Atlantic Sentinel

Category: Analysis

  • Mission Not Accomplished

    It’s now official: the American military is no longer a combat force inside Iraq.

    To the United States, this is an historic achievement in its own right. It was only three years ago when hundreds of American soldiers were dying in Iraq every month. It was only three years ago when an all time high of 150,000 GIs were patrolling all across the country, with 20,000 more solidified in the worst neighborhoods of Baghdad. Few Americans could have predicted that the United States would be essentially out of the conflict years down the road. But this is what has happened. Conditions on the ground improved just enough for the Americans to hand over security responsibilities to the Iraqi Security Forces. Granted, violence in Iraq is still abound, but American troops were no longer taking the lead.

    In a display that was as much political as it was ceremonial, the last Stryker Brigade crossed the southern Iraqi desert into Kuwait, demonstrating to the world that the United States was no longer engaging in “combat operations.” For President Barack Obama, this moment gave him a boost just before his party starts campaigning for the midterm elections in November. And for the administration, it fulfills a promise to end America’s intervention in Iraq after seven long and bloody years.

    The only problem is that the American intervention hasn’t really stopped. The remaining 50,000 troops will remain in the country for another year. And combat operations haven’t necessarily ceased either. While Washington trumpets the transition from a combat to advisory role, US Special Operations Forces will still be working with Iraqis in counterterrorism operations well into the foreseeable future. Troops will still be susceptible to risk when patrolling with Iraqi divisions.

    Iraq isn’t a peaceful country, no matter how much progress the Iraqis have made and how degraded Al Qaeda in Iraq may be from its heyday in 2006. Bombs continue to go off in the capital, and Sunnis associated with Al Qaeda are still more than willing to strap explosives to their body. If you need an example, just look at last week’s attacks across thirteen Iraqi cities, in which fifty Iraqis died (mostly police officers) in a spate of car bombs, suicide attacks, roadside bombs, and small arms fire. Insurgents are still clearly able to coordinate with deadly effect, striking paralysis in the ranks of Iraqi forces virtually everywhere in the country.

    And close to six months after the last parliamentary elections, Iraq’s political leaders are still squabbling among themselves over who has the right to form the next government. All the while, Iraqi civilians are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of public services.

    Americans have a right to be cheerful that the war in Iraq is drawing to a close. But the administration should be careful about gloating too much, or embarking on its own “mission accomplished” tour. In many ways, Iraq is still up in the air.

    In addition, we should not be coming to the conclusion that American influence in Iraq is over for good. As the military engagement winds down, the American diplomatic presence inside the country will most likely intensify. A new diplomatic team has already arrived in Baghdad, with US Ambassador James Jeffrey picking up where his predecessor Christopher Hill left off. The diplomats need to get right to work, with the first order of business being the establishment of an inclusive Iraqi government.

    And let’s not forget that the Iraqis still don’t have an air force, nor have Iraqi soldiers been trained in conventional conflict against an outside threat. The United States will still be defending Iraq’s air space for many years to come.

    “Mission accomplished?” Not yet. The American-Iraqi security partnership will continue, and it would be to no one’s surprise if Washington negotiated a brand new defense back with Iraqis to ensure that America’s hard work over the last seven years is sustained. American troop levels may be at its lowest since the start of the war. But there are still actors inside Iraq who are wishing to make that country a weak and destabilizing nation — outside and inside actors alike.

  • Glenn Beck’s Appeal to Restore Honor

    On August 28, American news commentator Glenn Beck held the “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC to a crowd of several hundreds of thousands of people in attendance. The following day Beck appeared on Fox News Sunday to talk about the event.

    When asked about the rally and its message, Beck insisted that it was nothing political, but instead a matter of faith. According to Beck, it’s because of a lack of faith that America is in trouble. It is up to the American people to fix it. “Every American has a role,” he said. “Whether you’re Democrat, Republican, independent, it doesn’t matter. We all know the country’s in trouble. We may disagree on how to solve it, but we all know the country’s in trouble.”

