Taking Statism Global

Having now poured stimulus upon stimulus into their respective National economies, and begun the long and arduous process of setting said economies on the road to bankruptcy, the leaders of the world's greatest economies have spent the last several days gathering to see if they could strike a deal to take their failed policies supra-national. And so they have. We are now set to get a new $1 trillion global stimulus package to complement the, now, $10.5 Trillion that the United States has already appropriated/spent on various bailouts, stimulus, and TARP projects over the last half-year or so.

(For those of you keeping score at home, our national GDP was $14.3 trillion last year - meaning that, if President Obama gets his wish and we do get a 'TARP II', we'll have kindda spent our whole, entire economy in order to, uh, save it. Because that clearly makes sense.)

Apparently TANSTAFL has been replaced as the one, hard-and-fast economic rule by a new one, which rests on a firm belief in the ability of deficit spending to cure all ills - the actual numbers be damned!!

As far as this new, global stimulus is concerned, its basically an extension of all the quasi-socialist/genuinely statist bullshit we've been getting here in the United States. We're going to give some more government bureaucrats the ability to regulate and restrict bankers' pay and bonuses - because, damn it, if some red-meat populism is good, more is even better. And nothing stokes populist fires (and poll numbers...) like hating on evil corporations, bankers, etcetera.

Nevermind that it's actually counterproductive as an economic policy.

Of course, having already gotten on the 'regulation' bandwagon with the banker stuff, it only made sense for these folks to take that a step further with other institutions. Thus, we are also going to get a new set of stricter and tougher regulatory policies for hedge funds and credit agencies. Because, again, nevermind the actual relationship between government regulation and economic growth, let's do it anyway.

We're also going to give more power to the IMF; because, clearly, what we need in order to solve these economic problems, and prevent them from happening ever again, is more input from international government bureaucrats whose own chain of command is somewhat murky. Finally, in this time of economic hardship and ballooning deficits, we're also going to take $100 billion and give it to poor countries; in other words, all the little tyrants running fake democratic countries in sub-Saharan Africa are having trouble in this economic climate too, so let's give them some cash.

And that's about it, more bullshit spending that inches us further away from a free-market system and transfers power and money from people to bureaucrats. Only this time, it's gone global. Change, indeed.

Quite Frankly My World, I Don't Give...

The rest of the world just loves Barack Obama, did you know? Yes, folks, just like in 2004 when the rest of the world begged us to elect good ol' Waffles Kerry, the pre-US Presidential election poll of world opinion shocks, awes, and thoroughly astounds us all with the revelation that the rest of the world is in favor of electing the Obamarama. Indeed, to quote the survey's chairman, "Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents."

How they managed to figure out what, exactly, he represents, based on the meaningless political BS he spouts 24/7, is still unknown.

(Maybe there was some kind of secret code in that speech to the 4th Reich 200,000 adoring Germans, that us Americans couldn't understand, that told them what his real plans are.)

Thankfully, of course, not a single one of these people gets to actually vote in the November Elections. Nope, they have to sit back and watch while this mysterious "Republican voter" class of Americans does its best, over the next 7 weeks, to get another one of these Cowboy-ish types in the White House. (Ok, so John McCain doesn't exactly qualify as cowboy; I know, but we must play along with the International stereotypes).

Indeed, it must be frustrating for these people, especially the Europeans, to sit around, knowing they've got it all figured out, and see America vote, time and again, against their best judgment. No matter who/what/when/where, it seems, we're always voting and doing it wrong. Which, in my mind, brings up an interesting question: why is it that the rest of the world seems so intent on criticizing us for our, supposed, flaws? Afterall, we're the ones who have the strongest economy, the strongest military, the richest populace and the freest society that the world has ever seen. We've been, and still are, beating them - so why on earth would we want their advice? Better yet, put in terms the rest of the world might understand, would the Italian National soccer team, be soliciting the advice and imitating the in-game strategies of the American National soccer team? The 5-0 difference in number of World Cups won would seem to indicate, um, "no".

You see, this disconnect is the thing I'll never understand about the America-bashers, both here and abroad. They always seem to criticize America for how we do things differently from the rest of the world; however, the possibility that all the things we do differently directly correlate to why we're better, never. crosses. their. minds. Never mind the possibility that it's precisely because America has avoided European-esque politicians, like Barack Obama, that she has been able to become the greatest and most powerful Nation in world history. No, that just couldn't possibly be it; at least, not in the minds of Obama-loving foreigners.

Ultimately, of course, the rest of the world wants Obama to be President, not because they think he's the best choice for the citizens of the United States; but rather, because he's the best choice for them. Indeed, in the survey, an even greater majority of respondents believed that relations with the United States would improve under an Obama Presidency (as opposed to a McCain one). Now, the international, pro-Obama crowd would have you believe that this fact is due to the greater degree of 'soft power' (and friendlier diplomatic personality!) expertise that Obama would bring to the Oval Office. They're wrong. And they're wrong because 'soft power' simply does not exist independent of 'hard power' - the latter at which Obama both stinks and knows little of. The world wants Obama because they know getting concessions from the U.S.A will be easier under President Obama. They know he'll work in support of their agendas - and he'll do it all under the foolish guise of "making America a leader of the international community."

