Last Monday, December 19, less than one week before Christmas, an act of terror perpetrated at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany, reminded us that the struggle against Islamic terrorism has not abated. In a scene rememisent of the terror attack in Nice, France last year, a large truck was driven into a cafe/market area which was packed with people enjoying the holiday festivities. Parents, spouses and children of the victims are left to answer the question, "why"? Everytime you turn on the news, one talking head after another is attempting to explain the motivations behind violence committed against civiliams; what a colossal waste of time. Regardless if its ISIS or Al Qaida, Boko Haram or Al Shabaab, Islamic terrorism has is intended to intimidate, frighten and murder Christians, Jews, and on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus. Terrorism for the sake of Islamic Extremism is not a recent development, but the frequency with which these groups are able to strike in Europe and the United States is disturbimg to say the least. No doubt Donald Trump appealed to many voters when he promised during the recent presidential campaign to aggressively combat ISIS. Over the next year, voters in France and Holland will have the opportunity to decide if the current batch of Prime Ministers and Presidents have been doing enough in response to these attacks. The refugee issue, which is directly related to concerns regarding terrorism, is presently the hot-button issue in Europe.
The continued presence of ISIS (and other Islamic extremist groups) in Syria has created a monumental refugee crisis. The Obama Administration has been useless with regards to ending the conflict or addressing the refugee crisis. The Syrian conflict has destroyed almost every urban community outside of Damascus, and the inhabitants have been forced to leave their homes. The European Union has responded to this development by opening its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration agreed to resettle large numbers of refugees in the United States. The decision to create humdreds of thousands of new Europeans and Americans has been met with a great deal of opposition in both the United States and various nations in Europe. It has become obvious that ISIS and other terror groups have been planting operatives within the refugee population. The resettlement processes in Europe and the United States have no effective method of identifying the throngs of refugees who continue to show up on the borders of Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led to campaign to open Europe's borders, is hoping against hope that the person who committed this most recent attack, won't in the end be identified as a recent refugee; I would advise her not to hold her breath.
The organizations and political leaders who argue for quick resettlement of the Syrian refugees are justifiably trying to avoid a human catastrophe. But the answer to this problem should never imclude comprimising the security of persons in North America and Europe. Settimg up quota systems to pressure European governments to quickly resettle thousands of people will only create another kind of human catastrophe. Another issue which seems to get swept under the carpet is the cost of resettlement. Barack Obama has left the American people with a twenty trillion dollar national debt. The EU is facing a major economic crisis in Italy, and France, the second largest economy in the EU, is dealing with a crippling unemployment problem. Many middle and lower income folks in Europe and America are asking the question, "just when did this become my problem?"
The permanent solution to the refugee crisis is to end the conflict in Syria. This goal could have been accomplished years ago if Obama would have had the courage to militarily combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia has stepped in, but will commit itself only as far as its proxy Bashar al-Assad is concerned. Regardless, one cannot escape the fact that Syrians should live in Syria; it's their home. A decided military effort achieved by a military coalition can only be achieved by a leader with great determination, courage, and influence. The conflicts in both Syria and Iraq can only have a military solution, but the good news is that a military solution is possible. Destroying ISIS and resolving the Syrian Civil War will end the refugee problem. Does Donald Trump have what it takes to forge a solution? He certainly believes he does; but for the rest of us, action will speak louder than Twitter.
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.
Link: U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.
In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq. Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State. In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS. Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity. Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States. In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property. But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad. No need to ask why. The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.
Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news. Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road. The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions. No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times. At this moment in time, Putin is running the show. The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines. Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower. The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower. Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner. His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart. For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets. In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?
In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq. Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State. In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS. Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity. Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States. In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property. But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad. No need to ask why. The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.
Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news. Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road. The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions. No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times. At this moment in time, Putin is running the show. The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines. Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower. The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower. Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner. His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart. For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets. In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?
Monday, November 16, 2015
The world is in need of leader in the fight to destroy ISIS; is it time to reconsider Vladimir Putin?
Link: Number of victims of Paris terror attack continues to grow.
On, Friday, November 13, in Paris, the terror group ISIS carried out an organized, well-supplied attack outside the Stade de France and also at a handful of restaurants and bars. The first sign of trouble was an explosion that took place outside the Stade de France, during an international "friendly" soccer match between Germany and France. The terrorist attempted to gain entry to the stadium, and after being refused, exploded his suicide vest. This started the contagion of violence that moved to the 11 Arrondissement and a cluster of restaurants and bars. The terrorists also forced their way into a heavy metal concert, shooting people at random. Three of the four who forced their way into the concert also detonated suicide vests; the fourth had a vest as well, but it didn't detonate until after he had been shot by French police. It has been reported by multiple witnesses that the terrorists claimed that the attacks were in response to French policy in Syria. Following the January 7 terrorist attack at the offices of French political magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government instituted measures which were designed to disrupt any further terrorist attacks. The presence of police and the military at French Airports, Ports, and public places was increased, as were efforts to collect human intelligence. Working closely with the United States other European nations, France also keep a close eye on the trafficking of weapons, especially the black market transport network which effectively can deliver automatic weapons from eastern Europe to France in a matter of days. French authorities were also very interested in the number of young Arab-French men and women who had recently travelled to Syria. But the increased law enforcement and intelligence efforts were unable to prevent Friday's tragedy. Its apparent that ISIS has the capacity to plan and carry out relatively simple but well-staged attacks on multiple urban locations. The weapons used were the well-known Kalashnikovs and AK-47s, and the suicide vests did not require a great deal of know-how to make. It likely that at least some of the perpetrators of these attacks had recently visited Syria, and were probably received weapons and explosives instruction at the hands of ISIS.
With this attack, ISIS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to conduct attacks in public places, regardless of the casualties. Every city in Europe is a potential target, and security measures will have to be increased. ISIS has particular goals in mind by conducting these attacks, and will use this event to learn how to be more effective in an urban environment. It is no secret that Islamic extremists are bound and determined to impact the western, "Christian" way of life. The aim is to disrupt the transportation systems that keep our society functioning. Vehicles and planes are necessary for personal and business purposes, and any success in shutting the roads and airports can cause havoc with everyday lives. The bad guys also get a kick out of creating enough fear in the minds of families that children are kept home from schools and streets are deserted by sundown. When we enjoy ourselves publicly, in places like parks, beaches and sporting events, it is a celebration of our freedom, the ability to laugh and share in each other's good company in safety. Scenes such as I have just described can be observed at any time of the year in many different places, from Tokyo to Adelaide to Durban, up to Rome and Paris, and over to the Americas. There are parts of our world where you rarely see moments of public celebration, unless its male-only political rallies.
North America and South America are different in many ways, as are Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. But its time we focused on what we have in common. Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves that all-important question, "just how important is my freedom?" If you turn on the TV or radio, and find a news channel, you will find that everyone seems to agree on the danger posed by ISIS. Is the Islamic State for the Caliphate movement more dangerous that National Socialism (Nazis?). Absolutely; this Islamic extremist organization has created a force which can engage our military in conventional warfare, while at the same time they are refining, improving and engaging in the old, horrendous methods of traditional terrorism. In mid-1941, the entire world except the Americas (excluding Canada, who was already at war, standing side by side with Britain) were engaged in a titanic struggle to overcome expansionist fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Once the United States entered the war, the balance began to tilt in the direction of the righteous. We have this history of coming together, once we recognize the mutual threat. Why is it so difficult for us to come together today? Why hasn't a leader from Europe, Africa, the Americas, or Asia made a speech at the United Nations, calling for a military coalition of all freedom loving nations, to work together and eliminate this evil from the face of the earth? If a united military force, including the armies and air forces of the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, and whoever else was able, surrounded the forces of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and just obliterated them, it would be such a great step forward for the cause of freedom in our culture and society today. Why has it been so difficult to find a leader to take that walk to the podium, and point the world in the right direction? Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been on a bit of a campaign to become just such an international leader, not only rehabilitating Russia's image, but the image of Russia's ally Iran at the same time. I have been very critical of Putin in recent months, holding out hope that maybe Barack Obama would step up to the plate and answer the call of history. That hasn't happened; is it time that I give Putin a chance?
