U.S. Foreign Policy: A Civil War Here, a Civil War There

I am so glad cats like John McCain and John Kerry didn’t win the Presidency. Likewise I am just as sad that George W. Bush and Barack Obama won the presidency and if there is a God, I am certain he would let Sponge Bob Square Pants ascend to the Presidency before Hillary Clinton. And all of this is stated in objective terms, the most prominent being that the Bush and Obama Administration’s foreign policy when implemented only results in civil war, no matter where it is practiced, but especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

Case in point, this past Sunday, during a joint press conference with Egypt’s newly elected President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, US Secretary of State John Kerry said, "The United States of America is not responsible for what happened in Libya, nor is it responsible for what is happening in Iraq today."  In the same briefing, he later stated, "US is not engaged in picking or choosing any one individual... it's up to the people of Iraq to choose their own leadership."

Both of these statements are a complete and utter ignorance of the facts from a historical and temporal context or either blatant lies. Although vilified for stating such, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei correctly accused Washington of just exploiting the violence in Iraq and Syria to regain control of Iraq by placing it once again “under its [U.S.] hegemony” and rule of “its stooges.” This has always been the premise of plutocratic desires under the storm cloud of nation building and implementing democracy, as amorphous a concept as it is. In 2003, I read that “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history” – Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service-Israel. I find this statement, with the Semitic tone aside both accurate and consistent with history insofar as we can evaluate the aforementioned from the perspective of the foreign policy statements and practices of the last two U.S. executive administrations.

The general problem is that regardless of political affiliation, the neo’s (neoconservatives and neoliberals) have a greater concern in their corporate financiers interest than the citizenry of America, and this my friend is regardless of political party and or the race of the President. Their preference is to place an inordinate amount of focus and attention on places like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Ukraine and other foreign nations, than the needs of U.S. citizenry. Instead, they apply the same standard to us as a foreign nation: drones, massive intrusive spying, domestic economic destabilization and labeling the average man a terrorist simply for exercising liberties guaranteed via the Bill of Rights.

This is clear to see for the thinking person.  Let us examine the first example of President George W. Bush and de-Baathification. Shortly after the fall of the Saddam regime, via L. Paul Bremer, as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), in one of his first things President Bush introduced was the de-Baathification program to remove members of the Ba’ath Party from their positions of authority and to ban them from future employment in government. They [the Bush Administration] selected Ahmed Chalabi to head of the De-Baathification Committee, which had the goals of preventing the Baath from regaining power, avoiding and retribution against Baathists and isolating the majority of Baathists from their party leaders.

This process of de-Baathification was supported via the forfeiture and seizure of all party assets and property, which was to be held in trust by the CPA for the use and benefit of the Iraqi people, albeit there were no real Iraqi citizens involved, just an Iraqi de-Baathification Council (IDC), composed entirely of Iraqi nationals formerly living in the U.S. and Europe mainly.

From the beginning de-Baathification was a very incongruent and f##ked up process for lack of a better phrase. Not only did it not achieve it aims, it also polarized Iraqi politics and worse, made the Iraqi military and government even more unstable after U.S. military intervention and occupation. Then it brought in al-Qaeda, to a region where it had never existed before as well as driving a wedge between Sunni, Shia and even Kurds in Iraq. And after all of this, Barack Obama came in, and when you thought his promise to end the war would make things much better, they actually followed the GWB foreign policy playbook and made things even worse.

 

Taking U.S. policy a step farther, the Obama Administration took up the doings of the fat cats of Saudi Arabia and Qatar along with big banks of the West and have in effect declared war on Shiites the world over. Now to be clear, I would like to see Obama, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Rice, Kerry, Rice, and tried, as War Criminals and should be.

Kerry comments only reinforce the failures of America’s Manifest Destiny foreign policy. As such, no past Administration or current one will ever take responsibility for a foreign policy of endless wars of aggression and regime change. It may even be more appropriate to call U.S. foreign policy as the policy of civil war.  Where ever we insert our political nose abroad, the result is the destruction of a stable nation and civil war.  We see it now in the Ukraine where Obama supports the fascist Poroshenko’s new government, as well in the outcome via our interference in Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, and Pakistan or wherever the U.S./NATO decided to involve themselves without request. Again, categorically, I repeat, the US is responsible for Libya, Tunis, Egypt and Syria.

