I figured I'd share this idea that I came across in the paper the other day.
I am sure you can find flaws with it somewhere if you poke at it enough, but the reasoning behind it seems to be sound.
Remortgage America.
It's kind of like a G.I. Bill for everyone who meets certain minimum standards.
I wonder if the super committee is listening.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Today's Featured Presentation...
A 1996 documentary titled "The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America."
It touches on the history of money, as well as provides a blueprint for fixing our country's debt crisis, called the "Monetary Reform Act".
The documentarian, Bill Still, deserves a Nobel Prize.
You can be cooler than all your friends by watching this first, before everyone else gets around to it.
The Story.
The Plan.
It touches on the history of money, as well as provides a blueprint for fixing our country's debt crisis, called the "Monetary Reform Act".
The documentarian, Bill Still, deserves a Nobel Prize.
You can be cooler than all your friends by watching this first, before everyone else gets around to it.
The Story.
The Plan.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Dam It!
As predicted by many, Rick Perry has quickly shot toward the top of the polls in the competition for the Republican nomination for the Presidency.
Rick Perry is a choice for voters who admire some of Michele Bachmann's traits, but want someone with executive experience. Maybe even an economic record to run on.
Or, he is for those who admire some of Bachmann's traits, but are reluctant to vote for a woman.
You take your pick.
I'm not even trying to be funny.
Switching gears, I saw in the news the other day that there is a proposed dam to be built in Pakistan, set to cost upwards of $12 billion dollars.
Meanwhile, the border with Mexico remains as porous as Swiss cheese.
Our bridges are collapsing and our roads are crumbling due to neglect.
Tunnels are not up to code.
It's actually a public safety issue.
While I agree that the pie really needs to shrink overall, it would be great if infrastructure spending took up a little more of that shrinking pie. Let's also make it abundantly clear that you don't need a stimulus to allocate funds for infrastructure.
One thing that irks many Americans is when we spend money elsewhere when we could really use it here at home. Closing down hospitals and schools in the US and building them in Afghanistan. Stationing large numbers of troops in Europe, giving many European governments the ability to skimp on their defense budgets while they provide cradle-to-grave entitlements and lavish pensions for their citizens that we could never afford for ourselves, even if we were ever so inclined.
My main idea?
Take things away from other people before you do so to Americans.
Going back to that proposed Pakistani dam project, that money being spent right there would almost be enough to build a high-tech border barrier with Mexico.
It almost makes you feel like politicians have been playing politics with seriously attempting to close down illegal immigration and drug smuggling. After glancing here, you might be kind of irked that nothing has been done about the problem yet.
It's relatively inexpensive. It's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
The problem, of course, is politics.
Some on one side want cheap labor, and some on the other side pander for votes.
Any other hypotheses on why nothing has truly been done yet?
If 100 people running around in caves in Afghanistan are a threat to national security, why isn't a porous 2,000-mile border with Mexico also a threat to national security?
We don't take it seriously enough.
Remember last year during the oil spill when the frustrated President said "Plug the damn leak!"?
That's how many Americans feel about the border situation.
On a final aside, I'm interested in hearing the President's speech on jobs this coming Thursday.
Maybe he's realized that the only way he is going to get any additional revenues is through comprehensive tax reform, and I hope he chooses to take advantage of that opportunity for bipartisan compromise to enact pro-growth policies that would benefit the country as a whole.
Something else to note: many Right-leaning Independents and Republicans are stimulus-ed out. People in general have little faith in their governments to do anything right. Look at the first stimulus. Not even 10% of that money went into roads and bridges. We were once bit, but we're twice shy.
What am I saying?
The "S"-word just might be a non-starter, especially with a debt-to-GDP ratio eclipsing 100%.
It just might be.
And it's not our fault that it's gotten to that point.
Rick Perry is a choice for voters who admire some of Michele Bachmann's traits, but want someone with executive experience. Maybe even an economic record to run on.
Or, he is for those who admire some of Bachmann's traits, but are reluctant to vote for a woman.
You take your pick.
I'm not even trying to be funny.
Switching gears, I saw in the news the other day that there is a proposed dam to be built in Pakistan, set to cost upwards of $12 billion dollars.
