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!

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?    

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.    

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. 

Turkey, Where Do You Stand?

Links: A. U.S. Sailors Attacked In Turkey
           B. Erdogan Cleans Out The Turkish General Staff

The diplomatic mess that has been created by our semi-military entry into the Syrian conflict is something to behold.  The main reason we are mired in this mess is because we do not have a clear policy in the region.  Turkey is a beast to try and understand politically.

Tayyip Erdogan,
President of Turkey

Internally, President Tayyip Erdogan has won the battle with the military and no longer has to sweat under the constant fear of a coup.  There can be no doubt that Erdogan is the driving force behind the slow, methodical creep of Turkey towards Islamization.  Erdogan gained the respect of European liberals when he apologized for the Armenian massacres of the past, and in 2009, it appeared that Turkey might actually be prepared to co-exist with a Kurdish nation.  But understanding the reality of Turko-politics requires an almost day-to-day study of the subject matter.  Simply put, Turkey is interested in developing a relationship with a Kurdish group that has access to Iraqi/Kurdish oil.  Turkey will pretend to support the idea of Kurdish statehood as long as it has access to Kurdish oil.  Once things start to get serious, Turkey switches allegiances to another Kurdish political group and the process starts all over.  If allowed, the Turks will play this game all day.  The reality is, Ankara will never agree to the creation of a legitimate Kurdish state that shares a border with Turkey.  The Turks have absolutely no good will towards the Kurdish people and they never will.  Additionally, Erdogan is determined to see Syria's Bashir al-Assad removed from power.  The whispers that Turkey secretly supports the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) probably has more to do with Erdogan's hatred of Assad than anything else.  I have no clue what Erdogan's long-term strategy is towards the Kurds, although he has made his economic interest quite clear.  And something I do know: Erdogan wants out from under Gazprom (Russian natural gas exporter) and Vladimir Putin's finger.

In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Turkey made its position clear by limiting the use of our own Air Force Bases (albeit in Turkey).  At the time, President George W. Bush, who could be supremely naïve at times, assumed that Erdogan wanted to support the U.S. efforts, but couldn't because of internal issues.  Bullshit.  Erdogan was sending the message that "business as usual" was no longer the acceptable.  Erdogan does not want Turkey to be allied to the United States.  In fact, I don't think Erdogan wants EU membership.   Has anyone noticed that Erdogan played the same, "well, I can't be Prime Minister anymore, so I might as well be President" game that Putin invented?  Erdogan sees himself as a latter-day Sultan, who will usher in a new age of international Turkish power and influence.  He sees Turkey as being ideally situated to lead a group of moderate

Islamic states into the next century.  What makes Erdogan so dangerous is the size and strength of the Turkish military (built by the U.S.).  For many years, the Turks were solely interested in keeping abreast militarily of their historic enemy, Greece.  Turkey always needed one more Frigate, one more F-16 squadron,  or one more tank batallion, than Greece.  The times have changed.  Turkey became a huge customer of U.S. military equipment (some of which arrived as part of aid packages); and the U.S. military always obliges when a friend requests training.  The United States has equipped and trained the Turkish military, which is now one of the world's elite.  Behind the scenes, the U.S. was always happy to provide whatever the Turks wanted, because we thought we were feeding the "safety valve": the Turkish General Staff.  When Erdogan and his AKP party took power, the Pentagon whispered, "as soon as he starts preaching Islamic mumbo-jumbo, the Army will have him under arrest".  However, Tayyip was smarter than the crusty old birds at the Pentagon.  He played the role of moderate reformer, until he was in a position to stage a reverse-coup (see the second link).  The four top Generals who bit the dust, I mean "resigned", were examples of Turkey's move away from the threat of military intervention in civilian politics.  But it left the Pentagon asking, "who is driving that expensive Turkish Lamborghini that we've spent decades paying for?"

