Eight Years and Still Counting
We all know what today marks, the worst of the worst sums it up for me. A tragedy beyond comprehension and a horrendous awakening for our beloved USA. As we reflect on 9/11/2001, the heros of flight 93, the innocent non-combatants, first responders and staff at the Pentagon others around the world are secretly, and in some cases flagrantly, celebrating that event. It isn't over.
This morning I've read synopsis' of recent stories featured in The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times to name a few that should concern us as a nation. In essence I've learned that Iran has some influence over Iraqi leadership, and that Iran now has enough nuclear fuel to make a bomb. The WSJ said UN officials have finally received the long-awaited package of proposals from Tehran to restart negotiations over its nuclear program, however, according to those who've reviewed the 10 page document say it ignores certain critical elements. Other stories report that NATO forces uncovered weapons recently in Afghanistan made by Iran. We've known all along Iran is supplying weaponry to the Taliban as well as Hezbollah and Hamas.
In a piece written by John Duffey, a recognized Homeland Security consultant from Atlanta, titled Venezuela and Iran sign agreements aimed at evading UN Sanctions. What a surprise (my words not Mr. Duffey's). Duffey also writes a great article about Chavez's relationship with Russian leaders. That new friendship paves the way for import and export trade. You might be asking yourself what the two nations are importing and exporting, then again you might not because down deep you know. Yes, you're right, oil for weapons. Of course Chavez needs these weapons to prevent the US from spreading its filthy imperialism south of the Panama canal. I could also talk a bit about how Syria and China fits in here but by now, hopefully, you've done your own research and you know as much if not more than me about it. I'm not an alarmist, more of a pragmatist and I believe its easy for all of us to see the puzzle pieces fitting together and a pretty picture it isn't. Now that the US has been labelled weak or if not weak at least unstable by those that hate us, what will President Obama do? Diplomacy works well when opponents are basically reasonable, but when one opponent is reasonable and the other hates you and wants desperately to see you die or fail--at the very least, diplomacy has little effect. As a matter of fact diplomacy can, under certain circumstances, work against the reasonable opponent. How? By buying time for a sucker punch. By delaying negotiations until the unreasonable opponent has a plan to bring the reasonable opponent down. Maybe a weapon, like some kind of nuclear device, maybe.
UNSC, Another Toothless Act
The UNSC issued a response to N. Korea's launching of a missile. That should scare the hell out of Kim Jong II.
It is no surprise the UN didn't take stronger action, but President Obama made an unequivocal statement that will only illicit smiles and guffaws from our adversaries, weakening the perception of the U.S. a little more. After hearing N. Korea launched the missile Obama said, "Rules must be binding, violations must be punished and words must mean something."
My question is what rule did the UN bind N. Korea to, what was N. Korea's punishment and what words meant something?
The President's Mistake
This blogger believes President Obama is naive, as discussed previously and to illustrate that point here is something for you-the reader-to consider. Obama believes he is sending a message around the world that his administration and the citizens of the U.S. are now willing to talk, negotiate a settlement of somekind because of our past mis-deeds and arrogance. He thinks by offering the dictators of less than friendly nations an out stretched hand they will respond likewise to his charm and sincerity, but this is not the case. A man or woman that positions themselves in a place of authority for the sole purpose of personal gain is by definition corrupt and they do not respond in kind to gestures of this nature. Instead they tend to take advantage of the offering of good will. In most cases this initiates a game, a game the one offering good will doesn't realize he is a participant in, and by default making him appear willing. The rules are set by the opposition (the other world leader) and they are kept confidential. Rules apply only to the President and the U.S., rules the opposition can change or violate at any juncture. The most obvious pair of rules the opposition can manipulate to his advantage is honesty and its evil twin deception. The longer the game is played the stronger the opposition becomes and consequently the weaker the President becomes. At a point of optimal vulnerability the opposition will seize the opportunity to strike. Now the opposition doesn't have to be Fidel Castro, Kim Jung ll, al-Bashir of Sudan or Ahmadinejad of Iran it can just as easily be bin Ladin a terrorist or Ted Bundy a serial killer. All have one thing in common, they share a universal psychopathic trait--preying on a perceived weakness and an out-stretched hand is just that, a perceived weakness. In most instances the President need not worry so much about that perception except for one very important issue, some of those folks have, or almost have access to the makings of a nuclear bomb.
The point of this blog is to remind America of that fact, a fact legislators need to keep on the front burner right along side the economy. North Korea has just tested a delivery system. A rocket capable, in design, of striking the U.S. and Iran announced it has the centrifuge array necessary to make highly enriched uranium.
HAVE WE DONE THE RIGHT THING?
I'm concerned that our collective political heads are once again in a hole in the sand. Reading from Newsweek, op-ed pieces and hearing commentary on TV about President Obama and his administration got me to thinking of a conversation I had with a friend last August. It went something like this: Friend, "...I'm convinced Obama is our man." And my friend was right, not that he was my choice but that he is the one now sitting in the Oval Office. I replied, "I'm sure he's a good man, well educated and certainly intelligent, but--" My friend interupted, "But what?" "I think Senator Obama is naive." I went on to explain that I thought his campaign platform overestimated his ability to calm the masses and bring peace to the world. And that Senator Obama underestimated those that wish to do us harm. The conversation tapered to the point of us agreeing to disagree.
This illustration has nothing to do with the present state of America's economic woes, but more to do with America's safety and security. You don't have to be a think tank member to know that there are a number of calamities that could befall the U.S. that would have a far worse effect than a serious recession and that, fellow Americans, is another strategically placed terrorist attack.
The point of this is are we ready or are we loosing our edge? Are we distracted by the economy, and mezmerized by Obama's Kennedy-like popularity.
The idea of trying to mend our reputation with the rest of the world is to me an insult. The ugly American label may well be deserved by the ugly Americans, but to categorize the majority of America, as Obama did recently in Europe, as arrogant, dismissive and derisive was an insult and an ignorant one at that. That kind of leadership mentality plays well with those that hate us and fuels the fires of governments that want to see the U.S. collapse militarily, economically, socially and religiously. The next step will be a level-the-playing-field philosophy that will be introduced in subtle fashion. The proponenants, I believe our President to be one, will favor equalizing everything--it's only fair, right? Wrong! That's a big wrong and the reason is obvious, the U.S. is the only country I trust to carry the big stick, not Argentina, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, N. Korea, India etc.
Do you believe this is Obama's ultimate intent--global equalization? Is it a wise strategy or not?