Oderint Dum Metuant?

Well, well, well - it seems as if my post from last Thursday (2 down) was, unfortunately, somewhat prophetic in its nature. Whilst I was busy writing about how Western powers needed to beware of Iran calling some of their military bluffs, Iran was but hours away from capturing 15 British soldiers, making a mockery out of the (once) Mighty British Empire, and proving my point in the process. Indeed, it seems that right now, the Iranian Government has about as much respect for Tony Blair as it did for Jimmy Carter when he crashed those helicopters in the desert back during the last major go-round of Iranian hostage taking. As a result, Iran feels perfectly safe venturing into Iraqi waters to capture 15 of Mr. Blair's troops; and, so far, their fear of reprisal, or rather, lack thereof, has proved singularly correct in the face of Prime Minister Blair's rather bland and unsuccessful attempts at rescue.

What I believe Mr. Blair should be doing is using this as an opportunity to, ahem, remind the Iranians who the World Power is in this inter-national relationship; because, honestly, if you were new to International Politics, at this point you might think it was the Iranians. So Jason, you might say, are you suggesting that the British need to go in and indiscriminately bomb Iran until they release the soldiers? Absolutely not. Such action would be unethical and unnecessary.

Yet, we obviously can't sit around and do nothing. The question is what, precisely, we should do that would be forceful and assertive, yet, at the same time, not over-the-top, Stalin-esque? Let's turn to the British playbook to review our options. Tony Blair has already gone to work turning up the heat in the rhetorical oven, and while that's certainly a viable option, it's, uhh, not very likely to achieve any results. So let's move on to the next page in the playbook, which involves turning up the 'diplomatic pressure.' This, of course, is option number one in the, widely acclaimed, European Union Playbook, making it a widely popular choice in hostage situations throughout the world. Sadly, this option was also number one in the, much-less acclaimed, Jimmy Carter Playbook and, uhh, well, I think we all know how smashingly well that particular Playbook worked.

A third option (not technically in any Playbook), and my personal favorite, would be for Tony Blair to simply get the hell down to MI6 and send James Bond in after the bloody hostages! I mean seriously, this option involves twice the destruction, triple the sweet-ass tech toys, and, for kicks and grins, he'll destroy their atomic reactors on the way out. Heck, as an added bonus he'd also manage to find the only chic in Iran not wearing that stupid head-scarf thing. You know you want to use this option.

Nevertheless, while James Bond might be my favorite modus operandi, there are more realistic and reasonable ones which could easily be pursued. The best of these, in my opinion, seems to be the one which centers around attacking Iranian oil production. However, let me note that these are British soldiers which are being held hostage, which ultimately makes this Tony Blair's call, not ours. Given that, perhaps the best way to read this next part is as my suggestion for what might be done if the hostages taken had been Americans.

Now, the problem, for Iran, is that they have only ONE oil pipeline which carries all of their exportable oil. Furthermore, they also import a fair amount of oil through their few ports on the Arabian Sea; and these two sources of oil are the lifeblood of their economy. Consequently, the idea behind this strategy is to tell the Iranians that, if they don't release the captives within a day or two, we'll simply destroy their only oil pipeline and blockade their ports. It's very simple, and likely would cause few if any casualties on either side. Of course, the concern is, given our addiction to oil; can we possible withstand destroying Iran's oil producing abilities? I believe the answer is yes. Would oil prices soar? Absolutely. Would this cause problems for us? Certainly. However, it's probably not as bad as you might think. For starters, take a look at the data here, which shows the top importers of oil to the United States.

Take note of the fact that Iran is not even in the top 15 of oil importers to the United States.

Again, this is not to say you wouldn't be paying a fair bit more at the pump the day after such an incident were to occur, the point is that, while bad, the loss of Iranian oil would not be completely destructive for the United States (or the U.K, for that matter). On the other hand, it would be catastrophic for Iran. It seems to be no real secret that the Iranian economy, despite its oil revenues, just flat-out stinks right now; indeed, one might easily conclude that Iran has virtually no economy productivity outside of its oil sector. Thus, were its oil revenues sent from billions to $0 in a single day, I believe the Iranian economy would collapse, which, needless to say, would have some serious consequences for Iran.

