How America Lost the Last Battle of the Cold War

It is widely believed that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union ended when the Berlin Wall collapsed. In many ways, this is true. However, there was one battle of the Cold War which was never truly decided and that battlefield was Cuba. Although the Castro Regime seized and maintained power -- with its “glorious” leader, Fidel Castro, outlasting eleven of his American Presidential rivals -- there always was a stalemate mentality between the two sides for, America maintained a fifty-year embargo against Cuba. Now, the Obama Administration is poised to make its biggest mistake, which will have devastating long-term consequences for the Western Hemisphere: opening full diplomatic relations with Cuba, without the imposition of any enforceable preconditions or any form of regime change. This, in my opinion, is the United States surrendering what I believe to be the last battlefield of the Cold War and, if the policy is made official, will be one of the most humiliating foreign policy blunders in modern times.

The idea of opening Cuba up is nothing new. Indeed, the Europeans and Canadians only tacitly respected the embargo President Kennedy had established after the Missile Crisis in 1962 before flagrantly disavowing the policy. For over twenty years, Westerners have been traveling to Cuba from everywhere but the United States. When Europeans are called out by Americans on this errant policy, their defense is roughly the same as the Obama Administration’s: they believe greater interaction with the Cubans will cause the Cubans to see what they’re missing under Communist rule, and that realization will force them to democratize the nation in a non-antagonistic, relatively non-violent way. However, Europeans have been traveling to Cuba for over two decades and there is no proof that their greater level of interaction with the Cubans have sparked the flames of liberty there. The Castro Regime (whether under the now-nominal Fidel Castro or his brother, Raul) remains in power and, in many ways, is stronger and more stable than ever. Indeed, unlike other nations suffering under totalitarian rule, a majority of Cubans apparently truly support the Castro Regime with no indication that they seek to democratize. All that normalizing relations with Cuba will do, in my opinion, is further legitimize an otherwise illegitimate regime and further empower other rogue regimes to continue to flout American power and international law.

This concept that greater diplomatic contact can, over a prolonged period, democratize a totalitarian regime is nothing new. This is the position that the United States when endorsed President Nixon’s plan to normalize relations with Communist China. Then, however, there was a strategic imperative to setting aside our ideology and engaging China: greater contact with China would have made them temporary and tacit allies long enough to break up the all-powerful Sino-Soviet Pact and, give the United States a clear advantage in a period of the Cold War which saw the US take staggering losses (primarily the Vietnam War). However, after forty years of prolonged contact with the People’s Republic of China there has been little change in the internal power structure which makes up that nation’s political realm. In fact, I would argue that open relations between the US and the PRC has only yielded greater concessions to the PRC than the other way around. The Chinese Communist Party remains in power; they continue enacting their brutal totalitarian policies which denigrate human rights, empowers the state at the expense of the individual, and continue to build up a military force designed to displace their supposed partner, the United States. Similar arguments were also (although on a much smaller scale) made by the Clinton Administration regarding normalizing relations with Boris Yeltsin’s post-Soviet Russia. Of course, during that time, under Yeltsin, such relations would not have proved detrimental however, under Putin and Medvedev, such relations can only have empowered the imperial war machine they appear to be building there. How will opening relations with Communist Cuba yield any different results?

In his book 2008 book “Jaws of the Dragon: America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony”, brilliant Libertarian economist Eamonn Fingleton argues that rather than increased, normalized trade between America and China converging China to an American politico-economic model, the Chinese are turning America more towards them. This is a phenomenon he dubs as “reverse convergence”. While I do not agree with all of his assertions, Fingleton’s argument is both compelling and should serve as a cautionary tale to the US when seeking to enact similar dubious foreign policy decisions elsewhere. The more we have relations with Cuba without any form of preconditions or regime change, the more our trade will only empower and legitimize that despicable regime. Indeed, it will also give the Cubans a chance to start lobbying in American foreign policy circles as so many other nations do (i.e. Saudi Arabia and China) with the intent of swaying foreign policy and trade decisions in their favor.

Many in the West look at Cuba as a minor island nation with no real clout and not a significant threat. Right now, in many respects, it is. This is thanks to the fact that American dollars are not pouring into that nation’s economy as they would under normalized diplomatic relations. Cuba’s leadership has taken a keen interest in doing everything it can to undermine America’s primacy of power in the Western Hemisphere. From its earliest moments, the Castro government reached out to enemies of the US which led to the near-apocalyptic Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, the same Castro government which the Obama Administration seeks to have unrestricted diplomacy with, is the same government that nearly took the world into nuclear war! In fact, during a 1995 meeting in Havana, Fidel Castro remarked to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that it was he who was pushing Khrushchev for launching a preemptive nuclear strike against American targets -- even after America and Russia negotiated their way out that mess. To McNamara’s shock, Fidel was completely unapologetic for this notion, in fact, he was quite proud of it! In more recent times, the Castro Regime has been linked with rogue states like the Islamic Republic in Iran, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, and Kim Jong-Il’s brutal North Korean regime. According to recent CIA reports, there were representatives for the Castro regime in Pyongyang, North Korea for that nation’s most recent test launch of an illegal ICBM. Imagine what they would do with American dollars propping them up! And I didn’t even mention the continued presence of Chinese intelligence facilities on their soil, spying on the mainland US. Indeed, according to Washington Post columnist and celebrated author Bill Gertz, the Chinese are operating a high-powered facility which is beaming spy signals into the US, these signals are so powerful that in 1999 they interfered with Air Traffic Control operations all the way up in New York’s LaGuardia Airport! Is this a regime we should seek to legitimize and empower economically? Most certainly not.

Lastly, surrendering the Cuban Battlefield would be America’s single-greatest repudiation of the Monroe Doctrine - a hallowed policy which is one of the primary bedrocks of American Foreign Policy. By allowing such an anti-American, totalitarian regime to exist just ninety miles south of its own borders, the US is essentially telling the world that it is no longer willing to ensure its own regional supremacy and safety. Since the days of John Adams, it has been common wisdom that the only way the US will be safe is if it remains the regional hegemon of the Western Hemisphere. We cannot execute effective global operations if we’re constantly worried about the hornet’s nest that’s been stirred up in our backyard. It’s bad enough that we allowed Cuba to exist in its present form for this long, at least however, we did not legitimize it. This will tell the world that it is open season on the US in the Western Hemisphere. Already Russia and China are trying to increase their presence to our south, this will only empower them to continue and expand upon such policies. By surrendering the Cold War’s last battlefield, we may very well be surrendering future regional supremacy. Once American dollars start pouring into Cuba that nation will empower itself and then share the wealth with its anti-American neighbors (like Venezuela). Fidel Castro’s long-time dream of creating a counterbalance to American supremacy through a coalition of Communist-leaning, South American nations with ties to Havana, in the long run, may very well be reached. Now that, as President Obama is so fond of saying, would be a “game changer”!

______________________________
Fingleton, Eamonn. “Jaws of the Dragon: America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony”. New York: St. Martin's Press/Thomas Dunne Books, 2008.

Friedman, George. "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century." New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Gaddis, John Lewis. "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience." Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 2004.

Morris, Errol., dir. The Fog of War. 2003. Sony Classics. 18 April 2009. http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/indexFlash.html

The War on Piracy

For the first time in nearly two-hundred years the United States has suffered a Pirate attack on the high seas. For almost a week the captain of the MAERSK Company freighter Alabama was held at gunpoint by four Somali pirates. Thankfully, the situation ended with the termination of those pirates and the release of the freighter captain. However, this pirate threat is not something to take lightly. It represents a continuing clear and present danger to vital American and global economic interests. Like a Cancer, the Pirate threat will continue to grow and metastasize into a major threat, lest something drastic is done to stop it. It is my contention that this Somali Pirate Threat (and the government’s view of these Pirates) is disturbingly similar to the view that the US government took about al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1990s. A view which perpetuated ignorance and misperceptions about the real danger posed to America; lulled us into a false sense of security, forced us into a state of perpetual denial, and led to the horrific events of September 11, 2001. If we are not careful, this threat could balloon up into a serious global threat as al Qaeda was allowed to do from Afghanistan.