On, Friday, November 13, in Paris, the terror group ISIS carried out an organized, well-supplied attack outside the Stade de France and also at a handful of restaurants and bars. The first sign of trouble was an explosion that took place outside the Stade de France, during an international "friendly" soccer match between Germany and France. The terrorist attempted to gain entry to the stadium, and after being refused, exploded his suicide vest. This started the contagion of violence that moved to the 11 Arrondissement and a cluster of restaurants and bars. The terrorists also forced their way into a heavy metal concert, shooting people at random. Three of the four who forced their way into the concert also detonated suicide vests; the fourth had a vest as well, but it didn't detonate until after he had been shot by French police. It has been reported by multiple witnesses that the terrorists claimed that the attacks were in response to French policy in Syria. Following the January 7 terrorist attack at the offices of French political magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government instituted measures which were designed to disrupt any further terrorist attacks. The presence of police and the military at French Airports, Ports, and public places was increased, as were efforts to collect human intelligence. Working closely with the United States other European nations, France also keep a close eye on the trafficking of weapons, especially the black market transport network which effectively can deliver automatic weapons from eastern Europe to France in a matter of days. French authorities were also very interested in the number of young Arab-French men and women who had recently travelled to Syria. But the increased law enforcement and intelligence efforts were unable to prevent Friday's tragedy. Its apparent that ISIS has the capacity to plan and carry out relatively simple but well-staged attacks on multiple urban locations. The weapons used were the well-known Kalashnikovs and AK-47s, and the suicide vests did not require a great deal of know-how to make. It likely that at least some of the perpetrators of these attacks had recently visited Syria, and were probably received weapons and explosives instruction at the hands of ISIS.
With this attack, ISIS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to conduct attacks in public places, regardless of the casualties. Every city in Europe is a potential target, and security measures will have to be increased. ISIS has particular goals in mind by conducting these attacks, and will use this event to learn how to be more effective in an urban environment. It is no secret that Islamic extremists are bound and determined to impact the western, "Christian" way of life. The aim is to disrupt the transportation systems that keep our society functioning. Vehicles and planes are necessary for personal and business purposes, and any success in shutting the roads and airports can cause havoc with everyday lives. The bad guys also get a kick out of creating enough fear in the minds of families that children are kept home from schools and streets are deserted by sundown. When we enjoy ourselves publicly, in places like parks, beaches and sporting events, it is a celebration of our freedom, the ability to laugh and share in each other's good company in safety. Scenes such as I have just described can be observed at any time of the year in many different places, from Tokyo to Adelaide to Durban, up to Rome and Paris, and over to the Americas. There are parts of our world where you rarely see moments of public celebration, unless its male-only political rallies.
North America and South America are different in many ways, as are Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. But its time we focused on what we have in common. Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves that all-important question, "just how important is my freedom?" If you turn on the TV or radio, and find a news channel, you will find that everyone seems to agree on the danger posed by ISIS. Is the Islamic State for the Caliphate movement more dangerous that National Socialism (Nazis?). Absolutely; this Islamic extremist organization has created a force which can engage our military in conventional warfare, while at the same time they are refining, improving and engaging in the old, horrendous methods of traditional terrorism. In mid-1941, the entire world except the Americas (excluding Canada, who was already at war, standing side by side with Britain) were engaged in a titanic struggle to overcome expansionist fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Once the United States entered the war, the balance began to tilt in the direction of the righteous. We have this history of coming together, once we recognize the mutual threat. Why is it so difficult for us to come together today? Why hasn't a leader from Europe, Africa, the Americas, or Asia made a speech at the United Nations, calling for a military coalition of all freedom loving nations, to work together and eliminate this evil from the face of the earth? If a united military force, including the armies and air forces of the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, and whoever else was able, surrounded the forces of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and just obliterated them, it would be such a great step forward for the cause of freedom in our culture and society today. Why has it been so difficult to find a leader to take that walk to the podium, and point the world in the right direction? Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been on a bit of a campaign to become just such an international leader, not only rehabilitating Russia's image, but the image of Russia's ally Iran at the same time. I have been very critical of Putin in recent months, holding out hope that maybe Barack Obama would step up to the plate and answer the call of history. That hasn't happened; is it time that I give Putin a chance?
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Russia and Iran; friends for the moment, or for the distance?
Links: A. Russia making military commitment in Syria.
B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.
Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue. Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia? It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!". No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow. He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.
Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia. The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan. Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS. But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload. Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront. In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary. Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq. The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets. Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail. Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful. This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians. Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel. He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.
Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally. Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people. Putin has changed the topic of international conversation. Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria. Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who? The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties. Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested. Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.
B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.
Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue. Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia? It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!". No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow. He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.
Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia. The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan. Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS. But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload. Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront. In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary. Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq. The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets. Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail. Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful. This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians. Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel. He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.
Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally. Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people. Putin has changed the topic of international conversation. Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria. Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who? The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties. Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested. Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Greece re-elects Tsirpas, who is now obliged to implement the exact austerity reforms that he swore to oppose in his first successful presidential election.
Link: Tsirpas wins with almost the same exact plurality.
Do you remember the days, when to discuss Greece meant to recall a fantastic cruise in the Mediterranean, or a month of sun-soaked relaxation on a Mykonos beach? In the 19th century, the English upper class believed that for a young person to have a fully rounded education, then a trip to study the classics and ruins in both Greece and Italy was a requirement. Personally, I enjoy reading about Greece's more modern history, including the 1821-1832 war for independence against the Ottoman Empire, or the valiant guerilla war against the Nazis in World War II. Today's younger generations no longer have to be instructed about Greece in a classroom, because Greece is frequently the subject of an international news story. Unfortunately, the news stories are not documentaries about Plato or Ancient Sparta. For roughly the past decade, the newsworthy events generated in Hellas have been dominated by economic news. In particular, the rest of Europe has become very interested in the state of the Greek economy. Greek is a member of the EU, which appears to be validating the old cliché that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link (somewhere deep in Les Invalides, Napoleon just rolled over). The brilliant minds that constitute the European Commission's Economic and Financial Affairs Office (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs) keep a close eye on the economies of all the member states. The Greek economy was not very strong when the EU offered Athens membership, but the belief was the Greek system would be reformed, modernized and improved by its association with its fellow EU states. But the last ten years, played out in the European Press almost like a soap opera, has been one Greek economic crisis after another. The evolution of the original crisis, which was addressed with a fat loan from the EU, should have been an indication to the Economic and Financial Affairs folks that Greece was going to be a problem that would refuse to go away. The timeline will include an additional loan, mass demonstrations by the Greek people, protesting both their government and the EU who provided the loans, and the possibility that Greece may become the first country to join and depart the EU.
The actual issue isn't complicated. The Greece government, which is the nation's largest employer, continues to grow in all directions. Greeks are living longer, and each decade another generation enters the rolls of pension-collectors. The Greek government only takes in so much in taxes (income tax, tariffs, transaction fees, tourist taxes, etc.). With the growing number of pensioners, and the continual growth of social programs, migrants, etc., the Greek government runs a huge deficit. Every year, the government spends more money than it takes in. To make matters worse, the Greek economy is in dire need of reform. The Unions are all-powerful, and they fight tooth-and-nail any attempt to modernize equipment or processes, for fear that it will result in a smaller workforce (which is probably true, but the profit made should be put into enlarging the business, which creates jobs as well). The cycle is repetitive. The Greek government is under-water and can't pay its pensioners, so it asks for help from the EU. The EU responds with a loan offer, tied to a requirement for reform. The Greek people go ape-shit, calling the German members of the negotiating team "Nazis", and pressure their government to initially refuse the offer. Cooler heads eventually prevail, and the reform package is accepted. The bailout cash arrives, but the Greeks do not effectively implement the reforms as required, which sets us up for the second-running of the cycle. The unreformed Greek economy (again) is unable to meet its obligations, so again a request for assistance arrives at the EU. Another loan package is put together, along with another requirement for austerity and reforms to the Greek economic system. More demonstrations, cars burned, governments toppled, but in the end, a deal is reached. The money is delivered, but the austerity and reforms and other requirements related to the repayment of the loan are put aside. Believe it or not, there was a round three of this absurd game. It would have saved everyone so much money and time, if the EU would have just written a check to the Greeks each time they needed money. The reforms, which are the only way the Greek economy will evolve and grow to function successfully alongside its EU neighbors, seem impossible for the Greek people to accept.
Current Greek President Alexis Tsirpas, was elected last year on a platform of intransigence and opposition to the EU. But once he took office, he got a lesson in reality. Greece had two options: either agree to the conditions set by the EU and receive ANOTHER loan, or leave the EU. If Greece leaves the EU, then access is lost to a number of other programs and initiatives that have been very helpful. Also, Greece would lose access to the financial support that has actually kept Greece from complete economic collapse over the past decade. Regarding membership in the EU, some of the wealthier countries like France and Germany, probably end up losing money at the end of the every year, but the idea of a European Federation means so much, that they are willing to give a little. On the other side, countries like Greece (and Italy, sad to say), have really become dependent on the EU to keep them from total economic collapse. What is most interesting is that the countries who truly embrace socialist-style economics (Italy, Greece, Serbia) are a complete economic mess, while free-market economies like Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and France, never have to ask for a hand-out.