    Asked about the controversy of the rally’s date, which coincided with the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I have a dream speech”, Beck claimed that it was merely a coincidence, but that he has since come to regard it as divine providence in order to reclaim the civil rights movement. Racial politics, said Beck, was — and is — one of the greatest problems with the country, but race has no place in politics.

    Beck’s argument is that the civil rights movement should be remembered as a cause for justice; a justice which both Democrats and Republicans have twisted into tools to meet their own ends.

    When hundreds of thousands of people appear in one place for one reason, Glenn Beck said that it was a sign of people being unhappy, largely because justice and faith are absent from national politics and indeed, American society at large.

  • Everybody Loves Robert Gates

    Whether the characterization is fair or not, many Americans have labeled the George W. Bush Administration as the most incompetent American presidency in the past thirty years. But if that is true, Robert Gates should be considered the sole survivor — indeed the sole exception — to the generalization.

    Even before Washington was ready to absorb Bob Gates into the Pentagon’s senior ranks, the Beltway was intimately familiar with his intense work ethic and focused personality. Gates is a Washington veteran in every sense of the word. He has served a total of six presidential administrations over a time span of forty years.

    His first Washington gig took the form of a low level CIA analyst, where he was responsible for assessing classified information on anything and everything Soviet.

    But his low status didn’t last very long. After a short eight year stint at the agency, he served on the staff of President Gerald Ford’s National Security Council, only to return to the CIA a few years later as a top analyst in the agency’s Strategic Evaluation Center. Little did Mr Gates know that his hard work would eventually earn him the attention and respect of an American president. Two years later, he was nominated by George H.W. Bush to be his top official in the Central Intelligence Agency. (To date, Gates’ is the only employee in the agency’s history to have climbed the entire CIA career ladder.)

    All of these accomplishments should be noted. Indeed, a normal person would probably find it tempting to quit after a grueling period as CIA chief. But Bob Gates is no normal person. He’s a worker, a highly respected intelligence leader, and a savvy bureaucratic infighter. He also happens to be someone who can reach across the partisan aisle on a tough issue and extend a hand when the country needs a burst of unity.

    In hindsight, perhaps this is why George W. Bush would ask Gates to lead and revive a defense establishment that was losing morale amid two frustrating wars.

    Rewind to the latter months of 2006. President Bush’s party just got trounced in the midterm elections; the war in Iraq was spiraling out of control; America’s credibility in the entire Muslim world was at an all time low; and the Taliban was starting to make a comeback in Afghanistan. Hundreds of American troops were dying in combat every month. To say that the Defense Department was looking for someone who could calm things down and bring everyone together would be an understatement.

    The United States was at a turbulent point in its history. It didn’t stop Robert Gates from accepting the job of defense secretary.

    Four years later, we can now sit back and reminisce about how great of a job Gates has done. Thanks in part to his temperate leadership style and his complete trust in his commanders, America’s most contentious foreign policy challenges are now starting to simmer down to a somewhat tolerable level.

    An Iraq that was once labeled as an unwinnable quagmire was gradually becoming less violent as a result of a new strategy. Sunni insurgents that were wreaking havoc on Iraqi society were now becoming marginalized by a broad sector of the Iraqi population. Iraqi civilians once hostile to American forces were now responding to a little military concept called counterinsurgency. A certain degree of trust was rebuilt between American troops and Iraqis, resulting in information that would crack down on insurgent operations. Meanwhile, Gates was shielding General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker from congressional scrutiny, which allowed the duo to take risks that were required to turn the situation around.

    Now, one administration later, Secretary Gates has expressed his desire to leave public service and move on with his life. In an exclusive interview with Fred Kaplan, the Washingtonian commented that he is quite happy with what he has accomplished and would be content on retiring next year if President Barack Obama didn’t ask him to stay on.

    You may recall that Gates said a similar thing at the end of the Bush Presidency. But incoming President Obama found the secretary to be so transformative and so connected that he asked him to continue his job for another year. Six months later, Gates is not only still part of the Obama team but one of the most popular members of the administration.