For well over a decade the nation of Somalia has suffered mightily to say the least. The nation has been fragmented by sectarian violence, ravaged by disease, famine, and seen the horrors of genocide. In recent years, the nation was torn apart by a brutal civil war which ultimately saw the dissolution of the nation’s government; this dissolution, some would say, led to a foreign “occupation” by Ethiopian troops in 2006. However, even the Ethiopians - with rumored American assistance - could not hold the country. Indeed, New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, put it best in his March 2009 Foreign Policy article “The Most Dangerous Place in the World“ when he proclaimed “Somalia is a state governed only by anarchy. A graveyard of foreign-policy failures, it has known just six months of peace in the past two decades.” Not surprisingly, this account of a failed state torn apart by anarchic sectarian violence, brimming with religious overtones, mirrors the stories that were told of Afghanistan in the post-Soviet War era. When reading Steven Coll’s history of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, entitled “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001” the reader is met with countless descriptions of the anarchy which consumed that nation and, ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda as leaders there. The key thing one must take away from those accounts is the idea that although the US government would acknowledge the threat of al Qaeda and Taliban-led Afghanistan, they would consistently underestimate and misinterpret that threat, which allowed for the failed policies that defined the 90s, and ultimately led to the worst case scenario: a surprise attack upon the United States.

The problem with the Somali pirates is not that they take over ships, demand money, and hold some people hostage (that’s bad, but it’s not the real issue); the real problem is what the nations who are the victims of these attacks do to prevent such attacks from recurring. The sad fact is those nations that have been targeted in the past have followed similar courses that nations and groups targeted by al Qaeda in the past did: they capitulated. These marauders come riding in on their fishing boats-turned-buccaneers from the bustling port city of Boosaaso, board the ships, hold the crews hostage, and demand exorbitant amounts of cash. The world’s military’s very rarely react with force (either because they could not arrive at the location in time or because their leaders decided to negotiate) and either the ship’s parent company or its nation of origin decide to give the Pirates what they want; proving one thing: piracy works. In 2008 alone, more than 40 vessels were overtaken and over a $100 million paid to the pirates in ransom. Like al Qaeda of the 90s, when the pirates’ attacks were met with capitulation, they became emboldened rather than pacified, and with the money they’ve gained, the pirates increased their attacks with greater zeal and in greater scope. It’s only a matter of time before traveling the Gulf of Aden - at least without massive military assistance - became far too costly to continue. Indeed, prior to the MAERSK Alabama Incident earlier this week, the maritime powers already decided to move the Gulf of Aden Shipping Lanes farther away from the Somali coastline and it did nothing to stem the pirates’ will.

Herein lies the crux of the pirate issue: the pirates aren’t just attacking freighters filled with precious cargo, manned by innocent merchant sailors…they’re attacking the global economy. In a January 2008 report, the US Department of Energy identified seven key oil transit “chokepoints” around the world and the Gulf of Aden shipping lanes were the third most important lane. In this report, the DOE speculated that any stoppage or reduction in travel along these lanes - for whatever reason - would severely wound the international economy because it would force the transport companies to take alternate, longer routes, thereby increasing their cost of transport; causing all other costs for that product to increase. As stated in the report, if just even a fraction of the oil transports which pass through the Gulf of Aden were forced to divert and take alternate routes, it’d cause the price of oil on the global market to spike until those lanes could be reopened. In fact, the 2008 DOE report was written specifically to outline the growing dangers piracy posed to the global economic stability - particularly regarding oil. Although a majority of these transports have been non-petroleum-transporting craft, in late November 2008 a Saudi oil tanker was taken captive. Thankfully it was only one and its load was relatively light. But, as these pirates grow and go untamed, they will begin coordinating their attacks and honing in on targets which would yield greater booty. Al Qaeda acted similarly in the 90s. Once they coalesced into a fighting force in post-Soviet Afghanistan, they began slowly targeting the United States and its allies. Initially their attacks were disparate and small-time, however, the more they were allowed to continue their work and fester in Afghanistan, the more they perfected their methods, and the deadlier they became. This is the danger of not responding or, at least, not responding swiftly.

The conditions of anarchy in Somalia are ripe for the picking, if you’re an Islamist. There is no functioning government to stop incursions by recruiters of al Qaeda or to douse the flames of resentment, many of the people there are well armed and experienced in guerilla-style warfare, and almost all of the 10 million Somalis belong to the Sunni-brand of Islam - the same Islamic sect which the Saudis and, more importantly, al Qaeda identifies with. Although there is no entity which actually runs Somalia, al Shabab, the Wahabbi al Qaeda-backed terror group, has major pull above all other groups in Somalia. Suppose these pirates were to align with al Shabab. Imagine the nightmare scenario that would be: an al Qaeda affiliate would suddenly have a de facto navy. This is something which could occur if the situation is left unchecked or, at least, continues to be handled in the passive-aggressive manner it’s been up until this point.

Many argue that we should begin arming the transports. This is a fine stopgap, however, it is not a solution since this will merely lead to escalation. As Commissioner Gordon opined to Batman at the end of Batman Begins, if “we start carrying semi-automatics, they’ll start carrying automatics”, it will only exacerbate the situation. Many seem to berate the private shipping company’s for paying the ransom (as do I). However, to be fair, they are businessmen designed to make money, not wage war. If the military is unwilling or unable to defend them, it actually becomes more economical to simply pay the pirates off and allow their transports to go on about their business. Indeed, insurance companies love the prospect of arming up private merchants since it would increase the amount of money the shipping companies would have to pay them. This is untenable for any business. The solution, then, will not be found in the private citizen on this one. It will be found in a bold foreign policy which coordinates a strong military action with increased diplomatic measures to quash the threat of piracy.

Recent reports from Politico.com and other sources have indicated that President Obama is looking for military options to thwarting the ongoing pirate threat. One option which has been floated by the Obama Administration (and one which Obama supposedly favors) involves the United States moving in, attacking the coastline pirate bases, helping the Somalis establish a coast guard, and giving aide to that nation to bring stability and remove the prism of anarchy in which it exists. Aside from the flagrant political hypocrisy of this plan (both Obama and his Democratic Party unabashedly assaulted the Bush Administration for utilizing the same preemption and nation-building measures in Iraq he now proposes), it is also severely flawed. While I will never bet against the United States military’s ability to improvise, adapt, and overcome; given the state of chaos Somalia is in, I do doubt the government’s political will to see such a policy through to its proper end: a freer and stable Somalia.

Some inherent flaws with Obama’s proposed strategy (which I seriously doubt will even be implemented given his distance from this topic) are the facts that simply taking out existing pirate bases won’t do; we have to prevent them from coming back to the coastline and restarting their violent enterprise. Given how much money has been made, the lack of proper response from the victims, and how desperate the situation in Somalia is, the pirate “industry” in Somalia would come back in no time. Yet another flaw with the President’s supposed plan is this proposed Somali-run Coast Guard. In order for there to be a Somali-run Coast Guard there has to be a Somali government for which that Coast Guard reports to and receives supplies and personnel from. In case the President didn’t realize this, there is no government in Somalia. The only group which appears powerful enough to form a government is the al Qaeda-backed Wahabbi Islamist group known as al Shabab. Clearly, backing them would be akin to playing Russian Roulette. The next option would be to form a coalition government through the various warlords and clans which comprise Somali society. However, that’d take years to do, loads of money, and would require the US to put boots on the ground for prolonged periods of time. The reason forming a whole new government would be difficult would be due to the fact that these Clans are divided by centuries-old conflict, they have shifting alliances, and their histories are so convoluted that no outsider has ever been able to fully understand and take advantage of them. Nation-building, of any kind at this time, would be seriously taxing on our forces to say the least.

Up until this point, I’ve failed to mention allied involvement in the President’s plan because, given their lack of response up until this point (on both this issue and so many others), I somehow won’t be counting on their assistance - particularly the Europeans (despite apparent French support for escalating against the Pirates). Nation-building is a long-term solution which would require excessive amount of action. What we need now is swift, immediate action which would solve our short-term problems. However, this short-term solution need not be short-sighted. We should authorize a short-term solution which would also allow us to segue into the more long-term solution of nation-building, after we’ve finished our commitment to the Global War on Terror, and allowed our forces to regroup and reequip.

