Beyond the Cusp

April 25, 2016

Potential British Exit from European Union

 

Despite the unsolicited commentary and thinly veiled threats from President Obama, the British governance from both sides of the aisle have always endeavored to keep open the financial freedom of the British Isles to depart from the European Union (EU) by retaining the Pound Sterling as their independent Coin of the Realm and merely recognized the Euros as legitimate for use within its boundaries giving it a right above that of any normative foreign currency. One cannot use the Dollar, or other foreign currency, without changing them for Euros or Pounds to pay for items in the United Kingdom (UK). Further, the British were late entries into the European exclusive club which itself had their doubts about allowing the British into the EU as the British were seen to have too close and almost personal relations with the United States (US), especially in trade relations as there existed independent of the EU a free trade agreement between the US and the UK. This agreement between the two Anglo nations was all part of the Anglophile and the relationships of its members. This was seen by the EU as an economic threat which by permitting the UK membership into the EU was tantamount to granting the US membership in the EU, something fought against by presumed friendly nations of France and Germany. Now, all of a sudden President Obama speaks of sending the British to the back of the line for receiving a trade agreement which they retained independent from the EU with the United States as a member of the Anglophile.

 

So why might President Obama issue such a veiled threat to London over their coming vote for independence from the EU and its potential harnessing of the UK economic health as a source for propping up the less productive members of the EU who are experiencing serious economic downturns which they are feigning an inability to reverse. This was a problem which was obvious in its eventuality of the less productive states of southern Europe would have difficulties if forced to use the Euros as their coinage as the value of the Euro was set often in conjunction of German industrial strength and not upon the lesser nations utilizing the Euro as their coinage of preference. The UK likely saw the inevitability of economic uproar and eventual disintegration of the EU and especially this exact division where the wealthier nations would demand a higher setting of the Euros’ value, a value not supported by the economic doldrums many EU member states are currently facing and the lack of monetary policy freedom these states faced. The weaker economies within the EU, such as Greece, Spain, Italy and many of the former East European nations, to sustain an economic growth equivalent to the strength and economic growth by the Euro due to the main productive nations such as Germany, Britain and France, with potentially former Warsaw Pact nations more recently added to the EU such as Poland, have economic growth which often does not equal the valuations of the Euro.

 

 

Map of the European Union

Map of the European Union

 

 

The British by retaining their Pound were free to establish an acceptable level for the value of the Euro compared to the pound upon which the UK established their financial policies. Had Greece, Italy, Spain and the other weaker economic nations retained their original coinage and simply permitted a relative limit to its adjustment against the Euros would have provided for some level of independence which over time would permit for the lowering the value of their independent national coinage which would provide a greater latitude for the value of each countries’ economic jumpstart policies thus permitting that level of economic independence they so desperately require in order to retain their financial independence. The current system originally set these national economic standards to mitigate the different economic indicators by making for allowances between the less industrial and less growth oriented nations and the engines driving the EU economy. The system used basically allowed for a limited form of welfare for the lesser productive nations which grew to the point where the less productive member states inability to match German growth in wealth driving their unemployment higher as they found themselves often incapable of matching the economic expectations of the EU through its presumed common economic policies dictated most often from German economic strength, or at the worst the French economic growth, neither of which were matched by the southern European states.

 

Much of the difference was a result of the completely disparate driver of economic indicators between the industrial EU states and their more agricultural nations whose prices were often dictated by the EU for their crops where a single bad year’s yield would decimate their economic indicators setting standards unfathomably high. Had these lesser nations retained their own separate but equally acceptable coinage their economic indicators would have also grown though not so much as had the Euro which was more attuned to the German economic strength. By retaining a modicum of economic independence their currencies would have reflected their slower growth rate and adjusted against the Euro thus setting the economic indicators somewhat independent of the Euro though retaining their strong bindings both to the EU and to its economic viability. Their newly found elasticity would allow for the continued strong relations which set the overall relationship between the independent nations as a whole when making deals with the rest of the world. This would extend the strength of German, French and British industrial economic indicators as a backing for any deals made with the outside world while permitting some level of independence for the individual nations allowing for the disparate economies to grow in relations to each other in a far healthier environment.