    Does the secretary really want to retire? If so, will President Obama let him? At a time when the United States are still active in Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan and fighting a covert war in Pakistan, Obama may not feel comfortable in letting him go.

    Either way, the Obama Administration better start searching for replacements. Lord knows it’s going to be extremely difficult to fill Gates’ shoes.

  • Where’s the Love for Pakistan?

    When natural disasters strike at the heart of a society, the world tends to unite to ease the human suffering. In fact, throughout history, governments and private organizations often work in tandem by donating money, personnel, and resources to mitigate the damage. The 2004 tsunami that resulted in the deaths of some 250,000 people rallied a world traditionally fractured by religious, ethnic and political differences, all for the sake of compassion. Arabs, Jews, Iranians, Americans, Brazilians, Turks, Chinese, and Indians poured in hundreds of millions of dollars for lifesaving operations. Food, makeshift tents and help were all given to those whose lives were damaged indirectly, as well as to those who lost their businesses, homes, livelihoods, and entire families. Celebrities and musicians put on performances and benefits for the victims, and national governments actually found themselves competing with one another for the title of “top donor.”

    When all was said and done, the humanitarian response in its entirely was nothing short of remarkable. 1.2 million children were vaccinated to prevent disease, UNICEF helped rebuild 107 schools, 59 health clinics, and trained a total of 56,000 health specialists. A tremendous response, given the millions who were left homeless or stranded.

    This is only one example of the world casting aside its differences and uniting under the banner of humanity. Just six months ago, countries from every corner of the globe were quick to respond to the earthquakes that devastated Haiti’s already poor infrastructure. American citizens donated approximately $31 million simply through their Blackberrys and iPhones. International institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank donated millions more, giving Haitians a sign of hope in an otherwise terrible situation. Again, the world heeded the call of compassion.

    So why, after three weeks of the worst flooding in Pakistani history, is the world so silent on this latest natural catastrophe?

    The United Nations has estimated that over four million Pakistanis have been displaced, another eight million are in need of emergency assistance (food, clothing, shelter, drinking water), and a total of twenty million have been affected in one way or the other. Close to one third of Pakistan’s land mass has been flooded or destroyed; 1.6 million acres of cropland ruined; and key infrastructure like bridges and roads are inaccessible. The Pakistani population in the hardest hit areas is getting impatient, wondering why they are not seeing aid and trying to figure out why their own government is slow in delivering supplies.

    To make matters worse, the Taliban and other Islamic extremists in Pakistan have been quite willing to exploit the situation to their advantage. In some cases, Islamic charities are beating nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to the punch, dishing out meals in a quicker and more efficient manner. The situation is getting so out of hand, says Senator John Kerry, that Pakistan is inching ever closer to full on violence if the United States and its allies do not pick up the pace.

    Indeed, the world is starting to get the message. Saudi Arabia recently announced that it would be donating $107 million to various humanitarian organizations on the ground inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. After a visit to the frontline, Senator Kerry announced that Washington would be increasing its own contributions by another $150 million. But even with this good news, emerging powers like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (informally known as the BRIC) have not fulfilled their “rising power” status. China has had double digit economic growth for the past three decades, yet the Chinese leadership has given a frugal $2 million to relief organizations.

    Which again brings us to the crucial question that’s on everyone’s mind: Why are people not stepping up and donating to Pakistan, as millions of people worldwide did to Sri Lanka and Haiti a few years ago?

    Some have suggested that perhaps the world is biased toward Muslims, so therefore relief donations are at a minimum. Others have claimed that Western countries are simply sick and tired of giving money to overseas ventures when their own economies are still losing jobs and struggling to maintain growth rates (although this is hard to belief. Western economies were in pretty bad shape a few months ago but that didn’t hamper aid to Haiti in any significant way). Many analysts cite America’s skepticism of the corrupt Pakistani government as a reason. On this very channel, Mosharraf Zaidi, a Pakistani journalist and a former political economy advisor to the UN, seems to think that negative stereotypes from Western media may have something to do with it as well.