 

And now the fine mess of Obama policy has by intent, morphed into a sectarian Sunni versus Shia conflict. Strangely, all in nations for the most part which were secular governments. The Obama administration has consistently taken a foreign policy approach in the Middle East and Africa of over-throwing secular governments, this time it is Syria. This was done by intentionally arming and letting groups like ISIL grow stronger and stronger. He openly complains against Assad in Syria, and Iran, but ignores how Sunni leaders in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia violate the human rights of their majority Shia populations. Think about it, several months ago when the Iraqi government asked for U.S. airstrikes to repel ISIS, Obama refused, which was probably the first time he refused such an offer from an allied government. I mean, he didn’t even ask for approval to conduct illegal airstrikes in 8 other countries under the guise of fighting terrorism.  Even stranger was observing President Obama refusing to acknowledge that our closer allies in the region (Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) have been giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Islamic extremist terrorist group invading Iraq and attacking the Syrian government.

 

Lastly, the assertion that the U.S. believes that people have a right to decide if they wish to govern themselves is only true when the U.S. say’s so, for we have seen them place many in power whom the nations had no interest in being brought to power as we recently saw with Poroshenko in the Ukraine, Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and to a certain extent, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Egypt. S###, the U.S. even installed Saddam Hussein.

 

American policy will never be in a position to address the multitude of issues in the Middle East whether it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Indo-Pakistani conflict, or the rise of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan, Yemen, or Somali. I don’t know what world Kerry and the present administration, nor the prior administration live. I guess it is like Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda for Hitler’s Third Reich said: “Tell a good lie enough times and people will think it is the truth.”

US should think twice about Attacking Iran

Obama should think twice about Iran More and more each day appears that the US is inching its way closer to an armed conflict with Iran -- something I think will hurt the US more than Israel in the long term. All because the big bully on the block, Israel is purported to be “facing grave danger.” This is mainly being promoted by Zionist from everywhere this side of the Pecos River. My question is why do we have to defend Israel, a nation with the largest army and only nuclear arsenal in the region?
We all are well aware of the fact that Israel is no friend of Iran, or of any other Islamic and predominantly Arab state in the region. Thus, Israel is the one making trouble yet they want the present administration to decide to launch a pre-emptive war in what are probably the world’s most volatile environs.

If history is any guide, we should be very careful about deciding to attack Iran. Prior to WW 2 it was the Germans who convinced the "enlightened civilization" that it only wants to execute its rights. But one war led to another and country upon country was invaded including France, Belgium, Netherlands and other countries. Now it is Israel, and they will only be happy until all of the other Arab nations are not just a threat, but nonexistent for like Germany, their goal is not defensive but an aggressive offence to conquer the entirety of Middle East Asia.

True, it is hard to assess whether to “confront” or to “contain” Iran without examining more than 300 years of contemporary Iranian history, in concert with the history of conflict in the Middle East throughout modern times. Then we must decide and determine if possible what are we trying to prevent or contain them from doing? Otherwise we will formulate policy, which has become customary, based on anger, fear and hatred singularly. Even worse, one based on Israel must not be allowed to drive the world into chaos, just because it wants to. We need to protect AMERICA's interests, first, last, and always, and America's interests do not include shedding more blood for Israel or carrying their water for them. We lost too many American lives already to satisfy Israel's demands over Iraq. But, apparently, we have learned nothing from Iraq, and Israel doesn't care as long as they get their own way.

The only difference now is that the false flag of preventing a nation from self-determination in the form of developing nuclear capability is the issue. Albeit both the US and Israel have such capabilities and past history reveals that the US vowed that Pakistan or North Korea would never be allowed to possess Nuke. Why should it be different with Iran?

Factually, given our present quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and our bombing of our present alley Pakistan daily, a confrontation with Iran would also last for years and possibly crush America's economy – especially for the average American. Thus any form of military intervention at all in Iran means that the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 plus for a gallon if a war breaks out in the Strait of Hormuz. We are already in a recession at best and depression at worse and hyperinflation is everywhere we look.