Because, apparently, winning both World Wars and the Cold War, being the only remaining superpower and having the most money and most powerful military didn't already earn us that position by default. Oh, no that's right, we have to be a moral leader in the international community - you know, like Germany - which is really rich coming from people who not only are moral relativists, but refuse to label Islamic Jihad as a violent evil.

Somehow, of course, lost in all this feel-good bullshit is the reality that, since the US is the world's one and only superpower, the rest of the international community's natural self-interest will inherently be served by reductions in American power. Any concession we make is their gain. Obama will make more of those concessions; therefore, they want Obama.

Moreover, in my experience there are only 3 reasons that countries deal with other countries; they either 1) want another country's money, 2) want the protection of their army, or 3) are scared of that army. This is why the world likes Obama, even if they don't/can't/won't admit it. Obama will make that army a lot less scary.

Overall, that's why American opinion usually diverges so sharply from the rest of the world on issues like these: we have different interests. (Hell, a lot of the people who vote for Obama in this country will be doing so for reasons that run counter to the brilliance of the International Intelligentsia.) We American voters, as a general rule, look out for and vote in the best interests of our country. We choose candidates who, we feel, will be better at making America continue to stand out from the rest of the international pack.

We like being different. And hey, it's worked out pretty darn well for us so far - don't ya' think?

Blinded By Love Of Bipartisanship

Earlier this month, I authored a nice little post on how Bill Richardson was smoking something strong when he said that Barack Obama's foreign policy would be a return to the bipartisan, universal-love-fest, audaciously hopeful, unifying foreign policy of a bygone era; and now it seems its time to write a quick follow up to that since, as of this past weekend, that bullshit line is now being parroted by the candidate himself. Yes folks, Mr. AudacityOfHopeMan has claimed that his foreign policy platform is:

"...actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, [and] of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan." [emphasis added]

Yea, right.

I think the Gipper will forgive me for paraphrasing one of his old lines when I say: Senator Obama, you're telling people that you've got a foreign policy that's like Ronald Reagan's. Well let me tell you something, Senator. I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And Senator, you're no Ronald Reagan!

Seriously, as I've said before, Reagan's foreign policy was not the kind of bipartisan yuck-fest that Senator Obama is trying to make it out to be.

As I noted while raking Governor Richardson over the coals, President Reagan's foreign policy was laughed at by most Democrats - that is, until it worked, and the Soviet Union fell, and Communism was reduced to the "ash heap of history," just like Reagan said it would be. Causing the Democrats to do a little 'revisionist' history and pretend like they were on board all along.

Thankfully, most of us know better.

Furthermore, in this little speech, Senator Obama praises H.W. Bush's handling of the First Gulf War; but, as no less an authority than Margaret Thatcher has noted, it was H.W's failure to remove Saddam the first time, when he had the chance, that created the set of circumstances which led to the Second Gulf War. If Pops had finished the job - and not stopped halfway - then W never has to invade Iraq in 2003. But hey, Obama-rama's got an agenda to push, so why bother to think things through, right?

The next point to be made about these remarks is to, again, reiterate that there was nothing warm, fuzzy, and bipartisan about a great deal of Cold War policy. It, too, was a product of politics (hence the word: policy); and thus, while the personalities may not have been as memorable, it was still every bit as partisan as the foreign policy we have today.

Finally, I want to note one last thing about Obama's statements and point out why, aside from the matter of partisanship, his 'return to a traditional foreign policy' is an incredibly stupid idea. And that is simply this: The Cold War is over, as is the lovefest of 90's idealism. The world is a different place now than it was then, and while 9/11 certainly has made this especially so, this fact would be true even if 9/11 had never happened. Interacting with Nations, IGOs and NGOs on an International level means being flexible and, while learning from your past, living, thinking, and, most importantly, acting in the present (with the future in mind). Using the 1960's foreign policy to respond to the 2000's problems would be the height of both ignorance and arrogance; primarily because, and you would think this would be obvious; the 2000's are not the 1960's. The times change, and thus American Foreign Policy should too.

It's too bad Senator Obama is to naive to understand something as basic as that.

The Success of Partisanship

Not to long ago, before the Democratic Presidential contest had become the Hilldabeast-Obamarama dogfight that it is now, I used to tune in and watch some of those old Democratic Debates, with all umpteen of the candidates, to give myself a good laugh. When I did that, no one was able to provide bigger laughs than New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, whose wildly (and in some cases, disturbingly) idealistic view of the world made him a ready source. The Governor was back on TV today, giving his endorsement to Barack Obama, and while watching him speak, I was given a nice chuckle or two and again reminded of his general, all-around stupidity.

At one point during this speech the Governor was talking about foreign policy, and he went into the standard Barack Obama talking point about how, after 8 years of W, the country needs someone who is a "uniter" and who can "repair America's image" in the rest of the world. Then, in order to prove his point, he harkened back to the Cold War, and talked about how, back then, we had this policy of Containment which, in his words, was not "Democrat or Republican, but American." In other words, in Gov. Richardson's mind, the Cold War was a time when the country never, ever, but never had partisan disagreements about foreign policy.

Right.

