1. John L. June 18, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

    Unfortunately what you fail to realize in your article on “The Myth of the Bush Administration Being Strong on Homeland Security” is that really doesn’t matter who is in the White House anymore. They are all the same, it doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat. Our failures in the Middle East were sown long ago, long before the second Bush administration.

    As for our problems at home, the gangsters in Washington only know one thing, “Where is my cut?”

  2. Hamurabi July 2, 2008 @ 8:58 am

    Hi there
    I could not agree more Franklin. I think it is a shame that the people are really buying the only card that the Mccain administration is playing, which is the home land security. Instead of you know, looking into domestic issues such as unemployment and other important issues for the american people, the Bush and the McCain administration are trying to lure people from the real domestic problems by focusing on future terrorism and god knows that we found out about all the lies with for exemple Iraq…
    Anyway, very interesting blog and I wish that you can posting interesting articles

  3. Tom Desrosier July 7, 2008 @ 6:58 am

    Good ideas here, perhaps you would indulge:

    – Doing nothing was not an option either; given the Taliban’s hold on Afganistan, and its apparent birthplace of Osama Bin Laden’s exported terrorism – I think we needed to do something. And in the vacumm left by routing the Taliban, we unfortunately needed to something else, and something else, and something else.

    – Given the intellegence the Bush Admin thought they had about Iraq’s WMD programs, I forgive them the invasion (if they truly believed the threat was real). However, I do not forgive the bungling manner in which Rumsfelt executed the war, nor do I forgive the general sycophantic behavior of the senior military in not pressing him when they knew he was wrong. The failing here I think, was the post-invasion management of the Iraq; the military most have known was was going to happen when the government was toppled – even I knew!

    Again, in either case, unsure doing nothing would have been better. But who knows.

    Tom Desrosier

  4. Franklin July 26, 2008 @ 12:50 pm

    Let’s say that the WMD was an honest mistake. The politicization of the war was unforgivable. In order to sell the war to the American public they low balled the resources it was going to take and fired the members of the forces who dared saying that the resources were not sufficient.

    War politicization is what puts the soldiers in harms way. Would the American public approve of the war had they said what it really entailed? They did not try making the argument public, they rather deceived the American public with best case scenarios and they buried the economy and the country under the heavy burden of debt.

  5. John L. July 11, 2008 @ 10:54 am

    Two ideas come to mind here on this subject, “Finish what you start” and “Don’t screw your friends!”

    “Finish what you start” goes back to the first Iraq conflict in the early 90’s. If you are going to “kick someone’s but” then do it and do it right. Don’t leave the job unfinished. Don’t blame it on “the lack of an exit strategy”.

    “Don’t screw your friends!” is the most important of these two ideas. You can’t go around propping up governments and then pull the rug out from underneath them like we did with the Shah! Did dumb arse Pres. Carter ever think about what the outcome would be when he made this incredibly stupid move to support the enemies of the Shah! You can thank Mr. Carter for all the crap we are going through today with Middle East.

    To top it all off, we try to prove to the world we have the right ideas about nation building with that clusterbleep, Iraq.

    I’m done ranting now.

  6. Mark July 29, 2008 @ 10:15 am

    Ok, let’s say it is so. The obvious next question is, to who’s gain? Name names. If all this is obvious to you, it is obvious to many others (me included), and yet, it continues unchallenged. We are inexorably marching down a path to hell with many informed witnesses. Common sense dictates there must be a specific beneficiary — so who? Name the names, or shut up and fall in line, right?

  7. Anjela September 19, 2008 @ 2:08 am

    Doing nothing was not an option either; given the Taliban’s hold on Afganistan, and its apparent birthplace of Osama Bin Laden’s exported terrorism – I think we needed to do something. And in the vacumm left by routing the Taliban, we unfortunately needed to something else, and something else, and something else.

  8. Franklin September 19, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

    Oh. Yes. Where is Bin Laden again?

  9. Franklin September 20, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

    I am glad you post an opinion contrary to mine. However, please don’t use the blog for linking to your business. The only reason I am asking you this is for the predatory nature of your business. So, I do accept your dissent, I do not accept using my blog for promoting predatory businesses. If you add the link again I will be forced to mark your comment as spam.

The Myth of the Bush Administration Being Strong on Homeland Security

Democracy, Iraq War, Thoughts Comments (9)

As the political campaign ramps up, the McCain cohort is trying to shape the debate of American politics around the single issue of Homeland Security.

However, there is no objective reason to believe that the current administration’s policies are the way to go.