Next, we must try and anticipate what will happen as a function if either side wins. After WW II, half of Europe ended up being given to the Soviets. Then due to our wasteful war effort in Iraq, in essence we have succeeded nearly half of this state to Iran. For both of these operation we as a nation have nothing really to show for it, except ending up in bed with the most treacherous leaders in modern times the likes of Mubarak, Pavlavi, House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Assad and yes, the Likud.

The current administration still has Kool-Aid pumping through its veins. Sure, they went into Libya and are now selling wolf tickets about Syria; but the US needs to think about these actions and the global political consequences. We need to stop demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down and cease the threats because it shows hypocrisy when we decide and shout to the world who we think should step down from the position of a head of a state, in particular when we aren’t prepared to remove that person. And talking about democracy when to suggest the aforementioned is in contradiction of our own values.

Also, who cares if Israel is our strongest ally in the region, forget a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: the US government should only have that strong of commitment to the US. If they don’t how we do our thing then stop giving them loot. We should stick to our guns that Netanyahu and Israel should use the 1967 borders should be a basis for negotiating of a Palestinian state. And for those who believe that Israel is our friend, they are not and only care about Israel first – even before the US unlike the US. In the past, they have attacked one of our naval ships, killed our sailors, spied on us, and treat us like a vassal state.

I say let’s us pack up the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and send them to Israel and let them fight their on war. If they do, and if Israel attacks, the United States may get drawn into a war that could set the Middle East further aflame and no telling how bad global markets will get.
Iran is a country of 80 million people, compared with about 30 million in Afghanistan or Iraq. Its territory of 1.65 million square kilometers, including deserts and rugged mountains, gives it impressive strategic depth compared to Israel, which exists on 20,000 square kilometers. Even to attack Iran by air, .Israel would have to strike Iran's four major nuclear sites. The most direct path to do so is across Jordan and Iraq. Will Jordan allow Israel to fly over? Then, Israeli pilots have to fly more than 1,600 kilometers refueling in the air, fighting off Iran's air defense, while attacking multiple underground sites at the same time.

Moreover, Iran is a major oil producer located right by the most critical petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. I’m lost that military intervention is even being considered, because if it happens, it will introduce a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

And although the US will try not to have a land war, we can’t tell what will happen, or know the outcome. Will it be a war of attrition or an all-out invasion? We do know it will be long, money wasting, US war in the Middle East? We cannot forget that in Europe in 1914, a small and unexpected event began the First World War. Obama really needs to think carefully about this. The sad reality is if America and our national security and safety were placed first – we would not attack Iran. However, he has learned from Bush, who has had US in Iraq for more than 10 years and resulted in a sustained US military presence for 11 years an in Afghanistan as we speak.

Obama’s Syrian Quandary: Why is 2012 Any Different from 1982?

With each passing day, the Obama administration and the international community appear to be struggling to find a way to deal with the crisis in Syria. Just four days ago the United States closed the US Embassy in Syria after Russia and China blocked a UN resolution drafted by Arab and European countries on Saturday that may have supplied aid or set up a buffer zone that would involve a military dimension to protect vulnerable civilians.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto a “travesty” and Washington’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice said she was “disgusted” by Russia and China’s vetoes adding that “any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands.” President Barack Obama's asked for the U.N. Security Council to hold firm against the Syrian regime's "relentless brutality" and has indicated that the ongoing conflict in Syria should be resolved without foreign military interference, suggesting that a solution for Syria can be proffered via negotiations.

The problem for the President is twofold. First the position and inconsistencies his policy has manifest throughout the democratic uprisings in the region from Egypt to Libya and the appearance that his cabinet officials could send a strong message of accountability and/or his perceived lack of desire to hold his senior appointees responsible for their performance.

The entire situation in the Middle East is untenable in its present state. From the current inaction and war of words, it is almost as if the Obama administration sees the real targets of the Syria regime-change goal as Russia and China, since both see the U.S. as seeking to establish absolute control over the strategic oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. Not to mention that human rights advocates view the UN’s resolution’s failure and U.S. inaction might encourage the Assad government to intensify its violent crackdown on anti-government protesters, as evident from increased attacks in areas in protest against the Assad regime.

