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 Review: Amy Schumer & The Creepy Politically Correct Police

Source:National Review- Free Speech Advocate.

Source:The New Democrat

Cenk Uygur, from The Young Turks, who is about as far-left as someone on the New-Left can get in America, I believe had the best line in this video. When he said that political correctness makes actual racism and real racial issues look small and non-important. He used the boy who cried wolf analogy. Which is really what a lot of this is about. It is one thing to disagree with what someone said about this person, or this group, but it’s another to say that person is a racist, or what they said was racist. Especially when what they said is accurate and funny at the same time.

If someone, or a group of people, whoever the person is, or the group of people is, has an issue, or weakness and someone accurately points that out and does it in a humorous way, what does the target, or targets of the critique and satire have to complain about. All the comedian, or commentator is doing is making an accurate statement and doing it in a humorous way. Also if someone says something that isn’t true about a person, or group, are they bigot, or are they just wrong? I mean when people have problems with the truth and reality, that is when they need to either become alcoholics and escape reality on a regular basis, or improve themselves and work on their shortcomings.

If I say that a lot of Southern Anglo-Saxon Christian-Conservatives got stuck in a time machine and were taken out of the year 1952, when women stayed at home and served their men, gays were locked in the closet and African-Americans, were second class citizens and served as servants to Caucasians. And brought up to 2015 when all Americans were free and able to live their own lives and were no longer partying like it was 1952 and instead lived in the real world that is modern America, would that make me a racist, or anti-Christian, or would I just be stating a fact and using humor to do that? Well that statement is right and there’s humor there. So what do Anglo Christian-Conservatives have to complain about?

Now use that analogy about Saudi Arabia as a country. A very conservative Muslim country, to say the least, just as water is wet and the North Pole is cold. If I said that Saudi-Muslims were stuck in the 1500s and view women as property of men. Women , aren’t even allowed to show their faces and bodies in public, they are not even allowed to drive and I could go on, but it would be very depressing. Now if I say this, am I a racist for making fun of Middle Eastern people and am I anti-Muslim, for making a joke about Muslims, or am I simply just stating a fact? Well again what part of that statement to you disagree with. Of course that statement is accurate and even funny.

The whole political correctness movement and their political correctness warriors, sound like a bunch of con men and con women. They’re not political correctness warriors, but fascist bullshit artists. On Planet PC. You can make fun of Christians, especially if they’re Caucasian and Southern and rural. You can make all the accurate and inaccurate jokes about them that you want to, but if you say something that is funny and correct about non-Caucasian-Christians, even if you’re correct, they label you as a bigot. And try to get you shut down. You can make all the fat men jokes you want, unless that man happens to be a racial, or ethnic minority. But it you make a fat women joke, you’re a sexist. Unless that women is a right-winger.

Political correctness warriors, need to go back to The Valley, or San Francisco, or New York City and sit down and smoke a joint. Just don’t buy it from an undercover cop, unless you’re in Washington State, Colorado, or Maryland. And chill, as well as develop a sense of humor. And learn that Caucasians and Christians, aren’t the only people who can be made fun of in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people with all the diversity and liberal free speech protections that we have. Funny accurate jokes, aren’t bigoted. But they’re funny and accurate regardless of the people who they’re targeted at.

PJ Media: Rand Simberg: 'The Far-Left Hijacks The Word Liberal to Serve Their Agenda'

Source:PJ Media.

Source:The New Democrat

I think the only thing that I would disagree with Rand Simberg in his piece other than the line about ‘murdering unborn babies’, is that liberalism is alive and well, but it is in the Democratic Party. Liberals, are center-left and by in large so are Democrats. But like with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has a far flank, or fringe even. With the Republican Party, it is the Christian-Right and Far-Right in general. With the Democratic Party, it’s the New-Left and Far-Left in general. Socialist, I guess would be the easy way to describe the New-Left, but it goes even further than that.

Collectivists, people who believe in the collective, or communitarian and even social democrat, would be the best way to describe the Democratic New-Left in America. Collectivists, whether it is Socialists when it comes to economic policy, or nanny statists when to comes to social issues, see individual freedom even something as basic and fundamental as free speech, as dangerous in America. They see individual freedom as freedom to make mistakes that the collective meaning society as a whole has to pay for. This covers both economic policy with a huge welfare state and high taxes across the board. But also a nanny state to make sure people aren’t making bad decisions with their personal lives.