 

That economic story is not the reality which the British will be facing as they decide whether or not to remain as a member state subordinate to the economic policies and other arrangements designed to mitigate the different economic realities within the EU. The reality the British will be facing is the growing pressures from the EU for the UK to give up their independent currency and become a full-fledged Eurocentric economy and matching policies. This would free the UK from economic planning and the freedoms related to such planning having their own currency demanded. Instead, the British are facing the same economic trap which Germany is trapped within where their greater wealth and industrial productivity is being siphoned from German economic health in order to prop up nations who have had the audacity to implement as much freedom from their positions in the interim state of affairs. The German government has been touting this all-for-one-and-one-for-all mindset where all of the EU will sink or swim as a single entity, period, end of story. This has allowed the EU to literally steal German economic wealth and gift it as supposed loans guaranteed by the EU banking system and even used the German’s strong economy to guarantee International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans from international banks in ever increasing amounts just to simply allow the now debtor nations to continue to operate though be it at a far lesser economic growth or even health as has Germany. The British economy is equally healthy as is German economic status with one major difference, the UK is not being forced to uphold and pay the debts of these nations and especially so if the funders of the debt are EU banks including but not limited to the European Central Bank (ECB). This has allowed the UK to deal with much of the Irish secondary economic crash which has stalled the economies of the other UK states such as England, Scotland and others within the UK to have all the national economies to fall within the guidelines of the EU. On the other end of the economic scale there are the nations stalled in their production which may not be forthcoming as there may be a split in the EU which can only be the beginning of the end for the EU as other nations see their path to be more advantageous separated from the stifling policies of the Euro.

 

The controversies in the UK over separation from the EU are splitting even members of the current party leading the British governance with David Cameron as the Prime Minister favoring remaining as a member of the EU while London Mayor Boris Johnson favors leaving the EU which has led to a fight between the two to lead the Conservative Party in the near future. Much of this could be laid at the feet of Boris Johnson’s obvious attempts to lead the Party in the next elections seeking the Prime Minister position for himself. Some have pointed to London Mayor Boris Johnson being for remaining within the EU before he was for the UK-EU Brexit policy. Either way, does it matter as politicians often alter their positions to match the moment and this very well could be Boris Johnson’s eying riding this vote to the top position in all of British politics. Still, this is one controversy which will most likely be resolved before the United States Republican and Democrat presidential national conventions slated for later this summer as the British people will have voted on the referendum slated for June 23, 2016. Finally something which will be decided definitively, unlike the nominees for the American Presidency one of which apparently very likely will not be decided on the first vote in Cleveland. Brexit may or may not be adopted by the June 23, 2016 voting though that vote will be far from the last words and provocations thrown around between the top two politicians of the Conservative Party which will climax before the next election in the UK for Parliament.

 

 

Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Prime Minister David Cameron

Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Prime Minister David Cameron

 

 

If the people vote in favor of Brexit expect for David Cameron to press for the Parliament to overrule the people and lay the groundwork for their remaining and potentially doubling down and at long last resigning their Pound Sterling for their full emersion into the Euro financial disaster now gripping the European continent. This is a test of British complacency or unique and visceral independence from the Continent once and for all having the citizens of the UK loudly proclaiming their independency from the European Continent’s overriding controls. Having ties to the British Isles through my father’s side of the family, he was born and raised in a suburb of London and proudly plied his trade as an English Custom Tailor and Designer in Washington DC where he had many high profile customers from both sides of the political isle in America; my feelings are for the British to remain the British and not just become more European Continentalists. It is my opinion, which agrees with others who observed similar stands, that the Pound Sterling and not forsaking their noble currency has been instrumental in retaining the health and vibrancy of the UK economy as a whole despite certain downturns which if handled by the EU would have dragged the rest of the UK down an economic black hole from which return would have proved miraculously difficult. It is not too difficult to see the difference between the British handling their own internal difficulties between the separate states with the EU handling of such difficult economic challenges as posed to the EU by Greece. The EU has demanded, stolen and misappropriated untold millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions, of Euros generated within Germany and gifted them to Greece with a loose understanding that the debt be repaid promptly by Greece even to the point of using German wealth and health of economy to undersign loans from the ECB, IMF and even American banking institutions who have invested entire retirement accounts on Greek bailouts just to have these investments barely break even as these banks have already reached the point where trading with Europe may require payment before rather than after any deal signing just for safe keeping of any promise of payment.

 

The other item of equal importance the future of Europe may be riding on with the Brexit vote is the influx of tens and hundreds of millions of Islamic refugees and a tap left open for too long and now cones the payment for such a deal of trust and opportunity. The concept was that the Islamic refugees and other Islamic immigrants would make up for the lower than required population growth figures. What have happened thus far have been the swelling of the welfare rolls as many Islamic immigrants prefer to collect welfare and remaining unassimilated and demanding that their new homes change their rules and the very fabric of their societies to match the nations they fled. This is preferable to them as they view Europe as their latest conquest and expect the Europeans t work and assume the rolls of Dhimmi supporting their Muslim betters in the lifestyle they wish to become accustomed to. This will not end well for either party as there will be a growing resentment and eventual revolt against these immigrants who are gaming the system and demanding that Islam replace both the remaining Christian and new ranks of the secular societies which the European touted as being so advanced that they could be accepting of all and respect their new arrivals. Respect has to be a two way street or one side will eventually revolt and there begins the problem.

 

Once European workers realize that their new countrymen are using them as their ticket out of the horrors and squalor of their former homelands and are assuming the role of exalted ones who need not produce but are to be treated to lives free from work or any obligation to the society beyond complete rejection of the underpinnings and instead demanding to have their religious demands and rulings become the bedrock of the new reality where the European slaves toil to support their Islamic betters. Should the British not approve the Brexit proposition then the EU will remain intact and more and more policy and powers will gravitate to Brussels and come under the mastery and control by the unelected EU leaders and even more so its bureaucracy which recently sought an agreement which would permit free entrance for any Turkish citizen. This would lead to a problem as Turkey would then only need to grant citizenship identification cards and paperwork to any and all Arab and Islamic refugees, both due to war or economic, and then pass these refugees unfiltered and without any background checks or terror watches observed eventually crashing the European economies due to their being overrun by unable to be assimilated refugees who would swell the populations of the Muslim communities until something would give, or worse, snap. Already there have been numerous rightist nationalist rallies held unofficially, often without permits and always under the radar as these groups would rather remain anonymous, where the main line of agreement was that something need be done to end this unrestricted inflow of refugees. These groups do not see these refugees as potential additions to the workforce but as foreign invaders in Europe to completely subjugate their societies and destroy secular Europe. These are socialists but not international socialists who believe in the unity of mankind but of the all too familiar fiercely Eurocentric vision socialists. They view the recent refugees flooding into Europe as an invasive disease; an influx of parasitic beasts which must be destroyed before they consume all that these right wing nationalists believe is holy and righteous about Europe. In some ways these are the people who if they had had children instead of living self-serving lives where they lived for the moment and the future be damned the problem of insufficient workforce to generate an economically vibrant functioning society would never have arisen. It was to some extent the old Europe’s own fault that their civilization now lies on the verge of extinction and it may actually be too late to salvage even a remnant of their past. Should Brexit vote succeed then there may be movements throughout Europe starting with France or Germany after which it will be a rush for the exits as the economic heart of the EU will have left the body making it everyone for themselves. This will inevitably lead to a renewed sense of nationalism which will have both a good side and an unavoidable bad side. The good side is there may be birthed a new hope for a future worth having children to enjoy and assure that future and the bad side is the refugees may be sent packing back to their former homelands unless they show signs of cooperating in the building of an assimilated society where everyone is respected and all beliefs or lack thereof are treated equally and respected with no one belief being more equal than others. This will require some adjustments on all sides but through such a situation there may be birthed a new universalism, just one where national pride is valued as a driving force for good and cooperation. The really bad side would be a violent conflict between the two civilizations now occupying the continent which would lead to a bloodbath of unequalled proportions as such a conflict could and likely would lead to yet another generational war, this one being World War III, the war that proves there is no upper limit to carnage. Let’s hope it does not end with such a conflict as the killing weapons of today are beyond imagination compared to just a century ago or even half a century. Mankind cannot afford to go there but also they might not be capable of avoiding such, how sorry.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

March 1, 2016

Trump Selling Opposition of Establishment Vision

 

Trump is running a campaign empty of substance, which are the claims from the Establishment and the other Republican candidates opposing him. Trump getting red faced and frustrated when attacked simply feeds the everybody is out to get him, the same exact feeling which much of the populace also feels as their health costs have tripled, the coverage is so limited that it is the cause of much of the increased health costs because the system is not designed to deliver healthcare but to transfer funds to the lower third or even half of the population, the people on public support and who pay no taxes. Even if Trump or a Republican President with a Republican Congress redesign Obamacare into Republicare, the system will still become cumbersome and loaded down with regulations and impossible hurdles to get proper care because government does not do healthcare. Government does regulations and compartmentalization all of which is the antithesis of good healthcare which requires everyone to have access to one another and their opinions. Government had proven to be very poor at interfacing differing areas of every agency and healthcare will end up being no different. The lack of interconnectivity is a large part of the problem in Veterans Healthcare and the public version will be even worse as there will be that many more patients to tangle up in forms, requests and what we from the military knew as SNAFUs, Situation Normal All Fouled Up.

 

One of the main reasons that Donald Trump has won three primaries in a row and might well outperform his rivals today, Super Tuesday, has much to do with the Republican Party deciding that it was best to front-load many of the primary elections when states clamored to place their voting as early as possible. This was seen as important because everyone wanted their race to be the one which put the candidate over the threshold thus making their state appear to be the important and pivotal primary state. It was the race to the front a number of years ago which pressured the parties to change their primary as nobody wanted to have their state primary elections after one candidate had necessarily won making their election results meaningless. This has allowed Donald Trump to make a grab for delegates a viable stratagem by simply playing to the crowds as the one being ganged up and mugged by his apparent closest rivals, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Their tactic to reveal Trump as an empty suit would have had far greater effect had they started earlier and had the time to reveal his lack of any form of plan, as Trump has basically made a campaign around his phrase of, “I’m going to make America great again.” He is basically running a campaign as this election’s Hope and Change candidate offering change we will all hope will change the stuff needing change or the people will lose all hope. The other candidates would have served themselves far better had they come up with a theme around which they actually built their argument as that would have given them a rivaling theme and one with substance and not relying on hot air, something which has lifted Trump like a hot air balloon. The other two main rivals attempting to poke a hole in Trump’s balloon has left them standing on the ground while he soared to apparent victory.

 

 

Trumps Vehicle to the White House A Hot Air Balloon Filled With Hot Angry Rhetoric

Trumps Vehicle to the White House
A Hot Air Balloon
Filled With Hot Angry Rhetoric

 

Again, it is really possible that there will emerge a winner by the Ides of March and the United States will be left fearing two-thirds of a year of Trump being Trump. What is even more astounding has been the Republicans and not so insignificant number of Democrats who have claimed they want a president with substance and grit with an actual and explained plan to move the United States back to its preeminence in the world, and Donald Trump has captured their minds and left them giddy filled with some intoxicant. The intoxicant is a slogan which expresses the electorate’s desires which claiming “I’m going to make America great again,” fills that need and many believe that there is a real plan behind the slogan. The frightening thing is that President Obama had a plan to go along with his “Hope and Change” and “Yes We Can” sloganeering in 2008 elections. Those slogans and electing the first Black United States President simply intoxicated the American public and here we are two terms of Hope and Change later. The one thing many Americans are now claiming is that those Changes were not what they had Hoped they would be. Eight years ago nobody challenged President Obama to define the Change we were presumably Hoping for so that left it up to each individual to define the Change and that gave them Hope. Here we are eight years later and it appears that the presumed thinking party had fallen for a phrase and no plan, which may prove just as intoxicating as President Obama’s sloganeering. The question the Republicans need to ask themselves is will “I’m going to make America great again,” as a campaign slogan last through to the elections or will the balloon burst and the Republican hopes of taking the White House dwindle and completely blow away on the wind, the same wind they had hoped would change the ownership of the White House.

 

We have been hearing an argument that we do not need another sloganeering campaign despite its appeal and they have claimed that nobody has won based on a slogan before President Obama attempting to pin his election on Hope and Change as an illusion the nation cannot afford another such President. The sorry thing is there have been numerous Presidents elected simply due to an inspirational catch phrase, though often also filled with actual plans and positions deeper than “Make America great again.” President Eisenhower had a slogan which was festooned across the country and it proved accurate that, “I Like Ike,” won the nation’s hearts. The fact General Eisenhower managed the victory in Europe during World War II probably aided his run for the White House. There were cryptic slogans such as Theodore Roosevelt whose single word slogan, “Bully” both won him the White House and redefined that word to mean a winner, a successful achiever and to have the advantage in speaking giving us the terminology “Bully Pulpit.”

 

 

Bully was Theodore Roosevelt slogan and theme

 

Through American history there have always been slogans, some of which proved memorable enough to outlast the campaign and even the candidate such as: ‘Don’t Change Horses in Mid-Stream,’ ‘All Power to the Imagination!,’ ‘Better Dead than Red,’ ‘Four More Years,’ ‘Vote for a Change,’ ‘Remember Pearl Harbor!,’ ‘Remember the Alamo!,’ ‘He Kept Us Out of War,’ ‘Think Globally, Act Locally,’ ‘We are the 99%,’ ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,’ ‘Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,’ ‘The Buck Stops Here,’ ‘There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch,’ ‘Workers of the World Unite,’ and one which sounds eerily applicable to one of the current campaigns, ‘No War but Class War.’ The idea of finding a catch phrase which resonates is as old as politics and even predates elections as slogans can be used to start or end revolutions or can be used to win wars and get the public roused. Rosie the Riveter was used to sell war bonds along with an entire and ongoing campaign which came from an actual advertising agency contracted by the government. Without slogans much of politics would simply be dry rhetoric stating facts, lying about facts, stretching and mutilating facts leaving at least a shred or two of truth in them and the other things as old as politics, mud-slinging. During the 1796 elections between Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, Jefferson supporters described Adams in an article run in Philadelphia as, “old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled, toothless Adams.” In 1828 Presidential election Andrew Jackson was described in a Cincinnati newspaper by John Q. Adams supporter wrote, “General Jackson’s mother was a COMMON PROSTITUTE brought to this country by British soldiers. She afterwards married a MULATTO MAN, with whom she had several children, of which General JACKSON IS ONE!!!” and lastly from the 1800 Adams-Jefferson campaign we get this gem describing John Adams as a, “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” The name-calling today is tame and respectful compared to the early years in politics where anything was fair game including big whoppers of lies.

 

The way to prevent sloganeering of winning the primary campaign in a single burst of well-planned buffoonery would be to spread the primary elections out with the states with sizeable numbers of delegates evenly spaced with them slightly weighted towards the middle to end of the season as they are the likely states where the fight will be the most revealing as we really need to know which candidate has the right stuff to survive an attack calling them a, “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Such a lengthening of the campaign such that it represents a solid four month campaign where the people could really get to compare and contrast the candidates and they will be pressed to give greater insight and depth, not that such things tend to actually matter any longer. Now the elections are decided by the media and the operatives with the people caught in the middle. “I’m going to make America great again.” That is a great slogan and would be even better if we knew how. With President Obama who won not just one but two Presidential campaigns on little if any substance we do not need another sloganeer. The first was sold as Hope and Change. Well, we all hope for better days to come and change is inevitable as the laws of physics explain all too muddled in the math for many of us to understand. Who doesn’t understand this Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann formula from Analytic Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory shown below?

 

 

Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann formula from Analytic Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory

Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann
formula from Analytic Algebraic
Geometry and Number Theory

 

The problem is obvious; most of us will start to pay attention to the primary elections in our respective states, if we even bother to vote, about a week, maybe two, before the election is held. Then we see who our equally clueless friends are supporting, maybe look up something on-line and then as all too many people too busy to take the time and carefully analyze each candidate’s positions and other pertinent items, not like all who read articles here as they obviously have done and followed since the first person announced over a year ago, thank you Dr. Ben Carson, and finally turn on the radio to hear the news and vote for whoever is ahead in the polls as they want to vote for the winner (yes, I knew somebody who voted with that exact reasoning, voted for the winner). This election in the United States, and if everything does not collapse, or worse, implode, then also the next few Presidential and Congressional elections will decide the fate of more than the United States. They may decide whether the world enters World War III before the United States has redeployed her military so as to have them dispersed and thus many surviving a preemptory strike which simply destroys the power generation grid leaving the people to die a slow death of starvation and Americans shooting each other over a piece of bread or a jar of peanut butter, chunky, of course. That also might decide where the remnants of Europe escape to as the tensions in Europe begin to boil over and fighting breaks out in the streets. What is important for all in the free world to remember was a one singular shameful event where people stood and watched and some shot pictures but nobody stepped forward to lead and prevent this gruesome event from the afternoon of May 22, 2013, a British Army soldier, Fusilier Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was attacked and killed by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, southeast London and beheaded.

 

 

Fusilier Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers Honored Posthumously in Parade

Fusilier Lee Rigby
of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
Honored Posthumously in Parade

 

That a crowd watched and did nothing will be the critical moment when many of us discovered that the world we thought we knew was dead and soon a critical question will be imposed on the Western World, the question of will you stand for your privilege and way of life or will you as well surrender before the coming storm, before Islam. So, which will it be? We and many fear the answer might just be silence, the worst kind of silence which comes right before the storm, and it will be a storm like has been unheard for a very long time.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

 

June 13, 2015

A Chance America Riding Off Into the Sunset

Filed under: 2016 Elections,24/7 News Reporting,Absolutism,Act of War,Administration,al-Qaeda,American People,American People Voice Opinion,Amnesty,Appeasement,Appointment,Armed Services,Bab-el-Mandeb,Bill Clinton,Blue Water Navy,Budget,Cabinet,China,Civilization,Class Warfare,Congress,Constitutional Government,Covert Surveillance,Coverup,Defense Department,Democracy,Democrat National Convention,Department of Defense,Ditherer in Chief,Domestic NGOs,Drones,Ecology Lobby,Economic Growth,Economy,Egypt,Electability,Elections,Elizabeth Warren,Employment,Enforcement,Equal Opportunity,Equal Outcome,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Europe,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Extreme Leftist,Extreme Right,Federal Government,Foreign Aid,Foreign NGOs,Foreign Trade,GDP,George H W Bush,George W. Bush,Government,Government Waste,Government Worker,Green Businesses,Green Economy,Guard Border,Health Care,History,House of Representatives,Humanitarian Aid,Illegal Immigration,Immigrant,Immigration,Income,Increased Spending,Individual Right to Privacy,Ineffective Sanctions,Inflation,Infrastructure,Internal Pressures,Internal Revenue Service,Intifada,Investment in the Future,Iran,Iraq,IRS,ISIS,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Jerusalem,Jobs,Keynesian Economics,Kurdish Militias,Kurds,Leftist Pressures,Livable Wage,Local Government,Main Stream Media,Mainstream Media,Meaning of Peace,Media,Military,Military Intervention,Minimum Wage,Murder Americans,Nationalist,Nationalist Pressures,NATO,Neglection of Duty,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Sites,Nuclear Weapons,Osama Bin Laden,Peace Process,Pentagon,Peshmerga Militias,Politicized Findings,Politics,Poverty,President,President Obama,President Vladimir Putin,Quantitative Easing,Rand Paul,Record Vote,Register to Vote,Regulations,Remove Sanctions,Repatriation,Republic,Republican National Convention,Resolution,Roman Empire,Russia,Sanctions,Secular Interests,Security Council,Senate,Sequestration,Socialism,South China Sea,South China Sea,Spending Cuts,Standard of Living,State Legislature,Suez Canal,Syria,Taqiyya,Taxes,Terror,Threat of War,Trade,Ukraine,Unemployment,Union Interests,United Nations,United States,United States Pressure,Uranium Enrichment,US Air Force,US Army,US Marines,US Navy,Validate Elections,Vlad the Invader,Voting,Warrantless Searches,Wealth,Wealth Redistribution,World War III,World Without Zionism or America,Yemen,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:09 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

There has been speculation about what role the United States will play on the world’s stage as threats abound of various severities and natures almost everywhere one looks and still we hear from United States President Obama that he awaits final strategy and complete plans laid out before him from the Pentagon before he can act. This excuse from President Obama for not committing to some plan of action sounds unrealistic, especially as it is well known even personally after having served in the United States Army, the Pentagon has plans, War Scenarios, for near any contingency which might arise. This makes President Obama’s excuse of not having any plans before him sound quite lame. Even had the Pentagon not had an exact battle plan in place when ISIS first reared their ugly heads and started chopping heads, especially since some belonged to the United States, you can bet the Pentagon went to their files and had cobbled together six ways come Sunday for dealing with ISIS which probably had added contingencies for removing Bashir al-Assad from power and potentially addressing the Iranian nuclear issue as well. The one thing is, they were not short of was plans. The only thing necessary would be for the President to choose one and they would be implementing within forty-eight hours. Each set of plans would have in the full layout exactly which units were trained for that exact mission and which of those units was at full strength and had a ready status. They would have decided whether or not to use the ready actions units of which at least two brigades of Army would be on immediate deployment status and I can assume the Marines, Navy and Air Force have similar plans for immediate response to any call up.

 

We can trust the Pentagon has plans and that all the President need do is pick up that phone he claims he could use to call for action if Congress did not pass his legislation in a timely manner and instead call the Pentagon and request their actions and plans be presented. Then he could pick up that pen with which he threatened Congress to use to write Executive Orders and use it to sign off on a plan of action and then write an Executive Memo to the leaders in Congress informing them of the impending actions and the Pentagon would take care of the rest. There is one contingency for which the Pentagon likely has plans but would be unable to implement them until the President ordered them to follow and support somebody else’s initiation of actions. That is President Obama’s famous plan of leading from behind, better known as following which often is the action of those too cowardly to commit to actions and stick their neck out, something which would be risky against ISIS but the President can go ahead and stick his neck out, the military would be out in front and would do or die even knowing that in the end the President would claim the glory, after all he took out Osama bin Laden haven’t you heard. Leading from behind is not an option on this crisis but President Obama is not one to make definitive decisions which might have him owning his actions. President Obama would rather simply follow and take only that action was dictated by somebody else, the United Nations, the European Union, NATO led by another member, actually President Obama would follow anybody, well, anybody but Israel. Were Israel to engage ISIS, it would not be a complete surprise if President Obama gave weapons to ISIS through some obscure middleman leader of another nation who might be supportive of ISIS though doing so would be risky. But until somebody else takes the lead we can expect more excuses over action from the White House.

 

One wonders if President Obama has even requested the Pentagon produce their plans for dealing with ISIS and said plans actually called for the United States to sit this round out. We can figure that the United States is loath to send troops back into Iraq after being pulled out by President Obama in a manner that military planners had informed the President was a premature action which would cause more problems than it could solve. The one problem leaving a residual force would not have addressed was President Obama winning reelection on his promise to bring our boys home come something (keeping it family friendly) or high water. The Pentagon may have been requested to provide plans which would include supporting UN or EU or NATO action taken to facilitate leading from behind at which time the Pentagon action would most likely be exactly what we are seeing, doing nothing waiting for somebody else to take the initiative so they could follow thus leading from behind again allowing President Obama to risk nothing which actually making a choice and lead would mean. But this begs a question; what happens if the United States is about to return to her historic role of isolationism where the United States trades with her friends and with her enemies but on a lesser scale and dares not interfere in worldly matters allowing them to work themselves out without United States interventions. United States entering an isolationist perspective would only allow her deployment of troops to be limited and almost always to support trade more than worrying about such trivialities as world balance and defeating evil, that’s better left to the knights of Europe who have always done this before. Of course this before was before the United States encouraged Europe to stop their militarism and that the United States would spread her umbrella and cover them so they could turn to less harmful pursuits such as taking on debt and squabbling amongst each other, just this time no world wars starting in Europe, that was the deal the United States imposed on Europe. But now it appears the United States may be folding up that umbrella and claiming not to see the storm clouds rising out of the Middle East, a denial which is difficult to swallow.

 

The going theory is that the United States will return to the role of the world’s police and enforce the good behavior between the nations extending force projection where needed. That is not the historic tendency of the United States after any major conflicts; her historic stance has been a laissez-faire attitude of simple sitting back keeping her hands politely to herself, which is the norm from the United States. The average American knows little about world affairs and cares even less. The average American was defined by President Clinton in his initial campaign for the Presidency with his slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The stupid in this case was George Herbert Walker Bush (the elder and first Pres Bush) and the elections proved it as President Bush did not gain reelection largely due to his having broken his promise of, “Read my lips; no new taxes,” and then was forced to raise taxes by a Democrat Congress in order to get his budget passed with the military spending not slashed by the Congress. The election of President Clinton over reelecting President Bush was all about domestic policies over foreign policies.

 

You start to talk about foreign policy with the average American and their eyes gloss over and they drift into some zombie like state all catatonic and in shock after the first two or three sentences. Talk about immigration, taxes, domestic hot-button issues, government spending of which all is unnecessary except those they are or will receive, and the economy then you will engage in a sometimes heated debate. Talk about money and they will listen, talk about something happening in the Mille East or Asia and they will repeat what the media stated, that is bad, that is good and those people sure have as rough time, but then they will turn it back to how the government needs to take care of things at home first. The average American has all the sympathy you could ever ask for and they will donate more to charities than any other peoples on earth but when it comes to sending their young men off to fight in what they mostly see as somebody else’s war, then they need a ton of convincing and President Obama surfs waves, seldom makes waves when it comes to world politics. The President came from a past as a community organizer, read rabble rouser causing trouble to force government actions usually spending more money of which they get the lion’s share, and knows little outside of Chicago, let alone outside of the United States. He treats foreign policy as if it was a plague and to his outlook, as well as many Americans outlooks, simply does not go past the horizon and possibly not past the water’s edge.