    Yet all of these reasons are still unacceptable, because each justification seems to indicate that the world is punishing innocent Pakistani civilians for the actions of its government. This form of punishment is all the more disturbing when considering the general hostility that ordinary Pakistanis already possess toward their own civilian leaders. Making people suffer for the crimes and ineptitudes of their politicians isn’t exactly kosher, nor should it be a rationale for withholding aid that could serve millions of people.

    The United States have vastly outstripped other donors so far. But America could be doing a lot more by lobbying allies and making Washington’s demands clear. Stabilizing Pakistan after a natural or man made disaster is an urgent national security priority for the United States. Peace and stability in Pakistan is in many ways a precedent for peace and security for the entire world community.

    As a leader of that world community, President Barack Obama must work the phones and solicit all of the contributions he can get. Anything short of this effort would be cataclysmic for America’s battle against an unforgiving jihadist ideology, and a terrible crime to the entire nation of Pakistan.

  • Building a Mosque in Election Time

    The newest political hot spot in America is the mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero, the site of the Trade Towers bombing of 2001, in New York City. Politicians are lining up and taking sides in the countdown to elections this fall. Even President Barack Obama voiced his ambivalent and unclear opinion, noting that America’s commitment to religious freedom must be “unshakable.” That includes, according to the president, “the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan.” The next day though, he backpedaled and declared that while people have a right to build mosques in America if they want to, he isn’t quite sure about the wisdom of this particular location.

    As always politicians are using the controversy first stirred up by conservative talk radio hosts to make election bids. Some are saying that they believe in freedom of religion; others that they believe in zoning laws and the sacredness of this particular site. And surprisingly, unlike most issues, this one is not split down party lines.

    For one thing, mere months from November’s midterm elections for Congress, no one can afford to disenfranchise his or her electorate. According to a recent CNN poll 68 percent of Americans are opposed to the mosque being built at Ground Zero. Even politicians not up for election this cycle have to watch their step or risk losing votes for their party. Many lawmakers have decided that silence, at least on this issue, is golden. Whatever they say, they’re bound to insult either their political base or their political party. We are way past the days of actual integrity and principle, if ever those days have existed in Washington.

    What are the principles behind the issue? America certainly is a place of freedom, including religious freedom. Yet there are lines. Your freedom to do what you like cannot infringe on another’s for example. And no matter your religious preferences they cannot suspend the laws of the land, thus polygamy, human and animal sacrifices and honor killings are all illegal notwithstanding your religion.

    To say the mosque should be built because of religious freedom is an emotional response and not an analytical one. There are already many mosques in America and none have ever been controversial as this one is. It’s not the mosque; it’s the location. The truth is that the building of this mosque in this neighborhood in New York is a local issue and has nothing to do with the federal government or the nation as a whole at all, at least under normal circumstances. With this in mind President Obama’s initial refusal to comment was the appropriate one since this has nothing to with him nor his branch of government. But these are not normal circumstances.

    In this particular case even though the planes blew up and destroyed buildings in New York the attack was made on the whole of the United States and its people. Muslims made the attack. Perhaps not these Muslims, but the mosque’s intended location is certainly politically provocative and intended to be so. So the people of the United States and at length their president, after due consideration, do have every right to weigh in on this debate. Whatever the outcome, the mosque controversy will certainly affect the November elections and perhaps even those of 2012.

  • Lebanon Braces for Judgment Day

    Five years ago, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon and longtime American ally, named Rafiq Hariri, was assassinated by a car bomb in the heart of Beirut. The incident fueled a popular uprising of Lebanese civilians commonly referred to as the “Cedar Revolution,” which would quickly pressure Syrian forces out of Lebanon after decades of occupation.

    Yet the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanese territory was not the only aftershock of the Hariri killing. The United States government under President George W. Bush would later blame Syrian authorities for orchestrating the attack on a moderate and Western Arab politician. Washington would sever all diplomatic ties with the Syrians until five years later, when President Barack Obama entered the Oval Office. The Shiite militant movement Hezbollah, which was already on the American security radar for past terrorist attacks, would bear the brunt of America’s attention.

    Now in August 2010, after that intense and tumultuous time in Lebanese politics, a UN investigation will release its final judgment on the Hariri murder. Syria has been exonerated from any wrongdoing. That leaves Hezbollah operatives as the main instigators of the attack.

    On the eve of the judgment, with everyone preparing to finger Hezbollah for the crime, Lebanon is once again bracing for a political firestorm that could quickly turn violent. The irony is that Rafiq Hariri’s son, Saad Hariri, is now the man who has to keep the lid on the simmering pot.

    Unfortunately, this is going to be exceedingly difficult for the younger Hariri to accomplish. He is in a tough position regardless of who is blamed for his father’s murder.

    Prime Minister Hariri can either put his firm weight and political support behind the commission’s ruling, making his position known to the world but hurt his appeal with the majority of the Lebanese population (who happen to be Shia and highly supportive of Hezbollah as a social organization). Or he could endorse Hezbollah’s position and denounce the results. He may also choose to order the creation of a new independent commission aiming to uncovering evidence that may have been previously overlooked by the original investigation. This move, however, would hurt him with the United States and Israel at a time when Lebanon is already experiencing a harsh rebuke over the Israeli border incident.

    So what can Hariri do?

    So far, he’s been trying to straddle both sides by largely keeping his mouth shut and letting the tribunal do its job. This is what Hariri is probably going to do until a verdict is reached.

    If Hezbollah isn’t fingered, Hariri has dodged a bullet. But if Hezbollah is in fact implicated, then Hariri may choose to call another investigation in order to keep a potentially violent situation from getting out of control. The Lebanese government’s main concern is to limit a potential civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. The best way to do that is to divert pressure to an outside actor.

    This is all speculation of course. In either event, Hariri Junior is going to strain some relationships.

  • A Chance for US to Build Trust in Pakistan

    Pakistan cannot catch a break. As if daily killings from sectarian and terrorist groups were not enough to inflict mass casualties on innocent Pakistanis, tremendous rains have caused huge floods that continue to plague the country’s western frontier (that’s right, the same border where the Pakistani military and American drones are hammering extremist strongholds).

    Pakistani officials estimate that as of now, close to 1,200 people have died, with thousands more displaced from their homes. Hundreds of thousands of houses in the tribal areas have either been damaged or swept away in the wreckage, which is prompting the Islamabad government to label this flood the worst in the country’s history.

    But it’s not all bad. Donations from a number of countries are pouring into Pakistan while humanitarian organizations have dispatched workers on the ground to deal with the swelling numbers of refugees that are making their way to displacement camps. For its part, the United States have given Pakistani authorities $10 million, over 11,000 pounds of supplies, over 200,000 meals and some kind words from Secretary Hillary Clinton herself.

    The aid sounds like a lot, but Washington could be doing much better.

    In fact, the floods should be perceived by the White House — and Congress — as a ripe opportunity to bridge the gaps between the millions of Pakistanis who view America as a hostile force and an American government whose dependence on Pakistan is growing by the day.

    If recent opinion polls are any indication, America needs all the help it can get to improve its image in the eyes of Pakistanis. According to the Pew Research Center (PDF), only 17 percent of Pakistanis are actually supportive of the United States, with 11 percent regarding America as a partner. Compare this with the 18 percent of Pakistanis who view Al Qaeda in a favorable light, or the 25 percent who support Lashkar e-Taiba (the group most famous for its 2008 attack in Mumbai).

    To put it mildly, the United States are not doing so hot in Pakistan — even among educated Pakistanis in urban areas. Pledging more than $10 million to the flood relief effort is a good start, but a concerted effort to put some American boots on the ground would add a human touch. Pakistanis need to witness Americans doing something for the Pakistani people rather than for the Pakistani government.

    It’s not going to solve all of America’s PR problems in that corner of the world, but it sure won’t hurt. Sometimes compassion can be a lot more effective than a monetary contribution. If Pakistan is as much of a strategic ally as Washington says it is, perhaps the United States should start acting accordingly.

  • Republican Resolution on Iran May Just Be Political

    My colleague Nick Ottens already touched upon this story yesterday, but because of the issue’s tremendous importance to the United States and the Middle East at large, I thought it would be appropriate to toss a few things into the debate.

    In case you happened to miss Nick’s report, a substantial portion of the Republican Party (mostly Tea Party members) in the House decided to introduce a resolution supporting a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Close to one third of House Republicans have already signed onto the resolution (PDF), which is a substantial number considering that the United States Congress has never in its history adopted a stamp of approval for preemptive force (and no, authorization for the invasion of Iraq doesn’t count).

    All of this comes at a time when the Iranian leadership continues to thwart its international obligations under both the UN and the IAEA. It comes only a few weeks after the United States, the UN Security Council, and the European Union passed through the strongest economic sanctions on Iran to date. And coincidently, this comes at a time when President Barack Obama is trying to get his “nuclear zero” policy off the ground.

    Yet despite the “impending doom” of an Iranian weapon, the resolution says more about the American political season than it does about a genuine support of Israel, or a real worry about Iran’s nuclear capability. In short, by creating this resolution (code named HR 1553), Republicans and the White House’s other political opponents are attempting to capitalize on the president’s stalemated Iran policy.

    The November congressional elections are fast approaching. Opponents of the president are trying to find any foreign issue — any at all — that could draw the support of American voters who are either ambivalent about foreign policy or who are weary of where America is going. And Iran could be the big ticket issue.

    Granted, there are other foreign policy priorities that Republicans can try to exploit. They could boast about Obama’s July 2011 timeline for Afghanistan, but those concerns already resonate with some in the president’s own party. Republicans could talk about Obama’s failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, but this would most likely spark a harsh retaliation from Democrats who would be quick to point out Bush’s own failure to solve the conflict. Bringing China into the mix is also a possibility, but a far-fetched one at that; most Americans really aren’t concerned about China surpassing the United States anytime soon.

    For Republican challengers — and Tea Party members running for Congress — Iran is the one issue that they can hammer the White House on. They can argue that the United States has alienated many of their allies (Turkey, Brazil, Israel, Russia) for a sanctions resolution whose effectiveness is in doubt. Some will probably argue that Tehran is actually in a stronger position than a year ago, thanks to Brazil’s and Turkey’s willingness to pick a fight with Washington over the pressure track. And as all politicians have done, Republicans can highlight Obama’s indecisiveness over his approval and then rejection of a nuclear fuel swap deal.

    Some of this is justified. Some of this isn’t. But you can be sure that all of it will be brought up during the campaign. The House maneuver is the official start of the midterm elections.

  • The Strainful Relationship: Where’s the Beginning and the End?

    David Cameron, in The Wall Street Journal recently observed that the constant quibbling and worrying over the “special relationship” is a curious pastime among British observers, journalists and the man in the street. Cameron divides these worry merchants up into three camps which seem quite accurate and I admit to being, on occasion, guilty of all of them. However, as Sir Christopher Meyer, former ambassador to the United States, recently reminded viewers at the Royal United Services Insitute, the relationship with the United States is the biggest challenge that the British diplomatic service, and indeed, British policy faces.

    Cameron, like his predecessors, has failed to say what this special relationship consists of apart from vague reference to a list of happy coincidences and events which seem to be now of questionable importance. Numbering among them are: a shared doctrine on trade (some of the time); somewhat frequent cooperation in international institutions and also outside of them. Apart from that it’s hard to think of anything meaningful or worth entertaining as anything other than a cultural token viz “standing shoulder to shoulder against fascism” and other well known extracts from your school history lessons. Common language and culture to a good degree also go a long way to make many see the United States as the natural closest friend that Britain’s got, and even vice versa. (more…)

  • A400M and the Politics of Aircraft Design

    The International Air Tattoo at Farnborough in Gloucestershire is one of the largest and prestigious events in the aerospace world. It gives pilots a chance to show their abilities in the skies to an appreciative audience, but its major purpose is as a show for various companies to drum up support and interest for their latest projects.

    At the Waddington Airshow a few months ago I myself got to wander around the hangers in which the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) companies had set up and were giving away litriature and answering questions to journalists, members of the public and passing foreign dignitaries. GlobalHawk were even there who provide their GlobalHawk surveillance UAV to the Americans and the Germans. In the hanger, companies like BAE and Northrop Grumman present alongside smaller ones and even university departments whose young engineers were there showing their achievements in the field and no doubt looking for jobs.

    These events are thus an important if not major process in securing contracts with the forces to which these companies provide. At Farnborough it is no different, but on a larger scale, with some of the most awaited projects making their debuts. This year it was the A400M which had the crowds craning their necks in anticipation. They’ve all seen F-16s and Super Hornets before, even the Harrier’s begining to lose its relative splendor. (more…)

  • A Layperson’s Musings on a Judicial Nomination

    The confirmation proceedings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan to become the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States have been largely unremarkable in that the hearings have not illumined Kagan’s personal views on any substantive points of law that are likely to be examined by the Court. Many of the senators who are attempting to ascertain the solicitor general’s qualifications and fitness for the appointment have complained about her scant production of literature related to topics as abortion and the right to bear arms.

    Indeed, I would assert that this dearth of information is an effort to avoid the fate that befell former Solicitor General Robert Bork, whose writings were utilized to raise questions about his temperament and resulted in the defeat of his nomination to the Supreme Court as potential successor to former Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell in 1987.

    Since then, potential nominees have been quite circumspect about the tenor of the writings they publish. As a result, the Senate Judiciary Committee is forced to rely on the testimony of the nominee and the witnesses that have been called to testify. (more…)

  • Situation on US-Mexican Border Worsening

    America’s southern border is on fire. We have the Mexican government now suing the State of Arizona over its immigration law, which merely upholds and enforces national law — which the federal government refuses to enforce. We have ever increasing kidnapping, murders, theft and violence of every kind along the entire frontier. National Guard troops in Texas seized large caches of weapons from a paramilitary group that was attempting to cross the border. The Mexican government is safely escorting drug runners across the border, into America. And the president can only talk of amnesty and is considering suing Arizona as well?

    The border is literally being attacked, both by paramilitary and actual Mexican military forces. In a recent open letter to President Barack Obama, Jon Voight wrote: “You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law abiding citizens.” Unfortunately, he is right. America is moving ever closer to civil war. Never have we been in danger of such an extremity since we battled over the question of slavery.

    In the photos are weapons seized by American National Guard troops near the Texas border with Mexico. The symbols on the hats and bags are from an organization called Los Zetas, which, according to Wikipedia, is “a criminal organization in Mexico dedicated mostly to international illegal drug trade and other organized crime activitites.”

    This drug cartel was founded by an elite force of assassins from Mexican Army deserters and is now integrated by corrupt ex-federal, state, and local police officers, as well as ex-Kaibiles from Guatemala.

    This group of highly trained gunmen was first hired as a private mercenary army for Mexico’s Gulf Cartel. Since the arrest of the Gulf Cartel’s leader […] the two entities became a combined trafficking force, with the Zetas taking a more active leadership role in drug trafficking. Since February 2010 Los Zetas have gone independent and became enemies of its former employer/partner, the Gulf Cartel.

    Realize as well that the problem is not merely Mexican and Central American drug cartels. A border this porous entices criminals of all types, including terrorists. The borders are a national-security issue, the most fundamental of government responsibilities.

    Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and eventually even the Kool-Aid drinkers of California will have to defend their borders in defense of their lives.