After taking office and realizing that he had no choice, Tsirpas accepted the deal offered by the EU. He faced an almost immediate rebellion in his own party, and his popularity numbers went into free-fall. But Tsirpas is one smooth operator (he reminds me of a young George Papandreou), and he decided to call new elections to answer calls for his resignation. If Tsirpas had agreed to immediate presidential elections, or at least stuck to a reasonable timetable, he would probably have still lost. But he scheduled the election after the people had digested the issue of reforms, and gave his astute political machine time to rebuild his image, as the young Greek warrior who stood up to the German Harridan Angela Merkel. One thing no one can deny: the Greek people love their drama!
Do you remember the days, when to discuss Greece meant to recall a fantastic cruise in the Mediterranean, or a month of sun-soaked relaxation on a Mykonos beach? In the 19th century, the English upper class believed that for a young person to have a fully rounded education, then a trip to study the classics and ruins in both Greece and Italy was a requirement. Personally, I enjoy reading about Greece's more modern history, including the 1821-1832 war for independence against the Ottoman Empire, or the valiant guerilla war against the Nazis in World War II. Today's younger generations no longer have to be instructed about Greece in a classroom, because Greece is frequently the subject of an international news story. Unfortunately, the news stories are not documentaries about Plato or Ancient Sparta. For roughly the past decade, the newsworthy events generated in Hellas have been dominated by economic news. In particular, the rest of Europe has become very interested in the state of the Greek economy. Greek is a member of the EU, which appears to be validating the old cliché that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link (somewhere deep in Les Invalides, Napoleon just rolled over). The brilliant minds that constitute the European Commission's Economic and Financial Affairs Office (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs) keep a close eye on the economies of all the member states. The Greek economy was not very strong when the EU offered Athens membership, but the belief was the Greek system would be reformed, modernized and improved by its association with its fellow EU states. But the last ten years, played out in the European Press almost like a soap opera, has been one Greek economic crisis after another. The evolution of the original crisis, which was addressed with a fat loan from the EU, should have been an indication to the Economic and Financial Affairs folks that Greece was going to be a problem that would refuse to go away. The timeline will include an additional loan, mass demonstrations by the Greek people, protesting both their government and the EU who provided the loans, and the possibility that Greece may become the first country to join and depart the EU.
The actual issue isn't complicated. The Greece government, which is the nation's largest employer, continues to grow in all directions. Greeks are living longer, and each decade another generation enters the rolls of pension-collectors. The Greek government only takes in so much in taxes (income tax, tariffs, transaction fees, tourist taxes, etc.). With the growing number of pensioners, and the continual growth of social programs, migrants, etc., the Greek government runs a huge deficit. Every year, the government spends more money than it takes in. To make matters worse, the Greek economy is in dire need of reform. The Unions are all-powerful, and they fight tooth-and-nail any attempt to modernize equipment or processes, for fear that it will result in a smaller workforce (which is probably true, but the profit made should be put into enlarging the business, which creates jobs as well). The cycle is repetitive. The Greek government is under-water and can't pay its pensioners, so it asks for help from the EU. The EU responds with a loan offer, tied to a requirement for reform. The Greek people go ape-shit, calling the German members of the negotiating team "Nazis", and pressure their government to initially refuse the offer. Cooler heads eventually prevail, and the reform package is accepted. The bailout cash arrives, but the Greeks do not effectively implement the reforms as required, which sets us up for the second-running of the cycle. The unreformed Greek economy (again) is unable to meet its obligations, so again a request for assistance arrives at the EU. Another loan package is put together, along with another requirement for austerity and reforms to the Greek economic system. More demonstrations, cars burned, governments toppled, but in the end, a deal is reached. The money is delivered, but the austerity and reforms and other requirements related to the repayment of the loan are put aside. Believe it or not, there was a round three of this absurd game. It would have saved everyone so much money and time, if the EU would have just written a check to the Greeks each time they needed money. The reforms, which are the only way the Greek economy will evolve and grow to function successfully alongside its EU neighbors, seem impossible for the Greek people to accept.
Current Greek President Alexis Tsirpas, was elected last year on a platform of intransigence and opposition to the EU. But once he took office, he got a lesson in reality. Greece had two options: either agree to the conditions set by the EU and receive ANOTHER loan, or leave the EU. If Greece leaves the EU, then access is lost to a number of other programs and initiatives that have been very helpful. Also, Greece would lose access to the financial support that has actually kept Greece from complete economic collapse over the past decade. Regarding membership in the EU, some of the wealthier countries like France and Germany, probably end up losing money at the end of the every year, but the idea of a European Federation means so much, that they are willing to give a little. On the other side, countries like Greece (and Italy, sad to say), have really become dependent on the EU to keep them from total economic collapse. What is most interesting is that the countries who truly embrace socialist-style economics (Italy, Greece, Serbia) are a complete economic mess, while free-market economies like Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and France, never have to ask for a hand-out.
After taking office and realizing that he had no choice, Tsirpas accepted the deal offered by the EU. He faced an almost immediate rebellion in his own party, and his popularity numbers went into free-fall. But Tsirpas is one smooth operator (he reminds me of a young George Papandreou), and he decided to call new elections to answer calls for his resignation. If Tsirpas had agreed to immediate presidential elections, or at least stuck to a reasonable timetable, he would probably have still lost. But he scheduled the election after the people had digested the issue of reforms, and gave his astute political machine time to rebuild his image, as the young Greek warrior who stood up to the German Harridan Angela Merkel. One thing no one can deny: the Greek people love their drama!
Monday, September 7, 2015
The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.
Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.
At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience. We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others. The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media. The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria. The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem. Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?" In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked. Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live? Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states. Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause. These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?
I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants. The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings. Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem. The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico. We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway. The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family. This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system. Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change. Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry. The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth. The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families. Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa. The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice. But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation. This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself. Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.
In reality, it may be too late for the United States. President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States. Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party. But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees. The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis. But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria. The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft. Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest. South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited. Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees. The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.
Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees. Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life. But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source. Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence? Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines. Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort? In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption. Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another. Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account. If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs. We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home. The same is true for Mexico. I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again. But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.
It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor. I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week. But what about next week, and next month? What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands? The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling. They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off. Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?
At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience. We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others. The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media. The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria. The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem. Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?" In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked. Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live? Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states. Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause. These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?
I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants. The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings. Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem. The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico. We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway. The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family. This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system. Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change. Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry. The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth. The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families. Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa. The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice. But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation. This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself. Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.
In reality, it may be too late for the United States. President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States. Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party. But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees. The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis. But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria. The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft. Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest. South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited. Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees. The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.
Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees. Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life. But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source. Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence? Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines. Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort? In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption. Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another. Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account. If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs. We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home. The same is true for Mexico. I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again. But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.
It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor. I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week. But what about next week, and next month? What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands? The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling. They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off. Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Conservative factions in Ukraine increasing pressure on Poroshenko.
Link: Violence between right-wing protesters and police outside Kiev Parliament.
The announcement by Ukrainian officials of a ceasefire with separatists has resulted in angry demonstrations from conservative and right-wing protesters outside of Parliament in the capital city of Kiev. The conservative political groups in Ukraine have traditionally been strong, and the crisis in the east of the country has only added to their influence. Ukrainians living in the west of the country are particularly incensed with the lack of progress in combatting the separatists, and the shaky coalition that President Petro Poroshenko requires to stay in power is under great pressure. Conservative Ukrainians were not satisfied with the provisions of the "Minsk II" agreement, which really never got off the ground, because the separatists began violating the agreement almost as soon as it was announced. Some of the more controversial provisions of "Minsk II" never saw the light if day, until now, when they were repeated as part of the new ceasefire agreement, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 1. The Ukrainian right-wing objects to the agreement for declaring a "special status" for the disputed areas, and also for introducing the idea of autonomy to the negotiations. On the other hand, the government claims that the ceasefire agreement only calls for the decentralization of authority, designed to give more power to local government. In reality, the demonstrations in Kiev were coming, sooner or later, as Conservative Ukrainians grow more dissatisfied everyday with the current situation in the east. The number of Ukrainian troops in the east is almost matched by the number of volunteers, who have picked up weapons and transported themselves to the front line, "to fight for the freedom and integrity of Ukraine", as one protester explained. Poroshenko and his EU puppet masters must understand that this outpouring of rejection is not only in response to this latest ceasefire agreement, but also a message that the people of Ukraine do not believe in any more treaties with the separatists.