There are two conflict hypothesis based on which the current two-front war is being conducted:

1. Fighting the enemy overseas to prevent regrouping

2. Democratizing the Middle East to generate good will towards the America People and isolate her enemies

Unfortunately for us, both hypotheses have proven to be false. The American People has been patient and has given the proponents of this foreign policy the benefit of the doubt. Up to 2004, it was possible for the administration to make the case of being “almost there.” Nowadays, but for the results of the “surge” there is no much the administration can show for our efforts. However, despite the ebbs and flows of the conflict, the trend is against the American efforts. Let’s see why.

Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has not weaken the terrorist network and it may have strengthen it

The terrorist’s attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 are proof that fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan did not weaken them in any way. Unfortunately, that traditional war strategy will not help when fighting against small groups of people willing to die in battle. If we were fighting a regular army, by now they would be disbanded, without access to supplies and demoralized. In the case of small terrorist cells, that is not the case.

The best argument it could be make is that “at least is not making things worst”. That argument, I am afraid can’t me made either because our activity in Iraq and Afghanistan provided fuel to the arguments of the extremists.

The democratization of Iraq was a failure, and the democratization of Afghanistan is a myth

Not much to say on the first point. There are many historical reasons for our failure in Iraq, which I will not cover here, but if you look at the history of Iraq since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, you will see that the only sustainable governments were brutal dictatorships. Unfortunately the only way to establish a stable government in Iraq will be imposing a brutal dictator sympathetic to American interests, or to force the Iraqi people to accept the control of the United Nations in order to keep the internal peace. There is a third alternative, which is withdrawing all the American troops and leaving a small number of strategic bases protecting the oil fields and the Basra port.

In any way, the hypothesis of democratization of Iraq has proven false and should not be pushed any further.

Afghanistan’s democracy —although the situation is less volatile (for now) than in Iraq—, is nothing but a myth. Anyone who has followed or has studied the Soviet invasion will recognize that despite the ebbs and flows of the conflict we are not in a better position the Soviets were circa 1986. There is democracy in the capital city, and there is democracy in the provincial capitals today, much as there was a socialist government then. The parallels are staggering and scary. So far, there is no evidence of another big power providing weapons to our enemies and that may never happen, but that is where the differences stop.

The two-front war is draining America’s economy much in the same way the Afghan invasion drained the Soviet economy

Were we to follow this path under the illusion that the strategy of democratizing Afghanistan is effective; we would see high inflation in America’s economy within two years, and further destruction of our production capacity. It may take us a little longer than the ten years it took the Soviets to drain their last resource and fall, but we will get there.

As our deficit increases, so will the prices of imports and commodities, spilling over the rest of the economy causing deeper discontent among the American people. Were the current economic policies and current deficits continue, we would be seeing riots in the streets due to the increase in food prices. Soon, and I mean within a year (many municipalities are doing it right now) we will see reductions on the police budgets and an increase in crime and violence. As the dollar loses further value, the prices of imported goods will rise beyond the means of the working and lower middle classes and our high standard of living illusion will crumble under the weight of our out of hand deficit.

So, this is the result of staying our course:

· Hunger for the poor and privations for the middle class

· More crime

· Double digits unemployment rates

· More internal discontent and violence

· Destruction of cities due to failing infrastructure

· Further destruction of our industries as inflation makes it impossible to keep producing at a profit

· The elder without heat in the winter or cold in the summer and unable to buy medicine

· General the death of America as we know it and love it

Should we keep this course, in a matter of ten years people visiting the US for the first time will be unable to understand what was so great about the United States. We are seeing the deterioration of our infrastructure at the same pace the Soviet infrastructure deteriorated, our roads, bridges and levies are giving way to the lack of infrastructure investment. By the time McCain faces the truth about this failed policies, we will be fighting internally to control the People’s discontent and we will be unable to prevent any terrorist attack in our homeland. To visualize the America we will have in ten years if we keep the current foreign policies, go visit the New Orleans and the vast areas still depopulated, add to that the cities in the heartland that are never going to be rebuilt, and the semi abandoned cities of the rust belt. Add to that a good dose of rampant crime in every big city, and you will have nothing but the fall of America.

We have been there, it was during another politicized war, and it was but 30 years ago. If you think we are not going the same path and we are not going to obtain the same results, you need to ask yourself what is different this time. It may be that the only difference is that this time it is going to be worst.

Franklin @ June 18, 2008

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

70 queries.
1.169 seconds.

Politics blogs Politics blogs
Links to Site
%d bloggers like this: