too late.
Technorati: politics news Hamas Israel Palestine
IceRocket: politics news Hamas Israel Palestine
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