Since the genesis of this crisis, every agreement with the Russian-backed separatists has been violated by the rebels. Actually, the modus operandi of this movement mirrors typical fascist behavior. Violate every agreement, but continue to sign them, as long as the enemy is stupid enough to continue negotiating under the pretense of "good faith". While the separatists continually violate agreements, the Russians keep lying about the involvement of the Russian military and use of Russian equipment. The obscene fact that even after the overwhelming amount of evidence, the Russian government and the separatists still refuse to admit that a Russian "Buk" missile destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17), killing all 298 on board. in July 2015, a draft resolution to set up an international tribunal into the MH17 air disaster was put before the United Nations Security Council. Malaysia had requested a tribunal to take place, but the proposal was blocked by a Russian veto. It was the only nation on the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose the request. There can be only one reason why the Russian government would oppose an investigation by the world's leading experts on the subject: to hide its complicity. We don't believe the Russians themselves fired at the airliner. We are convinced that the basically untrained separatist volunteers who were manning the Buk missile launcher, mistook the airliner for a large Ukrainian Air Force cargo plane, a hypothesis which is supported by evidence, including recorded cell phone conversations from one separatist unit to another.
The citizens of Ukraine who are opposed to the current agreement stood by Poroshenko for some time. He was a sympathetic figure, attempting to do his best to appease the European and U.S. governments, and also continuing to look strong in the face of Russian aggression first in Crimea, and then in Donbas. Poroshenko was forced to walk a tricky tight rope. From his perspective, Ukraine would be lost without the steadfast support of Europe and the United States; therefore, if France, Germany and the Obama Administration advised compromise, then Poroshenko would compromise. Hollande, Merkel and Obama told Poroshenko that the Russians would eventually be obliged to back down, because the sanctions regime was going to cripple the Russian economy. As we predicted last year on this blog, Putin never had any intention of backing down because of the sanctions. He understood as we did; that the Russian people take particular offense at that type of punishment. The Russians are made of tougher stuff than that. They won't be made to compromise because a few items disappear off the shelves and everyone has to tighten their belt a bit. So the sanctions have failed, and Poroshenko has authorized negotiators in Minsk to compromise with the separatists and Russians, as directed by the Europeans and Americans. What was the result? Two agreements that were violated by the separatists before the paint was dry. In the last year, the separatists have expanded the territory under their control, to include the strategic town of Debaltseve. There has been no offensive activity on the part of the Ukrainian Army, not really.
So its clear why most Ukrainians have lost faith in Poroshenko and why demonstrators were protesting in Kiev. Its not just for this terrible agreement, but for the previous two which were violated, and for the failed sanctions regime, which was supposed to force Russia to compromise. Putin is winning this chess game hands down, because Europe and the United States are too frightened to allow Ukraine to take any Russian pieces. Earlier this year, we called for the United States to begin providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, including F16s and Abrams tanks if necessary. The Ukrainian people have no love-lost for the Russians, and they have already watched Putin steal the Crimea right from under their nose. They are anxious to settle this issue on the battlefield, but the Obama Administration has hamstrung the Ukrainian Armed Forces by refusing to sell them weapons and equipment. Why don't the Ukrainians just go to someone else to get weapons? Because everyone else who is not in Russia's orbit, is following the lead of the United States. Its a tremendously depressing situation. Poroshenko would probably like to be more militarily aggressive, but to be so would probably cost him the support of France, Germany and the United States. We expect the Ukrainian people to bring about another change in government, which may result in full deployment of the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine for the purpose of ending the illegal separatist movement. But if the Russian military becomes directly involved, the Ukrainians will be hard-pressed to keep up, without an influx of new equipment and supplies. The end of this drama will probably result in a new Ukraine, minus the industrial southwest. And Putin will be man of the year in Sevastopol and Donetsk.
The announcement by Ukrainian officials of a ceasefire with separatists has resulted in angry demonstrations from conservative and right-wing protesters outside of Parliament in the capital city of Kiev. The conservative political groups in Ukraine have traditionally been strong, and the crisis in the east of the country has only added to their influence. Ukrainians living in the west of the country are particularly incensed with the lack of progress in combatting the separatists, and the shaky coalition that President Petro Poroshenko requires to stay in power is under great pressure. Conservative Ukrainians were not satisfied with the provisions of the "Minsk II" agreement, which really never got off the ground, because the separatists began violating the agreement almost as soon as it was announced. Some of the more controversial provisions of "Minsk II" never saw the light if day, until now, when they were repeated as part of the new ceasefire agreement, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 1. The Ukrainian right-wing objects to the agreement for declaring a "special status" for the disputed areas, and also for introducing the idea of autonomy to the negotiations. On the other hand, the government claims that the ceasefire agreement only calls for the decentralization of authority, designed to give more power to local government. In reality, the demonstrations in Kiev were coming, sooner or later, as Conservative Ukrainians grow more dissatisfied everyday with the current situation in the east. The number of Ukrainian troops in the east is almost matched by the number of volunteers, who have picked up weapons and transported themselves to the front line, "to fight for the freedom and integrity of Ukraine", as one protester explained. Poroshenko and his EU puppet masters must understand that this outpouring of rejection is not only in response to this latest ceasefire agreement, but also a message that the people of Ukraine do not believe in any more treaties with the separatists.
Since the genesis of this crisis, every agreement with the Russian-backed separatists has been violated by the rebels. Actually, the modus operandi of this movement mirrors typical fascist behavior. Violate every agreement, but continue to sign them, as long as the enemy is stupid enough to continue negotiating under the pretense of "good faith". While the separatists continually violate agreements, the Russians keep lying about the involvement of the Russian military and use of Russian equipment. The obscene fact that even after the overwhelming amount of evidence, the Russian government and the separatists still refuse to admit that a Russian "Buk" missile destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17), killing all 298 on board. in July 2015, a draft resolution to set up an international tribunal into the MH17 air disaster was put before the United Nations Security Council. Malaysia had requested a tribunal to take place, but the proposal was blocked by a Russian veto. It was the only nation on the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose the request. There can be only one reason why the Russian government would oppose an investigation by the world's leading experts on the subject: to hide its complicity. We don't believe the Russians themselves fired at the airliner. We are convinced that the basically untrained separatist volunteers who were manning the Buk missile launcher, mistook the airliner for a large Ukrainian Air Force cargo plane, a hypothesis which is supported by evidence, including recorded cell phone conversations from one separatist unit to another.
The citizens of Ukraine who are opposed to the current agreement stood by Poroshenko for some time. He was a sympathetic figure, attempting to do his best to appease the European and U.S. governments, and also continuing to look strong in the face of Russian aggression first in Crimea, and then in Donbas. Poroshenko was forced to walk a tricky tight rope. From his perspective, Ukraine would be lost without the steadfast support of Europe and the United States; therefore, if France, Germany and the Obama Administration advised compromise, then Poroshenko would compromise. Hollande, Merkel and Obama told Poroshenko that the Russians would eventually be obliged to back down, because the sanctions regime was going to cripple the Russian economy. As we predicted last year on this blog, Putin never had any intention of backing down because of the sanctions. He understood as we did; that the Russian people take particular offense at that type of punishment. The Russians are made of tougher stuff than that. They won't be made to compromise because a few items disappear off the shelves and everyone has to tighten their belt a bit. So the sanctions have failed, and Poroshenko has authorized negotiators in Minsk to compromise with the separatists and Russians, as directed by the Europeans and Americans. What was the result? Two agreements that were violated by the separatists before the paint was dry. In the last year, the separatists have expanded the territory under their control, to include the strategic town of Debaltseve. There has been no offensive activity on the part of the Ukrainian Army, not really.
So its clear why most Ukrainians have lost faith in Poroshenko and why demonstrators were protesting in Kiev. Its not just for this terrible agreement, but for the previous two which were violated, and for the failed sanctions regime, which was supposed to force Russia to compromise. Putin is winning this chess game hands down, because Europe and the United States are too frightened to allow Ukraine to take any Russian pieces. Earlier this year, we called for the United States to begin providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, including F16s and Abrams tanks if necessary. The Ukrainian people have no love-lost for the Russians, and they have already watched Putin steal the Crimea right from under their nose. They are anxious to settle this issue on the battlefield, but the Obama Administration has hamstrung the Ukrainian Armed Forces by refusing to sell them weapons and equipment. Why don't the Ukrainians just go to someone else to get weapons? Because everyone else who is not in Russia's orbit, is following the lead of the United States. Its a tremendously depressing situation. Poroshenko would probably like to be more militarily aggressive, but to be so would probably cost him the support of France, Germany and the United States. We expect the Ukrainian people to bring about another change in government, which may result in full deployment of the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine for the purpose of ending the illegal separatist movement. But if the Russian military becomes directly involved, the Ukrainians will be hard-pressed to keep up, without an influx of new equipment and supplies. The end of this drama will probably result in a new Ukraine, minus the industrial southwest. And Putin will be man of the year in Sevastopol and Donetsk.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
France, Germany pressure Kiev to grant autonomy to separatists, as conflict escalates.
Link: Poroshenko meets with Hollande, Merkel in Berlin.
Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord. As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions. On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast. On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol. It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin. The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.
It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas. Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression. If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition. Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week. Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia. Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.
Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin? They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult. If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war. I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States. Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well. This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line". If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871? Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany. Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well. Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli). When will they learn?
Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord. As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions. On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast. On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol. It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin. The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.
It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas. Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression. If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition. Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week. Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia. Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.
Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin? They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult. If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war. I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States. Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well. This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line". If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871? Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany. Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well. Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli). When will they learn?
Monday, July 6, 2015
Greece continues to give the finger to the EU.
Link: Greek voters vote no on bailout referendum.
This past weekend, when most Americans were enjoying the holiday and I was watching my baseball team, the Houston Astros, lose twice to Boston, the proud people of Greece voted 61 percent to 39 percent to reject the most recent EU bailout offer. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was in the awkward position of opposing the bailout proposal, but also being the CEO of a country with no money. Tsipras called for the referendum, probably so that he wouldn't have to take the blame, which ever direction the vote went. There's no reason to blame one individual Greek when you have the chance to blame them all, n'est pas? When this story popped up on the Drudge Report, my first question was, which bailout is this? How many Greek bailouts have we already experienced? With all the bad press that is no doubt associated with having to ask for a huge loan from other countries just to pay government employees and retirees, one would think that the Greeks would take care not to get into this situation again. But here we are. Normally, I would rush to blame the leftist "spend spend spend" governments of Greece, but we've had both the right and the left in power over the last decade, and no one seems to be able to balance a budget.
I won't get into the numbers involved in the latest bailout offer. The problem is easily explained without climbing into an Accounting 101 textbook. The Greek government is broke, and can't pay its bills. As they have done in the past, the EU stepped in, and offered Greece a bailout package, if they would be willing to implement certain austerity measures. Therein lies the rub. The Greek people don't want their government to go broke, but they also don't want to put up with the austerity plan required by the EU. Why does Greece seem to have trouble with its finances? Its simply a case of a traditional Socialist economy that is collapsing under the strain of recession. Economies that are more diversified are in a much better position to survive economic downturns, and we've been in one for some time. The Greek state has always been heavy on government interference in just about everything. The Greeks have always had a large civil service, and one way or another, most Greeks find themselves dependent on a government check of some kind when payday rolls around. When the economy turns sour, unemployment rises, manufacturing slows down, the government social programs become the lifeline for many people. The Greek government spends way more money than in generates. The only other avenue for raising the kind of funds necessary to keep a country of 10.8 million fed is to borrow from other nations.
According to Wikipedia, in 2013 the debt of the Greek government was 175.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product. We are halfway through 2015, and the problem hasn't gone away. If the Greeks would accept the recent bailout proposal, and follow through on the austerity measures, it just might instill some discipline in the Greek government. And if the Greek people don't want to repeat the unpleasantness of austerity, then they should elect governments whose FIRST OBLIGATION is to avoid ever being financially beholden to other nations ever again. Instead, we have a history of the acceptance of bailouts, but the non-acceptance of austerity. The Greek people need to learn the hard lesson, than one doesn't come without the other. In this instance, nations aren't that different from people. We all have budgets, and our goal is to not spend more than we make. But some people get in trouble with high balances on credit cards. In order for those folks to recover their financial comfort level, they must scrimp and save, avoid going out to dinner, no expensive vacation this year, etc., until the credit cards are paid off. I learned this lesson in 1986, when I got my first credit card, which was for Marshall Field's high-end department store. I probably had that card maxed out within the first two weeks. I had lots of nice Polo shirts and cool watches, but I also had a huge debt to pay. I suffered, and I had no extra money for some time, but I eventually paid off that card. Today, it may seem cool to march around Athens, giving the finger to the EU and pretending that you have other options. But Greece has no other options. The money has to come from somewhere, or austerity will arrive ON ITS OWN. Once the banks have no money, then people don't get paid. That's when the riots usually start.
This past weekend, when most Americans were enjoying the holiday and I was watching my baseball team, the Houston Astros, lose twice to Boston, the proud people of Greece voted 61 percent to 39 percent to reject the most recent EU bailout offer. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was in the awkward position of opposing the bailout proposal, but also being the CEO of a country with no money. Tsipras called for the referendum, probably so that he wouldn't have to take the blame, which ever direction the vote went. There's no reason to blame one individual Greek when you have the chance to blame them all, n'est pas? When this story popped up on the Drudge Report, my first question was, which bailout is this? How many Greek bailouts have we already experienced? With all the bad press that is no doubt associated with having to ask for a huge loan from other countries just to pay government employees and retirees, one would think that the Greeks would take care not to get into this situation again. But here we are. Normally, I would rush to blame the leftist "spend spend spend" governments of Greece, but we've had both the right and the left in power over the last decade, and no one seems to be able to balance a budget.
I won't get into the numbers involved in the latest bailout offer. The problem is easily explained without climbing into an Accounting 101 textbook. The Greek government is broke, and can't pay its bills. As they have done in the past, the EU stepped in, and offered Greece a bailout package, if they would be willing to implement certain austerity measures. Therein lies the rub. The Greek people don't want their government to go broke, but they also don't want to put up with the austerity plan required by the EU. Why does Greece seem to have trouble with its finances? Its simply a case of a traditional Socialist economy that is collapsing under the strain of recession. Economies that are more diversified are in a much better position to survive economic downturns, and we've been in one for some time. The Greek state has always been heavy on government interference in just about everything. The Greeks have always had a large civil service, and one way or another, most Greeks find themselves dependent on a government check of some kind when payday rolls around. When the economy turns sour, unemployment rises, manufacturing slows down, the government social programs become the lifeline for many people. The Greek government spends way more money than in generates. The only other avenue for raising the kind of funds necessary to keep a country of 10.8 million fed is to borrow from other nations.
According to Wikipedia, in 2013 the debt of the Greek government was 175.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product. We are halfway through 2015, and the problem hasn't gone away. If the Greeks would accept the recent bailout proposal, and follow through on the austerity measures, it just might instill some discipline in the Greek government. And if the Greek people don't want to repeat the unpleasantness of austerity, then they should elect governments whose FIRST OBLIGATION is to avoid ever being financially beholden to other nations ever again. Instead, we have a history of the acceptance of bailouts, but the non-acceptance of austerity. The Greek people need to learn the hard lesson, than one doesn't come without the other. In this instance, nations aren't that different from people. We all have budgets, and our goal is to not spend more than we make. But some people get in trouble with high balances on credit cards. In order for those folks to recover their financial comfort level, they must scrimp and save, avoid going out to dinner, no expensive vacation this year, etc., until the credit cards are paid off. I learned this lesson in 1986, when I got my first credit card, which was for Marshall Field's high-end department store. I probably had that card maxed out within the first two weeks. I had lots of nice Polo shirts and cool watches, but I also had a huge debt to pay. I suffered, and I had no extra money for some time, but I eventually paid off that card. Today, it may seem cool to march around Athens, giving the finger to the EU and pretending that you have other options. But Greece has no other options. The money has to come from somewhere, or austerity will arrive ON ITS OWN. Once the banks have no money, then people don't get paid. That's when the riots usually start.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Illegal immigration is an international problem, not something unique to North America.
Links: A. Europe faces a flood of sea-bound illegal immigrants.
B. France's NF calls for an end to allowing migrants entry.
In the last few weeks, calm seas have resulted in thousands of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, hoping to reach Europe and a brighter future. I can't blame these folks; I would probably being taking the same action if I were in their shoes. It's not a difficult issue to understand. People in north and sub-Saharan Africa, who struggle to feed their families and have no real hope of bettering their lives, will spend whatever meager amount of money they can raise to try and hire a smuggler to find a place on a boat that will sail in the direction of Europe. One difference between the illegal immigration in this part of the world and the problem on the U.S./Mexico border: persons attempting illegal entry into the southern United States (mostly from Mexico and Central America) usually don't bring their families. They settle in, find a job, and send for their families later (ideally), who then repeat the process as a group. Border Patrol officers on the U.S./Mexico border normally encounter adult males, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, who are attempting illegal entry. Certainly families will attempt to cross together on occasion, but usually the male bread winner will come first. For most persons attempting the crossing of the Mediterranean, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; therefore a much higher percentage of families will attempt the crossing together. This detail increases the number of children and elderly who are at risk, and ultimately, become casualties.