A far better, less costly, solution would be to have our supremely powerful naval forces operating in that region blast the coastline pirate bases with aerial bombardment, and then send in small units of Special Forces and Marines to establish firebases along the coastline. This would create a sort of foothold scenario, which would deprive the pirates of access to the waterway, and then have the Navy create a blockade of the Somalia coastline for good measure. A key target should be the Pirate-laden port city of Boosasso. That city is seen as the most prosperous in Somalia, and many speculate that it owes its newfound prosperity to the piratical activity of its denizens on the Gulf of Aden shipping lanes.

The Obama Administration seems to want to enact the Bush Doctrine, without saying the name. In the long-run, I wholeheartedly believe nation-building is a good strategy, and the only way to truly solve the Somali issue is through some form of Bush-style nation-building. However, we need immediate action and, unfortunately, the military is becoming overstretched with the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns in the Global War on Terror (not to mention all of the other global commitments the US military must fulfill). It simply is irresponsible for President Obama to even begin thinking about major nation-building operations in Somalia at this time. It would seem the Democrats are repeating the same mistake they made in the 90s: they are significantly cutting defense spending whilst increasing operational demands on an already-strained force. That simply is not a sustainable policy. Indeed, when analyzing much of our logistical problems in Iraq, they can be traced back to the massive cuts President Clinton made during the 90s to create his “Peace Dividend”, cuts which were never truly rectified by the Bush Administration to meet the growing demands on our military, and are only now being slightly addressed. Regardless how the Obama Administration spins their Somali Coast Guard plan…it’s nation building. We simply don‘t have the resources to perform that right now. If everyone thought that we were in Iraq for too long (which technically was still a functioning state under Saddam), imagine how long we’d be bogged down in Somalia - with all the clans and sub-clans with shifting alliances, not to mention the vehemently anti-American Islamists - with an overstretched and overburdened military!

That is why sending in a small force predominantly of Marines and Special Forces to secure the coastline and hold it while the Navy boxes the country in through blockade is the best solution. It allows us to have our cake and eat it. We can take out the immediate threat, prevent it from returning, all without the headache of having GIs patrol dangerous Somali streets indefinitely. Another bonus is that this would signal to both the world and the Somalis that we are no longer going to leave them behind. We will no longer tolerate piracy. With the establishment of our foothold we would at least have a presence in the region. This would allow our intelligence and diplomatic corps to begin making better contacts in the nation, which could eventually pave the way for the eventual move to nation-build. We would be methodically and patiently laying a groundwork rather than “rushing in” (as so many Liberal critics accused the Bush Administration of doing regarding the Iraqi Theater of the Global War on Terror).

Another issue I see in combating this problem is the culture of denial among the Washington intellengsia. This comes from both Democrats and Republicans. So many of these purported experts proclaim that the pirates have no ideology other than their thirst for money and the fact they’re thugs. Indeed, many Democrats refuse to even acknowledge these pirates as Terrorists. It is true these pirates are thugs and they act like it. However, as noted earlier, a majority of that country’s population worship Sunni Islam and a significant power player in Somali politics is the Islamist terror group al Shabab. Just as the infamous Barbary Coast Pirates (which plagued the US and other nations off of North Africa two-hundred years prior) were fueled primarily by economics, Captain Pasha and his band of pirates back then justified their actions and acquired new recruits through the teachings of the Koran. The same holds true for these Somali Pirates. Once the Washington elite acknowledge the dangers of an Islamist-backed (or at least, inspired) pirate threat in Somalia and begin calling them Terrorists, we can begin moving in a more assertive, concerted, aggressive manner.

There is some hidden value with increasing our presence in Somalia as well: we can use this as an impetus for increasing and establishing a prolonged presence in the greater Indian Ocean region - especially if the government endorses my plan - which I believe will be a serious hotspot of activity in the near future (especially with rising China and India competing for control there). This would give us the opportunity to create stronger ties with India. We should probably also work with South Africa for greater involvement as well as Australia and Japan. These nations, I believe, will be the bedrock of a coalition for future balance of power operations the United States will have to embark upon, in order to contain China’s rise. In the long-run, once the United States felt it was capable of engaging in a nation-building exercise, Somalia could be a sort of dry run to see how these nations would work together to balance the Rising Dragon.

One, final issue I see with our current policy regarding these pirates is the precedent its setting. For over forty years the United States’ avowed policy has been never to negotiate with Terrorists. In the 1990s we treated al Qaeda as a generally criminal matter - we allowed lawyers to set the rules of engagement for our CIA officers abroad, and we relegated domestic anti-terror efforts by the FBI to restrictive civilian courts. Today we treat the pirates as a generally criminal matter. Oh sure, we finally allowed the Navy SEALs to save the day in the MAERSK Alabama Incident, but for days prior to that we sent an FBI negotiator to deal with the Somali pirates…to no avail. This is supreme weakness on our part; one which the pirates will continue to exploit. However, there is even a worst group which will exploit this perceived weakness: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In any type of conflict with the West, it is an almost 100% certainty that the Iranians will blockade or attack the Straits of Hormuz (another key oil transit chokepoint) in order to drive the price of oil up and hurt the West economically. The US has already had a lackluster response to North Korean nuclear brinksmanship, it has already stepped back from its aggressive stances on the Global War on Terror (renaming it and no longer using the terms “terrorist” or “terror attack”), and has now suffered the indignity of having its navy held at bay by four Somalis with archaic AK-47s. If the Obama Administration does not step it up regarding the War on Piracy, we could be emboldening not just the pirates but our other, greater enemies as well.

Regardless of what any future scenario may hold, the fact remains simple: the pirate threat will not go away and swift, bold action is required on our part. We should look back to our experiences with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and try not to repeat the mistakes which led to 9/11. Those mistakes were simple: we underestimated the enemy, misread their intentions, made several key, flawed assumptions; and failed to make the proper connections which ultimately led to a continuously flaccid policy on our part and only served to further embolden the enemy. This led to the disastrous 9/11. Just as the United States was in an undeclared war against Jihadists in 1996, the United States is now in an undeclared War on Piracy today. We must rebuff these pirates and prevent them from escalating the violence. Indeed, earlier today the pirates launched another attack on a US freighter, this time using heavier weapons, more men, and faster boats - already, they’re becoming emboldened and adapting their tactics. Although they were unsuccessful, they only have to be right once in order for them to win.

This is why no other policy besides my proposed foothold scenario will work. The Foothold Scenario takes care of the immediate threat before it requires a larger force commitment, whilst allowing us to have a permanent, yet light, presence in-country. This gives us the initiative: we can choose when and where we want to attack. Having this presence in-country will allow us to lay the groundwork for the inevitable nation-building strategy that will one day have to be adopted, to stop Somalia from continuing to be a major global destabilizing force. Had we done something like this in Afghanistan in the 90s (wage a low-intensity war with Special Forces as Bill Clinton considered doing before the Lewinski Scandal) we may have avoided 9/11. One thing is clear, however, our current policy - the policy of treating these pirates as criminals, the same policy we had toward al Qaeda in the 90s - is doomed to failure.

If we continue to place ourselves in a reactionary posture rather than an aggressive one, the attacks will get worst, and one day they could very well do serious damage to the global economy. The War on Piracy has already begun…when will we get the message?

_____________________________
Bliss, Jeff. "U.S. Military Considers Attack on Somali Pirates' Land Bases." Bloomberg.com. 13 April 2009. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYhvgOfyTmYA&refer=us

Coll, Steve. "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden From the Soviet Invasion to September 11, 2001." New York: Penguin Publishing, 2005.

Energy Information Administration. "World Oil Transit Chokepoints." Department of Energy. Jan. 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html

Gettlemen, Jeffrey. "The Most Dangerous Place In the World." Foreign Policy. March/April 2009. 62-69.

A General Foreign Policy Statement

It is my firm contention that the United States has a destiny - handed down from divine providence - to lead a global empire of liberty. This empire would not be based on the vile virtues of prior empires, rather, on the desire to create a global system which prized self-determination under democratic law and used capitalism as the engine for advancing humanity. The timeless, God-given virtues of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are the greatest assets the United States and her stalwart people can bestow upon the world. Toward that end, it is necessary that -- despite our internal political divisions -- we realize the need to maintain and fund a military-industrial complex which is capable of meeting the full-spectrum combat demands of the 21st Century battlefield.

We must also expand our intelligence community's ability to utilize HUMINT and to remove the risk-averse tendencies of the upper echelons of the intelligence community's leadership. We must replace that risk aversion with extreme boldness and devout fervor in spreading the American way of life; thereby reducing global tensions, realigning the global order to focus on economics rather than warfare, and allowing more people in more places to prosper.

