The National Interest: Michael Lind: The Neocons Are Responsible For Trumpism

Source:The National Interest-

Source:The New Democrat

What is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump I don't think can be explained so simplistically as "blame it on the Neoconservatives." There are a lot of things like the facts that we do have a shrinking Caucasian working class in America in the South, Midwest and Northeast. The Caucasian-American working class is much smaller today that it was even ten years ago and is only going to get smaller. Most of the country hasn't seen their wages go up in the last fifteen years. These are the millions of Americans that Pat Buchanan was able to speak to in the 1990s and early 2000s. That Rick Santorum was able to speak to in 2012 and to a certain extent Donald Trump now. Millions of Americans who no longer see the America that they grew up which wasn't nearly as diverse in the 1960s and 70s as it is today.

We now have an African-American President of the United States. We could very well have our first female President of the United States next year if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016. Homosexuality is not just accepted in America but gays can now get married everywhere in America. We've always been a diverse country ethnically and racially, but now those things are celebrated to the point where our two young adult generations my Generation X and the Millennial's, don't judge people by ace at all. Which is why things like affirmative action has lost so much political support and in danger of being thrown out by the courts. This is simply not the country that Richard Nixon's so-called Silent Majority grew up with where it wasn't just men that basically ran the country, but predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant men from the Northeast and the South.

Those Tea Party rallies from 2009 all the way to 2012, when they said they were going to "take back America", that is what they were speaking about. Take back America from people who've made America so much more diverse and tolerant. When Donald Trump says, "we're going to make America great again", I at least believe he's speaking to the Silent Majority and is saying that he wants to make America great again for them. The Caucasian American working class of Irish, Polish, Jewish, Italian, Anglo and other Americans of European background. He's not saying make America great for everybody, but for the Silent Majority that he believes have been left behind. Even though this man has nothing in common with these people from an economic, cultural, political or religious background. He sees a huge political opportunity here for himself that he's exploiting.

The National Interest: Daniel R. DePetris: 10 Questions to Ask Before Intervening in Libya Again

Source:The National Interest-

Source:The New Democrat 

It’s not that intervening in Libya in 2011 was the wrong decision. The American, European, as well as Arab intervention there saved as many as a hundred-thousand lives from the Libyan governmental forces. It was the aftermath of that war where the United States, European Union and Arab League, all failed. We knocked out the Qadhafi Regime and handed the country over to Libyan rebels that simply weren’t ready to govern and defend a country the size of Iran and Saudi Arabia in size. The Libyan military and security forces, including law enforcement, simply weren’t ready to defend this large country even with only six-million people. Plus the fact that the National Transitional Council in Libya, only represented at most half of the country and they weren’t ready to govern and defend the entire country.

So now Libya has essentially been divided in half with an east and a west. Without any true national government. Not all that different in how America looked in the 1860s before the Civil War. Or how Vietnam looked before the Communist North took over the entire country in the mid 1970s. And because of this power vacuüm ISIS has moved into Libya and about ready to control part of this large country, because again there is no real national military, national law enforcement agency and no national government, to push back and prevent ISIS from coming in. Whatever you think of the Iraq War and I’m against it, but America didn’t bail after we knocked out the Hussein Regime. We stayed, stayed, stayed and are still there. The Iraq War would have been a hell of a lot worst for Iraq had we not stayed after we knocked out the Hussein Regime in 2003.

I believe America, Europe and the Arab League, should and need to intervene in Libya again, with coöperation from the two warring government’s there, but to put it simply we need to do it right this time. Destroy ISIS and whatever other terrorists group are there, but then stay to help a unified Libya develop their own military and law enforcement agencies and national government. As well as the provincial government’s there so they can govern and defend themselves in the future. And that would mean bringing the two government’s there together and forming a national unity government. With one executive, one legislative and one national judicial branch. As well as one government for each province and locality so this large country and govern and defend itself. And no longer be vulnerable to rebels and terrorists groups.

Libya, is in America’s and Europe’s interest, because ISIS is now there and they’re a threat to us. Not the same threat as lets say Russia, but they could hit one of our embassies or hit America inside of the United States. Libya is also in America’s and Europe’s interest, because its’ such a large country. Only Algeria has more land than Libya in Western Arabia. And it’s simply ‘too big to fail.’ (A phrase from the Great Recession) And we need to at least try to make this country work which is what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan with limited success and are still trying to help those big countries succeed as well. The West and the Arab states, can’t afford to have a large country that is in chaos that is being run by terrorists, because we and them could get hit by those groups. And the United States and European Union should help Libya in the air with the Arab League on the ground, to destroy ISIS.
Source:CATO Institute

The National Interest: Daniel McCarthy: 'The Ugly Truth of Barack Obama’s Last-Gasp Liberalism'

Source:The National Interest- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking to a joint session of the 114th U.S. Congress.

Source:The New Democrat

I feel a little strange commenting on the Obama presidency and it’s impact on America and the rest of the world when it still has a about a year left in it. There are several president’s who’ve accomplished a lot for good in bad in their last year in office. President George W. Bush for example had to deal with the collapse of Wall Street and the banking system in his last year as president. But with Daniel McCarthy essentially arguing that liberalism American and otherwise is dead, I sort of feel the need to weigh in on this. Since again we still have a Center-Left president who is a Liberal, or Progressive, even if he’s a moderate one when it comes to civil liberties and freedom of choice issues.