First of all, lets just get one simple thing straight - Containment was a Partisan policy, as it was created and first used by President Harry S Truman, a Democrat. Sure, it was later adopted by Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, but it was, originally, Truman's policy - something which shows you how stupid Richardson really is; as it would have been better, if he was going to praise Containment, to point out its roots in his own party.

Secondly, I find it incredibly ironic that Gov. Richardson, he of the 'I'll have us entirely out of Iraq in 30 days' (or whatever it was), would praise Containment. Afterall, it was fear of Communism spreading to the rest of Southeast Asia and LBJ's desire to contain it within North Vietnam that got us involved in the Vietnam War. And as we all know from the last 3+ years of Democratic talking points, Iraq is bad because it's Vietnam, and nothing in history was worse and more misguided, evil, stupid (etc., etc.) than American involvement in Vietnam. But hey, when you're Bill Richardson, why not come out and praise the policy that got us involved in a war which you feel is exactly like the 'misguided' one we're in now; it's not like the media is going to call you on it. Afterall, you're a minority and a Democrat - hell, you could probably join Eliot Spitzer in the prostitution scandal business and they would still try and avoid asking you questions that might be a bit too hard. But I digress...

The final point I'll make about the good Governor's dim-witted reference to Containment is the most important; and that is that, ultimately, for all the bi-partisan goodness that it may (or may not) have been, the policy of Containment failed. It was a failure because, in the end, the guy who won the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, won it not by sitting back and simply trying to 'contain' the Soviet Union but by calling it the "Evil Empire" and doing everything possible to defeat and destroy it. During the 1960's and 70's, something like 13 countries had become new Communist nations; but Reagan, with the Grenada invasion in 1983, began toppling Communist regimes. For decades we'd been told the Soviet Union was here to stay, Reagan told us it could be gone in our lifetimes.

Now, I could go on about how Reagan's foreign policy was different from Containment, but in doing so I (again) digress from my original point. You see, when Reagan was in office, implementing his new strategy for dealing with the U.S.S.R, the Democrats were kicking and screaming at every turn, and saying all sorts of nasty things about his intelligence along the way. Most importantly, however, they didn't believe what he was doing would work; meaning that they made Reagan's Cold War policy a partisan issue. And this brings us to the hillarity of Bill Richardson, who wants us to get excited about Containment, which didn't work, simply because it was 'non-partisan' and fully approved by the French - despite the fact that the evil, divisive partisan strategy was the one that ultimately won the War.

Makes for an ironic analogy to the present day - don't you think?

In The Footsteps Of Fidel

With the recent retirement of Fidel Castro from his long held position of Dictator in Cuba, there was, in some respects, an important and symbolic change in the International political system of the Western Hemisphere. This is not to say that there will be any genuine regime change in Cuba anytime soon - there won't be, Raul will ensure the continuation of Communism - but rather, that Fidel Castro's long-standing grip on power has made him more than just another Communist tyrant; he has become an institution, and, more specifically, an institution of Anti-Americanism in Latin America.

For over 45 years now, Fidel has been the leader of any and all anti-American sentiments in this region. Any Latin American political or rebel leader looking for inspiration for, or affirmation of, an anti-American platform could look confidently to Fidel Castro, who stood defiantly against the United States, year after year, despite his location a mere 90 miles off its coast. Now, with his departure, that clout, that image, is gone. Sure, Raul will likely continue to inundate Cubans with anti-American propaganda, and, sure, he'll likely continue at least the basics of Fidel's anti-American foreign policy; but at the end of the day, Raul simply does not command the attention of his older brother - nor, more importantly, does he have anywhere close to the same aura about him. Thus, with the departure of Fidel, a new page really is being turned over in the politics of the Americas.

Enter, Hugo Chavez.

With the slow, drawn-out exit of Castro from the world stage, Chavez has recently been trying hurriedly to step up and fill Fidel's old shoes. He's doing this because he knows that, in much of Latin America, there are few better ways to build a quick consensus than to loudly and violently beat the anti-American drum. Indeed, thanks to decades of CIA/Cold War meddling and some of the strangest love-hate relationships in the International system, anti-Americanism has a built-in, Latin American support block that anyone of modest political talents might easily summon.

However, tapping into anti-Americanism to win a particular election or policy referendum is an entirely different beast from building a dictatorship off such sentiment - and the latter is the field in which Fidel Castro has written the book. Between demagoguing U.S-supported neighbors and constantly raising the specter of a possible American invasion, Fidel was able to maintain power in the face of a collapsing economy (and society) thanks, in part, to his tactic of overwhelming Cubans with a fear of the monstrosity and evil of American power. That the world might not have been as Fidel portrayed it was, of course, utterly irrelevant.

Thus, with a keen eye towards history, and a thorough understanding of this fact, Chavez, earlier today, must have done Fidel proud when he ordered Venezuelan troops to his nation's Colombian border; for, by doing so, he gets a nice two-for-one on the anti-American front. First, since he can portray Colombia, a U.S ally, as an American puppet regime, he can easily assert that Colombian opposition to FARC - a rebel group which Chavez, naturally, supports - is something the government is doing, not because it's in Colombia's best interests, but because of requests form its American masters. The second thing he does by generating a military standoff on the Colombian-Venezuelan border is to create a nice little win-win situation for himself. If Colombia heeds Venezuelan troop's presence, the FARC can quickly retreat into Venezuela, where Chavez can help support them in their efforts to destabilize Colombia's democratic government. On the other hand, if Colombian forces decide to pursue FARC rebels into Venezuelan territory - even if it's just 1 mile in (as it was in Ecuadur) - Chavez would be able to counter-attack; an action which would likely provoke American involvement, since we have a security agreement with Colombia.