Obama is in a serious quandary. The Syrian army has continued to launch mortar and rocket attacks in the city of Homs, Syria's third-largest city, and the leading focus of unrest in the 11-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's rule. On the record Obama has openly stated that "Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community." But in the eyes of the world he gives the locution of being selecting favorite as well as ignoring the same democratic principles he outlined for supporting a no-fly zone in Libya. Also, and more troubling, his assertion that not every situation allows for the type of military action taken in Libya when his global middle –east policy purports otherwise.

Obama’s actions are also affiliated with election year politics, since it may be seen that taking military options off the table is a political ploy to demonstrate his conviction to his campaigning on reducing US military intervention around the globe prior to election. Whatever the case, the US needs define their purpose and outcome in Syria as it pertains to the entire region. Thus the administrations proclamation that outside military involvement in Syria by the US as being more difficult and risky than the mission in Libya appears disingenuous, especially to those nations in the Middle East whom we claim we desire to see democratic change.

The President in my estimation should not be dragged into another military exercise, in particular give his campaign promises of 2008 and his seemingly anxiousness to do all in his power to show how grand of a friend he is too the state of Israel. Truth is told this is nothing new to Syria. In February 1982, when Reagan was in the Whitehouse former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad initiated a brutal crackdown in the western Syrian city of Hama in order to quell an emergent uprising and a Sunni rebellion. The assault lasted for three weeks and Hama was effectively demolished. With the number of casualties estimated to be between 20,000 and 40,000 civilians, including women and children.

The Hama Massacre was the bloodiest event in Syrian history. President Hafez al-Assad was the father of the current president Bashar al-Assad. It should be remembered (and I hope President Obama does) that it occurred during a period during the aftermath of Israel's attack on Syrian forces in Lebanon in 1982. The administration of Ronald Reagan had to choose to support one of the two nations and landed on the side of Syria.

For the GOP to forget this history is strange. Maybe because it was a time when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam, to speak about regional issues of mutual interest, mainly their shared enmity toward Iran and Syria. No one asked Reagan to intervene in Syria in 1982, but everyone is asking Obama to do so. My query is, what makes 2012 any different than 1982? A question no pundit or Republican will ever ask.

US and Obama Administration Fight against Palestine Entrance to UN is Palpable Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a noun that in essence means to act on the stage and to purport to be what one is not or to believe what one is not.Its modern form is a combination of Greek and old French.This is the best word I can use to illustrate the position of the United States and the Obama administration with respect to their blatant efforts to block a vote on the addition of Palestine to the United Nations.

I find it awkwardly detached and unusual for this administration in particular, given a fitted and able discernment of the President’s address at the American University in Cairo. During that address he stated, “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

These were words stated by President Barack Obama during his address to the American University at Cairo some two minutes into his address. It took him some six more pages before he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

This threat to veto the vote may serve to destroy any attempt for a desire to serve two terms for the President and worse, increase future attacks against the US by radical fanatics. Obama’s cabal, under the auspices of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in concert with Tony Blair- special envoy to the region, and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, has manifested itself in a last ditched effort of brinkmanship to block the Palestinian Authority desire for a vote in the United Nations General Assembly to recognize an independent state of Palestine. The result will be a diplomatic and political disaster for the president, the democrats and any effort to win a second term at the executive level. Especially since by all accounts, the resolution will pass by a large margin, without support from the U.S., and a few other nations. Strange since it was it was Obama who, in his Sept. 23, 2010, to the General Assembly, originally raised the goal of admitting to the UN by September 2011.

Obama continues to say that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is one of his highest priorities, yet he has made less progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace than any administration since the early 1970s.