When Barack Obama came to office, the American economy was literally collapsing. He inherited a budget deficit of over a trillion-dollars and a national debt that rose seven-trillion in the previous eight years and was a eleven-trillion when he took office. Plus the Great Recession just added to that with an economy shrinking at seven-percent and we were losing seven-hundred-thousand jobs in each of the last two months of the Bush Administration. Which adds to the unemployment rolls which adds to the deficit and debt with so many people who previously had middle-income and better jobs now receiving Unemployment Insurance from the Federal Government.

President Obama, had a lot to deal with in his first days as president, plus weeks and months. Like passing a Federal budget and the appropriations bills that the previous Congress and President Bush failed to pass. He had to get a stimulus bill through Congress to get the economy to stop dropping and buy it time to start recovering again. Which is what happened by the summer of 2009. America started creating jobs again by the spring of 2010. The President had forty-five-million Americans without health insurance and lot of those people simply couldn’t afford it. All of this on top of an economy that was falling. Which were the reasons for the auto bailouts, the American Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. All of this legislation in his first two-years as president.

And that is before you get to the President inheriting two wars in the Middle East. With no clear end to when either one would be over and the hundreds of billions of dollars that was borrowed from other countries to pay for those wars. Seven years later is America perfect and is every problem that the President inherited completely solved with nothing left for the future president to have to deal with? Of course not, but that is not how you judge presidencies. You judge them by the State of The Union from which the president inherited to how it was when they left office. Wages aren’t as high as we would like them and the size of the American workforce isn’t as large as it was in 2008. But the economy is no longer falling. The deficit is now 1/3 of what it use to be at around four-hundred-billion dollars. In April we will have seen six straight years of job growth and by the summer seven straight years of economic growth. More Americans now have health insurance than before.

I’ve always seen Barack Obama as a progressive pragmatist. Not as a Socialist, which the Tea Party loves to throw at him, especially the Birthers. Or a Neoconservative/Moderate Republican that actual Socialists like the Noam Chomsky’s of the world see him as. I see the President as Progressive who has big progressive goals and values, but won’t fight to the death for them and come up empty. So of course he’s not Bernie Sanders. He’s someone who goes issue by issue and looks for the best solution to each issue and then looks for the best solution possible. He had a Democratic Congress for his first two years and a divided Congress with a Republican House and Democratic Senate for the next four. And his last two years he’ll have a Republican Congress. So of course he’s had to compromise even with his own party in Congress a lot.

America really at least since the 1960s with the Cultural Revolution and then add the Reagan Revolution of the late 1970s and early 1980s, has always been as Barry Goldwater like to say a big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms country. Which is why both Center-Left Liberal Democrats (the real Liberals) like Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and yes Barack Obama, have done pretty well politically in this country. And why Center-Right Conservatives (the real Conservatives) like Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush and you could add Dick Nixon as well, have done well in America as well. Because they’ve tended to know where the people are and share their values and what they can accomplish politically as president. Senator Goldwater, was obviously never president, but he fitted in well with the Center-Right.

Liberalism, is not dead. Assuming Hillary Clinton is the next Democratic nominee for president and she becomes president, whether she governs as a Liberal or a Progressive, she’ll try to move the country forward from the Center-Left. And if she does that she’ll pretty successful politically. As long as she knows where she wants to go and can avoid big government and political scandals and handles issues competently. So in this universe as long as Liberals are actually that and don’t try to govern, or win office as Socialists and even Democratic Socialists, Liberals as long as they stay as who they are and stay in the Center-Left as people who believe in both personal and economic freedom and creating a society where everyone can succeed and use a limited government to help create that, they’ll do very well politically. Which is the politics that Barack Obama has always represented.

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

Source:The National Interest.

Source:The New Democrat

The Neo-Communists and Neo-Marxists, (as I at least call them in Venezuela) finally not only have some competition, but a liberal democratic opposition to their authoritarian rule. And shows that there’s even a limit to the mount of socialism that Venezuelans will put up with in their country. Especially when it comes with a high cost of the lost of personal freedom and a strong economy. Just as the Cuban economy is improving and the economy starting to move again in Columbia, the Socialist Maduro Administration in Venezuela has seen their economy collapse.

Because of falling oil prices in their country and the Venezuelan government’s Marxist miss-management of their economy, a country that is energy independent and yet not able to pay for their bare essentials like toilet paper and even food. The people in Venezuela stood up and demanded change and chose the liberal democratic opposition the Democratic Party there, which in Venezuela would be considered right-wing, which tells you how Far-Left the current government in Venezuela is. And now The Maduro Administration will have an opposition Assembly that it will have to deal with. With real limits on their power.

It’s not so much socialism that is the problem here, but how far you go with it and are you democratic or not and allow for real personal and even economic freedom, including a free press, free speech and a true opposition. Or do you concentrate so much power in the central government, the executive and head of state. To look after and take care of everyone else for them. Which is what happened in Cuba fifty-five years ago and perhaps would happen in Venezuela if the Neo-Communists there were allowed to hold on power indefinitely.

What the Venezuelan people did with their Assembly elections is to say that there’s a limit to what they expect one government and one political party to do for them and what they’ll allow to do to them. That you can’t blame America and Venezuela’s allies for all the problems that are going on in Venezuela. That at some point a political party, the Neo-Marxist Socialist Party in Venezuela that has had all the power in Caracas for the last 16 years has to take responsibility for the condition of the country.