The various Republics that constitute the European Union (EU) in 2015 (and those who cling to the periphery, like the UK and Norway), have elbowed and bruised each other to see who can be the most "progressive" and "liberal". This has resulted in a number of positive developments, especially in the area of minority rights. A serious movement exists to guarantee women equal pay for equal work, and the gay community has been granted certain protections that combat homophobia not only in the workplace but in public environments as well. The move to appear more progressive has really focused on the social issues of each respective nation. Certainly Germany, Italy, Austria, France, and others have taken steps to strengthen the so-called "social safety net" of unemployment, disability, paternity leave, gay-partner benefits, and other concerns. Its almost as if one day the EU decided that it had reached a level of maturity and wealth that obligated its member countries to leave no person without lodging, food, clothing, medicine, and a certain degree of comfort. This is a very worthy goal, but a bit too utopian for my reality. Not every EU member state is drowning in wealth. In fact, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain threaten to scuttle the entire EU scheme in debt sometime within the next decade. Sadly enough, these four countries have each been forced to deal with the ever-increasing issue of seaborne illegal-migrant traffic (in this instance, Europeans use the word "migrant" instead of "immigrant"). Part of the EU's effort to deny no person basic human rights was the decision to not repatriate these sea-borne migrants who come by the hundreds of thousands every year (except in the case of terrorists or murderers....good luck checking everyone). Once these refugees from Niger, Libya, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Congo, etc., either land or are intercepted at sea (lets not reflect too long on the poor souls who never make it to this point....its too heartbreaking for me to consider), they are distributed to various immigrant processing locations. Just because a boatload of migrants was intercepted in Italian waters does not guarantee that they will become wards of the Italian state. They may end up in Austria, or Denmark. But wherever they end up, one fact is guaranteed: they are the responsibility of the state, i.e. the taxpayers of whatever country we are dealing with. Some nations, including France and Austria, have been very proactive in creating education and employment training programs for the migrants. Ideally, the new arrivals will soon become productive, job-holding, tax-paying members of society. Sadly, it just doesn't happen that way; at least not often enough.
Recently I saw an interview with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front political party and possibly the front runner for the presidency in 2017. I can't say that I agree with everything this lady has to say, but I give her credit for being intelligent, clear and to-the-point. As is highlighted in the second link above, Le Pen points out that the longer the EU states continue the policy of guaranteed legal residency for all persons who manage to float a dinghy in the direction of Europe, then the number of migrants will continue to increase. Soon the numbers will become unsupportable. If residency is no longer a guarantee, and persons who attempt an illegal entry by sea are treated in the same manner as those who attempt an illegal entry by land (repatriation), then people will stop risking their lives and their meager savings in this effort. Look, its normal for decent folks to have sympathy for persons who are trapped in the third world and have little hope for the future. But there are other avenues to help that do not involve drowning your own country and crippling the future of your children and grandchildren. Europe is not financially able to support a third of the population of Africa. In fact, the more I look at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy, the more concerned I become regarding the EU's ability to support itself.
B. France's NF calls for an end to allowing migrants entry.
In the last few weeks, calm seas have resulted in thousands of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, hoping to reach Europe and a brighter future. I can't blame these folks; I would probably being taking the same action if I were in their shoes. It's not a difficult issue to understand. People in north and sub-Saharan Africa, who struggle to feed their families and have no real hope of bettering their lives, will spend whatever meager amount of money they can raise to try and hire a smuggler to find a place on a boat that will sail in the direction of Europe. One difference between the illegal immigration in this part of the world and the problem on the U.S./Mexico border: persons attempting illegal entry into the southern United States (mostly from Mexico and Central America) usually don't bring their families. They settle in, find a job, and send for their families later (ideally), who then repeat the process as a group. Border Patrol officers on the U.S./Mexico border normally encounter adult males, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, who are attempting illegal entry. Certainly families will attempt to cross together on occasion, but usually the male bread winner will come first. For most persons attempting the crossing of the Mediterranean, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; therefore a much higher percentage of families will attempt the crossing together. This detail increases the number of children and elderly who are at risk, and ultimately, become casualties.
The various Republics that constitute the European Union (EU) in 2015 (and those who cling to the periphery, like the UK and Norway), have elbowed and bruised each other to see who can be the most "progressive" and "liberal". This has resulted in a number of positive developments, especially in the area of minority rights. A serious movement exists to guarantee women equal pay for equal work, and the gay community has been granted certain protections that combat homophobia not only in the workplace but in public environments as well. The move to appear more progressive has really focused on the social issues of each respective nation. Certainly Germany, Italy, Austria, France, and others have taken steps to strengthen the so-called "social safety net" of unemployment, disability, paternity leave, gay-partner benefits, and other concerns. Its almost as if one day the EU decided that it had reached a level of maturity and wealth that obligated its member countries to leave no person without lodging, food, clothing, medicine, and a certain degree of comfort. This is a very worthy goal, but a bit too utopian for my reality. Not every EU member state is drowning in wealth. In fact, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain threaten to scuttle the entire EU scheme in debt sometime within the next decade. Sadly enough, these four countries have each been forced to deal with the ever-increasing issue of seaborne illegal-migrant traffic (in this instance, Europeans use the word "migrant" instead of "immigrant"). Part of the EU's effort to deny no person basic human rights was the decision to not repatriate these sea-borne migrants who come by the hundreds of thousands every year (except in the case of terrorists or murderers....good luck checking everyone). Once these refugees from Niger, Libya, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Congo, etc., either land or are intercepted at sea (lets not reflect too long on the poor souls who never make it to this point....its too heartbreaking for me to consider), they are distributed to various immigrant processing locations. Just because a boatload of migrants was intercepted in Italian waters does not guarantee that they will become wards of the Italian state. They may end up in Austria, or Denmark. But wherever they end up, one fact is guaranteed: they are the responsibility of the state, i.e. the taxpayers of whatever country we are dealing with. Some nations, including France and Austria, have been very proactive in creating education and employment training programs for the migrants. Ideally, the new arrivals will soon become productive, job-holding, tax-paying members of society. Sadly, it just doesn't happen that way; at least not often enough.
Recently I saw an interview with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front political party and possibly the front runner for the presidency in 2017. I can't say that I agree with everything this lady has to say, but I give her credit for being intelligent, clear and to-the-point. As is highlighted in the second link above, Le Pen points out that the longer the EU states continue the policy of guaranteed legal residency for all persons who manage to float a dinghy in the direction of Europe, then the number of migrants will continue to increase. Soon the numbers will become unsupportable. If residency is no longer a guarantee, and persons who attempt an illegal entry by sea are treated in the same manner as those who attempt an illegal entry by land (repatriation), then people will stop risking their lives and their meager savings in this effort. Look, its normal for decent folks to have sympathy for persons who are trapped in the third world and have little hope for the future. But there are other avenues to help that do not involve drowning your own country and crippling the future of your children and grandchildren. Europe is not financially able to support a third of the population of Africa. In fact, the more I look at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy, the more concerned I become regarding the EU's ability to support itself.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part II)
Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest. I see too many similarities not to comment. And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition. Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL). As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other. The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces. An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved. In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria. This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida. Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does. The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.
On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris. The first and second links contain the necessary details. I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it. But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician. He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries. I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes. I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated. Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope. Erdogan is playing the same game. What can he get away with? Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria. Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now. But Erdogan has his sights set higher. I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make. Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU. What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate. The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it. I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office. As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment. He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist. I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time. Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture. The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak. I also don't think he is as patient as he once was. I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned. With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times. Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest. I see too many similarities not to comment. And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition. Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL). As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other. The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces. An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved. In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria. This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida. Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does. The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.
On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris. The first and second links contain the necessary details. I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it. But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician. He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries. I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes. I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated. Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope. Erdogan is playing the same game. What can he get away with? Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria. Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now. But Erdogan has his sights set higher. I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make. Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU. What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate. The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it. I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office. As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment. He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist. I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time. Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture. The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak. I also don't think he is as patient as he once was. I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned. With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times. Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part I)
Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
The more President Recep Erdogan aligns Turkey with the cause of Radical Islam, the more I feel my heart breaking. You see, I am a Turkophile. I studied Ottoman history when I was younger, and have enjoyed a number of visits to Turkey. One of the most startling impressions I recall during my initial trip to Turkey, was that the Turkish people appeared to be much more European than "Middle Eastern" (forgive the use of that term). I had spent time in Jordan and the Gulf States, and also in Lebanon. I expected Turks to be similar in appearance and culture to Jordanians and Egyptians, but I was mistaken. I had no trouble imagining the Turkish people living in Greece, or the Balkans. In fact, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks do live in the Balkans, in Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. A substantial number of Turks also live in the Thrace region of Greece, although no where near the numbers who inhabited Thessaloniki at the turn of the century 1900. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its subsequent disposal in the bonfire of history (1922), Turkey's new leader was determined to steer a modern, secular path for new Turkish state. Kemal Ataturk was successful at just about every turn, as the people were more than ready for his message of peace, accountability and reform. Turkey managed to stay neutral during the Second World War (not declaring war on Germany until February 23, 1945). The Turkish people were in no position (or mood) for another World War, and they used peacetime to expand and diversify the Turkish economy, reform the educational system, and rewrite the tax codes. When first taking power, Ataturk decided to end the Turkish habit of wearing the Fez. He was successful, and it became acceptable for women to dress in the European style. Ataturk was so successful because basically the Turkish people were of one mind. They wanted to put the rigid, excessively conservative traditions of the Ottomans back into the seventeenth century, where they belonged. The economy of Turkey slowly began to resemble its European neighbors, as hard-work, determination and dedication became the keys to personal success. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Turkey took a hit in the international press because of the amount of hashish that was being grown and exported out of Turkey. As an Example, the Turkish Courts locked up a few European (and one very vocal American) smugglers and threw away the key. The Turks thought that they were responding appropriately, but instead, the curse of "The Midnight Express" continued to damage Turkey's international reputation and tourism for at least a decade.
Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and
lows. Fortunately, the highs outnumber the lows. At times, the Turkish economy has been a juggernaut. Even after the end of the Cold War, when the newly free economies of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were expected to stand out, Turkey continued to double other European nations in percentage of GDP growth. The Turkish people do not shy away from hard work, and Turkey seems to be permanently poised on the precipice of developing a full-scale European style economy. The EU is waiting for just such an indication to move the Turks closer to EU membership. Roughly fifteen years ago, the Turkish government made a huge statement by normalizing relations with Israel and beginning a series of joint military exercises. The west and NATO were thrilled with this development, because it confirmed in their minds what they had hoped: that Turkey, regardless of its democratically-elected government, was still controlled by the pro-west, secular Military High Command. The Turkish Army had already exhibited its willingness to remove a democratically-elected government or two, if they weren't pleased with the direction of the country. For the most part, the Turkish people seemed content with the "backstop" provided by the Generals. The United States/NATO, with bases in Turkey and missiles on Turkish territory pointed at the USSR, were only too happy to train and equip what had become an outstanding armed forces.
Fast-forward to 2015. Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics. When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the
religious right. But Erdogan played his cards like a master. He was patient, and used the time to flirt with the west and the EU, all the while insulating the Turkish bureaucracy and military with his sycophants. Erdogan had a plan, and it required that he stay in office until 2014, at which time he would run for president (successfully). He didn't miss a beat; all the way, Erdogan loyalists started showing up in the police and intelligence agencies, on the bench, in the different branches of the military, and as political strong-men around Turkey proper. By 2010, Erdogan felt safe enough to speak ill of the west and the EU. The United States was next on his list, and the end of the good relations with Israel was only a matter of time. What a far cry from Erdogan at his initial inauguration in 2003, when he spoke so respectfully of the EU and Turkey's rightful place in the Union. Erdogan began to create a new foreign policy for Turkey: one that appears headed for the end of Turkish membership in NATO. It's safe to say that unless something happens very soon that changes the direction of Turkish politics, the idea of Turkey being a member of the EU is nothing more than a joke. What I find fascinating, is that Erdogan appears to be replicating what Hitler achieved in 1933-39. Erdogan is determined to create a strong Turkey, so strong that alliances can be made at the moment and discarded when no longer needed. He wants a rebirth of the nationalism that coincided with the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith, and he is to be the new Suleiman the Magnificent. Just as Hitler discreetly promoted anti-Jewish and anti-minority movements, Erdogan quietly (but obviously) encourages right-wing groups to attack U.S. sailors and march against foreign influence in Turkey. His lasting campaign has been internal, as he begins a determined assault on the traditionally non-aligned, vocal Turkish press. Last year, a scandal involving corruption and persons close to Erdogan, almost brought down the government. As I write this, the bill has come due. Journalists have been arrested, dailies shut down, and untold numbers of persons threatened. This pattern seems so familiar. In the past, the west and the Turkish people could have relied upon the military to return the balance by staging a coup and replacing now-President Erdogan. But that part of his plan has already gone into affect. Erdogan purged the military hierarchy in 2013, and today one in five Turkish Generals sit in prison (see Link C for details). The details concerning the prosecutor's case against hundreds of military officers is much too complicated for this blog. But I've read just about every document I can find, and this is without doubt a well-planned and flawlessly executed operation to neuter the Turkish military. The only Generals and Admirals left on the General Staff are cowed yes-men and Erdogan Sycophants. Again, just like Hitler. (End of Part I)
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
 |
| Turkish Flag |
Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and
 |
| Flag of NATO |
Fast-forward to 2015. Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics. When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the
 |
| Putin, Erdogan, and Berlusconi 2005; source: Kremlin.ru |
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again
Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Post-Scotland: Crisis for Independence Movements in Europe?
List: Scotland Independence Referendum Complete Results
I was one of the many who anxiously followed the Scottish Independence Referendum results as they were announced. I'm not Scottish, but I love Scotland and I'm a bit sad that the voters rejected outright independence. I'm also surprised. I can't explain why, but I had this feeling that the voters would surprise the pundits. Actually, they did. The vote wasn't really close. So I'm stuck humming "Loch Lomond" with a permanent vision of Queen Elizabeth and those ugly little dogs in my head. Back on the continent, different folks with a variety of agendas set about interpreting the results. Personally, I don't believe the referendum on Scotland is a precursor to anything (accept possibly another go by the Quebecois to separate from Canada). Those persons keeping an eye on the various European independence movements now turn their focus on Catalonia, Spain.
In 2012 the state government of Catalonia signed an agreement stating that a referendum on independence from Spain would be held in 2014 unless "socio-economic and political context make a postponement necessary". Madrid is doing everything possible to legally combat the independence movement, which shouldn't be a surprise. I will not get into the nuts and bolts of the Spanish financial crisis, except to say that I believe high domestic growth and international financing confidence indicate that the economy is on the mend. The recent modest improvements in the economy have not discouraged the movement for Catalonian Independence. Many Catalonians believe that Catalonia provides more to the Spanish government than it gets in return, especially when Barcelona is factored into the equation. If Catalonia manages to hold the referendum in 2014 (which becomes less likely everyday), there is little doubt that the people will vote to secede by a statistical majority. Even if the referendum is postponed for a year, I can't envision a scenario in which the Catalonian people vote against independence. I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the only way that Madrid can avoid a separation with Catalonia, is by proposing increased autonomy, and hoping that the Catalonians won't act unilaterally. Frankly, I don't see this ending well. With the Basque question presently on the back-burner ("hey, we were here first!"), the Spanish people are beginning to resent the Catalonian independence movement. Most Spaniards have felt the pinch of austerity in recent years, and the Spanish media never misses an opportunity to portray Barcelona as the Bacchanalian capital of Europe, with plenty of drunk students and money from tourists to go around. My biggest concern, is that Madrid will be obliged to provide Catalonia with virtual independence, and the Basques will be right behind.
In all honestly, the so-called independence movements in mainland France (Brittany and Normandy being the only two that have received any media attention) are used as platforms to attract tourists. Both Brittany and Normandy have fascinating and unique customs and dialects, but so does every region of France (trust me on this one; my family is from Angouleme). The one exception is Corsica.
Since 1960, Corsica has suffered through periods of unrest highlighted by violence committed by Corsican nationalist groups. Because of its location, the culture of Corsica incorporates traditions from France, Spain, as well as Italy. In the mid to late 1970s, the underground independence movement was responsible for a number of assassinations, including mayors and policemen. The government in Paris reacted aggressively and many arrests were made. In the 1990s, the independence movement collapsed due to internal conflict, and in 2000, French President Lionel Jospin granted increased autonomy to Corsica. Since then steps have been taken to protect the indigenous language, which is close to extinction. One issue that has consistently caused problems is the building of summer/vacation homes in Corsica by wealthy Parisian families. The last time I checked, the Parisians were winning, I'm sorry to say (of course, there's nothing wrong with a polite, half-French, half-Texan buying a vacation house in Bastia, right?). You can commit the Corsican independence movement to history; France has won.
I am fascinated by the case of Belgium. Fifty-five percent of Belgians (the northern side) speak Flemish (Dutch), and forty-five percent (the southern side), speak French and call themselves Walloons. I once read an article which described Belgium as suffering from a case of "linguistic apartheid", which, ironically, is a Dutch word. Basically, Belgium is a country made up of two separate nationalities, the Flemish and the Walloons, and neither side wants to play with the other. Belgium is a wealthy country of 11.2 million souls, and (more irony), its capital Brussels is considered the de facto capital of the European Union. Having spent some time in Belgium, I must say there seems to be a bit of snobbery at play on the part of the Flemish. What keeps Belgium together? More than anything else, its royal family. Don't misunderstand; the Belgians don't adore their royals as the Dutch love the House of Orange. Its just that the royal family seems to be the one thing that presides equally over both sides. The rational thing to do would be for the Netherlands to annex north Belgium and for France to annex the south. Brussels (and its environs) could remain a city-state, continuing its important functions relating to NATO and the EU. But for something this prolific to happen, enough folks on both side would have to make the effort. And no one cares enough to make the effort.