This sets a major problem in motion for Obama and his plans to seek re-election if the Jewish vote turns against him, especially given the recent special elections in New York’s 9^th district in which a republican won for the first time since the turn of the century. The loss in Tuesday’s special election for the seat formerly held by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) may “send a message” to President Obama concerning his administration’s stance on Israel. This was not from a republican but rather Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). Not to mention that it was former mayor Ed Koch (D) called on voters to back the Republican businessmanin order to send a message to Obama about his Israel policy. Mayor Koch disagrees with Obama's view that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be the baseline for Middle East peace talks. Thus, the administration’s insistence on trying to persuade Israel to stop building settlements, without success in concert with the aforementioned equals an effrontery to the American Jewish community.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has indicated his concern regarding the Palestinian Authority's (PA) bid for the United Nation’s (UN) to recognize their statehood. Barrasso wants the U.S to immediately stop funds it to the PA annually as well as the UN if statehood is recognized. Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio, republican from Florida says if the vote in the United Nations to create a Palestinian state is successful, it would set back the Middle East peace process and would only add to the regional turmoil and instability.Not only is the concern by republicans and the pro-Zionist lobby problematic, but similar concerns have been brought to fruition by Arab states. Saudi Arabia has expressed outrage for Palestinians by many members of Congress, a congress that in voice supports what has occurred in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia but against such in Palestine

Not only has the President been unsuccessful in his efforts to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, now he seemingly has lost one of his major political allies. The concern is after dealing several defeating blows to terrorism through the deaths of major Al Qaeda leaders, he may be stoking the flames for more attacks from individuals who take his flip flop on the issue of Palestinian statehood as a reason to slash out against the United States again.

The veto in the UN may help save Obama a major voting constituency, however, the question remains, how will this be perceived in the Arab world and if winning an election by any means necessary is more important than ensuring our safety from future terroristic attacks in the future?

Obama Administration Policy on Middle East and Africa all over the place

If one has followed President Obama’s statements and position on the middle east and North Africa prior to his policy speech on the region last week, you like me probably have no clue to the reasoning behind his words. After reading his remarks last Wednesday, I am even in more of a stupor of consternation.

What I can say is that his approach and policy alike are whimsical or fickle at best and unprincipled and inconsistent at worse – thus the rarefied stupor I alluded to previously. For example, I recall how initially in Egypt, he proclaimed his support for Hosni Mubarak in word, but fleetly altered this position upon the observation that President Mubarak did not have the support of the military. Similarly in Bahrain, he offered effeminate words of support for the long ruling leadership yet at the same time; he attempted to protect the leadership and longtime alley for the sake of the fleet anchored in its harbor. Even as the Monarch, with the aid of Saudi Tanks and military, killed unarmed protesters, the administration and its figure head turned a blind eye to the citizenry desire for democratic rule and liberty. This same behavior and action drew harsh military reprisals and words from Obama via NATO requesting Muammar el-Qaddafi leave office.

In Libya, our military are protecting the innocent, but we do no such protection for those in Yemen, Syria or Bahrain. In his speech, Obama commented, the “humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. “ He added “we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months: “In fact the President eludes to hearing the calls for help, but strangely it is only in the middle east and Libya but no other parts of Africa.

The problem for me is that there is not one standard stated; for there isn't any unifying principle that guides this new policy. Meaning, that any effective policy for unstabilized governments on our behalf will require coherence, which thus far is lacking. Will he treat all attacks on the general populations the same? Will King Abdullah of Saudi be held to the same standard of Qaddafi? What makes a distinction to have different positions between Qaddafi and Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad? He did not even mention Bahrain or Saudi Arabia in his speech.

The Obama administration is all over the place, for to say we hear the calls for democracy yet cover our ears from similar cries from the Congo, Uganda, Sudan and other nations is disingenuous and fails the litmus test of reality and consistency.

Obama’s Arabian Dreams (Nightmares)

I heard it mentioned during his state of the union address, how Obama alluded to Tunisia and Egypt in a backhanded way - saying we support democracy everywhere people call for such This is safe and as some would say “all good” but do we really? Specifically the Obama administration or is it just rhetoric promulgated in the kvetching of votes for an upcoming election?

I can’t answer that but it is my perception that America does not and what we see occurring in the Arab world places new definition to the biblical statement of “a measure of wheat for a penny” and how this single sentiment in addition to the US position in the region can topple a government. Sure we saw turmoil in Turkey, Ireland, Brittan and France but these homogenous democratic governments saw disruption based on falling economic systems. In North Africa and the Arab world what we are observing is a function of food and despotism, totalitarian rule and the simple desire to provide for one’s family and live as a free thinking individual. This is completely different from what we observed in Europe.