I have always loved Turkey and the Turks.  Istanbul is an amazing place full of mystery, intrigue and danger.  And once you get out of the city and into the countryside, you will never find a friendlier, more generous people than the Turks.  If you don't believe me, then take a trip to Turkey yourself . . . but hurry.  I remember as a young boy going to the Judson 4 Drive-In Theater with my family, and watching the movie "Midnight Express" (not a kids movie for sure, but my parents had to get some culture sometime).  After seeing this movie, I remember that being frightened out of my wits by all things "Turkish".  The film did a tremendous disservice to the Turkish nation and to this day still causes bad feelings.  The truth is, the young American Billy Hayes got caught trying to board a Pan Am flight to New York with a load of Hashish taped to his stomach.  Turkey felt the need to make an example out of Hayes, and the rest is history.  For the record, Hayes has since apologized to the Turkish people for the negative image of Turkey that his book encouraged.  The new Turkey, though, has negative emotions about the United States that have nothing to do with a 1970's movie.  Turkey has taken a decided step towards Islamization.  Although Erdogan has driven the chariot, the entire blame for this movement can't be laid on him.  For some reason, the Turkish people, who for so many years proudly embraced the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk, started looking towards their Islamic heritage for direction.  At the same time, a smaller, less influential movement is encouraging young Turks to embrace the image of Turkey as a political leader of nations, not tied to any religious ideology or diplomatic obligations.  It was supporters of this perspective who, this week, attacked the three U.S. sailors dressed in their civilian clothes and who were hoping to do a bit of sightseeing on their day of leave.  This attack, which was videotaped, is very disturbing if only for the fear you can imagine these young men must have been feeling.  As I have pointed out ad nauseam: we currently have no influence diplomatically anywhere in the world.  So it came as no surprise that the Turkish authorities simply released the persons responsible for this assault.  Oh, I yearn for the days of Ronald Reagan, when these punks would have been hung out to dry.

So this is the Turkey of 2014.  Lumbering towards Islamization, no longer an ally of the United States, hostile to the Kurds, the Israelis, Assad, and the Iraqi government (is the Iraqi government still there?  I haven't checked yet today), and brandishing a military that

Mehmet II, Ottoman Sultan
1441-1446, 1451-1481

would make Mehmet II proud.  Recently, I had a Turkish friend of mine ask me to explain the United States policy regarding Syria, Iraq and the ISIL.  All I could say is that we have collected a few Qatari and Emirati friends, and alongside our Air Force, we are in the process of bombing the shit out of the ISIL.  Oh, and we are also training the Free Syrian Army to be defensive when the time comes.  In other words, I had no answer.  True that I'm no fan of the current administration, but as an American I wish I could have given a better response.  What really frightens me is that Joe Biden is heading to Ankara for talks with Erdogan, after recently insulting Erdogan and having to issue an apology.  Erdogan must be salivating, waiting for this opportunity to embarrass this ASS of a Vice President.  How did we end up with such amateurs in the White House?  Eventually, something is going to give.  Either the ISIL is going to sack Baghdad, or Assad is going to retake the initiative militarily and piss off the Turks to no end (then it will be our fault for degrading ISIL).  Hey, at least it won't be boring.     

The Advent of the Functioning Failed State....

Link: Has the West Failed Eastern Europe?


The Balkans region is the national nursery of Europe.  With the establishment of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and the renewed attempts at economic and political rejuvenation in Albania, the Balkans seem to be alive with growth.  South of Kosovo are Macedonia and Greece, and to the east you find Rumania and Bulgaria.  The people of Kosovo recently celebrated their Declaration of Independence, with the hope that economic growth and political stability would follow.  But Eastern Europe, regardless of the recent developments in Kosovo, is home to stagnating economies and political instability.  In fact, you would be hard-pressed to identify a country in the region (possibly Serbia) that does not fit the description of a "failed state". 