Meanwhile, the border with Mexico remains as porous as Swiss cheese.
Our bridges are collapsing and our roads are crumbling due to neglect.
Tunnels are not up to code.
It's actually a public safety issue.
While I agree that the pie really needs to shrink overall, it would be great if infrastructure spending took up a little more of that shrinking pie. Let's also make it abundantly clear that you don't need a stimulus to allocate funds for infrastructure.
One thing that irks many Americans is when we spend money elsewhere when we could really use it here at home. Closing down hospitals and schools in the US and building them in Afghanistan. Stationing large numbers of troops in Europe, giving many European governments the ability to skimp on their defense budgets while they provide cradle-to-grave entitlements and lavish pensions for their citizens that we could never afford for ourselves, even if we were ever so inclined.
My main idea?
Take things away from other people before you do so to Americans.
Going back to that proposed Pakistani dam project, that money being spent right there would almost be enough to build a high-tech border barrier with Mexico.
It almost makes you feel like politicians have been playing politics with seriously attempting to close down illegal immigration and drug smuggling. After glancing here, you might be kind of irked that nothing has been done about the problem yet.
It's relatively inexpensive. It's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
The problem, of course, is politics.
Some on one side want cheap labor, and some on the other side pander for votes.
Any other hypotheses on why nothing has truly been done yet?
If 100 people running around in caves in Afghanistan are a threat to national security, why isn't a porous 2,000-mile border with Mexico also a threat to national security?
We don't take it seriously enough.
Remember last year during the oil spill when the frustrated President said "Plug the damn leak!"?
That's how many Americans feel about the border situation.
On a final aside, I'm interested in hearing the President's speech on jobs this coming Thursday.
Maybe he's realized that the only way he is going to get any additional revenues is through comprehensive tax reform, and I hope he chooses to take advantage of that opportunity for bipartisan compromise to enact pro-growth policies that would benefit the country as a whole.
Something else to note: many Right-leaning Independents and Republicans are stimulus-ed out. People in general have little faith in their governments to do anything right. Look at the first stimulus. Not even 10% of that money went into roads and bridges. We were once bit, but we're twice shy.
What am I saying?
The "S"-word just might be a non-starter, especially with a debt-to-GDP ratio eclipsing 100%.
It just might be.
And it's not our fault that it's gotten to that point.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Defense Cuts and the 9/11 Connection.
Since I like analogies, let’s start off with an analogy.
Let's say you're in a boxing match.
Your opponent is 5'6'', 135 lbs.
Soaking wet.
You're 6'2'', 210.
He catches you with a mean right hook.
He knocks you out, and you awake to blood and broken teeth in your mouth.
You know you should have been able to handle him.
You go home embarrassed, bewildered, and holding onto your jaw, saying to yourself, "I don't care how much it costs, next time I'll be ready for him."
You pull out all the stops, hiring a new trainer, buying top of the line equipment, fancy nutrition supplements, etc...money is no object.
Prior to meeting him again in the ring, you hear something that shocks you: your opponent wasn't so formidable after all. Prior to your fight, he apparently slipped a horseshoe into his boxing glove.
Did you overreact?
Had you known this beforehand, would you still be justified in your response to the knockout?
Was it measured and rational?
Here's a fact: defense spending has tripled since 1997.
The majority of that following the September 11th attacks.
You can pretty much correlate the upswing in defense spending with those events taking place.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Is the world three times as dangerous today than it was on September 10th, 2001?
Are there three times as many enemies out there?
The answer to these questions is no.
In the past 10 years, there has been one "successful" attack (which doesn't even count, as it never would have taken place without outside forces guiding events), and several failed, smaller attempts to cause harm. Even these events may have been prevented.
The State Department helped the Underwear Bomber onto the plane. There were prior warnings to the Fort Hood shooting.
As for the Times Square Bomber, he went all the way to Pakistan just to learn how to make bombs that had no chance of exploding. In other words, when thinking of many of these militants, think more "bumbling and incompetent", less "spooky" or "blowing up skyscrapers."
There's a greater point I'm trying to get at here.