I won't delve into the examples of German "independence movements", because they follow the same examples of mainland France. Bavarians want to talk about independence, but only if you come for Oktoberfest and drink lots of beer. If you enjoy history as much as I do, you will appreciate the case of South Tyrol. This situation involves Austria, not Germany; but I took advantage of the shared language to build a nice segue. Time for a bit of history. In 1914, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire went to war against France, Russia, England, and Serbia (the Ottoman Empire, the United States, Italy and a few others joined later). At the time, Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) were bound by a mutual-defense treaty with Italy. The Italians chose to interpret their obligations quite narrowly and announced neutrality. In 1915, Italy renounced its neutrality and declared war on the central Powers (Italy's former allies). After the war, the victorious Allies dismembered Austria-Hungary, and, in payment for services rendered, gave Italy large swaths of Austrian territory including South Tyrol. Even though another World War has occurred (in which the Italians switched sides AGAIN), many Austrians still resent Italy's land grab. The former province of Tyrol is now split into North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). Even today, seventy percent of people in South Tyrol speak German and identify themselves as ethnically Austrian. Austrians in Tyrol take this issue very seriously, and at times groups of armed men have gathered in the mountains, anticipating hostilities. Why won't Italy act sensibly, and return South Tyrol to Austria? It has everything to do with the fact that South Tyrol is a wealthy province, with a booming tourist industry and a robust agricultural sector. Unfortunately for Austrian Tyrolians, the government in Vienna is more pacifist than Heidi, and does nothing more than occasionally mention the issue politely through diplomatic channels. In 1866, Italy demanded an end to Austrian rule in Venice because Venice was obviously an Italian city. In 1918, the situation repeated itself with Trieste. How about a little fair play from Rome? Don't hold your breath.
I began this post with a bit of reflection on the Scottish referendum, and really never made any correlations. I guess that was the point. Every circumstance is different, and the independence issues on the mainland bear more similarities to the late problems in northern Ireland than they to do the temporary family disagreement over Scotland's status. I do believe the issues mentioned above will attract the attention of the European media some time before the end of the year (with the exception of Corsica), as some dispensation has been debated. Personally, I'm anxious to see the Quebec independence movement (Mouvement Souverainiste du Quebec) reassert itself and call for another referendum. In 1995, the vote was razor-thin, with fifty-one-percent voting against independence and 49 percent in favor.
I was one of the many who anxiously followed the Scottish Independence Referendum results as they were announced. I'm not Scottish, but I love Scotland and I'm a bit sad that the voters rejected outright independence. I'm also surprised. I can't explain why, but I had this feeling that the voters would surprise the pundits. Actually, they did. The vote wasn't really close. So I'm stuck humming "Loch Lomond" with a permanent vision of Queen Elizabeth and those ugly little dogs in my head. Back on the continent, different folks with a variety of agendas set about interpreting the results. Personally, I don't believe the referendum on Scotland is a precursor to anything (accept possibly another go by the Quebecois to separate from Canada). Those persons keeping an eye on the various European independence movements now turn their focus on Catalonia, Spain.
In 2012 the state government of Catalonia signed an agreement stating that a referendum on independence from Spain would be held in 2014 unless "socio-economic and political context make a postponement necessary". Madrid is doing everything possible to legally combat the independence movement, which shouldn't be a surprise. I will not get into the nuts and bolts of the Spanish financial crisis, except to say that I believe high domestic growth and international financing confidence indicate that the economy is on the mend. The recent modest improvements in the economy have not discouraged the movement for Catalonian Independence. Many Catalonians believe that Catalonia provides more to the Spanish government than it gets in return, especially when Barcelona is factored into the equation. If Catalonia manages to hold the referendum in 2014 (which becomes less likely everyday), there is little doubt that the people will vote to secede by a statistical majority. Even if the referendum is postponed for a year, I can't envision a scenario in which the Catalonian people vote against independence. I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the only way that Madrid can avoid a separation with Catalonia, is by proposing increased autonomy, and hoping that the Catalonians won't act unilaterally. Frankly, I don't see this ending well. With the Basque question presently on the back-burner ("hey, we were here first!"), the Spanish people are beginning to resent the Catalonian independence movement. Most Spaniards have felt the pinch of austerity in recent years, and the Spanish media never misses an opportunity to portray Barcelona as the Bacchanalian capital of Europe, with plenty of drunk students and money from tourists to go around. My biggest concern, is that Madrid will be obliged to provide Catalonia with virtual independence, and the Basques will be right behind.
In all honestly, the so-called independence movements in mainland France (Brittany and Normandy being the only two that have received any media attention) are used as platforms to attract tourists. Both Brittany and Normandy have fascinating and unique customs and dialects, but so does every region of France (trust me on this one; my family is from Angouleme). The one exception is Corsica.
Since 1960, Corsica has suffered through periods of unrest highlighted by violence committed by Corsican nationalist groups. Because of its location, the culture of Corsica incorporates traditions from France, Spain, as well as Italy. In the mid to late 1970s, the underground independence movement was responsible for a number of assassinations, including mayors and policemen. The government in Paris reacted aggressively and many arrests were made. In the 1990s, the independence movement collapsed due to internal conflict, and in 2000, French President Lionel Jospin granted increased autonomy to Corsica. Since then steps have been taken to protect the indigenous language, which is close to extinction. One issue that has consistently caused problems is the building of summer/vacation homes in Corsica by wealthy Parisian families. The last time I checked, the Parisians were winning, I'm sorry to say (of course, there's nothing wrong with a polite, half-French, half-Texan buying a vacation house in Bastia, right?). You can commit the Corsican independence movement to history; France has won.
I am fascinated by the case of Belgium. Fifty-five percent of Belgians (the northern side) speak Flemish (Dutch), and forty-five percent (the southern side), speak French and call themselves Walloons. I once read an article which described Belgium as suffering from a case of "linguistic apartheid", which, ironically, is a Dutch word. Basically, Belgium is a country made up of two separate nationalities, the Flemish and the Walloons, and neither side wants to play with the other. Belgium is a wealthy country of 11.2 million souls, and (more irony), its capital Brussels is considered the de facto capital of the European Union. Having spent some time in Belgium, I must say there seems to be a bit of snobbery at play on the part of the Flemish. What keeps Belgium together? More than anything else, its royal family. Don't misunderstand; the Belgians don't adore their royals as the Dutch love the House of Orange. Its just that the royal family seems to be the one thing that presides equally over both sides. The rational thing to do would be for the Netherlands to annex north Belgium and for France to annex the south. Brussels (and its environs) could remain a city-state, continuing its important functions relating to NATO and the EU. But for something this prolific to happen, enough folks on both side would have to make the effort. And no one cares enough to make the effort.
I won't delve into the examples of German "independence movements", because they follow the same examples of mainland France. Bavarians want to talk about independence, but only if you come for Oktoberfest and drink lots of beer. If you enjoy history as much as I do, you will appreciate the case of South Tyrol. This situation involves Austria, not Germany; but I took advantage of the shared language to build a nice segue. Time for a bit of history. In 1914, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire went to war against France, Russia, England, and Serbia (the Ottoman Empire, the United States, Italy and a few others joined later). At the time, Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) were bound by a mutual-defense treaty with Italy. The Italians chose to interpret their obligations quite narrowly and announced neutrality. In 1915, Italy renounced its neutrality and declared war on the central Powers (Italy's former allies). After the war, the victorious Allies dismembered Austria-Hungary, and, in payment for services rendered, gave Italy large swaths of Austrian territory including South Tyrol. Even though another World War has occurred (in which the Italians switched sides AGAIN), many Austrians still resent Italy's land grab. The former province of Tyrol is now split into North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). Even today, seventy percent of people in South Tyrol speak German and identify themselves as ethnically Austrian. Austrians in Tyrol take this issue very seriously, and at times groups of armed men have gathered in the mountains, anticipating hostilities. Why won't Italy act sensibly, and return South Tyrol to Austria? It has everything to do with the fact that South Tyrol is a wealthy province, with a booming tourist industry and a robust agricultural sector. Unfortunately for Austrian Tyrolians, the government in Vienna is more pacifist than Heidi, and does nothing more than occasionally mention the issue politely through diplomatic channels. In 1866, Italy demanded an end to Austrian rule in Venice because Venice was obviously an Italian city. In 1918, the situation repeated itself with Trieste. How about a little fair play from Rome? Don't hold your breath.
I began this post with a bit of reflection on the Scottish referendum, and really never made any correlations. I guess that was the point. Every circumstance is different, and the independence issues on the mainland bear more similarities to the late problems in northern Ireland than they to do the temporary family disagreement over Scotland's status. I do believe the issues mentioned above will attract the attention of the European media some time before the end of the year (with the exception of Corsica), as some dispensation has been debated. Personally, I'm anxious to see the Quebec independence movement (Mouvement Souverainiste du Quebec) reassert itself and call for another referendum. In 1995, the vote was razor-thin, with fifty-one-percent voting against independence and 49 percent in favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)