Translation: In the event of a Venezuelan attack, the U.S Navy would likely end up lobbing Cruise Missiles at Caracas to get Chavez to back down; an act which would hand Hugo the biggest propaganda coup in Latin America since the Bay of Pigs Invasion - a disaster which, oddly enough, was a propaganda coup for none other than Hugo's predecessor in the role of Chief Latin American, anti-U.S agitator: Fidel.

All this means that the American Government will have to tread carefully when dealing with these Colombia-Venezuela tensions; because, after Fidel, the last thing we need in Latin America is become a political tool of his potential protege.

The Case Against Kosovo

For those of you who haven't been following the news recently, earlier this week a tiny little region of Serbia (which you may remember from a little bombing a few years back) named Kosovo declared its independence. The announcement, coming after 9 years of UN/NATO administration (which hasn't stopped, by the way), was welcomed by all of the usual suspects in the "West," including the U.S, and openly disdained by the various Slavic Nations in the "East," most notably, of course, Russia. Indeed, with separatist rebels of their own to worry about in Chechnya, Putin's men have been out and about condemning the independence declaration and promising to veto any sort of international recognition for Kosovo that might come up for a vote at the U.N.

In other words, Russia is doing what Russia does best, obstructing Western interests - and the scary thing is that, for once, I agree with them.

Kosovo should not be an independent state and the most important reason for this is precisely the one that the Russians have been giving in all of the Pressers they've been holding the last 3 days; namely, the potential snowball effect that Kosovo's independence can have on all of the various ethnic minority regions in Europe and Central Asia. Indeed, given all the various ethnic minorities that live in countries throughout the Balkans and Central Asia, from the Checheyens, right on across the board, the declaration of Kosovoian (?) Independence has far greater ramifications than just the writing of an additional chapter to the tumultuous story of Albanian-Serb relations.

But come now, you insist, who are we to step in and try to prevent these folks from having their Democratic rights? Indeed, you might have an argument, if it weren't for the fact that this declaration is motivated largely by a desire for some kind of ethnically pure (a.k.a non-Serbian) country. Oh sure, they'll probably talk about things like the principle of self-determination; but at the end of the day, Kosovo wants independence because it's full of Albanians and they don't want to be under a government that's largely made up of, and run by, Serbs. I mean, let's face it, like most other ethnic groups in the Balkans, the Serbs and Albanians hate each other, and have killed enough of each other over the last decade or so make that obvious even to the most ardent of peace-loving Hippies. But them hating each others' guts to the point of killing each other is not, in this case, a very good justification for independence. Here's why: you see, the dirty little secret of territorial-ethnic conflicts like this is that, no matter how hard the do-gooders at the EU, UN, and NATO try, the problem of ethnic minorities can never be fully resolved. There's always some ethnic group who gets left behind after the partition, and ends up becoming the new dissatisfied minority.

And, alas, such is the case in an independent Kosovo; where not all of the population is, in fact, Albanian. Oh, sure, 90% of it is - but, uh, that other 10% is still Serbs; which means that all the creation of this new country does is turn the tables around by making the Serbs the ethnic minority.

In other words, the Albanian Kosovars aren't really solving the problem; they're just making sure that they have a better hand to play when the game re-starts. Indeed, unless these people want to keep dividing up their part of the world until it's in small, Medieval-style fiefdoms, they will continue to have this same problem - if on a somewhat smaller scale.

Here, of course, is where we encounter a second problem with the new nation of Kosovo: its size. Because, as these various 'rebel' regions in Europe and Central Asia try to (or do) break away from their mother countries, they become smaller and smaller; and thus, by extension, weaker and weaker. Now, certainly there are countries like Luxembourg, Monaco, and Switzerland who fare quite well despite their size; but those guys have something that neither Kosovo nor any of these other new-nation wannabes do - money. This means that these are small, essentially defenseless countries who, in addition to coming from countries that weren't particularly wealthy to being with, have the added bonus of being dirt poor.

In other words, we're allowing the creation of new, additional countries that we're going to have to help finance the security and basic economy of. To put it another way, we're basically taxpayers sitting around watching welfare recipients breed, and actively encouraging the process.

Thus, at the end of the day, Kosovo's declaration of independence will just make the Balkan situation that much more complex, and, perhaps not surprisingly, create a good deal more problems than it solves.

It's kind of depressing when you think about it.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Every year the United States sends millions of dollars to the United Nations (at some 22% of their $4.19 billion budget we are its largest contributor) and, unsurprisingly, the United Nations has been doing what it does best with that money - wasting it. Indeed, corruption, fraud and mismanagement have recently caused the United Nations to waste some $610 million of the money it was supposed to have spent on peacekeeping.