Such things as the Pentagon's Future Combat Systems, Land Warrior Programs, space-based weaponry development, and other key areas of military technological and strategical expansion are now in jeopardy under the Obama Administration. As a Fiscal Conservative, I can certainly understand the need to curtail wasteful spending, however, I cannot stand idly by and allow the United States to be forced to cease all of its military development in the vain hope of making other global powers stop their pursuit of lethal combat systems. They will not. Any cessation in development will only inspire our foes (both current and future) to intensify development in order to achieve a greater parity with the United States and diminish our much-beloved primacy of power. This would diminish our fledgling empire of liberty and would jeopardize not only the American people, but the entire planet since the next largest nations which could displace the US from its global hegemony are totalitarian, Collectivist states like the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

On a final note, as the U.S.-Islamist War (aka Global War on Terror) enters into its twilight (the shifting of resources from a tamed Iraq to an untamed Pakistan), we need to be ready to address key issues that will face the US. These key "issues" in Foreign Policy are:

1) The Reawakening People's Republic of China
2) The Resurgent Russian Federation
3) A Sabre-Rattling (Potentially) Nuclear-Armed Iran
4) A Desperate & Dying Rogue N. Korean Regime
5) A Rising India

The policy prescription is simple and succinct: greater involvement in Central Asian Affairs. In that regard, our mission in Iraq was by definition a success (in the long run) as we will now have a viable base for prolonged power-projection into that region. This is why increased military funding is essential. As of FY 2008 Defense Spending consumed 4% of our GDP. I say we kick it up to at least 10 and cut back on ill-advised domestic programs (i.e. Social Security Ponzi Scheme, Welfare, Congressional Earmarks, etc.). I will be creating more blog entries in the future detailing the rise of these important five issues (as well as several others) and present what I believe to be acceptable, detailed foreign policy prescriptions.

Just as it was necessary for the island empire of Great Britain to prevent any one nation on the European mainland from coalescing into a serious threat to British interests, so to is it now necessary for the "island" of US-led North America to prevent the coalescence of unified threats from emerging on the Eurasian "mainland." This is not done out of malice or spite, rather in defense of both the United States and the divine virtues which she was built from.

To conclude this very basic outline of what I believe to be America's essential future foreign policy, I would like to include a brilliant quote from the brilliant Winston Churchill:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope for victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Thank you.

_____________________

Friedman, George. "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century." New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Friedman, George. "America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies." New York: Broadway, 2004.

Murray, Williamson and Scales, Jr., Robert H. "The Iraq War: A Military History." Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

Kaplan, Robert D. "Center Stage for the Twenty-First Century: Power Plays in the Indian Ocean." Foreign Affairs. March/April 2009. 16-32.

Kaufman, Robert G. "In Defense of the Bush Doctrine." Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2007.

Li, Cheng. "China's Team of Rivals." Foreign Policy. March/April 2009. 88-93.

Lucas, Edward. "The New Cold War." New York: Palgrave-MacMillian, 2008.

Ostrovsky, Arkady. "Reversal of Fortune." Foreign Policy. March/April 2009. 70-75.

Defining Success In the Age of Obama

I originally wrote the on January 27, 2009

It's been over a week now since America welcomed it's first black President with adulation. The party, however, is over and it is now time to get down to business for this nation's 44th president...and what a time for the new president as he must contend with: two ongoing fronts in the Global War on Terror (aka "The Long War"), an economy in crisis, new abortion policies, and several other dire crises which all require his immediate attention. Though he now enjoys a majority in Congress, President Obama does not enjoy a monopoly, yet. The GOP leadership has promised to be the "loyal opposition," but anytime they offer respectful opposition to the President's plans, they are immediately lambasted by their Democratic colleagues in Congress, the Liberal Mainstream Media, and the President himself as not wanting our President "to succeed" (the implication being that they want America to fail for their own political gain). Well, success (as the illustrious Rush Limbaugh has so eloquently pointed out) is an extremely relative term and we, as both Conservatives and Americans, must go down the litany of things the President seeks to achieve and decide whether we truly wish for him to succeed or not.

I. Foreign Policy: The Closing of Guantanamo Bay Prison

One of President Obama's first actions as Commander-in-Chief was to issue an Executive Order suspending the trials of several GITMO Islamist prisoners whilst his administration comes up with an alternative for maintaining the neo-Alcatraz. However, all we've gotten so far is the disturbing word the trial of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would be suspended for 120 days and then relocated to New York City's Southern District for trial. He will not be tried for the 3,000 innocent deaths on 9/11 due to the fact he was waterboarded, rather, he will be tried for the nominally successful 1993 World Trade Center Attack. That case has less evidence and will be harder to try (and easier for his lawyers to use loopholes to get him a reduced sentence).

Taking this step, placing the mastermind of 9/11 in the hands of the American civilian judicial system rather than the United States military judicial system is totally unprecedented in the history of warfare, allows for a greater chance of the Sheikh escaping justice, unduly burdens, and makes a mockery of our judicial system. If the Obama Administration does, indeed, move forward with their precariously niaive plans, this will not only burden our already overburdened justice system but send a signal to our enemies -- in what Donald Rumsfeld accurately dubbed "The Long War" -- that we no longer have the stomach to prosecute this war with the same steadfast resolve we had under the Bush Administration. In essence, we are granting al Qaeda and their subsidiaries a reprieve whilst allowing them an unfounded moral victory.

This step will ultimately be used as a precedent by other Left-leaning members of the bar in order to facilitate the relocation of these prisoners from GITMO to somewhere else within the United States! This insane motive begs the following questions: where shall we send them; Fort Leavenworth? A military installation which will undoubtedly become a target and bring the rabid hordes of Islamists to attack us on our own land again? How about regular high security Department of Correction facilities in your local neighborhood (err, excuse me, only Republican districts since no Democrat will openly place their district up for becoming the new home of al Qaeda members captured fresh off the battlefield)? Can they even handle that kind of load?

Should we place the GITMO detainees under the supervision of regular DOC facilities, in what way will we be living up to those ridiculously high (and unfounded) moral standards regarding American "violence" towards enemy combatants that Liberals have placed upon us, which started us down this rabbit hole? Do they not believe that these prisoners will be just as violently abused by -- if not more so -- the general prison population and their civilian guards than they were at the hands of their military handlers (which I even quibble with the belief that they were "abused" by their military overseers at GITMO)? The amount of GITMO detainees certainly cannot fit in the relatively small Solitary Confinement areas that our prisons here in the state possess. And, we're still missing the key element that these facilities -- which are generally located near US cities -- will become targets by Terrorists operating within our borders (read Ronald Kessler's "The Terrorist Watch" for more information on terrorists operating within our borders)! Why offer such tempting targets to Terrorists? Is there a valid strategic reason -- other than our squeamish morals?

Here's another question that seems so basic I am shocked I must ask it: if these Islamists we capture overseas are not American citizens (and do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 2 of the Geneva Convention), whose laws do we try them under? Are we going to suddenly say that they are now American citizens, thereby giving them the full rights the very same people they are trying to slaughter are dying to defend, and then prosecute them? If we are not inclined to do that (which I pray that we are not) do we try them under their homeland's law? Perhaps we should take the Archbishop of Canterbury's idea for Britain and adopt Sharia Law here in the States and use it to judge these animals! It sounds absurd, but this is the quandary we find ourselves in if President Obama continues down this dangerous path.

Regarding the Prisoner of War question: should we make some form of amendment to the Geneva Conventions to include Terrorists -- thereby changing the very definition of what the proper conduct of war is, since the Conventions clearly outline that it is improper for opposing forces to hide among civilians and not wear uniforms -- and try these Islamists in International Court over in Hague? I should note as well that the International Court in Hague is the same entity which wanted to have the ability to try both President George W. Bush and American soldiers for war crimes regarding the Liberation of Iraq! With a corrupt and biased record like that, how can they be trusted to execute justice fairly while simultaneously demonstrating to the world that Terrorism categorically fails to achieve the aims of the Terrorists?