Perhaps most importantly, such an operation would clarify to Iran the point we have been (unsuccessfully) trying to make with all those Naval Task forces sitting off their coast: that we are the Superpower here, not you. This goes back to my last post: we have to make them fear us, and respect the fact that we are more powerful than they are - and what better way to do that than to cripple their entire economy with one well-aimed bomb and a few Battleships. A sort of 'crash course' in Peace Through Superior Fire Power.

I know, you're probably wondering about the effects this might have on regular Iranians. Won't they hate us more? Won't they like America even less after such an incident? The honest answer: probably - and let me tell you why I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

First, I'm not sure if the Iranians really can hate us much more than they already do; and second, I don't care if they hate us. In fact, it doesn't matter to me whether or not they like us - I just want them to fear us. This post's title is a quote from the Roman poet Lucius Accius, which translates as "let them hate, so long as they fear." It applies perfectly to Iran. Sure, we might incite the few supporters we have left there to change their opinion of us and to turn to terrorism; but honestly, when your approval rating in a country is down in the single digits, doesn't it make more sense to spend your time and effort fighting the 90+% who already hate you rather than trying to preserve that 7% who might, possibly still like you? And also, if Iran were to retaliate by sending troops and resources over the border to ferment conflict in Iraq.....oh wait, they've already been doing that for 2 or 3 years now. Iran just has to know that certain things just won't be tolerated, and the only way they will learn that lesson is if they fear our potential retaliation, just enough.

The best of luck is to be wished for Tony Blair in his negotiations with Iran. If he can resolve this quickly and 'diplomatically' much kudos to him and (depending on how little he gives up in return) much admiration for the bargaining chips of the British Empire will be in order; but the longer this crisis goes on the weaker he and his Nation will look. Indeed, the one lesson that I think he can learn from Jimmy Carter's disastrous performance in the '79 Iranian hostage crisis is that World Power status is not for the faint of heart; and weak-willed Superpowers garner little respect from radical, rogue states - and deserve even less.

¡Fantástico!

After the Spanish capitulation to Islamic Fascism in the aftermath of the Madrid Bombings, you probably thought that there was no one left in Spain who still had some serious guts. Well, you were wrong. One of the widows from the 2004 Madrid train bombings went to the suspects' trial today wearing a T-shirt with one of the Muhammed Cartoons on it. Yes, those Muhammed Cartoons - the ones that caused all those riots.

Awesome!!

Threatening or Playing Games?

Now here's some interesting news; it seems the French have moved the FS Charles De Gaulle, the only non-American nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier in the world, and its task force into the Arabian Sea. In doing so, it has become the 4th Western Aircraft Carrier currently within striking distance of Iran. Moreover, it is said to be working in cooperation with the American Naval task forces in the area.

Have the French finally decided to flex their military muscles in the Middle East? I mean, it's not that they don't have any (indeed, the French are considered to have, after the United States and Great Britain, perhaps the greatest 'power projection' capabilities in the world); but, rather, it's that they consistently fail to use them effectively. Now, this metaphor of flexing muscles brings me to my main point: what exactly are we going to do with all these Aircraft Carriers and Naval Task Forces sitting off the Iranian coast? Are they there to sit around, conduct drills and 'intimidate' Iran? 'Cause if that's the case, I don't think it's working.

In order for these shows of Naval Force, whether done by France or the United States, to be effective our enemies must actually feel, you know, threatened by them. If Iran thinks that the Charles de Gaulle is going to sit in the Arabian Sea, play a few war games, and never actually bomb them, they're probably not going to get too concerned about it. This, of course, is the real problem with this whole situation: we can put all the Aircraft Carriers and Battleships we want within striking distance of Iran; but at this point, Ahmadinejad knows we're bluffing.

When the situation arises, we must be willing to use these great symbols of Naval supremacy. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time.