That's right folks, the United Nations has been using some of your American tax dollars so that it can rig financial bids, bribe locals, give bureaucrats kickbacks, and other wholesome things in places like Congo, Haiti and Peru. And it does all of this under the auspices of 'peacekeeping;' or, in other words, sending soldiers from one 3rd world country to another 3rd world country in order that they might do nothing. (Well, that is, assuming that bumming free liquor off the locals counts as nothing.)

Of course, the dirty little secret is that the United Nations shouldn't be doing peacekeeping at all; and it's primarily because that's simply not what the organization was set up to do. The United Nations was never supposed to be a beacon of Human Rights and Democracy, for God's sake one of its founding members was Joseph Stalin's Russia. It was simply set up to prevent another World War. Consequently, the U.N is geared towards and prepared for the handling of inter-state conflict - and not ethnic violence, insurgencies, or NGOs like al-Qaeda. Put simply, the United Nations was created to help solve European problems - and this was done on the, obviously mistaken, premise that other international problems would be like Europe's.

Indeed, it's no coincidence that probably the two best examples of the U.N's effectiveness, The Korean War and The First Gulf War, fit a classic European template: one Nation-state invades another, violating the other's national sovereignty, and thus has to be stopped. However, nearly all of the problems the U.N faces these days, be it Hezbollah in Lebanon or genocide in Darfur, have absolutely nothing to do with questions of inter-state war or violations of national sovereignty. As a result, the U.N is unable to solve them effectively, and ends up getting mired down in a sea of corruption and incompetence instead.

I, for one, am tired of having the United Nations waste it constituent states' money on peacekeeping projects, that it has neither the ability nor the capacity to fix, and wish it would just avoid them altogether. Afterall, it's simply not what the organization was cut out for.

Cold War Redux

You know, you'd think that, since Putin's whole gig revolves around trumping up the awesomeness that is Russia, he wouldn't exactly be quick to bring up one of their more humiliating foreign policy episodes of the past half-century; but he's welcome to make Cuban Missile Crisis analogies if he wants to.

Of course, in one very distinct way, the current situation to which Mr. Putin refers, the U.S's attempts to install a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, is quite different; namely in that Russia deployed actual missiles to Cuba, not a shield to protect against the launch of such missiles. Their's was an act of aggression, ours is one of defense.

Nevertheless, there is one important similarity here - one which Putin either has not understood or not thought through.

The reason that Khrushev lost the Cuban Missile Crisis was because he bluffed, and President Kennedy called him on it; and, naturally, when they then had to lay down their cards Kennedy had the better hand. Of course, in the 40+ years since 1962, the gap between the Russian and American hands has only grown - as we have a much greater advantage over Russia now than we ever did during the Cold War.

Which means that if President Bush were to simply call Mr. Putin's bluff, Putin would be screwed; and surely he's not foolish enough to think of President Bush as the 'backing down' type. (If he did, he would certainly be one of few.) So unless Putin's counting on Congressional liberals and U.N/E.U political 'elites' to intervene on his behalf (which, given their recent history, he very well may be), something tells me this isn't one of his better moments.

Hopefully, the Bush Administration will recognize this, and plow ahead in its negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on the installation of the Missile Defense shield. Why? Because, after nearly 100 years of having to deal with German expansionism and Soviet communism, not to mention the U.S turning it's back on them after WWII, the Poles and Czechs deserve our military support.

And after all, Russian autocrats become tiresome rather quickly.

Oh, A Change Could Do Them Good

With the conclusion of the high-profile debate earlier today, the race for the Presidency is entering its final stages. In France that is. What, did that one pass under your radar? Well, it shouldn't have. Indeed, all Americans interested in seeing someone, anyone, put a stop to the massive economic, cultural, and societal decline that's happening in France should take note of a man by the name of Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy is one of the two candidates who made it to the final round of voting in the French Presidential election. His opponent, Segolene Royal, hails from France's well-established Socialist Party making Sarkozy, particularly by French standards, a real right-winger of a candidate.

And let me assure you that, in France, the term 'right-wing' is quite relative.

Indeed, only in France would one be branded as "a danger to the Nation" for suggesting that, with a 12% unemployment rate, it might be time to take a second look at the mandatory 35-hour work week; or, in the aftermath of the massive 'youth' riots a couple years back, that tightening up the immigration policies and enforcing "law and order" might be a good idea.

Sarkozy, of course, for all the juvenile, ad hominem attacks he has endured at the hands of his opponents, is not, in any way, a "danger" to France. Hell, given the abominable state of the country these days, he might be the closest thing to a savior they've seen since De Gaulle. While Royal has been running a campaign based on emotion, mudslinging, and...uh, her own ego, Sarkozy has been running a campaign based on his qualifications and his positions on the issues. Indeed, in France, there appears to be no real question as to who is the more qualified candidate, they've conceded that one to Sarkozy, the real question seems to be whether a legit, policy driven President will serve them better than a pandering, ideologically-scattered President who they're not as scared of.

Political competence as a secondary issue - only in France.