The National Interest: Robert Farley: 'What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?'

Source:The National Interest- Iraqi Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein. (1979-2003)

Source:The New Democrat 

"In the early days of the air campaign of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States undertook a concerted effort to track and strike Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The effort was predicated on the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would have two effects; it would throw the Iraqi military hierarchy into chaos, and it would make the surviving Iraqi leadership more amenable to a negotiated solution." 

From The National Interest

To answer Robert Farley's question: I think the answer would be chaos. If you think 2003 was a bad time to invade and take out the Hussein Regime in Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, that would have been a great time compared with 1991. 

If we had taken out Saddam in 1991 and he's either replaced by another Baathist dictator like one of his sons and what would we have gained from that? Or almost twenty-five years later we're still trying to occupy Iraq today. America, was in recession in 1991 and had its own economic and financial problems at home. And couldn't afford to take on the responsibility of occupying another big country.

And the economic boom that we had in the 1990s probably doesn't come about in America, because we're spending so much money in Iraq. At least in 2003 there was something that looked like an opposition and there were people that could come in and at least temporarily run the Iraqi Republic. It just took them more than two-years after the invasion to make that come about. There wasn't any at least moderate opposition to the Baathists in 1991. There was Saddam and his Baathists and anyone who opposed them risked their own lives as a result.

The 1991 Gulf War was a very simply and well-executed. Get Iraq out of Kuwait and protect our economic and energy interests in Kuwait. That war was in the national and self-interest of the United States to not have a Baathist dictator in charge of one of the largest oil suppliers in the world to go on top of his already large supply of oil and gas in Iraq. This was not some idealistic neoconservative utopian war that was about bringing freedom and liberal democracy to a country of twenty-million that had no idea what those things were.

President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Council, didn't want to invade and occupy a country about the size of California in land and about the same population as Texas. Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, an Arab ally of America's. All they wanted to do was get Iraq out of Kuwait and put Iraq in a tight box so they couldn't invade anyone else again. Which they remained in for the next twelve years with Iraq being so weak that they had a hard time feeding themselves. In were never in any position to attack another country again.

The 1991 Gulf War, was conservative foreign policy and national security at its best. Protect American national interests which was the energy supply coming from Kuwait. Which has a peaceful and moderate regime, as well as a strong economy. And get an evil tyrant out of that country and box him in so he can't invade anyone else. Not to bring peace and liberal democracy to a country that has never heard of those things. The Gulf War, was probably H.W. Bush's finest days as President of the United States, with the grand coalition of European and Arab allies that he bad behind him. And why you wanted someone who his professional and national security background as Commander-In-Chief in a time like that. 

Instead of having a dove in there who generally sees American strength and use of force as a bad if not evil thing, who tends to be against the American military and things that it does. 

Or someone in there who would've done nothing and froze, because they didn't know what to do. Because they lacked the experience and judgement in foreign affairs. And another reason why the 2003 Iraq War was an unnecessary mistake, because we already had Saddam under control and so weak to the point that Iraq didn't even bother defending themselves in that war.

The National Interest: Peter Harris: 'Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism & Current World Crises'

Source:The National Interest- President Barack Obama, speaking at The United Nations in New York City.

Source:The New Democrat

"The war in Syria demonstrates the limits of the Westphalian system—but it's still the best rulebook we have."

From The National Interest

"Speaking from the State Floor in the White House on September 10, 2014, President Obama addressed the nation on the situation in Iraq and the United States’ strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL, a terrorist organization."

Source:The Obama White House- President Barack Obama, speaking at The White House.

From The Obama White House

To put it mildly the world is a lot more complicated now and the developed world which is mostly in the West is different now and less united than it once was. America and Europe, still believe in great liberal values like freedom of speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, personal freedom, self-ownership, the ability for one to live freely and make a good life for themselves and basic human rights and civil liberties. And even though we’re no longer fighting Marxism and Communism in general at least in the traditional sense, the West is dealing with a different type of authoritarianism that in many cases is not state-sponsored and organized from some authoritarian state.

Islamism, and private Islamist groups, have now replaced Marxism as the main competitor when it comes to liberalism and liberal values. The liberal order, to use a German term, is now facing Islamism as its main enemy when it comes to whether countries are going to live in free societies that are governed responsibly. Or are they going to live in the stone ages where women, gays and non-Muslims are treated like second or third-class citizens and even prisoners. The West and their Arab allies, haven’t figured out how to deal with Islamism and ISIS effectively yet. For one, a lot of those Arab states don’t believe in liberal values and human rights and are just looking to protect their own authoritarian regimes and monarchies, but don’t want to move to some fourth or fifth-world theocracy. The other being the West, America and Europe, aren’t sure about how much they are willing to invest to fight ISIS in Arabia.

This is a different battle or war taking on Islamism than the Cold War. During the Cold War, the main and really only major enemy to America and Europe was Russia and their Marxist Soviet Union. The People’s Republic of China, was still a very poor Marxist society similar to North Korea today for most of the Cold War. With Islamism, it’s not countries that we have to fight for the most part. But groups and groups powerful enough to knock out weak government’s and states and take at least part for their land. As they’ve done in both Iraq and Syria. But the only way you defeat a group like ISIS is through a strong broad committed coalition, which is what liberal internationalism is. That is going to go in and take on ISIS until they’ve defeated them. If you want to protect liberal democracy, liberal values and free societies, you have to fight for them and be united behind that.

