Most men intuitively understand what is required for command. Though most do not have the personal qualities necessary for command, they recognize it when embodied in another. Many women have long chafed at the seeming unwillingness of men to cede command to a woman. They have railed at the ‘glass ceiling’ in vain, puzzled at its stiff resistance and laid the blame upon men for its continued existence. As is so often the case, the reality of circumstance is both simpler and more complex than a quick, facile examination might indicate.

In regard to the glass ceiling, what American men have been waiting for is the emergence of an American ‘Margaret Thatcher’.

I use Ms Thatcher not because of her politics which are entirely irrelevant but rather as an example of a strong woman, one who likes men and who can be depended upon when the really tough decisions need to be made. One who won’t wimp out, should principle and necessary circumstance demand sacrifice.

The President is the Commander in Chief and the greatest test of a President is during times of war, as it is then that the gravest decisions must be made. Throughout history leaders have had to send good people to their death. They have even had to allow good people to die when doing otherwise would lead to even greater tragedy. Truman had it right when he proclaimed, “The buck stops here”.

Good leaders intuitively recognize the right thing to do, even when that path may lead to the tragedy of innocent lives lost.

The Civil War’s Northern General Sherman recognized this when he said that “war is hell”. He also understood that ending the war victoriously was of more importance than even the destruction of the South, a South whose children certainly did not deserve the destruction that befell them. He understood this even in a war that would ultimately leave almost 600,000 dead. He understood that preserving the ‘union’ was a nonnegotiable principle and that the South’s commitment to its way of life would not allow them to capitulate without the certain prospect of absolute destruction.

That same understanding was shared by Truman when faced with the decision to drop the atomic bomb upon Japan. Truman well knew the terrible destruction it would bring and the many innocents that would die. He also understood the lessons of Tarawa, Saipan and Okinawa. Where nearly every Japanese soldier had fought with fierce determination, many to the death and where even the old and women with their children had committed suicide rather than surrender. Those events had decisively demonstrated that Japan was a culture that would resist surrender and invasion whatever the cost.

Had Truman withheld use of the bomb and invaded instead, many, many millions more would have died. At the time that the decision had to be made, our best estimate was that 5 million American men and 15-25 million Japanese would have died in the invasion and conquering of Japan. Had we suffered those loses, America would have been greatly damaged and in all probability would not have had the strength to rebuild Europe. That great a loss would have inexorably led to the triumph of isolationism within America and thus the inability to resist the soon-to-follow advance of Soviet aggression.

Japan was the aggressor and given their cultures’ militaristic values, anything less than unconditional surrender would have led to the eventual rebuilding of the Japanese war machine. Truman understood human nature and the irresistible lure that empire and nationalism had for Japan’s leaders and its compliant populace.

All of this led Truman to unhesitatingly make the decision to drop the bomb and most importantly, he did not second guess the decision, evidenced by his declaration that “he never lost a minutes sleep over the decision”. It is not that Truman lacked empathy, he was a loving father and husband. Rather it was that his empathy was balanced with another quality.

Empathy is a wonderful quality and we are not really human without it. But it is not the only quality of worth. Empathy, especially in a leader must be balanced with mental allegiance to objective principle.

Governor Palin is that rarity; a likable female leader who evokes both male and female approval, one who exudes confidence and the ‘right’ kind of toughness. This ‘toughness’ is mental, not physical, though mental toughness leads to the ability to endure physical challenges, as John McCain’s life so eloquently demonstrates. The ‘right’ kind of mental toughness is of a special quality.

Mental toughness or fortitude has no ’shrillness’, shrillness is an unerring indicator of weakness. This is why children do not listen to a parent whose voice exhibits that quality. And weakness revealed cannot lead because it lacks the strength of fortitude required of leadership. It is the quality of mental allegiance to ‘objective principle’ that leads to mental toughness.

Hillary Clinton has the required toughness but it is not the ‘right’ kind of toughness. She literally exudes the shrill ‘odor’ of complaint and anger and men intuitively sense it. Yes, men have intuition too, especially in sensing whom they shall follow. That is why ‘manly’ men want nothing to do with her and why only the hyper-sensitive, feminized and emasculated metro-sexual man can tolerate her presence. She has the ability to make the required decisions but she ‘leads’ out of demand and that leads to men distrusting her leadership.