The bottom line is: no matter how unpopular, the George Bush policy of military tribunals for these murdering Islamists -- and the concept of keeping them as far away from American soil as possible -- is the only safe and truly just way to approach this issue. I would remind you that after World War II, no one was sitting around demanding that we give Nazi and Japanese POWs trials in civilian courts! They were given military tribunals! That is how it has been for every combatant captured. In my opinion, at a time when everyone is talking about the complexity of this issue, I believe it is incredibly simple: unlike the captured combatants of previous wars, the Islamists we capture simply do not classify as POWs! Therefore they are enemy combatants living under military authority who have no rights as legislated by the Geneva Convention, they are not American citizens and therefore not protected under our Constitution, and their home nations want nothing to do with them! That means the military can do whatever it sees fit with them. Essentially, they are non-people. We are a gracious and good people which is why we afforded them basic human rights at GITMO (when we were under no obligation to do so) and decided to generously grant them the ability of military tribunals and some form of fair trial. Why do we now have to go further, risk our own security, and make a mockery of our own system by allowing non-citizens bent on our complete annihilation to possess the same rights as we have?

On this issue, I hope Obama fails miserably and is forced to keep GITMO open. As you should as well.

II. The Economy: Moving Us Closer to Socialism

The next major issue is President Obama's plan to initiate an even larger "stimulus" package which will put this country further in debt by trillions of dollars. Those of us in the GOP who oppose his plans for increased spending, this ridiculous Works Progress Administration reboot, and essentially, this obscene birthing of the New Deal 2.0 are ridiculed and derided by not only the Administration and its allies in Congress and the media, but by own party -- who seem to have lost all sense of reality and are suffering from Obama Mania like the rest of the country.

Throughout the Campaign, amidst the vacuous and purposely vague contentions of "hope" and "change," President Obama was specific in his desire for one thing: a rebirth of the New Deal (what Time Magazine dubs "The new New Deal"). The President comes from the place that most hardcore Leftists in this country do: that when the proverbial economic excrement hits the fan it's time for the Federal Government to intervene and redefine capitalism. The President, like so many of his ilk, actually believe what Jonah Goldberg at National Review accurately describes as the "Myth of FDR" in that his intervening and meddling with our Free Market saved the economy. Yet, when analyzing FDR's sixteen years in office, we see that it was not until 1941 that the nation started to lift itself from the economic depression it was in. Yet since the early thirties both FDR (and his predecessor, President Hoover) tried desperately to intervene in the economy and save it, yet never fixed the problem. What happened in 1941? Well, my friends, it was the year that this country led the effort to crush the Axis Powers in WWII. It was our wartime economy switch -- and the Postwar Economic Boom of the fifties -- which saved our country from Depression, not the Liberal Collectivism of the New Deal.

Yet, our President and his acolytes continuously tell us that a new New Deal is precisely what we need. That in times of economic downturn, we must surrender our free market system to the public sector and allow anti-capitalist forces "save us from ourselves!" Why don't we just start fighting Cancer with Cancer while we're at it? If President Obama's contention were true then why didn't President Reagan follow this course when he stood in the almost exact same position as both Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama? Why did he look and brilliantly declare "Government is not the solution, Government is the problem"? Within two years of him taking office (and drastically cutting taxes in what would be dubbed "Reaganomics") -- after the bitter disappointment that was Jimmy Carter's presidency which led to that economic downturn -- why is it that the nation underwent a massive economic revitalization and the 1980s were one of the most prosperous times in American history? Oddly, President Reagan's actions -- which had tangible and positive benefits for this nation -- are considered incorrect by the Political Establishment when responding to economic crises. The FDR Model is considered the truest, best way. Yet, just yesterday President Obama -- the man who was supposed to save Capitalism (and the people) from themselves -- is now saying that regardless of what FDR-like actions he takes (even with his almost complete control of our political and now economic system), "the worst is still yet to come"! If Keynesian/FDR New Dealism actually worked as beautifully as its proponent claim, shouldn't the worst be behind us (as it was when Reagan implemented his Supply-side Economics in the 80s)?

The sad truth is the New Deal was a total gambit which totally failed. It's legacy is one, when judged historically, which is far more detrimental to America than beneficial. Today, we find ourselves saddled with massive debt thanks to the utter failure that is Social Security, the disturbingly false promise of Welfare, and the sickening notion that the individual is incapable of caring for him/herself and we must surrender our freedom to the hallowed bureaucrat sitting aloft in his cushy, taxpayer funded, office in the far off capital of Washington, D.C. Imagine what the legacy of President Obama's new New Deal will be for our children?

If that fact doesn't prove that the new President is going to take this country down the wrong path if he "succeeds" in his economic plan, I'll enter these two beautiful quotes (one from a New Deal Brain Trust member in the forties and the other from President Obama): Mr. Alvin Hansen was asked in the 1940s whether "the basic principle of the New Deal" was "economically sound," he responded, "I really do not know what the basic principle of the New Deal is." Flash forward sixty years to President Barack Obama stating in a recent 60 Minutes interview "what you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things and experiment in order to get people working again." So, essentially, the path that our President has taken -- one which has been taken before with dire consequences -- is so hazy and unknown that the term "The Great Deluge" does not even begin to describe it!

In essence, all President Obama will end up doing -- regardless of how much he wants it to work -- will be to place this country further in debt to unfriendly nations like China or even Saudi Arabia (ironically, during the campaign season, the President bitterly warned that borrowing from those nations as the Bush Administration had done was "very dangerous"), expand an already over-bloated government thus making it utterly ineffectual, and put America's role as the world's Sole Superpower in dire jeopardy. In this -- the total usurpation of the Free-Market System by anti-capitalistic forces -- I hope the President fails.

III. The Culture: Reversing the "Global Gag Rule"

This next topic is something that is very near-and-dear to me. As a Conservative, I am most-definitely anti-abortion. Yet, I recognize that this country is deeply divided on this topic. Forty-eight hours ago, President Obama issued a reversal on President Bush's ban on federal funding to Third World nations for abortions (this is what many critics of the ban have called the "Global Gag Rule"). This ban was first introduced by President Reagan, upheld by President Bush, Sr., then reinstituted by President Clinton, banned again by President Bush, and finally (as aforementioned) reinstituted by President Obama. This act will send millions, but potentially billions of taxpayer's dollars (in a time of severe economic recession) to Third World nations to practice abortions.

First, on an economical level, I find this ruling insulting. At a time when we are all being asked by the new Administration to "sacrifice," workers are being laid off left and right, and many college students cannot attend school any longer because their scholarships have been rescinded due to the economic crisis (as is the case for three of my friends), President Obama and his fellow Democrats somehow scrounge up enough money to subsidize abortions throughout the Third World! Obama's belief, it'd seem, is similar to when people needed help and saving in ancient times they'd look to their gods, in the forties, it was the Marines are coming! In the sixties, it was the Peace Corps is coming! Today, it's the Abortionists are coming! Does anyone realize how silly this is?

Second (and this is going to offend you secular progressive Liberals out there), this is simply immoral and unethical. As I mentioned before, abortion is one of the single-most divisive subjects in this country. It's disgusting that such a heavily debated topic is even allowed to be exercised in this country (we should come to an agreement on whether it should be done or not before we implement it), now that same issue which we ourselves cannot agree upon, is going to be exported to other nations. Suddenly, it's become wrong to try and liberate a foreign people from oppression, yet it's okay to liberate them from children! This issue is contentious and I am shocked that a supposedly "post-partisan" president like Obama, would make one of his first acts to grant cart blanche regarding global abortions. I understand that this will forever be a touch-and-go issue (whenever a Republican is in office, it will be banned and the exact opposite will happen when a Democrat is in office), however, I just cannot wrap my head around exporting something that we ourselves are so unsure of, exporting something that is so vile and unethical, with such resolve. How can President Obama be the arbiter of morality (that so many of his gallant followers believe him to be) when he is running around being judge, jury, and executioner of not only American babies, but now foreign ones?

When President Obama was an Illinois State Senator he supported legislation which would have allowed partially born babies to be "aborted." This was seen -- not only by Republicans but several Democrats -- as outright insanity. In this country we have strict guidelines regarding abortion (particularly when a child can be aborted and when they cannot). However, I have serious issue believing that in the Sudan a parent not wanting to bear a child will adhere to those guidelines and that the abortionist will be so inclined to follow such rules. As well, I have extreme difficulty believing that at a time when we are told by the international Left (and Bono) that HIV/AIDS is running rampant in Africa, as a national policy, we would be seeking to encourage more unprotected sex between members of African nations whom could all be potential carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus, thus shooting the Third World down into more disease and despair! I thought the President was supposed to champion stability and life!