 

We can bet that should the Democrat candidate become the next President, they too will do little as they can in foreign policy. We need remember that the Democrat candidate will not likely be Hillary Clinton but more likely somebody not even announced as of yet. Ms. Clinton’s campaign van has the wheels flying off and the engine is about to quit. The van is driving down the road to oblivion. But what if it is the Republican candidate, you inquire. There we need to find out who will take the lead and which ones do not survive the first three or four actual primary votes. We can make some specific and general observations. Rand Paul is an isolationist libertarian who believes if the United States hurts nobody then nobody would target the United States. Of all the governors and ex-governors running, only Jeb Bush might be a President inclined to use military force and actually have an active foreign policy. Others have claimed that they will repair the United States relations with Israel as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia largely undoing some of the changes made under President Obama. Still, such actions do not necessarily mean a return into Iraq to defeat ISIS unless it becomes a dire threat to the stability of the Middle East. Only Senator Marco Rubio has direct experience with foreign policies as he in on the Senate Intelligence Committee which gives him access beyond the average Senator under the need to know doctrines. Almost any Republican candidate becoming President would easily take four months to a year to become fully briefed on every hot-spot that the Pentagon had plans and counter plans and different options under each plan and time granted each. Such amounts of information is why the President has a Secretary of Defense whose staff is divided so they can divide their work and attend to each contingencies. Still, the final decisions and person who must form the overall foreign police and who has to call in the troops for action when deemed to be necessary lies with the President and the President alone. That is one of the reason it is said that it is lonely at the top. We still have no real available input that any of the Republican candidates would press for an interventionist approach to foreign policies.

 

Likely the most pressing foreign policy might already have their hands tied should President Obama make any Iran nuclear deal somehow into a treaty without gaining Congressional affirmation. Such a decade long deal would actually prevent the next administration from taking any actions without smoking gun style proof that Iran had broken the agreement but as the agreement includes steps all the way through twelve years with little margin for change in the terms or even the terminology during that time period with the Iranians presumably free to complete their desired goal of deliverable nuclear warheads and the ICBMs on which to place them after ten years according to President Obama’s own admission which would leave them at a minimum two years to produce as many weapons systems as they are able starting with an unknown amount of LEU (low enrichment Uranium) with which to work and all of that Uranium a simple two day’s processing to be made weapons grade HEU (highly enriched Uranium over 90% purity) and then they would be capable of molding the cores and producing actual weapons. All of this is a guess of what the eventual agreement will appear to say and Iranian compliance to the terms and inspection protocols as well as their answering numerous questions about previous work performed largely by the military which Iran insists is an unprecedented and unnecessary invasion of their privileges and privacies. So, when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program the next President may be acting with his hands tied and possibly looking at a negative response from a nuclear armed Iran claiming their dominion over Iraq and dismissing the need for United States interference in their area of control which they will claim includes Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and who knows where else by January 21, 2017 when the next President takes office. After Iran there will be other situations such as Russia and their low-grade war with the Ukraine and its possibilities, China and their expansion Islands being built and potentially taking territorial control semi-legally over the entire South China Sea giving them control over one of the most active shipping lanes in the world. Speaking of choke points for shipping, Iran already has menacing control over the Straits of Hormuz where almost one third of the world’s oil is shipped by tankers and may through their proxies in Yemen, Houthis can also threaten to control the Bab-el-Mandeb which would cut off the southern exit of the Red Sea making the Suez Canal unusable and the Israeli southern port to the orient and Africa blockaded, a casus belli which could lead to a state of declared war by Iran on Israel and Egypt as both would have their shipping access to the world impeded illegally as Iran would have no other excuse other than they could close all shipping. These are just the top three and none of these includes the ISIS threat which may grow to the point where Iran and ISIS meet on equal footing with ISIS having gained an Air Force even if of a limited nature, and tactics which are prone to working, at least working well against the Iraqi army. ISIS has had far less success against the Kurdish Militias such as the Peshmerga (literally “one who confronts death”) and the People’s Protection Units (known as the YPG). These have held the northeast parts of Syria having an astonishing turning point in the city of Kobanê as well as the northern third or so of Iraq where the Kurdish forces saved thousands of Yazidi and whose Yazidi Militias have joined ranks with the Kurdish Militias. We could continue to the other continents and their probabilities for causing distress but that would leave Antarctica as probably the only safe haven if you desired no strife, or at least not yet.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.