Ironically, it is Hillary’s and most feminists psychic embrace of victimhood from which their anger arises. Their shrillness merely confirms their embrace of what disqualifies them from the very thing they seek, which is respect. Respect is not demanded, it is earned and when earned it is the ‘gift’ the recipient receives because no other response to their demeanor is possible. That is what is meant by ‘commanding’ respect. Others cannot help but respect those who, out of allegiance to principle, respect themselves. Narcissistic ego cannot substitute for the ‘currency’ required for true leadership.

Governor Palin embodies the quality of empathetic mental toughness and therefore commands respect. For those young women open to emulation, she truly points to, not just the ‘right’ way to break through the ‘glass ceiling’ but the only way to do it.

Breaking through the glass ceiling is not something that can be seized, which is why so many feminists have failed; transcending the glass ceiling is achieved when the many, willingly support the offer of leadership to those whose ‘worth’ compels recognition.

Just as Sarah Palin is demonstrating at this extraordinary moment in history.

Rep. Maxine Waters recently threatened oil companies with nationalization.

Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil demonstrates this to be a very bad idea. In fact, any politician so deeply ignorant of economics as to suggest oil nationalization is unfit for office.

The best way to address the energy crisis is through a mix of measures:
Development:
1. Issue permits and tax incentives for new nuclear power plants to be built.
2. Issue permits for new oil refineries (no major US refinery since 1976).
3. Open the entire Gulf of Mexico for exploration and development.
4. Open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for oil exploration and development.
5. Mandate that tax incentives for alternative energy be tied to oil ‘exploration & development’ fees.
6. Don’t drill in ANWR. Leave it as a strategic reserve.
Safeguards:
7. Review relevant laws to ensure adequate and reasonable safeguards for environmental protection.
8. Pass legislation with mandatory imprisonment for lawbreaking owners and upper management.
9. Provide tax incentives for technology development in solar and offshore wind power with yearly reviews for possible inclusion of promising new technologies.
Long-term energy independence:
10. No government funded technology initiatives are needed; let capitalism work its magic.
11. Continue research into bio-fuels but It’s stupid to use corn a food stock, for a fuel source.
12. Windfall taxes discourage investment in exploration and development and increase imports. The way to ensure ‘reasonable’ profit is to increase supply.

There. Simple. Complete.

If Congress passed legislation addressing only items 2 and 3, the very next day the price of oil would drop $10-15 a barrel. The more items implemented, the greater the drop in the price of oil.

To get the economy moving:
1. Submit and approve a balanced federal budget.
2. Increase interest rates at least a full point to strengthen the dollar.
3. Lower federal tax rates by 2-3 points in each tax bracket so as to stimulate the economy and counteract the slowing effect of an increase in interest rates.

Since this is an election year, don’t look for this to happen any time soon. As always, the longer the Feds wait, the more painful it is going to be when they are forced to do something. They are waiting until political pressure escalates to the point of providing political cover.

Recently I ran into this post:

The primary message of the Gospel is:
1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.
2) Humans are sinful by nature, and no matter what we do we cannot make ourselves righteous before a perfect God.
3) The penalty of our sin is death, or separation from God.
4) Jesus Christ came and lived a sinless life, being both God and human, and died a sacrificial death on the cross as an atonement for the sins of all humans.
5) Those who believe and accept Jesus’ sacrifice will spend eternity with God; those who do not will spend eternity separated from God.

This is the accepted Christain interpretation. the poster then says:

“People may misinterpret what the bible says to conform to their own views (nonbelievers and Christians alike) but the bible’s main message has not changed in the two thousand plus years it has existed in recorded form.”

I started to respond but by the time I had arranged my thoughts the moment had passed, so I am posting here.

Indeed, the Bible’s primary message hasn’t changed but other than popular agreement, to what do you point to dispute the assertion that men’s interpretation of that message may be flawed?

For your consideration I offer the following alternative ‘interpretation’;

The primary message of the Gospel is:

1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.

2) Humans are sinful as a consequence of gaining ‘knowledge’ prematurely and, the practical consequence is separation from God.