Had none of this happened, would you have...
-supported tens of thousands of troops entering Afghanistan?
-supported invading Iraq and removing an Iranian regional counterbalance?
-supported warrantless domestic wiretapping and spying?
-supported HUGE increases in defense spending?
-enlisted or even died in the armed forces?
There are countless consequences to the September 11th attacks that could be plugged in here.
Each one deserving of that scrutiny; needing to pass that test.
Because if we're not basing our decisions on real facts and happenings, what on Earth are we basing them on?
We need to realize we've been suckerpunched.
We need to re-assess the opponent and the situation.
Listen, I'm not denying that there are people out there who would like to see you dead.
Yes, there are Radical Islamists out there.
Really need to go in and "get somebody"?
Let Mr. Petraeus and the CIA along with our elite armed forces take care of that stuff.
But hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground?
Americans have neither the stomachs nor wallets to handle it.
Zbigniew Brzezinski once equated American defense spending with "economic self-denial."
Do I agree with this sentiment?
To a certain degree.
Sure, we need to defend ourselves, and I love the fact that we have the fanciest toys. Investing in our military is vital to national security.
But at what point do military expenditures become excessive? When does it take up too much of the pie? When could the money be better spent elsewhere?
The 9/11 connection is relevant.
It’s a subject I had put away for a while, only to pull it back out because of how relevant it was to the situation we find ourselves in today.
The present only makes sense when the past is put into proper context.
You're trying to tell me there's not room to make ANY cuts in defense at all?
Defense cuts belong on the table (Some decent ideas in here...not all of them, but whatever).
Starting with these phony wars that over 6,000 people have died for.
Let's say you're in a boxing match.
Your opponent is 5'6'', 135 lbs.
Soaking wet.
You're 6'2'', 210.
He catches you with a mean right hook.
He knocks you out, and you awake to blood and broken teeth in your mouth.
You know you should have been able to handle him.
You go home embarrassed, bewildered, and holding onto your jaw, saying to yourself, "I don't care how much it costs, next time I'll be ready for him."
You pull out all the stops, hiring a new trainer, buying top of the line equipment, fancy nutrition supplements, etc...money is no object.
Prior to meeting him again in the ring, you hear something that shocks you: your opponent wasn't so formidable after all. Prior to your fight, he apparently slipped a horseshoe into his boxing glove.
Did you overreact?
Had you known this beforehand, would you still be justified in your response to the knockout?
Was it measured and rational?
Here's a fact: defense spending has tripled since 1997.
The majority of that following the September 11th attacks.
You can pretty much correlate the upswing in defense spending with those events taking place.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Is the world three times as dangerous today than it was on September 10th, 2001?
Are there three times as many enemies out there?
The answer to these questions is no.
In the past 10 years, there has been one "successful" attack (which doesn't even count, as it never would have taken place without outside forces guiding events), and several failed, smaller attempts to cause harm. Even these events may have been prevented.
The State Department helped the Underwear Bomber onto the plane. There were prior warnings to the Fort Hood shooting.
As for the Times Square Bomber, he went all the way to Pakistan just to learn how to make bombs that had no chance of exploding. In other words, when thinking of many of these militants, think more "bumbling and incompetent", less "spooky" or "blowing up skyscrapers."
There's a greater point I'm trying to get at here.
Had none of this happened, would you have...
-supported tens of thousands of troops entering Afghanistan?
-supported invading Iraq and removing an Iranian regional counterbalance?
-supported warrantless domestic wiretapping and spying?
-supported HUGE increases in defense spending?
-enlisted or even died in the armed forces?
There are countless consequences to the September 11th attacks that could be plugged in here.
Each one deserving of that scrutiny; needing to pass that test.
Because if we're not basing our decisions on real facts and happenings, what on Earth are we basing them on?
We need to realize we've been suckerpunched.
We need to re-assess the opponent and the situation.
Listen, I'm not denying that there are people out there who would like to see you dead.
Yes, there are Radical Islamists out there.
Really need to go in and "get somebody"?
Let Mr. Petraeus and the CIA along with our elite armed forces take care of that stuff.
But hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground?
Americans have neither the stomachs nor wallets to handle it.
Zbigniew Brzezinski once equated American defense spending with "economic self-denial."
Do I agree with this sentiment?
To a certain degree.
Sure, we need to defend ourselves, and I love the fact that we have the fanciest toys. Investing in our military is vital to national security.
But at what point do military expenditures become excessive? When does it take up too much of the pie? When could the money be better spent elsewhere?
The 9/11 connection is relevant.
It’s a subject I had put away for a while, only to pull it back out because of how relevant it was to the situation we find ourselves in today.
The present only makes sense when the past is put into proper context.
You're trying to tell me there's not room to make ANY cuts in defense at all?
Defense cuts belong on the table (Some decent ideas in here...not all of them, but whatever).
Starting with these phony wars that over 6,000 people have died for.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Compromise.
There's compromise in the capitol.
The leadership of both parties have reached a consensus with the President in the debt ceiling standoff. The signing process came to a close Tuesday afternoon.
What did the two parties walk away with?
Democrats-
1) The debt ceiling increases will cover U.S. spending through 2012, which prevents it from becoming a 2012 election issue.
2) Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are off the table.
Republicans-
1) Cuts...and cuts larger than the debt ceiling increase, at that.
2) No new revenues.
Let's go a little further in-depth as to how this deal will work out.
First, the debt ceiling would be raised by nearly $1 trillion, accompanied by spending cuts.
Then, a congressional "supercommittee" of twelve, containing 3 members of each party from each house of Congress, would be assembled, with the goal of recommending another $1.8 trillion in deficit cuts by the end of November.
If this supercommittee fails to yield results, Congress would then have to vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment.
If that amendment fails, then an automatic $1.2 trillion in triggered cuts would kick in, affecting both the Pentagon and domestic discretionary spending like Medicare equally.
The thought of cutting defense at all makes many Republicans cry.
Democrats tear up at the thought of cuts to Medicare.
I guess that's a strong incentive for this supercommittee to do some actual work and identify cuts as needed.
Another point worth mentioning is that many of the cuts are backloaded, taking place toward the end of the 10-year window in discussion. Just to show you, not even $30 billion was hacked off of the first year of these projections.
The far left and far right wings are both dissatisfied with the deal, and for different reasons.
The left because they feel like they got rolled by the Tea Party. There was no clear increase in the government's capacity to borrow as they wanted.
The right because they don't feel there were enough cuts, and entitlement reform was left out of the equation. Some also voted against the bill because they refused to increase the debt ceiling without a balanced budget amendment. Period.
What's my opinion on the whole thing?
Am I happy with the deal?
Entitlement reform kind of got kicked down the road, so I'm a bit annoyed by that.
But the conversation has been brought in the right direction.
Borrowing $0.42 out of every dollar that we spend is not sustainable.
Some cuts are going to be necessary.
Most people would agree with that.
Not Paul Krugman.
I almost spit out my drink when I heard him say that we should not be making any cuts AT ALL.
Really?
He didn't say, "Indiscriminate cuts may harm the economy."
My mind is officially blown.
Liberal academia screams one thing and S&P screams almost the total opposite.
Even with these cuts, the US may still lose its sterling AAA bond rating anyway.
And only in Washington can they talk about $2 trillion in cuts while failing to mention that it is all in the context of a budget baseline that is assumed to increase by 8% or 9% every year.
Think about that.
Before I close, I'd just like to go back to the balanced budget amendment.
Some argue against it and consider it unwise to place such restrictions on our government.
If fiscal conservatives can't gather enough support for a BBA, consider tweaking with it a bit in order to get the necessary support.
For example, instead of mandating a balanced budget every year, mandate that deficit spending isn't allowed to go over by more than a given percentage of the budget each year. That allows for some flexibility, but would put some kind of restrictions on how and how much our government spends, and would certainly help to put a cap on runaway spending.
Hey, a watered-down version of what you seek would work better than trusting politicians to keep our books in the black. At least I think so.
Raising the debt ceiling needed to be done, but Washington still has a lot of work to do.
The leadership of both parties have reached a consensus with the President in the debt ceiling standoff. The signing process came to a close Tuesday afternoon.