On this issue, too, I hope President Obama fails.

IV. A Definition Of My Usage of the Term "Failure" & Conclusion

Just as I stated that "success" is a relative term, I would also like to state that "failure" is as well. In the three topics I discussed in this article (I realize there are several other issues of contention like the 16-month Withdrawal from Iraq) I stated that I desired President Obama to "fail." What I mean is, I desire the President to not go against the general public's moderate political stances by ripping this nation Leftward, thereby ripping it away from greatness. I hope Obama succeeds in realizing early on that the only definition of success will be for him to continue to prosecute the Global War on Terror as effectively as his predecessor did (using the same tactics regarding Iraq and GITMO as President Bush did), I hope he succeeds in realizing that the only way to revitalize our economy is to give the power back to the people through lowering Capital Gains and Corporate Taxes to allow people to spend more money, businesses to expand, and thereby create more jobs. I hope President Obama succeeds in realizing that his stances on Abortion are incorrect and, if he cannot realize that, then simply realize that spending his political capital on such a contentious issue as reversing the "Global Gag Rule" will not only be costly politically, but also financially.

If President Obama does not succeed in realizing that the more Conservative methodology of running the nation is the only way of running the nation, then he willfail regardless of what I desire and this nation will be severely undermined. President Obama stands at a crossroads: he can either go the unsuccessful way of the extreme Leftist ideology President Jimmy Carter lovingly embraced -- lose his reelection bid and seriously debilitate this country in the process (and his legacy) -- or, he can go the way of the Pragmatic Centrist (and somewhat successful) President Bill Clinton and do less harm than good for this country by governing from the middle.

My prayers are with President Obama in that he sees the light, recognizes the error in his Liberal ways early on, and takes this country down the far more successful path of Conservatism...although I highly doubt it, so we should all brace ourselves for what will be an extremely arduous time! The only bright spot will be that eventually a Conservative will rise to prominence again and correct our incredibly wayward course. What the GOP, the Conservative Movement, and most especially this country truly needs is another Reagan Revolution!

Thoughts on Collectivism

The United States Constitution was founded upon the concepts of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness (or as Jonathan Locke would have put it, Property). These concepts were all meant to empower the individual. The goal was to ensure that there would never be the rise of an all-powerful, centralized authority, which could oppress the people the way the British had oppressed the 13 Colonies. The three basic tenets of American internal political doctrine is the striving of creating a balanced society through liberty, democracy, and equality. Since the Gilded Age, there has been an ongoing struggle between two factions: the Collectivists on the Left seeking equality above all else, and the Individualists on the Right seeking Liberty -- both of whom love democracy -- but, who disagree on the importance of the individual over the group on the count of social justice. It is my contention that while these Collectivists are clearly soft-hearted, that softness also extends to their skull; since collectivism of any kind sacrifices liberty as well as attacks the pursuit of happiness in order to achieve equality; making such a pursuit an inherently dangerous concept to the continued survival and prosperity of the United States.

The conflict between Collectivists on the Left and Individualists on the Right, has only intensified over the last century. While those favoring liberty above all else had a resounding success in the Reagan Administration, that success has been put into question ever since the Democrats took power in the 2006 Midterm Elections. In 2009 America, those favoring equality are making their comeback -- at breakneck pace. These people seek to collectivize American society, thereby sacrificing liberty in order to create a harmonious relationship with the minor percentage of people who are impoverished. Collectivists believe that the "wealthy" in America have taken advantage of the system and used it to become "too rich." That by being too successful, they created a massive stratification between the wealthier class and the poorer class, thereby making it impossible for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder to achieve upward mobility. Collectivists desire to champion equality by taking what they claim to be the "upper five percent of the wealthiest" and bring them down a bit -- in order to create equilibrium and supposedly reduce that stratification of wealth. The best way they do this is through taxation, or the forced reduction of wealth by making those who achieve a certain level of success have to pay more to the government, which in turn, redistributes that wealth to the poorer classes in society. This (according to the Collectivist) creates equality in society and, once equality has been achieved, a utopia has been created.

But does Collectivism, in fact, create an equal society?

The American Dream has always been built on the principle that everyone was free to pursue their own destiny. That destiny could only be pursued with the combination of liberty and a representative form of democracy. Where equality traditionally came into play was in terms of the pursuit of happiness. Everyone was equally afforded the opportunity of upward mobility; not guaranteed that such a movement on the economic ladder would occur. While everyone may equally have the right to pursue their destiny, their free will takes them in different directions. Since our Founding Fathers believed that free will and the defense of the individual were the key to American success (this fact has been proven time and again), the Collectivists' definition of equality is incorrect and should not be sought as a viable solution to our society's most vexing problems. If the Collectivist believes that in a heterogeneous society such as ours (that is built upon the notion of free will, no less), equality in results can and must be guaranteed than they are seeking to change the entire face of the country. They are countermanding the Founding Fathers' vision, and they are sadly misguided.

Collectivists believe that there exists some form of aristocracy in our culture; an elite cabal of a few wealthy people who control all of the interests and keep everyone else down whilst expanding their own coffers. The real question becomes, how much of a minority are the wealthy? Collectivists today (like President Obama) say they only desire to tax the upper five percent of wealth, yet in reality, they are taxing anyone who makes upwards of $150,000 a year. While that may sound like a lot of money it's really not. In fact, most Middle Class people make somewhere around that much annually -- and they certainly are not "rich." The Collectivists attack major corporations as well. When one attacks the upper wage earners, one is in fact stifling economic prosperity. They are making it untenable for those people with wealth to spend that wealth; those people, in turn, hide their wealth or lose it to the government through redistribution. When that occurs all of that money is wasted because it could have been injected into the economy and the economy could have grown and supplied more people with jobs. What I am talking about is nothing new. In fact, many people know this as Supply-side Economics. However, it has been proven to work far better than the Collectivists' tax-and-spend policies. Whereas one seeks to empower the successful individual and try to transmit his success fairly to others by providing jobs through economic stimulation, the other seeks to punish the successful individual for being different; for being wealthier than those around him/her. In what way is that fair? In what way is that equal?

Indeed, the Collectivists have had several chances to try it their way. During the 1930s the Great Depression reigned supreme and it was believed that only FDR's New Deal policies could save capitalism from itself. Yet, it has been proven that not only did the Collectivist notions of the New Deal policies stagnate an economic recovery, they may have worsened the situation; making a natural, deep recession into a Great Depression. For those Liberals taking the time to read this article (undoubtedly scowling the entire time) I shall allow the words of one of FDR's closest confidantes and chief Collectivist policymakers, then-Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr.'s words to speak for themselves. During a May 9, 1939 session of the House Ways and Means Committee Morgenthau confessed:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong...somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises....I say after eight years of this [Roosevelt] Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started....And an enormous debt to boot!"

If Collectivism truly worked, if it truly created a better society then why did one of its leading proponents suddenly turn on it after eight years of implementing the most Collectivist policies in American history? Why was it that "unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that of 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover" (Folsom, 2)? In fact, the only thing that did grow was the government during this era. We see President Obama performing similar acts today: endorsing policies which promote Public Sector growth at the expense of the private sector. Yet, the Great Depression should be a key indicator that Collectivist policies like that do not save economies; they worsen them. Even now, the Collectivists implement their policies of wealth destruction in exchange for equality, yet the crisis is still here. Indeed, the President talks about the "worst being ahead of us" still!

When the Founding Fathers envisioned our country and established the Constitution, they truly believed that we were the greatest country in the world and we were capable of great things. However, those men were not fools. They knew that problems would arise and that not all of them could be solved (in their own era, they failed to adequately address the question of slavery which they knew would come back and haunt their children) immediately. They believed that the system of balance they had created which valued the individual through liberty, democracy, and property rights -- granting him equal chance at pursuit of opportunity -- was worthy of preservation, though. We may be the greatest nation in history, but we are still human. We cannot save everyone and we cannot solve all the problems...especially if the solution means tearing down the fundamentals of our society and replacing them with the horrors of Collectivism.