Sarkozy, however, has bet that a majority of French voters are, in fact, smarter than I'd give them credit for, and will choose his ability over Royal's nonsense - and so far, the polls indicate that this bet will pay off. So what exactly might a Sarkozy victory mean? Well, consider some of his campaign platforms:

- Easing the restrictions on Overtime work, partly by reducing/eliminating the taxes placed on post-35th hour wages.
- Tightening up the immigration policy and keeping better track of all the immigrants who are allowed in
- Increasing criminal sentences and reducing crime, especially violent crime
- Lowering personal taxes

Sounds reasonable, no? To my, admittedly, outsider's eyes, the consequences of a Sarkozy victory would be a re-introduction of common sense into French Politics. Moreover, it would seem to indicate the beginning of a period of liberalization (in the historical, Jeffersonian sense of the word) in economic policy. In short, a Sarkozy victory might be a forbearer of change in French politics. That can only be a good thing.

I suppose we'll see on May 6th, when the 2nd vote takes place, whether or not the French agree with my assesment, and if they are willing to change and start down what could be a very long road to recovery. On the Campaign trail, Mr. Sarkozy has said that "the French are not afraid of change. They're waiting for it." Indeed, let's hope so - and let's hope that Sarkozy, if elected, actually delivers on the promise of change; because no 1st-World-Country needs change more than France.

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.

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.

New Battles with an Old Enemy

In Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher wrote the following when discussing what she dubbed 'The Russian Enigma:'

"While connections, corruption, crime, and cartels form the basis of the Russian system there can be no true freedom and no genuine democracy."

It doesn't take a genius to tell that, in Russia today, freedom and democracy, in just about any sense of the words, are vanishing fast; and this, of course, spells disaster for the United States. An undemocratic, oppressive Russia is, of course, nothing new to the United States; indeed, it would be safe to say that when it comes to combating the totalitarian tendencies of the Russian system the U.S has unmatched experience. Moreover, as the old saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt; and that's exactly what we should have for Russia right now: contempt.

There is, of course, something ironic about the fact that, as we attempt to spread the benefits of Democratic-Republicanism to a new region of the world, we get to watch it slowly vanish from the last region to which we spread it. This is not to say that Russia had ever truly emerged from the depths of communism to embrace democratic principles in the same fashion as their Japanese neighbors; there has always been room to criticize post-Soviet regimes in Russia, but it seems that President Putin has indeed bucked whatever positive trends had begun to take hold in the Siberian hinterlands in favor of trends which better remind him of his old days in the KGB.

In the wake of recent expatriated spy poisonings and the recent handling of anti-government protests, which, in some respects, evoked memories of Tiananmen Square, it is becoming clear that Putin has no interest in protecting what we Americans refer to as 1st Amendment rights. Additionally, the biggest problem arising from the increase in Russian oppressiveness is that President Putin is trying his best to extend this authoritarian influence to other countries; namely former Soviet provinces and satellites such as the Ukraine and Poland. When Ronald Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate in 1986 and declared that "freedom [would be] the victor" in the Cold War, he perhaps was thinking more so of the various Soviet satellites and republics than he was of Russia proper. These countries, as Reagan no doubt knew, had a tremendous potential, and desire, to become free. It was for them that he held the greatest hope. So for us to stand by and willingly ignore increasing Russian influence in the area, whether through oil threats or otherwise, is surely a gargantuan slap to the face of Reagan's dream for Eastern Europe.

As if the increasing force of the iron fist being brought down upon Eastern European peoples is not enough, Russia further incriminates itself with its brash behavior towards and relations with Iran. As it becomes increasingly more obvious that the influence and looniness of Iran is the biggest threat in the Middle East, the underhanded behavior by Russia in their dealings with that country become all the more dangerous. Aside from blocking any attempts to sanction or deal with Iran through the United Nations, Russia, to a much greater extent, even, than China, has blocked any and every attempt by the West to deal with Iran. They undermine European Union attempts to gain ground and, most significantly, declare that they will continue with their plans to sell Iran various bits of nuclear technology which could (or shall I say will) help them develop Atomic Weaponry. Putin deals with Iran, in part, I believe, because, aside from gaining financial profit through the sales, he takes great satisfaction in flipping the bird to the West. Putin knows that Iran is trying to build a nuke, and he probably wants them to do it, with the expectation that they will try to use it on either the United States or Great Britain. While the Russian President may find such a scenario personally beneficial in a variety of ways (even humorous, perhaps I would be interested to see his reaction when an Iranian nuke is used on Moscow in the name of Chechnya's Muslim rebels.

So indeed, Russia is not only plummeting into a post-Soviet totalitarianism, but is doing so at the expense of the Free World. Why, you might ask, is this not a bigger priority for the Free World? Unfortunately, the answer to that question lies with the most powerful man in the Free World, and his willingness, or lack thereof, to see the Russian situation for what it is. At the Yalta Conference in 1945, Winston Churchill continually cautioned FDR against trusting Josef Stalin - to no avail. President Bush's assertion that "when I look into [President Putin's] eyes I see an honest man" reeks of the same kind of ignorance displayed by FDR those many years ago. As a result of FDR's concessions to Stalin at Yalta, Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, saw its dreams of freedom lost to Russian totalitarianism for nearly 50 years. Which Nations will be forced to pay the price for President Bush's naive ignorance? Better yet, who will play the part of Churchill and strongly caution the President against Mr. Putin? And if someone does take up the mantle of Churchill, will the American President listen this time? Or is he doomed to repeat the mistake of the past?