Score One For War

I have long contended that one of the many positive justifications for the War in Iraq has been the improvement that it would/is bringing to the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis. The logic behind this contention has been further confirmed by a recent survey conducted of Iraqis; in which, most of them (including the Sunnis) stated that, despite the ongoing War, life was better than it had been under Saddam Hussein. Now, I understand that simply improving the locals' quality of life, in and of itself, doesn't constitute a reason to start a war; however, that we have done so in Iraq is a stellar example, yet again, of why peace isn't always so peaceful and why war isn't always so bad.

Notice that, while the Kurds never got any protests or D.C Lobbyists on their behalf, they're now free - Tibet and the Sudan meanwhile.....not so much.

Nevertheless, many on the anti-war side of the Iraq argument will quickly gloss over this news, or likely ignore it altogether, and simply claim that it doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of this 'failing' war; just as they side-stepped around the removal of Saddam with the "Yes, Saddam was a bad guy; but...." line. While, as I said above, playing 'International Superhero' isn't, by itself, a good reason for entering into a war, I can't help but notice how flippant and dismissive the "sure that's true; but..." arguments sound coming from a group of people who never have nor likely ever will live in anything close to a true dictatorship. To be fair, this is more a personal observation than arguing point; as anti-war Americans are hardly to be blamed for enjoying the advantages they do.

Perhaps, what this new survey indicates, more than anything else, is that, despite all of the current violence, the majority of Iraqis have no real sympathies for any of these radical groups; but simply want to be able to freely live their lives - and that's certainly a positive.

T.A.N.S.T.A.F.L

As ya'll surely know, the Department of Defense has recently been rocked by scandals surrounding not only the Walter Reed Hospital, but other Veteran's Health Care facilities as well. In the aftermath of the scandal's revelation, sharp criticism has been directed not only at the Bush Administration, but also the various Military Bureaucracies which are supposed to be responsible for these types of things. However, I would like to suggest that these folks are not truly the one's to blame. I know, I know: I'm the last guy on earth you'd expect to absolve politicians of blame for one of their (frequent) screw ups; but, in this case, I think that what blame does lie with those in charge is a much smaller share than most would attribute them or, at the very least, comes from a quite different angle. How might I draw such conclusions? Allow me to explain.

First, what exactly went wrong at all these V.A care facilities? Well, one of the problems is that the hospitals' sanitation conditions are appallingly abominable. A second problem arises from the fact that many soldiers have to wait months or even years before receiving the proper treatments. Another issue is that the Hospitals' staffs are overworked, undertrained and, thus, frequently, negligent in their duties. And finally, a last issue that many of these Military hospitals seem to be having is an overabundance of patients.

My, my, if you didn't know any better, you might have thought I was giving you a summary of a recent Government meeting in Paris on problems with the French Health Care System.

The similarities are striking, no?

Indeed, the Health Care crisis faced by the United States Army and those fast engulfing Nations such as France and Germany do have noticeable similarities - and this is no accident. Rather, it is the result of a simple, undeniable fact: both the V.A and France have their Health Care facilities and programs run by the Government. It is this Government run Health Care, or, more aptly, socialized medical system, which directly causes the kind of horrid conditions found at the Walter Reed Army Hospital.

How, you ask, do I draw such conclusions? Simply by examining the situation. When soldiers return from combat injured, they usually use the Army's Care facilities. Why? Well, because they don't have a choice; if they want to be able to use whatever Health Insurance the Army gives them, they have to go to the Government's Hospitals. Moreover, these Hospitals are poorly run, not because their staffs are evil people, but there's just no motivation for these Hospitals to be efficient, it's not like they have any competition for their patients. The long waiting periods for vital tests and procedures? Why not? It's not like the quality of the services these Hospitals offer has any effect on the Doctors, Nurses, Bureaucrats and Politicians running them (or not, at least, on their paychecks). Oh, and speaking of these Hospitals' staffs, know why they're not exactly the best professionals around? Because the best of America's Doctors and Nurses are in the Private Health Care business, where they get paid like America's best Doctors and Nurses.

The bottom line is that the absence of any degree of free-market competition and the totality of the Government backing create an atmosphere in which there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for these Military Hospitals to operate in a normal, efficient manner. Indeed, this system is, in many respects, the epitome of Socialism: no Capitalist, 'Bourgeois' elements, a complete 'leveling' of the playing field, no greed driven Capitalists operating the system, and, best of all, it's free. Hell, other than the small, tiny, insignificant problem that the actual Medical Care sucks ass, it sounds like the perfect system!!!

