Making Vietnam Safe for Communism

The final debate will focus on Foreign Policy. A time for both parties to explain exactly how they are different.

Obama is likely to focus on how he has weakened al-Qaeda by killing Bin Laden. He will echo Biden’s assertion that it is now the job of the Afghan people to provide their own security. Romney is likely to discuss the importance of being actively involved in intervening in the Middle East to ensure American interests are protected, including going to war with Iran “if necessary.” China also has to be kept in check, particularly when it comes to how they have manipulated their currency. He will echo Ryan’s assertion that we need to stay in Afghanistan long enough to ensure the Taliban don’t just move back in and use the country as a safe haven for their terrorist activities.

Let’s consider some of the arguments and ask yourself a few questions.

Did killing Bin Laden cripple al-Qaeda? Will one man’s death destroy their war effort? Do you really believe al-Qaeda has no one to replace him or their other leaders that have been killed? Would the same logic apply if they were able to kill some of our leaders? I’m guessing it only emboldens them, as it would us. I wonder if the next guy may be an even brighter, more evil mastermind than the first. If you want him dead because of what he orchestrated, then just say so. I understand revenge. There is no need to say his death will lead to the demise of al-Qaeda.

If Biden was correct in saying the Afghan people need to provide for their own security, then why can’t the same be said for Germany, Japan and South Korea …? Maybe we can spend those resources on securing our southern border – you know, the concept of “deficit neutral”.

We will hear other theories of how to manage the Muslim world. Identify whom to fund and arm and then hope they establish democracy. Do we actually believe that we will establish democracy in these Muslim countries? Have they so far? And what kind of democracies are we creating? We can’t even trust our own citizens to pick the “right” constitutional candidates. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised when they vote in radicals. And if they actually voted them in, isn’t that democracy? Alas, if that happens we’ll just go back in and start all over, and over, and over. Cha-ching.

In the Middle East and North Africa alone, there are 20 countries with 392 million people and 98% are not free – including Saudi Arabia our “ally.” Why don’t we force freedom on Saudi Arabia?

Do we want to bring them our version of economic freedom? I thought the free market does best without government intervention. Our own country seems to be struggling with that concept. Maybe if their economies were not forced to be based on the dollar then they would feel, and be, more “free.”

So now we are going after China because they have manipulated their own currency. What about the unelected FED’s manipulation of our own currency and how that has hurt our dollar? Where’s the talk about going after the FED (hint – not in the debates but from brave House constitutionalists)?

What makes us think our politicians, who are so horribly inept at managing virtually anything they touch, somehow are geniuses when it comes to perpetually spending our money to become entangled with foreign countries?

So I guess I will be labeled as “naive” because I question our politicians’ foreign policy decisions. Because I am more concerned with making America safe for democracy than making the world safe for democracy. Maybe I am naive like Washington, and Jefferson, both of whom cautioned about meddling in the affairs of other countries.

I am not anti-military. I am anti-poor-foreign-policy. The military is never the problem. The military is a well fashioned weapon – and when used incorrectly, like the gun, it is not the military’s fault – it is fault of the person pointing the weapon irresponsibly.

We can always find a war to fight, but our country is in an economic crisis. All I ask is that these decisions are debated and judged to be the will of the people and constitutional.

So during the debate, ask yourself – how much will this cost, how many Americans may die, what is the certainty that we will succeed, what is success, what is the risk for a broader war – even world war? If country x is so bad, what about countries y z a b c d e? Where does it end? Why is it that we think we can solve the violence in other countries when we can’t solve it in Chicago or Detroit? What would Jefferson do? What would Jesus do? WWJJD?

Finally, to leave you with an example of how unpredictable all of this is – consider the latest from the South China Sea. The U.S. aircraft carrier George Washington was cruising over there as a show of power to China. Vietnamese security and government officials were flown onto our nuclear-powered ship. The visit will, “likely reassure Vietnam…” of our growing support. I thought Vietnam was communist? Are we now making Vietnam safe for their own brand of communism? I guess Vietnam didn’t turn out so bad after all if they are now trading partners worth helping.

Originally Published on ClashDaily.com

Advertisements

Surest Roads to Sovereign Suicide

Here’s a quick quiz. Which of the following is the biggest threat to our national security, according to Admiral Mike Mullin, (former) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

  1. Iran
  2. al-Qaeda
  3. Taliban
  4. Our national debt

The correct answer is “D.” Admiral Mullin said, “”Our national debt is our biggest national security threat” on June the 24th, 2010 during a speech he made at a “Tribute to the Troops” breakfast. Does that alarm you? Can you ever remember a top military mind saying something like that?

Here’s another quiz. If you were our enemy planning the demise of the U.S., which of the following would be the best strategy:

  1. Institute economic policies that may appear to help in the short-term but actually involve tremendous risk of leading to an economic event even worse than the 2008 housing-bubble collapse.
  2. Engage in expensive foreign policy strategies that lead to fanning-the-flames of hatred for the U.S., do nothing to actually lead to actual democracy but embolden Islamic extremists to further organize and act-out.
  3. Go to war in the Middle East against an enemy that has allies capable of further destabilizing the U.S. economy.
  4. Place the final decision-making authority of the above in the hands of one or two men, rather than the Congress, at a time when the Congress is not in session.
  5. All of the Above.

The correct answer is “E. All of the Above.”

It is important to search for some answers to these complicated issues. Below are a few of the explanations I have found to be particularly enlightening. Please feel free to add some of your own.

QE3 won’t go to decreasing unemployment. Look just about anywhere on the web, there is a tremendous amount of negative response to the Fed’s decision to move to QE3. For example, Peter Schiff, from the Schiff Report, explains how the Fed’s recent plan to print money, decrease interest rates, and purchase mortgage-backed securities is what got us here in the first place and will be “the final nail in the U.S. dollar” and “a day that will live in infamy.”  Another great explanation is from Reason.com’s Anthony Randazzo. He said, “The fact that QE promotes activities that led to the housing bubble should have stopped its progression as an idea a long time ago, especially since these problems are greater than any gain that would come from this now perpetual pace of money creation.”

The move to Audit the Fed is gaining some steam as more co-sponsors in the Senate are adding their names to Senate Bill 202. As of Sunday evening, there are 32 co-sponsors. If you are interested in joining the cause, you can visit Audit the Fed.

Caroline Glick helps to answer the question posed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the Benghazi attack. Clinton pondered, “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?” Glick explains how our government, “determined – based on nothing – that the masses of the Muslim world from Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond were simply Jeffersonian democrats living under the jackboot. If freed from tyranny, they would become liberal democrats nearly indistinguishable from regular Americans.”

 Pat Buchanan provided a cost-benefit analysis of our involvement in the Middle East in his recent article, Is It Time To Come Home? He notes that, “In this brief century alone, we have fought the two longest wars in our history there, put our full moral authority behind an “Arab Spring” that brought down allies in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, and provided the air power that saved Benghazi and brought down Moammar Gadhafi… The cost of our two wars is 6,500 dead, 40,000 wounded and $2 trillion piled onto a national debt that is $16 trillion, larger than the entire U.S. economy. And what in heaven’s name do we have to show for it?”

As Julian Pecquet wrote, Defense Secretary Leon Paneta acknowledged plans to position troops in as many as 18 different locations and expressed concern that extremists would strike, “from positions of weakness,” due to the void left by the fall of dictators in the Middle East. He argued that even with damaging the al-Qaeda leadership, “We always knew that we would have to continue to confront elements of extremism elsewhere as well.” My question is, why, for how long, at what cost, and to what end?

Finally, there is a very well made video (see below) explaining the history of making the war decision and how Congress has increasingly bowed-out and left it to the Executive branch. In the intro, Nick Gillespie wrote, “As deadly and violent attacks on American embassies and consulates in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere multiply in the Middle East, it’s vitally important to remember that foreign policy decisions – especially acts of war – are not supposed to be the province of one man.”

 As for fighting a war with Iran, the thought of the economic war options China and Russia bring to the table is frightening and should give us pause and even more reason to demand that our politicians get our country’s debt problem in order and stop allowing the Fed to devalue our own currency.

Originally Published on ClashDaily.com