The National Interest: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies

Source:The National Interest.

Source:The New Democrat

You can't be both a Neoconservative who wants America to police the world mostly if not completely by ourselves and be a fiscal Conservative who puts real limits on what government can do. Who doesn't want to consistently be borrowing money, running up deficits and expects government to pay for most if not all of its government operations as least when times are good. Speaking as a non-fiscal conservative, but fiscal Conservatives prioritize government spending. They lay out what is the money coming in and figure out exactly what government needs to do and then they pay for it.

A Progressive, is different and would try to figure out exactly what government should do without putting many if any limits on it and try to figure out how to pay for it. Even if that requires borrowing the money. Same thing with Neoconservatives who actually tend to be somewhat progressive when it comes to economic policy. George W. Bush in the 2000s, is an example of that. Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, who wanted to use government to move people out of poverty through work and job training. And encourage business's to hire people on Welfare. Speaker Paul Ryan, very similar today.

So if you just look at foreign policy and national security from a fiscal conservative point of view and not from a liberal internationalist or smart power point of view, or even a dovish perspective, having American taxpayers pay for the national security of other developed countries who can economically afford and have the population to defend themselves, doesn't make good fiscal sense, or even national security sense. Also it is not just American taxpayers who pay for other developed countries national defense in taxes. They also pay for it in higher interest rates because of the national debt and that we borrow from countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan, to defend them.

Out of all the Republican presidential candidates, maybe three of them are actually fiscal Conservatives. In party that is supposed to be a conservative party. And I'm thinking Senator Rand Paul, Governor John Kasich and perhaps Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, wants to spend another trillion-dollars on national defense and invest even more money in having America try to defend Europe for Europe and Arabia for Arabia, Japan for Japan and South Korea for South Korea. All of the countries are developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia and South Korea, already have two of the largest militaries and defense budgets in the world. The European Union if they were a country, their economy would be roughly the size of the United States. How come they can't pay for their own national defense? They can, but have chosen not to. Why pay for your own defense, when someone else does that for you. The mind of a Socialist I guess.

America, can't afford to have a small military and defense budget, but we sure as hell can't afford to police the world ourselves. Especially when we're stuck with a twenty-trillion-dollar national debt and we're borrowing money from countries in order to defend the countries that we're borrowing money from. For America to be as secure as possible, financially, economically and security, other countries especially Europe, has to at least play their own part when it comes to their own national defense, as well as dealing with international challenges when they come as well like Syria and Iraq. Socialism, is cheap when you don't have to pay for your own security. Europe, would be a lot less socialist if they had to pay for their own defense and not expect America to do that for them.

The National Interest: Colin Dueck: 'Donald Trump, American Nationalist'

Source:The National Interest - The Donald J. Trump. Thank God there's only one. Well, only one sr. Donald J. Trump.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Donald Trump’s real niche, carved out in his own strange way, is simply American nationalism. And this is a powerful force among Republicans. 

In the Republican presidential race, while Donald Trump’s star has faded a little, he continues to lead nationally in most polls. To be sure, he is not going to be president. Trump is more of a circus barker than a plausible commander-in-chief. But his continued polling success should indicate something about his appeal that observers from both parties would best understand. And partly, believe it or not, this has to do with U.S. foreign policy." 

From The National Interest 

"The Republican presidential candidate discussed Carson's rising poll numbers live on "Good Morning America."

Source:ABC News- interviewing The Donald J. Trump.

From ABC News

When you look at Donald Trump, you have to know that he's a businessman and a salesman, as well as the biggest narcissist perhaps in the history of the world. Who does these little things like running for president simply to bring attention himself. Who has multiple positions on perhaps every single major political issue going back thirty years since he first got involved in American politics from the outside. 

You shouldn't take anything The Donald says with a grain of salt,  years supply of salt. He goes where he believes the popular support is. He really should be running for both Narcissist and Faddist of the United States and run both offices at the same time. (He could afford to do it) Because who would beat him, or even challenge him. He's lucky politicians and candidates aren't required to take truth serum before they say anything, because he wouldn't be able to run for anything, other than maybe his own positions.

The Donald's latest venture and real reality show, Who Wants Donald Trump For President, is just an attempt to speak to so-called Middle-America Americans, Richard Nixon's Silent Majority. People who feel left behind from the New America. Anglo-Saxon Protestants primarily and to show them that he's with them. Even though he's nothing like them as far as where he's from, where he lives, the type of lifestyle he lives, the fact that he's not very religious at all. 

Maybe The Donald will get a new book, a documentary, perhaps an actual reality show out of this so-called presidential campaign. But he won't get the presidency, because the current group of Americans that he's pandering to are not enough for him to win the presidency. A Republican can't kiss off Latinos and women and hope to have any shot at winning the White House. So this is not about him being president.

The National Interest: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

The National Interest- Russian-Chinese Alliance?