The title of this post, as some of you may have noticed, is one of the most famous acronyms in all of Economics: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. Simple and easy to understand; yet, so often ignored and overlooked. It seems the Army is being given a 'School of Hard Knocks' lesson in this basic principle. Sure, the Health Care they dole out is 'free' in monetary terms; but the recipients of it are forced to 'cover' the costs in other, crueler ways. And here is where I fault the politicians. They not only proposed and enacted this system, but they continue to try and solve its flaws by firing bureaucrats and convening 'investigative commissions.'

Newsflash: The problem is not the people running the system - it's the system! The solution to this problem lies in reducing Government's role in it, and not the other way around.

There's no question that the veterans of our Armed Forces, whether from Iraq, Vietnam or the Second World War, deserve the best. The Problem is, the Government has never been very adept at giving people the best of, well, most anything. So, why not try giving these people, who do so much to defend freedom, a little in their own Medical System? Allow Private companies to own and operate facilities such as Walter Reed. Give injured Veterans the option of multiple hospitals from which they may choose; and, above all, try to remove Government interference as much as possible - just let the free market do its thing.

Sanity demands it.

Abortion + Malpractice = Moral Chaos

Q: How do you know your moral compass is really spinning in all the wrong directions?

A: When you decide to sue your Doctor because she wasn't able to successfully kill your baby!

Oh, and as an added bonus, her Doctor failed to kill her baby, so she went to other Doctors, figued this out, and ended up not killing the baby, and now, when the child is a full 2 years old (and has not been put up for adoption, interestingly), she's decided she wants money? No, wait, scratch that, she deserves money. Hell, she's owed it by God's righteous law.

The word 'frivolous' comes to mind......among many others.

Malpractice Reform - Still Working!!

Last week, I received an interesting newsletter from the pro-Medical Malpractice Reform group 'Protect Patients Now.' Contained within it was additional proof that tort reform, in various forms, actually works. The States that the letter discussed were West Virginia, Nevada, and Texas; all three of which, in the last few years, have placed caps on the amount of damages one can receive via Malpractice and other lawsuits.

Here's a few of the money quotes from the various articles linked in the newsletter:

(Actual Newsletter here)

In West Virginia, the Charleston Area Medical Center C.E.O, Dr. Glenn Crotty Jr., reports that "the hospital has recruited around 30 doctors annually over the past few years, for a total of almost 100 new hires." Why does this matter? Because "[before] the Legislature passed a comprehensive bill limiting the amount of payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, the hospital would have been lucky to recruit one new doctor each year, Crotty said. 'We were at almost zero before tort reform,' Crotty said about the hospital's recruiting efforts. 'And we had several doctors leaving'."

So, wait, you mean that placing limitations on these lawsuits actually increases the number of Physicians you have handy to help ailing patients??? Shocking!!

In Nevada: "Physicians' insurance premiums are down and more doctors are coming to Nevada since voters limited damages in medical malpractice cases."

Wait a minute; if there are more Doctors, paying cheaper insurance fees (lower operational costs), that means that Doctors will likely be charging cheaper rates for Health Care!!! But, I thought the Lawyers and their just lawsuits were the ones with the patients' best interests at heart?!?!?!

Likewise, Texas has seen a tremendous increase in its number of Doctors. Indeed, Texas' reform has worked so well that the State is getting new Doctors at a faster rate than it can license them; creating a backlog in some of the State's Bureaucracies. What a terrible problem to have! I mean, if you have all those Doctors, that means that they will all be competing, capitalist style. This means they will all be trying to distinguish themselves from their competitors by offering lower prices or higher quality services!! The horror!!

Unfortunately, the Newsletter is, in fact, concluded with some genuine bad news, which, unsurprisingly, comes straight out of America's Emergency Rooms; were, simply put, a lack of available specialists is causing patients to die.

Problems with Medical Care, needless to say, still abound; but, the good news is that if we actually have the cajoles to try serious reform - it works.