What did the two parties walk away with?
Democrats-
1) The debt ceiling increases will cover U.S. spending through 2012, which prevents it from becoming a 2012 election issue.
2) Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are off the table.
Republicans-
1) Cuts...and cuts larger than the debt ceiling increase, at that.
2) No new revenues.
Let's go a little further in-depth as to how this deal will work out.
First, the debt ceiling would be raised by nearly $1 trillion, accompanied by spending cuts.
Then, a congressional "supercommittee" of twelve, containing 3 members of each party from each house of Congress, would be assembled, with the goal of recommending another $1.8 trillion in deficit cuts by the end of November.
If this supercommittee fails to yield results, Congress would then have to vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment.
If that amendment fails, then an automatic $1.2 trillion in triggered cuts would kick in, affecting both the Pentagon and domestic discretionary spending like Medicare equally.
The thought of cutting defense at all makes many Republicans cry.
Democrats tear up at the thought of cuts to Medicare.
I guess that's a strong incentive for this supercommittee to do some actual work and identify cuts as needed.
Another point worth mentioning is that many of the cuts are backloaded, taking place toward the end of the 10-year window in discussion. Just to show you, not even $30 billion was hacked off of the first year of these projections.
The far left and far right wings are both dissatisfied with the deal, and for different reasons.
The left because they feel like they got rolled by the Tea Party. There was no clear increase in the government's capacity to borrow as they wanted.
The right because they don't feel there were enough cuts, and entitlement reform was left out of the equation. Some also voted against the bill because they refused to increase the debt ceiling without a balanced budget amendment. Period.
What's my opinion on the whole thing?
Am I happy with the deal?
Entitlement reform kind of got kicked down the road, so I'm a bit annoyed by that.
But the conversation has been brought in the right direction.
Borrowing $0.42 out of every dollar that we spend is not sustainable.
Some cuts are going to be necessary.
Most people would agree with that.
Not Paul Krugman.
I almost spit out my drink when I heard him say that we should not be making any cuts AT ALL.
Really?
He didn't say, "Indiscriminate cuts may harm the economy."
My mind is officially blown.
Liberal academia screams one thing and S&P screams almost the total opposite.
Even with these cuts, the US may still lose its sterling AAA bond rating anyway.
And only in Washington can they talk about $2 trillion in cuts while failing to mention that it is all in the context of a budget baseline that is assumed to increase by 8% or 9% every year.
Think about that.
Before I close, I'd just like to go back to the balanced budget amendment.
Some argue against it and consider it unwise to place such restrictions on our government.
If fiscal conservatives can't gather enough support for a BBA, consider tweaking with it a bit in order to get the necessary support.
For example, instead of mandating a balanced budget every year, mandate that deficit spending isn't allowed to go over by more than a given percentage of the budget each year. That allows for some flexibility, but would put some kind of restrictions on how and how much our government spends, and would certainly help to put a cap on runaway spending.
Hey, a watered-down version of what you seek would work better than trusting politicians to keep our books in the black. At least I think so.
Raising the debt ceiling needed to be done, but Washington still has a lot of work to do.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
2012.
After receiving a brief bump in the polls following the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the President’s numbers have come down in recent weeks. In fact, to below a 50% approval rating, according to a CBS News poll released on Wednesday. He’s at 48% approval, down from 57% following the killing of Bin Laden.
Why?
The economy just really is that bad, and the death of a terrorist leader every month couldn't make Americans forget that.
More Americans than ever are on Food Stamps.
The new unemployment figures are 9.1%.
That’s not even counting the underemployed, or even those who have stopped looking for work.
No president has been re-elected with unemployment numbers higher than 7.2% since FDR.
At one point, some predicted easy re-election for Obama, citing that the Republican field was just “too weak.” In that respect, the economy may act as the great equalizer between big-name fundraisers like Obama and the likes of a Tim Pawlenty. There is much to be gained politically by harping on the economy and unemployment from a Republican point of view, and Mitt Romney was smart to focus on these issues in his opening salvos the other week. (If only the guy had a personality. Also, the whole RomneyCare issue is just embarrassing for him.) It wouldn’t even be demagoguery to do so. That’s real human pain and suffering. Real people out of work. Real people trying to put their kids through school.