Source:The New Democrat

I believe Les Gelb has the right attitude here and he’s someone who knows about American Power being the President of the Council of Foreign Relations. American Power, it depends on how you define it. I find think of most Americans when they think of American Power think of the U.S. Armed Forces and the broader National Security State. Like the Central Intelligence Agency, to use as an example. But our entire National Security Council is part of American Power. Which includes the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, as well as our Treasury Department.

See American Power, is our Armed Forces, and the National Security State, but it is also our economy. The stronger our economy is, the better our military can be. The more effective our economic sanctions against terrorist states can be. The main reason we won the Cold War against Russia, is because our economic strength. Their Marxist system simply failed their country. And their people had enough and you saw all of those non-ethnic Russian Soviet Republics break up and form their own countries. America, probably had a stronger military than Russia during the Cold War. But our economy and economic system was the main weapon there.

Now the purpose of American Power again using the NSC and economy to make America as strong as it can be. So we never have to worry about our own security. At least in the sense that someone could invade us, or wipe out a section of our country, or even attack us from the air. Which is where we’ve always have been at least since Pearl Harbor. The purpose of American Power is not to rule the world, or even police the world. At least by ourself, but to use our power to more than adequately defend us when needed. And to advance our interests and values that a lot of the world already shares.

I agree with Les Gelb, that America is and should be the strongest leader in the world. Simply because we are and there isn’t another democratic developed nation in the world that is capable of replacing us, or even coming close. But being the strongest leader in the world and the most powerful country economically and everything else, is different from being the leader of the world. And having to take all the risks and pay all the price when some crisis develops around the world. While everyone else debates what America should be doing at the debating society known as the United Nations. While they don’t do anything themselves.

The National Interest: Paul R. Pillar: Right & Wrong Lessons From the Iraq War

Source:Global Public Square-

Source:The New Democrat

I believe I know how Peter Beinart, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry, feel about the 2003 Iraq War. See, I supported it to. I thought it would be a good opportunity to one, eliminate a brutal Middle Eastern dictator in Saddam Hussein. Perhaps one of the top three most evil dictators of the 20th Century. I at least would put him in the same bastard class as Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler. And the idea of Saddam being allowed to continue to had weapons of mass destruction to be used against his own people, or use them against others, or perhaps sell them to terrorists, was unacceptable to me.

I wish I had the foresight of Dick Durbin. Who when was one of I believe twenty-two Senate Democrats who voted against the war. Sometimes it helps to be in Congress especially with a national security role and serving on one of those committees. And then maybe I would’ve seen the same lack of evidence that Saddam still even had WMD and a competent military, let alone a nuclear weapons program. Remember, the original justification for invading Iraq in 2002-03 and original being the key word here, is to prevent Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons. Not to save a large country from a brutal dictator.

The lessons for Iraq, I think are pretty simple. Don’t invade a country unilaterally without a plan for the aftermath. What the country could look like in the short and long-terms after the regime is kicked out. Once you eliminate another country’s government, you then have the responsibility for governing that country until they can do that for themselves. That is what occupation is about.

If you’re going to invade another country simply to eliminate a brutal authoritarian regime and that country is not currently a threat to you, don’t do it unilaterally. Make the case the case to the country’s neighbors and your allies that the regime has to go, so we can save the people there from future murders and a genocide. Build a coalition to not only take out the regime, but to occupy the country in the short-term in the aftermath. Work with the opposition on the ground if you can and get their assistance.

The last lesson and I think might be the most important, other than believing the current evidence on the ground and not taking out the weapons inspectors before they’ve completed their work and this has more to do with the Iraq Civil War than anything else, is don’t try to fight for a country that won’t fight for themselves. One of the reasons why we’re still trying to assist Iraq twelve years after we knocked the Hussein Regime out of power, is because the Bush Administration set no deadlines. They said we would be there as long as we need to be. The new Iraq Government took that as forever and didn’t do their part to make sure that their country could be secure.

I know I said last lesson already, but I’ll close with this. And you can talk about hindsight all you want, but we had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. They were finding nothing and again I go back to the original justification point for the original reason to invade Iraq which was to eliminate their WMD and nuclear weapons program. But as the years went on the Bush Administration kept coming up for new reasons for invading Iraq.

And they finally settled on Saddam was evil and brutal and needed to go. If they took that to Congress even with a Republican House and a divided Senate, their Iraq War Resolution would’ve have never gotten approved. The American people wouldn’t have backed it. We know now that the original reason for invading Iraq that Congress and the country backed was never justified and backed up even at the time of the war.
Source:CBS News

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: 'This Is Not Your Parents' Caribbean'

Source:The National Interest- A look at Paradise.

Source:The New Democrat

"Change is coming from multiple directions, driven by a thawing of U.S.-Cuban relations, Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, and the decline of Venezuela’s regional influence...."

From The National Interest

Source:Carib Nation TV- Talking about a Caribbean single market.

"The CARICOM Single Market and Economy is intended to benefit the people of the Region by providing more and better opportunities to produce and sell our goods and services and to attract investment. It will create one large market among the participating member states...

From Carib Nation TV

There are a lot of opportunities and challenges in the Caribbean especially with Cuba coming back from the dead so to speak with its economy and having restarted diplomatic relations with America again. And will become heavy trading partners that will benefit both economies. Cuba, the largest island nation in the Caribbean will see a lot of money coming into their country as a result. Cuba, very similar to Florida as far as its physical beauty climate and tourist attractions. And culturally South Florida is very similar to Cuba. But with a much better economy and infrastructure system.