In fact it could be argued that we, America has created this monster and it may reflect bad about how we go about democracy building around the world. We take the approach of overthrowing an established government and then installing our own and call it nation building. The problem is that true nation building can only occur from the citizenry. WE have created a monster, all these years, we have stood by and support tyrants who never supported democratic rule for our own purpose of a so-called peace with Israel or our war on the emotion terror.

Zine el Abidine Ben Ali had ruled for 23 years before he had to flee Tunisia. Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for three decades. Hypothetically if a take-over occurs, it will prevent Mubarak from handing power down to his son. I figure the US believes the hype regarding the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) that they possibility they may fill the leadership void. After all, we all know Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim brotherhood.

Again, we have created this problem and the unfortunate thing is that Obama via consequences will have to deal with new threats to stabilization in the region. If Egypt falls then there will be no peace in Israel. More dangerous is what will happen if Yemen falls. In Sana, at least 10,000 protesters led by gathered at Sana University and thousands more in other parts of the small Arab nation. And more gathered elsewhere, participants, lawmakers and activists reached by telephone said. Many carried pink banners and wore pink headbands. The situation in Yemen is a lot more dangerous than in any other Arab country. If it becomes unstable, being the new foundation for al Qaeda, it may become another Somali. And just yesterday, we saw massive protest in Amman, Jordan.

All in all America politics is seeing the outcome of its mis-directed approach to foreign policy and it is a shame that it has to manifest during the watch of Obama. For years US foreign policy in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula has pushed, unwittingly in our special rakish way, what we say we do not desire – Arab radicalization. And we did this by ignoring our own values and democratic principles. We ignored the Palestinian problem, supported for years unconditionally the oppression of citizens by autocratic rulers via our interest in a war on terror and an artificial peace for Israel. Now we have what we created, folks that hate us even more since all these places are run for now by Western supported leaders.

Our Foreign Policy Faux Pas

With our fascination of celebrity, it is not unexpected that a few events that happened around the globe went basically ignored. And I suspect that the current administration may have applauded in silent appreciation for the lack of coverage of these events. Now me on the other hand, can see what may be building up on the fore front. With all of the focus on the American Economy, our foreign policy has only focused on the Middle East, and this includes Russia. However there are several other issues that much be addressed and all in concert with the global market place and the future policy making of America.

On the 28 of last month and mostly unspoken in this country, Argentina and Uruguay held elections that may represent a shift in the South American political spectrum. If is any indication of what is to come in the region, it may be a preview of what one may expect to occur in future presidential elections taking place in Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay in 2009 and 2010.

I say this because we did not foresee or even were prepared to deal with what occurred in Honduras. No to mention it is essential that we reach out in advance to such nations especially if want to be in a better position to work with Russia and deal with our growing discordance with Iran. It will be difficult to truly enhance our relations with Russia especially with the growing pro-democracy movements in Ukraine and Georgia, Add to that the concern for Kosovo’s independence; the Obama administration will have its hands full for the Russians have not forgotten his threat to keep them from becoming a member of the World Trade Organization.

Throw in the mix China, which will most likely side with Russia before us and the gumbo thickens. The Nation has just past the US as the largest trading nation with Latin American nations and may have a player card on deck with out current nuclear conflict with North Korea. In order to pull rank on China, Obama needs to make them re-evaluate the impact of having a nuclear powered North Korea across the street seeing that they have been historically the biggest support of the current regime. But this will prove difficult for Obama given the recent violence in China’s Xinjiang region, where members of the mainly Muslim Uighur ethnic group have been battling with the military and police. Add to that the recent US Cap and Trade Bill, China may attempt to stall any diplomatic efforts the current administration has planned with any of the aforementioned countries. The Bill requires the president, starting in 2020 to impose special import taxes on goods from countries that do not have a similar cap-and-trade policy. China has been on the record saying that this is just a form of American "trade protectionism in the disguise of environmental protection".