Indeed, it is time for President Bush and the rest of our leaders, both in the U.S and the rest of the Western world, to wake up and realize the threat posed by the Russian Nation and its corrupt President. We need to get tough with Russia; otherwise we will likely fail to stop Iranian nuclear development. You know, the name of the game has changed from communism to fascism (Islamic and otherwise) - but the enemy has stayed the same. 'Hardball,' as Ronald Reagan discovered, works well with our Russian foe, and so, for our own sake, the game must begin in earnest.

School of Hard Knocks?

Yesterday, when Kofi Annan toured Southern Beirut for the first time since the recent conflict, he was greeted by a chorus of boos. In fact, the world's number one peacekeeper was so well received that he was hustled off the streets by nervous security guards after only 10 minutes of tour time. Kofi must have been surprised that the Muslims in this area had such a hatred for him, and Israel, and the UN, and the United States and....well, a lot of other things too. The question is though, did all this first hand experience with Muslim radicals' wrath turn on that light bulb in his head?

Annan has had, to put it mildly, a less-than-successful tenure as head of the United Nations. Whether it was participating in the Oil-and-food scandal or sitting around and watching (a.k.a 'doing nothing about) genocide in places like Iraq and Sudan, Annan has not exactly increased cooperation and understanding amongst the world's Nations. This, in my opinion, is due in large part to his complete misunderstanding of Islamic radicals - who are the primary folks responsible for some of the most horrific violence in the world today. They run al-Qaeda, they are the dictators screwing up Africa, they inflame conflict with Israel, and essentially perpetrate all 'crimes against humanity' that are committed outside of China and North Korea.

Furthermore, as we have, hopefully, learned, these Muslim radicals aren't exactly reasonable; and thus don't tend to respond well to things such as 'talks' and 'diplomacy.' However, Annan, in his wisdom, refuses to recognize this. He has continued to pursue what he deems 'peaceful' solutions to problems in the Middle East; as well as continuing his attempts to 'reach out' to the radical Islamic community. He went so far as to, in essence, blame the recent War in Lebanon on Israel. And what has all this hard work gotten him? Well, it seems that, at least to supporters of Hezbollah (and other Islamic terrorist groups, I'd bet), he has earned himself a place amongst the supposed 'Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy.' An amazing feat to be sure.

Indeed, Kofi Annan, and the rest of the UN, have played nice with Muslim terrorists and radicals for a long, long time - at the expense of the Nations they're supposed to be helping. Yet, maybe this trip to Beirut will finally teach Kofi a lesson. Could those insults and racist ramblings bring the UN Secretary General to his senses? If they do, it will certainly be a lesson learned the hard way. Then again, this is the United Nations we're talking about - and they always seem to find ways to simply astonish us with their ineptitude.

No Reason to Get Excited About Cease-Fire

So, after days of deliberation, the UN has finally shaken its fist and demanded an end to hostilities in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. However, anyone with a cautious and sensible mind should not be so quick to hail this cease-fire agreement as a success. While the main points behind it all sound great on paper, they could, in practice, prove disastrous.

First, the peace agreement calls for an end to hostilities. I can just hear everyone over the age of 50 in Israel shaking their heads. Since when have hostile Islamic terrorist groups not attacked Israel? Since 1948, when exactly has Israel had peace? The answer is, quite honestly, never. Israelis, perhaps more so than any other peoples, live in a constant state of war. They don't have a "homeland security alert level" system; because, if they did, it would always be on the highest level. So while the rest of the world may feel like 'hostilities have stopped' I can assure the Israelis have no such illusions.

The second point of Secretary Rice's cease-fire plan is the disarmament of Hezbollah. Of course, this should be easy, especially considering that many Lebanese people support Hezbollah and that the Lebanese government can't even control them. . . . oh, wait, I guess that could complicate the process. Furthermore, Hezbollah is being financed by Iran and Syria, and since the UN, and the United States for that matter, have done very little in the way of dealing with those two countries, it's very difficult to believe that we can stop them from arming Hezbollah, again. Now, if the Lebanese Government can't disarm them, and we can stop their suppliers from giving them more stuff, how exactly are we supposed to achieve this "disarming of Hezbollah?"

The final point in the UN's peace plan is the sending in of an 'international' peace-keeping force, which could perhaps be the least successful of all 3 points. The UN, and its peacekeeping forces, especially the ones that aren't made up entirely of American troops, have one of the most miserable track records in history when it comes to actually maintaining peace. The UN does more to exacerbate conflicts than stop them. I mean, c'mon, there was a UN peacekeeping force, in Southern Lebanon when this conflict began; and they sure did a hell of a job keeping the peace. What is to make us believe that one of the UN's 'international forces' is actually going to keep the peace this time, after failing every other time?

The bottom line is this, for the past 10 years or so, the UN has actually done more to support Hezbollah than disarm them; and the Lebanese government has admitted that they have no real leverage with the organization. In fact, it seems the only one who can put an end to Hezbollah is Israel - but they're now being forced to halt this task by the cease-fire agreement. I hope I'm wrong, but somehow, I don't see the current Security Council resolution changing anything. Indeed, I'm skeptical that this will lead to a true 'cessation' of hostilities at all. So don't be surprised if in the coming year the Israel/Hezbollah conflict starts up again - and when it does, thank the cease-fire.