3) No matter what we do, we can’t cure ourselves from separation from a perfect God.

4) The consequence of our unavoidable inheritance of sin is separation from God, which prevents life from continually renewing, resulting in death.

5) Jesus, a human being, lived a sinless life, someone whose ‘spiritual umbilical cord’ remained intact, allowing him to stay fully connected with the divine. Who, after attaining the ability to fully embody the ’sonship’ of God, the ‘Christ’, then conducted his ministry of example and accepted a sacrificial death on the cross as a symbolic message for all of humanity.

6) Those who accept Jesus’ message and surrender their individuality to God for renewal and cleansing, will spend eternity with God; those who do not make the free-will choice to do so, will remain separated from God.

Explanatory thoughts for the post above:

Humans are not sinful by nature, for how can a perfect God create imperfection? God created us as perfect because he is incapable of doing otherwise. To use a computer analogy, we screwed up our operating system but our basic hardware/base code remains perfect, otherwise we would have no hope of being ‘born again’.

Mankind’s operational software is dysfunctional, (as we ‘think’ in our hearts) resulting in an inability to refrain from error, regardless of intention. Adam & Eve’s ‘sin’ was the premature ingestion of the knowledge of good and evil, prior to the attainment of the wisdom necessary to handle it. Just as ignorant children indulging in sexual activity before emotional maturity results in unwanted and premature pregnancies.

The ‘virus’ of ‘original sin’ is inherited through the father, which is why God used the very rare but scientifically established methodology of a ‘virgin birth’ with Jesus. Simply because it was the only physical way God could bring into existence someone ‘free’ from original sin, yet born of woman.

God does not penalize. He’s not ‘into’ punishment.

He does allow consequence, accountability and responsibility because otherwise you cannot have a universe of cause and effect. Reality as we know it could not exist otherwise.

No one can ‘atone’ for your sins but yourself. For Jesus to atone for our sins would be for God to absolve us of any responsibility for our own actions.That would violate a universe based in cause and effect. It would undermine accountability.

Our sins are forgivable because our ‘sins’ are the result of our inheritance; we really, truly, do not ‘know’ what we do.

Just as the insane do not ‘know’ right from wrong…and we do not hold the criminally insane responsible… Would God be less understanding? But in order for us to be cured of this dis-ease we must allow God, our personal physician, to do the work within that is needed.

Not because God wants to rule us, for how then to explain our free will? No loving God could be simultaneously a sadist, giving a gift but then insisting we not use it. We do misuse our free will, using it in ways that are neither to our or our brothers and sisters benefit. Surrender is necessary because it is the only way to cure us! Just as, when we have a ‘cancer’, we have to trust the modern physician who recommends the seeming ‘death penalty’ of radiation and chemotherapy.

We didn’t eat the ‘apple’ but we do have to live with the consequences of our ancestor’s actions. And yes, all of us would have behaved exactly as Adam & Eve did, because Eve’s curiosity and willingness to ‘take a chance’ and Adam’s love for Eve are symbolic of our nature.

Islam’s central premise that we must freely surrender our will to God is correct.

The Bahai’s are right that all religions are divinely inspired attempts by man to understand his existence. Each ‘religion’ is but part of the truth and all are partially distorted by man. All represent efforts by God to ‘reach’ mankind.

Hinduism’s central premise that we come into existence multiple times with the goal of gradually increasing the embodiment of our ‘Christ’ self is self-evident. What kind of ‘loving’ parent gives a recalcitrant child but one chance to repent? Remember the prodigal son? He had a symbolic lifetime to return.

Buddhism is right in its premise that we are all on the road to our own ‘Buddha hood’ (awakening to our true spiritual nature). That we are all blind and, see but part of the ‘truth’ (reality).

Native American spiritual practice is right in its perception that all existence is just different aspects of the creator. Including us and, if we are but one aspect of God, his most self-aware creation, i.e. all children of God, then by definition we are he…

Judaism is right in its central premise; the metaphoric explanatory message contained in the Genesis story. It’s how we got to be in this mess and where we come from and of what our true nature consists.

Christianity is right in its central premise that Jesus found the way that leads to reunion with God. Jesus embodied that way to the extent that he became that way and fully embodied the Christ, making him permanently one with God. That is why he must be accepted (followed) because only one-way leads back to the godhead (the source of divinity) simply because God’s nature is singular and undivided.