Collectivists love to proclaim that there are more poor people in this country than there are wealthy and according to their research, it is true. When one looks into the situation, though, they realize that the reason it appears as though there are so many unfortunate people in this country is due to the fact the Collectivists consistently redefine what constitutes being poor in order to inflate their numbers and make it seem as though more people support them, thereby demoralizing the Individualists in our society. Collectivists feel that once everyone has had their grievances redressed, we can move forward as a society. This just simply isn't the case. If it were then the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War; East Germany, North Korea, Cuba, and Myanmar would be utopias -- not apocalyptic hellholes. I am not claiming that the American Left wishes to institute Soviet-style Communism, however, they do wish us to get nearer to that than to the shining city on a hill the Puritans spoke of when they first landed on North America all those centuries ago.

The fact of the matter is, there are more successful and generally happy people in America than unsuccessful and unhappy. For instance, a key ingredient of the economic recession of 2008-2009 was the mortgage crisis. Yet, 91% of Americans who took out mortgages managed to pay them on time -- meaning only an irresponsible 9% did not. Collectivists now want the majority to lower themselves to the idiotic few? How about the Collectivists stand up and tell that minority to pick themselves up and find a way to work harder. Why does the Constitution and the country have to suffer for the irresponsibility of so few people? For those few people who cannot make it here, this land of freedom has one more great freedom that I feel I should mention: the freedom to leave. There are plenty of nations of the world which accept -- indeed value -- mediocrity. Places like Canada, Mexico, France, Britain, any Western European nation, really, are all excellent places to live and Socialist paradises. Why do you have to make America like them? Why not leave and live your lives happily over there. This is nothing negative, not everyone is cut out to survive in a capitalist-individualist system. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would be willing to subsidize your move over there. But, I digress.

Look again at the Great Depression and all of the "wonders" that came out of the Collectivist-oriented New Deal Policies. We were given Social Security which amounted to a glorified, government-backed Ponzi Scheme which said that anyone over the age of 63 (at the time) would be given money by the government since they could not work (yet the average lifespan when Social Security was created was around 61) meaning the government never intended to actually implement Social Security en masse. We were given varying degrees of Welfare which, according to men like Bill Cosby has actually been one of the leading factors to the destruction of the African-American family and ultimately the lack of forward progress within the African-American community. Let's look even further into the Great Depression and see this Collectivist utopia that was created then, in the words of people who lived it. A man from Beaver Dam, Virginia wrote this in a letter to President Roosevelt in 1936:

"We right now, have no work, no winter bed clothes...Wife don't even have a winter coat. What are we going to do through these cold times coming on? Just looks like we will have to freeze together and starve together."

So, it is the intention of a great many Americans to appeal to some miserable minority which, in all likelihood never be able to make it in our prosperous society, by destroying that which makes us great. The New Deal era is remembered as a great era because the government, under FDR, saved the country due to the force of FDR's personality and his persistence. Yet, nothing was actually solved. No grand solution came from all of the Brains Trust Roosevelt formulated over the years. All Collectivism did -- and this is according to the liberal historian Arthur M. Schlissenger, Jr. -- was change the very nature of the Presidency into an "imperial presidency." These policies sapped the will of the people. Only a handful of uber-rich survived comfortably during this time and the politicians made out like bandits...all at the expense of liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and in many cases, the expense of life since suicide and death rates increased exponentially). The question becomes, why do so many people look to Collectivism for answers when history so clearly shows that whenever it's tried, it leads to misery and stagnation? Is the quest for equality at all costs worth it -- if the only equality which can be achieved is one of shared suffering? Is that the American Dream? Most certainly not.

So, the inherent flaw I find with Collectivism is the fact that one must lose liberty in order to achieve equality. In trying to create a Collectivist society, one must first strip the individual of their right to pursue their own self-interest (and their destiny). This is achieved by taxation. With taxation, the collectivist saps people of their desire for success -- and ultimately happiness -- by simply making it too expensive and hard to become successful and maintain that success. This is all done with the noblest of intentions and under the guise of equality. The goal is to achieve a societal parity with the bottom percentile of those on the economic scale by lowering the majority of successful people to that bottom level -- leaving only a handful of upper rich and political bureaucrats with enough to be considered "successful." Once that has been achieved, you now have a Collectivist society. You now have made everyone equal -- in misery. At its core, then, Collectivism is neither fair nor just; rather totalitarian and vicious. In order to achieve this equality, one must take away people's control of their destiny...and their happiness. It destroys two of the three tenets of American civilization (liberty and pursuit of happiness) in exchange for greater equality. Collectivism, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, is built off of violence and coercion: in order to achieve this utopia, one must forcibly take money from other people and spend it as you wish. That's against freedom. The Collectivist must convince you that in order to achieve a greater economic good, one must commit an evil act; by committing an evil act and giving into our most basic desires, we are somehow doing a good. It's madness.

As well, Collectivism stunts progress and enslaves the people (without them ever realizing it) to those few remaining rich and political powerbrokers by tethering their destinies to that of the federal bureaucracy. In fact, when analyzing it there is nothing equal about a Collectivist Society; it even ultimately attacks democracy. Democracy is more than just a majority vote. It is about the debate that occurs between the people on an issue which leads to an informed decision. One cannot have democracy without diversity. In a Collectivist society, diversity is the enemy (yet paradoxically the diversity in groups is what a Collectivist preys upon to gain power). It also an enemy of democracy for the only people who will be prosperous and successful are the uber-rich (like Hollywood actors) who can afford these tax increases and still be wealthy and the bureaucrats in the enlarged government.This not only assaults democracy, it also seemingly assaults Collectivism as it leads to an aristocracy! Thus, the pursuit of achieving such a society is both dangerous and counterintuitive to the American Dream.

__________________________

Folsom, Burton. "New Deal or Raw Deal: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America." New York: Threshold Publishing, 2009.

Friedman, Milton. "Capitalism & Freedom." Illinois: University of Chicago Publishing, 1962.

Goldwater, Barry. "The Conscience of a Conservative." New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960.

Kim Jong-Il Fires Missile; Obama Retaliates With Harsh Words

At 0235 GMT, 11:35 am in North Korea, the Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile which had been sitting on a Pyongyang launch pad for several days - in direct violation of several UN Sanctions - sailed into the morning sky supposedly carrying a communications satellite. At a time when the Liberal Internationalist President Barack Obama was supposedly going to be restoring America (and the world's) "faith" in collective security agreements (i.e. the UN and NATO), he proved once again that such agreements (particularly in the UN's case) are utterly worthless. Thanks to his inaction (and the lack of action by any other Western nation), the world is a far more dangerous place.

The arguments about this recent issue have been numerous. Many believed that this missile test was just a way for Kim Jong-Il to get some attention both from the international media, as well as a way for him to have a sort of propaganda coup back at home. Unfortunately, this is far more dangerous. The successful test of this kind of missile is very key to a nation like North Korea, which has a nascent nuclear capability that threatens the world. This is the first step to marrying a nuclear warhead to a delivery system capable of dropping that nuclear warhead on any target, anywhere in the world, at any time. Once this technology is gained, the North Koreans could disseminate this technology to anyone who will pay as well as use this capability themselves against their perceived enemies (primarily South Korea, Japan, and the US). Meaning that on top of seeing Russia from her backyard, Sara Palin and the fine citizens of Alaska could be seeing nuclear explosions as well. This is the worst case scenario.

The "best" case scenario is that what North Korea launched was really a satellite but that it was far more than a mere "communications" satellite (North Korea has next to zero communication - or any other type of - infrastructure). What this satellite could be is some kind of spy satellite which will be used to survey American troop movements in South Korea and fleet movements within the Pacific Ocean (which is very bad should the North Koreans decide to invade the South). This satellite could also be used as a kind of early warning system to keep Western defenses from reaching North Korea in time to stop another launch, in the event they decide to actually go forward with some kind of nuclear launch in the future. So, as you can see, even the "best" case scenarios are extremely horrifying.