Know what’s happening to the President?
Blaming things on Bush isn’t going to fly anymore.
More and more Americans are beginning to hold Obama responsible for current conditions, and less and less are blaming his predecessor. It was just a matter of time as things continued to get worse.
The vulnerabilities are glaring from a strategic standpoint: jobs and the economy are becoming the President’s glass jaw.
All that is needed is someone mighty enough in the Republican field to wield the knockout blow.
From a Democratic perspective, these are liabilities that can and must be shored up, and doing something unorthodox just might be the key to Obama's re-election.
Let's be honest: Bernanke and Co. don't have too many arrows left in their quiver. The stimulus failed horribly. We just finished a second round of quantitative easing. We can't keep buying our own bonds.
The ball is in President Obama's court, fully and totally.
He is the master of his own destiny.
Just calling it like I see it.
Why?
The economy just really is that bad, and the death of a terrorist leader every month couldn't make Americans forget that.
More Americans than ever are on Food Stamps.
The new unemployment figures are 9.1%.
That’s not even counting the underemployed, or even those who have stopped looking for work.
No president has been re-elected with unemployment numbers higher than 7.2% since FDR.
At one point, some predicted easy re-election for Obama, citing that the Republican field was just “too weak.” In that respect, the economy may act as the great equalizer between big-name fundraisers like Obama and the likes of a Tim Pawlenty. There is much to be gained politically by harping on the economy and unemployment from a Republican point of view, and Mitt Romney was smart to focus on these issues in his opening salvos the other week. (If only the guy had a personality. Also, the whole RomneyCare issue is just embarrassing for him.) It wouldn’t even be demagoguery to do so. That’s real human pain and suffering. Real people out of work. Real people trying to put their kids through school.
Know what’s happening to the President?
Blaming things on Bush isn’t going to fly anymore.
More and more Americans are beginning to hold Obama responsible for current conditions, and less and less are blaming his predecessor. It was just a matter of time as things continued to get worse.
The vulnerabilities are glaring from a strategic standpoint: jobs and the economy are becoming the President’s glass jaw.
All that is needed is someone mighty enough in the Republican field to wield the knockout blow.
From a Democratic perspective, these are liabilities that can and must be shored up, and doing something unorthodox just might be the key to Obama's re-election.
Let's be honest: Bernanke and Co. don't have too many arrows left in their quiver. The stimulus failed horribly. We just finished a second round of quantitative easing. We can't keep buying our own bonds.
The ball is in President Obama's court, fully and totally.
He is the master of his own destiny.
Just calling it like I see it.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Worm Food.
As I'm sure you've heard, Osama Bin Laden, figurehead of Al Qaeda, is now worm food.
With the death of the Bush Administration's favorite boogieman (I do believe he is dead, but I really wish they'd release some photos), at least two other things are made clear:
1) The aforementioned Bush administration's incompetency.
2) The schizophrenic nature of Pakistan's government, military, and intelligence apparatus toward the U.S.
Why am I calling the Bush administration incompetent? They had about seven years, beginning with the American incursion into Afghanistan, to capture or kill this man. They didn't get the job done. I have my disagreements with the Obama administration, but Obama the president kept a pledge that Obama the candidate had made: to capture or kill Bin Laden whenever the chance arose, even inside of Pakistan itself. I guess he kept that promise.
As per the complicated, convoluted relationship that exists between Washington and Islamabad, nothing is more indicative of a lack of trust than carrying out the Seal team mission without Pakistani knowledge or approval. Later, however, the Pakistani government issued a statement basically saying that they should have been included in the planning and logistics of the mission. They had absolutely no idea.
On the other hand, some U.S. sources claim that the mission HAD to be kept a secret, as it might have been compromised had they taken a more inclusive route.
Bin Laden's body was washed, wrapped in a white sheet (in accordance with Islamic law), and buried at sea.
Did he really deserve all of that consideration? Probably not. He never gave any of the same to any of his victims. But anything less would have been inappropriate, as we're not a bunch of barbarians. We're better than that. The peanut gallery should stop complaining.