With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the subsequent collapse of totalitarian regimes in Rumania and Bulgaria, there was great excitement and hope for national rebirth.  Unfortunately, both Rumania and Bulgaria suffered from an endemic type of corruption deluxe.  Every branch of government seemed to function on a unique form of bribery and nepotism.  It would take much more than a change in government to reform the corrupt judicial and administrative systems that had atrophied under communist rule.  In order for Bulgaria and Rumania to succeed, it would be necessary to build from the ground up, and would require immediate sacrifice from every level of society.  And many people were not willing to make the sacrifice.  Since the fall of communism, both Bulgaria and Rumania have stuttered and staggered towards a pseudo-capitalist economic system, still fighting corruption in government, still dealing with the presence in power of some of the old communists that had been part of the original problem.  The average person doesn't see the big picture.  the average citizen realizes that their standard of living has no improved since the defeat of the communists.  In fact, crime has increased and the trains don't always run on schedule anymore.  They blame the political changes for all the problems they face today, long for the stability of the past, and vote communist.  Both Bulgaria and Rumania are failed states.  They function almost out of habit.

Greece is the country that wants to be European, but doesn't want to make the sacrifices and the reforms necessary for the long-term economic stability that exists in places like Austria and Denmark.  The Greek people do not seem to understand why they are different.  They refuse to examine their economic and political system, where lies the answers to their question.  It was probably wishful thinking on behalf of the European Union that allowed for Greece's acceptance into the EU.  The Greek economy was not structured to compete effectively with other European markets.  Socialist governments in Greece had created so many loopholes and exceptions to the tax code, not to mention pension growth that far outweighed economic growth, that the Greek economic system bore very little resemblance to its European Union partners.  The Greek economy is also dependent upon a vibrant tourist industry.  When political problems (and the threat of terrorism) discourage tourism, the Greek government must look elsewhere to make up the lost income.  The EU has been willing to bail out Greece, but repeated requests for permanent reform (including hated changes to the pension system and the tax code) have met with demonstrations, riots, and revolving-door governments.  Greece has become a failed state.  It also still functions, but at the end of the day the economic forecasts promise more conflict with the EU.

Macedonia was born on the rump of the former Yugoslavia.  At birth, the Macedonian economy was in no position to support an entire nation.  Efforts to build a diversified economy have resulted in less dependence on foreign imports for foodstuffs, but Macedonia is also in great need of improvements in infrastructure.  Macedonia is landlocked, and all trade must be transported on a less-than adequate road network that was heavily damaged during the Kosovo conflict.  Macedonia lives on loans, just like its neighbors.  At least the possibility of a Civil War with Albanian separatists has diminished, and the political system seems to be vibrant.  But Macedonia is a young, failed state.  On the other hand, Albania has been a political entity for roughly a century.  The Albanian people, God bless them, have suffered heroically through repeated corrupt administrations, both socialist and "democratic".  It seems impossible to find an Albanian politician who isn't "on the take".  The Black Market, smuggling cigarettes, booze, and women, functions much more effectively than the national economy.  But the people, with a trust in traditional methods of subsistence, persevere.  Albania functions, but it certainly fits the mold of a failed state.

The link I have provided questions the European commitment to Eastern Europe.  When Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Rumania threw off the yoke of communist/socialist control, the diplomatic response was very supportive.  But the money and the assistance (to rebuild infrastructure, train and educate workers, etc.) was either non-existent or slow in arriving.  For all practical purposes these nations were left to their own devices.  Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina both have the misfortune and the fortune of being temporary home to various European military elements.  But both Kosovo and B-H have healthy, ingrained Black Markets that won't hesitate to compete with legitimate businesses.  Kosovars benefit tremendously from an Ex-Pat community (particularly in the United States) that continues to pay for improvements in infrastructure (although power is a real concern).  The EU has made its presence known (the Office of European Cooperation in particular) recently, in a Johnny-come-lately fashion.  But it may be too little too late.  The people of Eastern Europe have lost faith in the EU, and European taxpayers are growing weary of expenditures into "nowhere".  The future is not bright for the functioning, failed states of Eastern Europe.