As always, regional incidents (or, "flaps" as the CIA calls them) like this have much greater and far-reaching geopolitical consequences. For instance, the CIA released intelligence which suggested that several high-ranking Iranian military and intelligence officers were present, in Pyongyang, for the launch in prelude to purchasing the technology if all went well. As well, there were reports that both Syria - a nation with long nuclear ties to the ailing Kim Jong-Il regime - had covert representatives attending the launch along with representatives from both Venezuela and potentially Cuba. This comes at a time when, only a year ago, the rogue Islamic Republic of Iran successfully launched their own satellite into orbit, and two years after the Israelis had annihilated a North Korean-built nuclear facility in southern Syria. What does this mean? It clearly shows a decentralized effort to allow the "Axis of Evil" to backdoor their way into getting their blood-stained hands on nuclear weapons. I have long suspected that North Korea - the ultimate weapons proliferator and flouter of international law - along with Iran and Syria, have each been developing different parts needed for the production of nuclear weapons technology in order to avoid detection from Israel, the US, and the world. Once they have the data they need, they will then piece those different parts together and disseminate that technology to anyone who aligns with them ideologically or, in North Korea's case, anyone who can pay for the lights in Kim Jong-Il's palaces to stay on.

This situation in North Korea was a test run; it was a way for these Rogue States to gauge how far they can push the envelope before the Western world shut their criminal actions down. What the Obama Administration showed was that the Western world would do absolutely nothing in the face of this nuclear brinksmanship. In fact, it showed that the Obama Administration would not only allow these two-bit, third-world dictators with delusions of grandeur to mock the international laws so many good people have died defending, but that after the insult was delivered, the Obama Administration would come running to the peace conference to apologize to and appease these rogue nations. How wonderful it must have been for Kim Jong-Il, witnessing the world's Sole Superpower flail about the place after your peon country flouted their edicts and sanctions. Rather than sternly denouncing this act of terror, the State Department vowed to press forward with negotiations next month at even greater speed and "resolve" than before. That ought to show them: if they fire missiles illegally, we'll rush in to talk with them! The result in all of this is that American credibility in the realm of deterrence has been severely diminished, whilst the Rogue Nation's credibility in the realm of international state terror has been greatly increased; which will only inspire more brazen acts in the future. Plus, the Axis of Evil has now gained key data for continuing their development of Weapons of Mass Destruction which very soon may come to threaten the entire freedom-loving world.

This lack of action on the part of the US-led Western Coalition will signal to the rogue states around the planet that these next four years will be one of a tyrannical free-for-all: the West will reserve its judgments upon them until the last possible moment...if at all. This spits in the eye of everything American Foreign Policy has been geared toward preventing: another 9/11. It's sad that at a time when President Obama - a man who ascribes to the woefully ignorant Liberal Internationalist view of international relations - vowed to restore both America's faith in and the world's faith in collective security agreements (i.e. the UN and NATO), has only highlighted how unreliable and worthless they are (primarily the UN) by not backing up UN sanctions with force. What's the point of having a Security Council that won't secure the world? It should be called the Paper Council: since all the UN is apparently able to do to our enemies is paper them to death with sanctions, but then never back those sanctions up with the threat of force! It's shocking that we can all agree on the horrifying nature of the Kim Jong-Il regime, we can all lob damning languages at Pyongyang, and yet, we don't even have the stomach to drop a single bomb on a lone missile, which could be the vanguard of the greatest threat to national security since the USSR planted Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles in Cuba back in 1962!

Now that the situation has passed (with surprisingly little media coverage), everyone seems to have resumed their lives and stopped worrying about North Korea. However, it was never the single missile which concerned me; it was what it represented that concerned me. After eight years of proving to the world that we would not retreat in the face of Terror - the kind of terror which took 3,000 of our countrymen's lives and shattered the proud American image of having a secure homeland - President Obama and his counterparts in the West have torn that down by backing away from this threat. The real question becomes: what will happen next? Clearly, these Rogue Nations no longer fear the United States. Clearly, these nations feel that they will - at the very least - have a large degree of "breathing space" to enact their sinister schemes and terrorize the innocents abroad until the United States actually decides to stand up to them. However, following Obama's strategy (the strategy of other Western Statists like Neville Chamberlain), we may be forced to act at a time when those Rogue Nations are fully armed with nukes and the damage that will be inflicted upon our forces would be so devastating and so severe that I shutter to think of such a battle. This is why preemption is key. This is why President Obama's lack of action is so disturbing. Once again, a Liberal Internationalist President, an appeaser, makes America appear to be some helpless, pitiful giant to the world.

After witnessing the horrors of World War II - another conflict which could have easily been avoided had the Western powers acted to preempt the rising Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan Axis Powers before they became empowered and emboldened rather than appease them - Winston Churchill, the only man who tried seriously to preempt Nazi Germany, stated these prophetic words on the need for preemption in order to avoid another catastrophic world war: "if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse cause. You may have to fight when there is no hope for victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

The world is indeed a far scarier place now and that's thanks to President Obama and his insanely naive foreign policy. For those of us desperately clinging to our wallets in the Age of Obama, we may have to now try and shield our faces with the other hand from a nuclear blast in our near-future. If you are a two-bit, third-world, pot-belly dictator this is definitely change you can believe in!

The Free-Market Manifesto

When the United States was founded, its Founding Fathers created a government that was of the people, for the people, and by the people. This government was designed to be a representative republic which focused on the concept of individualism; the belief that each man and woman that inhabited the country was unique and should be allowed to pursue their own interests without interference. This system was controversial at its founding (seeing a true republic had not existed since the ancient Roman Republic) and, to compliment that style of governance, the country endorsed an economic system equally untried and controversial: capitalism. It is thanks to Capitalism - the engine which has sparked the greatest innovations in history - that this country stands as the world's lone Superpower and continues to be as innovative and creative as it was in its earliest years. Today, however, Capitalism is under siege.

With the election of Democratic candidate Barack Obama into the Presidency (as well as a Democratic majority in Congress), the country expected a more Keynesian approach to economic policy. This was only augmented by the disastrous, yet natural downturn the economy took in October 2008. Whereas any true believer in Capitalism and the Free-Market would have easily cut taxes, reduced government spending, and done everything in its power to inspire and motivate both employers and workers to keep the economy moving, the Obama Administration (as well as the Bush Administration which preceded it) decided to abandon the Free-Market which has served our nation so well in exchange for what Mark Levin dubs "statism" or, the collectivizing of our economy. This is not only an infringement on economic prosperity, however, the recent moves by the Obama Administration is also an infringement on the very freedom we as Americans hold so very dear. Thanks to these policies, the country has spent $1.3 Trillion on a combination of failed bailouts for auto companies, Congressional pet projects, and ill-advised expansion of government programs which are barely connected to reviving the stagnant economy.

Personally, I am a staunch Conservative Republican. I have been described as a "Neocon" by many (although given the antisemitic origins of that term I begin to wonder if that was not meant as an insult). However, anyone with half a brain can tell the Republican Party is ideologically depleted - as evidenced by our crop of candidates this past election (aside from the highly undervalued Mitt Romney) and the utter disregard for Conservatism the Bush Administration showed in its final years. Even as the once wildly popular Obama Administration falls 9 points in the approval ratings weekly and the Democratically-led Congress has an approval rating below ten percent, the GOP continues to flail about and in-fight; particularly the division between the John McCain Moderate Republicans and the Conservative Base Republicans. The party clearly lacks leadership (where I once wholeheartedly supported Michael Steele, I now see that he was utterly unprepared for the job), it dismisses the spokesman for the Conservative Movement (Rush Limbaugh) and by extension, his 20 million-plus listeners, and cannot seem to come up with viable policy alternatives to the egregious spending/non-stimulus packages the Obama Administration proposes and their Liberal Democrat Congress rubber-stamps - at the expense of our children.

This "party" is not meant to break up the Republican Party, it is not meant to focus solely on the Free-Market Wing of Conservatism (as I am far more a foreign policy wonk than an economic policy one), it is, however, meant to remind us that Capitalism is the driving force for all good things on this planet. It has allowed us to become the freest, most prosperous, and advanced nation with the highest standard of living in human history. To see it attacked by Liberal intellectuals who only desire more power concentrated in the hands of a few in a far-off capital is sickening. Much like our friends involved in these national Tea Parties, I hope to bring a voice to the besieged "every man" who is tired of watching his/her hard-earned money go towards subsidizing other people's laziness and government corruption. This blog is designed to be the unfiltered voice of Conservatism - to point out how America must maintain, defend, and expand its Empire of Liberty; to show how Traditional Values (i.e. the Judeo-Christian Ethic) are the bedrock of having a robust society, and how Capitalism (specifically liberal democratic capitalism) is the root of all past, present, and future national success and freedom.

Thank you.