The truth is that the Obama administration in concert with United Nations, Japan and South Korea have been ineffective in dealing with North Korea, and will need the assistance of Russia and China on this as well as with diplomatic outreach to Iran. Thus trying to turn the heat up on either China or Russia would not be productive. We can not depend on the G8 and the Obama team need to get with the program for we are in a global economic world and even ignoring the little man, as he have done with respect to Honduras, and not to be forward thinking is both a sign of poor planning and a lack of understanding with respect to the inter-connectedness of foreign policy. In stead it appears that we have merely a faux, a social blunder in the making. So Mr. President, time to hit the books and get to work, the smile and your blackness can’t do all the work for you to be a success.

red rum

So it is finally over, or is it? True, I was wrong about whom I thought would win based on a history of 43 prior white men, but as for my reasoning I was not. This past 22 months has reinforced all of the positions I have laid out in text from my dissertations regarding the economy to why we as human being must obviate race from our lexicon if we can, for although this past week was historic, and the world now see America in a different light, we still see ourselves in the same fashion, well at least many of us do.

First, it is obvious that many folk prefer to emote in contrast to think. I was hard on McCain (but this was ok). Unfortunately I was just as hard on Obama (but for many this was not). I have never approached any subject matter with respect to feeling with the exception of family, my children and how I would treat my woman. Oh, and food. But with respect to politics, I have never based any decision on feeling. This has lead me to understand than many folks make selections based on feeling when I make my as a function on thinking. For I know that if there was no TV or Radio, and folks were forced to read the history and positions of the Republican and Democratic selections for this past election – you would have seen that there were basically no difference between the two and that they were more similar than dissimilar. I also learned that many folks tend to vote for the individual whereas I vote for the policy positions.

True Obama won, and I’m pleased with that, but American may be in the same position historically it has always been. Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Georgia, Lousiania, Utah, Montana and Idaho among others still remain GOP and in strong support of the divisive politics that have historically been a function of race (many in the South). And I know folks don’t like to use history to project future speculation and to form opinion – but I do. These states have been red for the longest and no end seems to be coming soon.

I feel that yes this is historic, but also may reflect a change - a regression for many back to the time before the civil rights movement. Yes, 40 years ago a great man was killed for bringing change. I just don’t know what will be, given what i feel will be major conundrums quick fast and in a hurry for the new president jones:

• Russia: This may be the first head bump for Jones. Russia (Putin) is making a fat cat move to buy allegiance from Latin American states that are right in our own backyard. Plus they mad because of our decision to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. So as a result, they have decided to place some similar equipment in Cuba – or so they say.
• Economy: Many would like to infer that Obama’s victory brought back extreme volatility to the market, with the Dow Jones industrials falling 480 points and the major indexes tumbling more than 5 percent. After Tuesday night. True some may be pulling loot out as a form of fear, but truth as I have written before, this will continue for a couple of few administrations, irregardless of who had won. He will have to tackle this and his tax cuts, during a recession don’t make much micro or macro economic sense, but it sounds good to the voter. So he will need to foster the gumption to show how smart folk really think he is, for short term tactics as taking loot from the rich wont pay for nothing, nor do jack, when the deficit is approaching a trillion dollars; oh and did I say he wont be able to end the war as quickly as he proposed?
• Middle East: It will be difficult for Obama to end the war as he said. Especially since his chief of staff was one of the folks that assisted and motioned that we start a war with Iraq and has a desire to start one with Iran - Israeli Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives as the Democratic Caucus chairman, will be returning to the White House, where he served as a political and policy adviser to Clinton.

Which brings me back to thinking over feeling. I as many feel that America has changed. But looking the states that McCain carried, what I call the redrum states to honor one of my favorite movies of all time, the Shining, it won’t be easy. These folks will fight tooth and nail against him, even when it may benefit the commonwealth. For unfortunately, his victory has also brought back the zealots, the folks if they don’t like the color of your skin, will post up outside your crib and chase you with an ax and string you up from a tree. Yes this is historic, but the history he has fostered via victory, has only begun. Let’s just hope it does not assist in bring back the attitudes many thought were no more, and that some as myself – feel are merely dormant.

Had a ball talking politics with 12kyle at shop yesterday.