What's intriguing about this whole ordeal is where Bin Laden was actually found hiding compared to where most experts believed he was. He was found in a compound just north of Islamabad, not along the Afghan/Pakistani border region. He was less than a mile away from Pakistan's version of West Point, in a military town. It is inconceivable to me that no one in the Pakistani military and intelligence communities had any idea that he was hiding out just outside the capitol.
We've sent $20 billion in aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001. Maybe we ought to re-examine both our relationship with the Pakistani government as well as think twice about how U.S. tax dollars are being spent. Has sending aid to Pakistan made us any safer? What are the true aims of the Pakistani government?
I can only hope that the success of this raid will serve as an example for future dealings: relying on solid counterterrorism, intelligence gathering techniques, and precision strikes instead of counterinsurgency techniques, nation-building, and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground.
It's the only cost-effective way to accomplish our security goals, and I hope we can focus on that going forward. Taking out only individuals who are genuine threats to our nation's security.
Doing more with less.
Working smarter, not harder.
With the death of the Bush Administration's favorite boogieman (I do believe he is dead, but I really wish they'd release some photos), at least two other things are made clear:
1) The aforementioned Bush administration's incompetency.
2) The schizophrenic nature of Pakistan's government, military, and intelligence apparatus toward the U.S.
Why am I calling the Bush administration incompetent? They had about seven years, beginning with the American incursion into Afghanistan, to capture or kill this man. They didn't get the job done. I have my disagreements with the Obama administration, but Obama the president kept a pledge that Obama the candidate had made: to capture or kill Bin Laden whenever the chance arose, even inside of Pakistan itself. I guess he kept that promise.
As per the complicated, convoluted relationship that exists between Washington and Islamabad, nothing is more indicative of a lack of trust than carrying out the Seal team mission without Pakistani knowledge or approval. Later, however, the Pakistani government issued a statement basically saying that they should have been included in the planning and logistics of the mission. They had absolutely no idea.
On the other hand, some U.S. sources claim that the mission HAD to be kept a secret, as it might have been compromised had they taken a more inclusive route.
Bin Laden's body was washed, wrapped in a white sheet (in accordance with Islamic law), and buried at sea.
Did he really deserve all of that consideration? Probably not. He never gave any of the same to any of his victims. But anything less would have been inappropriate, as we're not a bunch of barbarians. We're better than that. The peanut gallery should stop complaining.
What's intriguing about this whole ordeal is where Bin Laden was actually found hiding compared to where most experts believed he was. He was found in a compound just north of Islamabad, not along the Afghan/Pakistani border region. He was less than a mile away from Pakistan's version of West Point, in a military town. It is inconceivable to me that no one in the Pakistani military and intelligence communities had any idea that he was hiding out just outside the capitol.
We've sent $20 billion in aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001. Maybe we ought to re-examine both our relationship with the Pakistani government as well as think twice about how U.S. tax dollars are being spent. Has sending aid to Pakistan made us any safer? What are the true aims of the Pakistani government?
I can only hope that the success of this raid will serve as an example for future dealings: relying on solid counterterrorism, intelligence gathering techniques, and precision strikes instead of counterinsurgency techniques, nation-building, and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground.
It's the only cost-effective way to accomplish our security goals, and I hope we can focus on that going forward. Taking out only individuals who are genuine threats to our nation's security.
Doing more with less.
Working smarter, not harder.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
This was inevitable.
I guess I just needed a spot to get things off my chest, and serve as a creative outlet, too.
So, here I am.
I had an awesome dream a week or two ago.
I was walking down the street, and I stopped to take a little stack of bills out of my pocket.
The bills looked totally normal, minus one important difference.
I looked at the top where it said "Federal Reserve Note."
That spot was totally blank.
It had to be an omen.
So, here I am.
I had an awesome dream a week or two ago.
I was walking down the street, and I stopped to take a little stack of bills out of my pocket.
The bills looked totally normal, minus one important difference.
I looked at the top where it said "Federal Reserve Note."
That spot was totally blank.
It had to be an omen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)