So again we’re not just talking about a massive welfare state and high taxes across the board and an over regulated private sector with what is left of the private sector after the New-Left is through, but personal freedom would become very limited in America if the New-Left were in charge. Forget about free speech if the political correctness warriors were ever in charge. Say goodbye to that, because that would be replaced with collective speech. With some central committee getting to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate for individuals to say to each other. So people who don’t deserve to be criticized and offended from the New-Left perspective aren’t offended.

But we’re also talking about a nanny state as well with the New-Left. So imagine Mike Bloomberg being in charge of the Special Committee on Human Behavior, or whatever it might be called. Anything that the New-Left either sees as dangerous, or inappropriate would be outlawed. It started with alcohol in the 1930s, so perhaps we would go back to alcohol prohibition and perhaps add tobacco, sugar and salt to that as well. The New-Left wouldn’t end the War on Drugs. Just release all racial and ethnic minorities who are in jail and prison as a result of the War on Drugs. As well as expanding the War on Drugs to include sugar, salt, caffeine and tobacco. Gambling would become illegal, because its, well gambling with your own money. Actually money that New-Left lets you keep.

The New-Left , Far-Left really in America, always say how much America should be more like Europe. Well they could start with that by being honest and accurate with how they label their own politics. And leave the words liberal and progressive for people who actually live up to the values of liberalism and progressivism. Liberals, believe in liberation, liberalization and liberty. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. That we should have a limited government to see that everyone can achieve those things for themselves. Not a big government to run their lives for them.

Progressives, similar as Liberals, but compare Franklin Roosevelt with Jack Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson with Jack Kennedy, which is probably a better comparison. Progressives, believe in individual freedom as well, but would have a bigger more centralized government than Liberals. To run the safety net, to use as an example. But not big enough to try to manage people’s lives for them. The New-Left, whether you want to call then Socialist, Statist, or Collectivist, believe in big government. The only God they really have is Karl Marx. That individuals don’t exist and people are members of the collective and should move and act together, not individually. And there’s nothing liberal about that. Not progressive either, because it doesn’t create progress.

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

Anarchy U.S.A.-'In the Name of Civil Rights'

Source:Google- Man who was part of the Anarchy USA documentary. 

Source:The New Democrat

Of course there were demonstrations and rioting in America in the 1960s. But that is only part of the story. Why were civil rights marchers marching and why were African-Americans rioting in their ghettos? To get fresh air, no. Maybe some exercise, no. I know, they were bored with nothing else to do. But that would be wrong again. They were marching for freedom and to be noticed. This whole right-wing propagandist notion that America was the mountain of freedom up to this point and then it became some anarchist state during the 1960s during the Johnson Administration. Mountain of freedom for who? For some, sure! But if you’re complexion happened to be black, or brown, you mostly likely were not a free person in America during this time.

If your complexion was black and brown and you had African hair and other physical features, you might not have been able to even vote back then. Unless you could afford to pay the high poll tax. You could lose your job, or be denied a job simply because of your color and race. Liberal democracy is not easy and when you write a Constitution that says all men are created equal with all the same rights as everyone else, but then you say, you know what, we really don’t mean that. What our Founding Fathers meant to say what that all of that freedom and constitutional rights were only intended for Anglo-Saxon men whose ancestors come from Britain.” When you do something like that and simply deny people their rights that they are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution simply based on their race, there’s going to be a backlash against that.

What we saw in the 1960s, were African-Americans and others stand up and demand their rights. The same rights that Anglo-Saxons and other European-Americans are due under the U.S. Constitution. They they were tired of being denied things simply because of their complexion and race. They were tired of being given peanuts and living in projects, while the establishment got the rest of the loaf and pie to themselves and lived in beautiful homes in the suburbs living in a paradise that they created for themselves with help from people who live in the projects. Because they were only getting peanuts for the work that they put in. The civil rights movement wasn’t about destroying America, or freedom. But expanding those things to more Americans.

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.