With Cuba on the move again, that could hurt struggling little Caribbean states that are already struggling economically and could do even worst in the future with more money and people going to Cuba. Which is the challenge for Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Dominican, Haiti, Bahamas and others. But with challenges tend to come with opportunities. The whole Caribbean region is an area of forty-five-million people roughly. But with the biggest country being Cuba with a eleven-million people. The Dominican, has around ten-million people. Maybe its time that these countries get together and restructure their debts and deficits and do what Europe did back in the 1940s and 1950s.

To look at a Caribbean Union, or some type of West Indie Alliance where they become one economic market. That everyone would want to trade and invest with. Because one Indie market would be a lot bigger and wealthier than fifteen, or so mostly very small states like the Bahamas and Barbados. As well as having a joint defense alliance and foreign policy coordinator and even law enforcement alliance. Because Cuba, is coming back and will be even stronger economically than they were pre-Fidel Castro and the Marxist Revolution there. And Cuba could become part of this West Indie Alliance as well. Especially if their human rights record improves and perhaps even lead the Alliance.

The National Interest: Tom Nichols: 'No Other Choice'

Source:The National Interest-

Source:The New Democrat

I mostly agree with Tom Nichols about President Truman and the atomic bomb being dropped in Japan. The only thing I would differ on is that President Truman had no good choice. Continue the war and risk losing another hundred-thousand American soldiers in the Pacific, or drop the bomb in Japan and kill at least a million innocent Japanese. Who were guilty of nothing other than living in Japan during World War II. But the old cliche war is hell has never been more true than during this war. When you're the head of state in your country during wartime, your loyalty is to your own country. And that even means leading a war and ordering missions that can kill a lot of innocent people on the other side. Without the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan, how and when does that war end?

Japan, wasn't interested in preserving their own people. If anything America showed more mercy to the Japanese people then their own government. We didn't use the Japanese as targets and human shields. Japan, was only interested in saving their dictatorial regime. Not surrendering and risk being thrown out. Didn't matter to them how many of their people had to die to preserve their regime. Not that different with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the current Islamic State in Iran. So what President Truman and his National Security Council was left with was how to end a war against a country that refuses to surrender and stop fighting.

President Harry Truman, was President of the United States. And because of that was responsible for the lives and national security of the American people. Which included German-Americans as well as Japanese-Americans back then and today. America, fought both Germany and Japan back then. And had the Japanese Government been more interested in preserving the lives of their own people than their regime, the atomic bomb is never dropped. Because the war would've been over a long time before the bomb. Because Japan would've figured out the obvious. They were beat and losing thousands of their own people everyday and would've just lost more the longer the war went on. And that they couldn't beat the United States.
Source:Critical Past

The National Interest: Albert Carnesale: Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress

Source:The National Interest- U.S. Senator Bob Corker (Republican, Tennessee) Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (114th Congress)

Source:The New Democrat

Albert Carnesale, in his National Interest piece, makes a good point about Congressional Republicans. And maybe the problem they’re having is that America unlike Europe and a lot of other places, does not have a true opposition leader and opposition leadership. One opposition leader and their leadership who represents the alternative to the administration in power. And when they disagree with the administration they can lay out exactly what they don’t like about administration policy and what they would do differently. What we have in America for the opposition party, is several different leaderships, but not one that can bring the whole party together. Which makes it difficult especially when the opposition party is already divided to begin with to pay out a clear alternative to administration policy.

Senate Marco Rubio and other Congressional Republicans say that there is a clear alternative to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. But they’re essentially advocating for the status quo. Which is common with Conservatives. “Don’t rock the boat, keep things as are” and so-forth. They’re arguing for continuing the economic sanctions and basically preying that the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia and China do the same things. The problem is our partners in this deal which is why it’s called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action have already agreed to the deal and are going forward with it.

And part of that is sanctions relief for a failing Iranian economy. And Republicans, also argue just continue with the economic sanctions on Iran, while everyone else isn’t. The problem with that is the sanctions have already severely hurt the Iranian economy going back to 2005. And now even under all of that economic pressure are now closer to a nuclear weapon then they were ten years ago. Some Republicans say get a better deal. But what would be a better deal. The whole point of a deal and compromise is that you give up something in order to get something in return that you value more.

The definition of a deal, or compromise to Neoconservatives seems to be total surrender. Iran, gives up their nuclear weapons and we won’t invade them. Which is not something that Congressional Republicans are willing to do as far invading Iran right now and perhaps not even trying to hit Iran from the air. And obviously Iran wouldn’t agree to that. I mean if you make that offer to them, they would simply walk away. And to talk to people who know how to negotiate. Iran, will get real economic relief for their economy which they obviously need. But in exchange they’ll give up their nuclear weapons program, if they live up to their end. And if they don’t we’ll catch them if they try to cheat and they’ll pay a price for that as well.

So what Albert Carnesale said in his National Interest piece, “Deal or No Deal”, he’s right on point. Because this is the only deal that is on the table, or has even been offered. House Republicans, haven’t put any alternatives on the table. Senate Republicans, haven’t offered any alternatives either. None of the Republican presidential candidates even the ones with real foreign policy experience like Senator Lindsay Graham, has offered an alternative to the JCPA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So the JCPA, is the only deal on the table. If America walks, we walk alone while the UK, European Union, Russia and China move forward without us. And if this deal is fully implemented, they would get the credit for it.

The National Interest: Matthew Del Santo- 'The Next Superpower: Is a United States of Europe Possible?'

Source:The National Interest- A Euro Jet?

Source:The New Democrat

“Four days ago, French President François Hollande declared his in-principle commitment to the creation of a “euro government, with the addition of a specific budget and a parliament to ensure democratic control.”

From The National Interest

“David Aaronovitch, Gillian Tett and Andrew Marr discuss the Sunday Times ‘United States of Europe’ editorial from May 2012.
Like newspapers:Leading Articles." 

Source:Leading Articles- Talking about a potential Federal Europe.

From Leading Articles

To answer Matthew Del Santo’s question, yes. But it would depend on how a Federal Europe, Federal States of Europe, or whatever this new Euro State would be called, would look like. This idea that it would simply be an economic zone, but where the central authority lets say led by Germany, could veto other states budgets, simply won’t fly. That would be like a bird trying to take off without their wings. France, Italy, Spain, would never go along with that and you put their populations together and you’re talking about one-hundred and seventy-million people. With a GDP somewhere around six-trillion dollars, or Euros.

I believe if a European superstate, or a Federal Europe were to emerge, it would be exactly that. A Federal Europe with a federalist system and constitution. Where the states would maintain their own autonomy over their own domestic affairs. But where the federal government would come in to handle the currency, national security and foreign policy. As well as dealing with interstate crime and commerce. Each state would retain their welfare states, instead of having the federal government trying to manage a large welfare state, or safety net, from lets say Brussels, where the European Union capital is. A Federal States of Europe lets say, would look similar to the United States of America. As far as states in relation to the federal government.

I believe this would be the only way a Federal Europe could work. Because the leaders of these countries would have to sell this idea and new union to their people. About how it would benefit them, the economy, national security and foreign policy, to have a Federal State with a population of over three-hundred-million people who would now become economically, militarily, politically and perhaps even energy independent and emerge as the next democratic developed superpower in the world. As opposed of being part of a large country of eighty-million people, like Germany, or sixty-five-million like France, that is so dependent on other countries for their well-being like America. Instead this one united country would be able to take control over and manage their own affairs instead.

The National Interest: Seyed Hossein Mousavian: How to Fix The Syrian Mess

Source:The New Democrat

I think I found an issue where I agree with Senator John McCain on. Someone who when it comes to foreign policy we rarely agree on anything. It is about Syria where four years ago I believe a NATO no fly zone was a good idea to stop the Assad Regime from murdering its own people, simply because they opposed the Assad Regime and made those feelings public. A no fly zone over Syria or at least parts of it would give the Syrian rebels a fighting chance, literally of taking out the current government there. Or at least bring President Bashar Al-Assad to the negotiating table and negotiate how he would step down from power peacefully.

One of the mistakes that America made in Iraq in 2003, is the same mistake that both America and Europe made in Libya in 2011. Which was to take out the current government including the military without anything to go in and immediately replace the government. So the country could function while they are transitioning and building their new country. So knocking out Bashar in Syria shouldn’t be the ultimate goal at least through military means. But to bring him to the negotiating table to get him to step down from power. And transition to a new government that could and would govern the country responsibly and respect the human rights of their people.

Bashar Al-Assad can’t govern a united Syria now or into the future. He’s lost the ability and credibility to do that. And leaving him in power even to help us take out ISIS there wouldn’t work either. Because he would go back to doing what he’s done before which started the crisis in the first place. All he’s interested in is staying in power at all costs. So what America and Europe could do is to aid the Syrian rebels in the air, but not arm them with lethal weapons. As the Syrian rebels take on the Assad Regime and at least bring Bashar to the negotiating table. But without destroying the government. Especially the military and law enforcement.

The National Interest: Jack Matlock: The House That Stalin Built

Source:The New Democrat

I saw a show on Book TV on C-SPAN last weekend with Stephen Kotkin who just wrote a book about Joe Stalin perhaps the most evil and worst dictator that at least Russia has ever produced if not in the history of the world. And it was a good show and Kotkin goes into how Stalin built the Soviet State essentially on his own and how he built Russian authoritarianism. He he was able to centralize so much power inside of not just Moscow and the Russian central government, but in how own presidency. And someone who was stupid at some people see Joe Stalin would’ve never had been that successful and been able to stay in power in Russia as long as he did.

Russia was a peasant third if not fourth world society like that of China fifty-years ago when Stalin became President of the Soviet Union in the mid 1920s. And he knew enough about economics and his own as well as Russia’s future that for them to accomplish what he wanted that they needed to develop their economy and move to the industrial age. Probably the only good thing that Stalin did for Russia was to create and industrial society and economy even under Marxist state-control. But he did that by creating state-owned industries and companies and then he would nationalize the Russian people. And make prisoners and slaves out of them in Soviet work camps. Sounds like North Korea, right.

Joe Stalin served as an inspiration for future evil dictators. Including Adolph Hitler, but then later Saddam Hussein in Iraq and I’m sure many others. You were either on Stalin’s side or he killed you. And even if you weren’t against him, he might still kill you anyway because of the horrible working conditions you were put under in his forced work camps. As far as the amount of innocent people who Stalin murdered including Russian-Jews and other non-ethnic-Russians in Russia, as well as ethnic-Russians, Joe Stalin is the worst dictator in world history. And should only be remembered as such.