  • Hungary on the World Stage

    Hungarians often complain that the world knows so little about them. Foreigners mix up Budapest with Bucharest. Some people think that Hungarian is a Slavic language. They don’t know that Hungary was a superpower in the fifteenth century. They are ignorant of how Hungary saved Christian Europe from the wrath of the Ottoman Empire. And one could go on and on.

    Well, right now Hungarians can’t complain. The country became world-famous practically overnight. It took only a few words from Hungarian leaders to weaken the euro and create turmoil in the world’s financial markets. That was no small feat, although I’m not sure whether this is the kind of fame Hungarians dreamed of. (more…)

  • Avoiding the Unthinkable

    As evidence mounts that the South Korean warship sunk last March was indeed brought down by a North Korean torpedo, tensions in Korea are rising. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has pronounced economic sanctions on the North which has reportedly begun to ready troops.

    The intentional sinking of a foreign naval vessel is certainly cause to go to war. In effect it is a declaration of war. However, we cannot be sure that the sinking was intentional or planned and more importantly, no one wants another war in East Asia.

    The United States, already declaring that it will stand with South Korea, maintains strong ties with the country and would probably be dragged into any conflict followed possibly by China on the side of the North. A battle between two world superpowers is precisely what the international community has been avoiding since the end of World War II.

    American secretary of state Hillary Clinton has been in Beijing trying to convince China to side with South Korea and support action in the UN Security Council. The word is still out on how successful she will be.

    While no one wants a war, it is almost inevitable that North Korea will reach meltdown stage at some point in the near future. It has already lasted as long or longer than other communist countries that were forced to enact fundamental reforms in the face of unsustainable levels of misery and poverty on the part of their people.

    The ray of hope in this situation is that it cannot be in the interest of North Korea to go to war again. As it is, the North is left free to abuse and destroy its own people. They cannot hope to take on the South with America funding and militarily supporting it; all the more so because South Korea has gone through an extended period of growth and advancement while the North stagnated. South Korea is much more fit at this stage for a confrontation. Nuclear weapons notwithstanding, North Korea is no match for its counterpart.

    The best we can hope for in this situation is that North and South Korea will do nothing more than rattle their sabers across the cease fire line until North Korea implodes on its own. Economic sanctions and slaps on the hand from the UN Security Council will do nothing while the alternative, all out war, is unthinkable.

  • The Political Disaster of the BP Oil Spill

    The BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, still spewing after more than a week and several failed mitigation attempts, is certainly an environmental disaster, the extent of which will likely not be known for many weeks to come. But it is also a political disaster.

    First of all, though the initial accident was not the fault of government, the failure to respond to the disaster was. The American government had certain regulations in place since the Exxon Valdez disaster near Alaska in 1989. It was supposed to have disaster mitigation equipment, in particular fire booms that would help to contain the oil and prevent it from spreading. But they did not follow their own rules.

    The real ones responsible for the containment and cleanup, not to mention prevention, should be BP themselves, of course. If you make the mess, you clean it up. But since the government did have regulations in place and did not follow them they are culpable as well. In fact to the extent that government takes on accountability and responsibility themselves they remove it from corporations like BP. We have turned government into the nursemaid of the nation.

    But even that is not the real disaster here. The worst part of this is the response that will come from the progressive federal government in Washington because of the oil spill. Regulation on oil companies will increase. No new oil exploration or rigs will be built. Alaska will have a tougher fight than ever to build their pipeline. America, in the mid of plentiful domestic oil reserves, will become more and more dependent on oil from countries in the Middle East and South America, many of which despise her. America will indirectly be funding the terrorists that attack America and Europe.

    Further it will be the catalyst for more crises, such as out of control energy prices, which affect every other sector of the economy. Food, lights, heat, durable goods, and jobs will become scarce, particularly if the OPEC countries decide to limit availability or raise prices. If the American government continues to restrict the use of domestic oil and other energies, we are very possibly looking at a future in this country of a period that will make the 1930s look like good times.

    The oil spill in the Gulf, through mismanagement and fear in government is destined to become not only the catalyst for more environmental regulations, but also a serious threat to our national security and our economic future. This could not have happened at a worse time.