This week I choose an article describing the arrival of Iranian troops, as many as 15,000 in Syria. This is according to Chinese and Israeli sources. The operating force here is likely Quds, the Hezbollah-Shiite Muslim movement, with Commander Qassem Suleimani advising the crunching—and it is truly brutal mass slaughter- of unarmed and armed civilians, described (both) as terrorists. For which, Mr. Brose, I do thank Bush W.’s Imma-cowboy attitude and disrespect of all things not 100 percent with his version of Religious Realism. That, not "pragmatic internationalism," left us here. This is best described by the failure of the dual-track philosophy we are left with in Iran. While President Obama would have loved to have an open hand to offer Iran, to invoke an unclenched fist, the Confederate Congress, holding to a strange Dominionist philosophy from the start, would have nothing of that. This left the President in a weak negotiating position. Calculatedly (and in addition to), I might add, at the behest of private backers. This done while making it so the new Administration would have difficulty confirming judge-ships and completing other basic functions of the Executive (setting to steer various bureaucracies), knowing Mr. Obama’s hand would be filled with domestic matters, given the economy at the time he was elected. UK troops are there, advising opposition, by the way, so our allies are involved. Now, a few questions, some answers, more questions:
Who arms Iran? Who arms Syria? Well, Russia, mostly. Russia’s intent? Wealth, mostly, for the oligarchs in control of the pathways arms travel…I always thought, until now. But with Putin coming back into power, as the popular assumption goes, there is no telling, and I have much reading on post-Perestroika Russian History to do before I can make a more secure judgment. Sales to Iran of weapons systems ceased a year or so ago, but that means nothing to the 6000-plus dead people in Syria. Where does Russia work to put pressure on the Pakistan/India relationship? In other words, can they arm each country to where Pakistan and India both feel safe aligning with the Syria/Iran/Russia/China alliance that is becoming more apparent? And the fighting is spilling over into Lebanon, so…well, we’ll see. Always more questions. It seems that where India (their Israeli embassy bombed 2/13/12) sides on who their strongest allies are will be an important hinge in the matter, a place to look for more clues. One development making this all the more tricky? Al-Qaeda, though a press release, also supports the uprising. The South China Sea, becoming the new NY-London transfer for commercial trade (which explains, by the way, the move the President made re: increasing the number of troops in Australia), will still need American cooperation to succeed. After all, even if you aren’t a liberal, you know we need free and fair trade among nations, and maritime law is International Law, so-- if you purchase anything ever, you are a Liberal in practice. Now I’m done.
If there are three superpowers but only one Golden Cup of Hegemony, the three will engage in cold economic conflict, which we see heating up by the light of the fires in the Middle East and Northern Africa. China’s protectionist spirit is bellowing, Russia’s elections are coming, and the only way out is a Allied India or a strong Congress standing firm behind a strong President. Cold war is waged through allies; when it gets hot these days, it gets hotter in less developed nations, former colonies, etc., but the three struggling never have to literally fight. Instead, the struggle between them is waged through financial trickery. Devalue, inflate. Inflate. Devalue. Bubble. Bubble burst. Debt-trade. Repeat. This is a reacting system, not producing system, and the more democratic (reliant on American-style capitalism) China is, the less of a danger she will be to our own National Security Interests. Supposedly. The main issue everywhere is roughly the same after all--ideological polarity over the role of government action/no government intervention into the globally suffering economy. There will likely be a series of trade bubbles interrupted, playing out on sea trade routes. This does not mean inevitable hotter conflict between the three who struggle for control at the top, but certainly among allies of the three there will be a struggle to maintain their good relationships with each other. Therein lies just one more reason for America to fight hard on any battlefield to keep her good standing and never default on her debts.