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: Could Greece & Russia Crush The European Union?

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone especially lets say on the social democratic Left in America who thinks that America should adopt the Scandinavian or Greek economic model and become more like Europe economically with a bigger more centralized federal state with higher taxes and less individual choice and freedom, I beg you assuming you’re capable of learning and can understand facts that even contradict your ideological arguments, look at Greece and look at France economically. And you’ll see that even socialism has its limits and perhaps socialism in particular. Because when economies tank and taxes are up real high, people get hit real hard and the government is limited to what they can do to help those people.

No one outside of the Far-Left and Socialist-Left in Greece even want to continue doing what they are doing economically. They know their economy is essentially in a depression right now. Six years of recession and losing twenty-percent of their gross domestic product. Fifty-percent unemployment and this is a country that is supposed to be a socialist utopia, at least according to Socialists and other Social Democrats. I saw a book event last weekend with George Friedman as the speaker and he just wrote a book about Europe and gave a talk about Europe. And was talking about why Europe outside of Germany and perhaps Scandinavia is struggling so much right now economically. And what he said is that one of the reasons for this has to do that there are so many small to mid-size countries in Western Europe all bunched in together. Europe is a very small continent physically.

One of the solutions I at least believe to fixing the long-term economic, financial and security issues of Europe and Western Europe east of the Slavic States, would be to have a Federal Europe. A Unified Europe that could defend itself, that would be world power economically, militarily and politically. The Federal Republic would be the way to go because it would mean that all of these states that are giving up their national sovereignty would still retain authority over their domestic affairs inside of their state. But they would share the same currency with very other state in the Federal Republic. And would all be under the same economic, foreign policy and national security umbrella as every other state in the union.

Not talking about creating a huge European superstate with an unitarian government with most if not all the governmental and political power being centralized in Brussels, assuming Brussels becomes the European capital. A United Europe like that would never be put together let alone last. But a Federal Europe where the Federal Government would primarily be responsible for national security, foreign policy, trade, the currency, interstate crime and commerce, regulations, terrorism, immigration, collecting taxes to pay for their operations. But where the states would deal with their own domestic affairs. Education, the safety net or even welfare state, health care, crime, commerce inside of the states and so-forth.

A Europe like this would stabilize financially and economically. Because you would have one superpower economically. A huge market of three-hundred plus million people where the Federal Government would represent a fairly small percentage of the overall economy that would rival America actually as far as size. No one would want to invade or attack a country this large and powerful with all of their resources and military power that would be able to replace NATO. People would want to emigrate to a Federal Democratic Republic like this. And certainly would want to trade with this country. And it would make it much harder for a country like China and Russia to want to mess around with the European economy and security situation. Because of what a Federal Europe would be able to do in response with all of their resources.

Not saying this will happen anytime soon, probably not. Things like giving up national sovereignty and perhaps their national language that would instead become the official language of their state and not country would be difficult. But a weak Europe economically and militarily is good for Russia and China as they both seek to become bigger world powers. And real bad for Europe as those other countries become stronger and bigger as Europe becomes weaker and smaller. Europe being democratic and free, while those other countries are authoritarian. And a Federal Europe would be a good way for Europe to step up and bounce back and emerge as a world power that other countries would have to notice.

The National Interest: Aram Bakshian- Richard Nixon: Hated For Being Right

Source:The National Interest.

Source:The New Democrat

As brilliant and as great as a visionary as President Richard Nixon was in foreign policy, but in domestic policy as well the way he wanted to reform the relationship between the Federal Government and states to use as an example, his presidency failed because of how it ended. And it ended because of his actions going back as early as 1971 or even 1970 in creating a criminal operation inside of the White House. What his White House called an intelligence unit, but their job was to find intelligence against the Democratic opposition and even using illegal and unconstitutional means to find that intelligence.

Watergate probably never happens if the plumbers unit that President Nixon and his Chief of Staff Bob  Haldeman created in 1971 is never put together. Without the plumbers unit and their actions with the illegal break ins of Brookings and other places there would've never been enough reason for the House of Representatives to impeach President Nixon even with the taping system. And without the taping system the evidence to impeach President Nixon never materializes either. Because the tapes have the President on record as covering up the Watergate investigation by trying to get the FBI to drop the case.

Also had Richard Nixon not of won reelection in 1972 for selfish reasons and spent so much resources and energy on his own reelection and instead directed some of those resources and efforts to Congressional Republicans and seeing if he could get 20-30 Republicans elected to the House and 3-5 more Republicans elected to the Senate, again impeachment perhaps doesn't happen except for maybe the taping system. Because President Nixon might of had the votes at least in the Senate to avoid conviction on all charges. And instead the President gets elected with 55% of the vote instead of 59% and perhaps wins back one chamber of Congress to have the political support he needed.

There are a lot of mistakes that Dick Nixon made as President that led to his failures. And lot of them were made for selfish reasons like trying to get the most information possible on the other side even by using illegal means. And they were just simply stupid mistakes. And had he shown the same intelligence he did as far as governing the country as President as he showed running his own White House and political operation, he never gets impeached and probably goes down as a great President instead.
The Political Lion: President Richard Nixon's Legacy