Reading Into Iran

So, in case you missed it recently, our good 'allies' in Russia came out in support of Iran over the weekend. Sounding an awful lot like the anti-war crowd here in the United States, Nikolai Spassky, head of the Kremlin Security Council said that "diplomacy" was the only way to deal with Iran. He further urged that no sanctions against Iran should be implemented until there was "concrete evidence" that Iran was using its nuclear program for non-peaceful measures. Basically, we should willingly trust a guy who has explicitly denied the Holocaust, predicted the apocalypse, and called for the elimination of an entire country when he tells us he's (honestly) not developing the most powerful weapon known to man.

My immediate response to this bit of news was that this is the reason why we don't let the United Nations dictate our foreign policy. Furthermore, it's why we genuinely don't care when other countries decry our actions and political stances. Other countries, like France, are run by naive idiots like these people at the Kremlin. Seriously, who thinks we can trust Ahmadinejad when he says that Iran is enhancing uranium solely for 'energy' purposes? Yes Moscow, the Nation that sits directly atop some of the largest oil reserves in the world needs 'alternate sources of energy'. When I hear crap like this from international leaders, it makes me glad that my President really doesn't give a damn what they think.

Furthermore, let's be completely honest: diplomacyis not going to work with Iran. As I have said before, the people in charge over there are completely insane. This little stunt they are pulling, claiming innocence, is a way for them to buy more time; and when they do feel like telling the truth, they'll have a nuke to prove it. So let's stop all this talk about diplomacy and sanctions: because they aren't going to work. Using diplomacy or sanctions with Iran would be like having a high school principal call a student to his office for threatening a teacher, and saying: "boy that was really, really, really bad - don't ever, ever do it again" and then letting the kid go without further punishment. I bet that kid is gonna be really scared of that principal saying "no," he'll really learn his lesson. Except that he won't, because he has no reason to. Same with Iran. Saying "NO" really loud and with a grave tone isn't going to accomplish anything.

As for the Russian Government's desire for "concrete evidence" of Nuclear weapons, I thought we learned this lesson in World War II. Wasn't that what Hitler taught us - that we cannot simply close our eyes to the evil around us and hope it goes away? Didn't a, now infamous, British Prime Minister teach us that treaties don't mean much when you make them with the devil? This is, or at least what should be, the beauty of the post-World War II era: the preemptive strike. We learned that it's best to take note of madmen and deal with them before they get their hands on serious power. Remember Mein Kampf, that crazy book published in 1926? Remember how the rest of the world completely ignored it? Remember how well that turned out for them? President Ahmadinejad is writing his own Mein Kampf. Russia doesn't want to read it; they probably want 'peace' ('in our time,' I assume). Let us hope, however, that President Bush learned a lesson from the generation of his father, and takes good notes on his Ahmadinejad.

Diplomacy at Mis-work

In light of the new 'agreement' with North Korea, the New York Times has taken to criticizing the Bush Administration for not being diplomatic and resorting to "name-calling" and other "confrontational tactics" in past negotiations with North Korea. They presume the President will be shocked that "Diplomacy..[works] after all." But perhaps the most telling line is when they become almost nostalgic that the Bush administration "has rediscovered the safeguards and rewards of peaceful international diplomacy in general and this vital treaty in particular."

First and foremost, I will believe the 'treaty' when I see it in action. Not when they say they've disarmed or not when UN inspectors say they have disarmed; when American Military experts are allowed into North Korea and give the okay, that is when I will believe what is coming out of Pyongyang. In fact they have already requested an Atomic Energy Reactor. I assume they want to use this for 'energy reasons' just like Iran. So before the New York Times gives Condi Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill accolades for "serious negotiation" lets see what we 'seriously' get from it.

As for Bush's past "confrontational tactics," let's just say Serious Dictators never listen to 'Serious Diplomacy'. In fact, I distinctly remember serious attempts at diplomacy in 1938, treaties, in fact, that resulted in "Peace in [thier] Time." (Not to mention one of the Greatest Fools ever to be British PM.) Besides, scare tactics work more often than not; and we're looking for results here, not a good grade in International Manners class.

Furthurmore, its not like President Bush doesn't try diplomacy, he did on more than one occasion with Saddam, he just doesn't try it absurdly. When diplomacy accomplishes the proper end, it is the best and preferred option. However, this is often not the case, and President Bush has, quite frankly, exhibited a very good understanding of this, as he seems to know when to give up on dimplomacy and resort to Force.

To be perfectly frank, "the importance of international agreements" is absolutely none if there is no force or threat in place to back them up. And thats what We're here for. That what Bush, or more specifically The United States, does in this world: We keep the peace. Bush's beefing up of National Security and War on Terror are not his "discounting" of International Treaties, they're his strengthening of them. Fighting for Peace and stability is not a new drill in this great Country.
So in the future, after this current North Korea agreement falls through, when Bush resorts to 'threatening' tactics, remember, he's doing it for the Good of the whole World.

Seriously