Which brings me to Brose, a neo-connite (neo-con wannabe, neo-con in training) if ever there was one. A speechwriter for a torture apologist (Rice),—I could, but I will not go on, other than…to say that in his entire article, Mr. Brose showed the exact disrespect that has hammered this President from the beginning of his term until now. President Obama was President-elect Obama at the time, a term Brose neglects to use, and his use of the word swagger, when paired as it is with “righteously”, implies exactly the fear of “blackness” (“change for changes sake?” Who thinks no-one can see though that? Who?) we’ve seen play out domestically by the conservative party, both by the base and at the top. This is exactly the plan of the Right here is to privatize everything and get government entirely out of the way—but if people trust Democrats, they might vote for them! Can’t have people trusting institutions that are only created to slow down lassaiz faire! Those people are only slaves to the state, says the Right. The Right has spent years inflating debt while in power, leaving the mess for the incoming Liberal to try and tax-and-spend their way out of. Even now, while the President pivots to Asia, sets his campaign to run on strong (not-Bushy) foreign policy and the economy begins to chug along even minus the tax rates necessary historically to pay for war, they are switching their conversation to—what else?-- old social issues. This is how you get delegitimization of the President: plan, and implement this plan through Congress and successive administrations, throughout the state and federal levels, to stop any new revenue from coming in the government. Ever! And deny any vote from coming to the floor that would propose one! Deny the people the right to a referendum on continuing existing taxes. Defund all government! Replace it with church and business, they say, and the American family will again flourish. Phooey. Horseradish. This strategy has only one logical end, and it isn’t competition with China. It’s Civil War right here. Without revenue, there can be no transfer of power. Even if there is a transfer, there will be no trust. For example, China asserts what China wants, and like my wife, they get it. We don’t have to like it, but they can spend militarily and we obviously cannot. Thank you, Grover. I love you, honey.
Israel acting independently of her most trustworthy ally would indeed signal a change in the wind. Until then, though, I look for more pressure to come onto the US to intervene as the other side of the globe comes to a boil. This one hand out-one hand behind your back approach is exactly the opposite of what Obama has brought to the office, exactly the type of leadership his predecessor showed, and the kind of leadership that can navigate this treacherous Middle East/Resurgent Russia/Corporate China situation isn’t the kind who will promise to bomb Iran tomorrow knowing America wouldn’t raise taxes to pay the soldiers who volunteer come time to pay. Austerity for you!
Do the two Presidents share problems, beliefs, policies, ideals? Surely. But at least the solutions forthcoming from this administration are not the ones the candidates for President would probably propose: drone-bombing China, no doubt, if they thought they stood gain from it, or worse, if President Obama would not. Taxes are also the price of war, and of civilization and this failure of Bush to recognize Reality is the typical inability to walk and chew gum at the same time. This, President Obama certainly did not inherit.
Source citation: http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/13/at-the-capitol-amazon-com-versus-the-world/ “At The Capitol.”
http://rt.com/news/syria-iran-cooperation-protests-969/ “15,000 Iranian Troops.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/166146/are-we-brink-war-iran “Are We On The Brink?”
http://rt.com/news/britain-qatar-troops-syria-893/ “British, Qatari Troops.”
http://www.economist.com/node/21546033 “Devil in the Deep Blue Detail.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/iran-war-would-cost-trillions-will-the-gop-pay-more-taxes-for-that/252977/ “Iran War Would Cost Trillions.”
“How Tax Workarounds.”
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm “Despoiling of America.”
Article Analysis Assignment
First, read a news story from the newspaper or the Internet. Answer the following questions regarding your news story: 1) What is the main issue, who are the main actors being discussed; Then, choose one of the assigned articles you read for this week. Answer the following questions regarding the assigned article: 1) What are the basics of this article (who, what, when, how, why, etc.); 2) What is the overall main point the author is trying to convince you of? 3) Do you agree with the author’s argument? Why? Why not? Finally, tie together your news story with what you learned from the assigned article, textbook readings, podcasts, videos, etc. for this week. Type your answers in the box below using your own words, no outline or bullets, complete sentences and paragraphs, single-spaced, full-page.