I do have some caveats regarding the tenants of GOP 2.0

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENCE: I support strengthening the military and if necessary, to historical levels as a percentage of GDP. I’d like to hear from experts like Gen. Petraeus regarding his view as to exactly what is needed in economic terms to most effectively prosecute the WoT. As well as maintain our technological and military advantages, so as to be fully prepared for any future threat’s.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Absolutely, however Long-term, only alternative energy technologies will prevent future energy crises. There is no substitute for development of new choices in energy sources; they are also a necessity and, a National Security issue as well.

Democrats have to agree to limited but adequate, development of short-term solutions.

Republicans have to agree to legislation with real technical safeguards, regulatory oversight and mandatory financial and legal consequences for businesses that violate environmental parameters regarding exploration, drilling and development of new oil, coal and nuclear resources.

Republicans and Democrats have to agree on federal legislation with near-permanent incentives and rewards for development of alternative energy solutions. Place a big enough carrot in front of companies, entrepreneurs and creative individuals and they will rush to fill the need.

SECURE THE BORDERS: immediately building physical barriers, as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy is only viable if coupled with real, undeniable and comprehensive immigration reform proposals. Physical barriers are at best a short-term ’solution’, insufficient to fully address the problem. And Democrats will never agree to even temporary barriers without their being convincingly coupled with comprehensive reform and a firm time-line for the barriers eventual removal. Barriers cannot be sold as a means of preventing immigration, they can be sold as a means of funneling immigration into controlled access points.

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION: no government largesse, and yes free-market solutions… those principles alone however, are I suspect, insufficient to address the problem. Health care is increasing in cost expotentially with fundamental problems within the infrastructure of the American Health-Care system. Affordability is the principal problem of course and prescriptions such as medical pre-tax programs assume that someone is making enough to afford to have even more taken out of their paycheck. For the many millions of American families living paycheck to paycheck that prescription is unrealistic. Without affordability, health care becomes increasingly the privilege of the wealthy.

According to one report employee pay now makes up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s. This disparity cannot be ignored by any fair-minded person.

The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, found productivity grew 17 percent nationally from 2000 to 2005, but median family income, adjusted for inflation, fell 3 percent. Millions of American’s are working harder, smarter and at best, just treading water. 

Until conservatives address the underlying issue of the have-nots in society, they will always face calls for government ‘largesse’. Capitalism is an economic system with undeniable benefits for society, it is also indisputable that under such a system the 80/20 rule is unimpeded. Regardless of the benefits, when 80% of a socety’s assets naturally gravitate into 20% of the society’s members, social unrest is inevitable.

The answer of course is to find methodologies that allow the middle class to expand and to do increasingly well. As an observation, in the 1950’s, the GI bill, affordable mortgages and an expanding economy resulted in just such an expansion of the middle class. We need to determine the government incentives and societal infrastructure that most encourages that paradigm to return.  

 From the Blog: Doug Ross @ Journal

Paul Mirengoff, writing at Powerline:

The Democrats appear to have picked up another House seat in a formerly “safe” Republican district tonight. The latest win for the Dems comes in Mississippi where Travis Childers, a county chancery clerk, seems to have edged out Greg Davis, a mayor. President Bush carried this district twice with about 60 percent of the vote each time. But Childers ran as a strong social conservative (Ed: pro-life and pro-gun).

…my takeaway is that the Republican brand is in such bad shape that the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican… Fortunately, the Democrats will not nominate such a candidate for president. And the Republican nominee, whether we feel comfortable about it or not, isn’t necessarily seen as intimately associated with the Republican brand. Even so, I think that Republican nominee is running uphill.

Indeed. The Republican brand has lost its way. I believe that it’s time for citizens to rise up and demand a new Republican Party! I’m calling it GOP 2.0. And I’m perfectly willing to throw out those “Republicans” who are stuck on stupid — and are stuck in the GOP 1.0 world.

The tenets:

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENSE – increase the size, capability and efficiency of our Armed Forces, bringing back our defense spending to historical levels as a percentage of GDP.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – open up ANWR and the OCS to exploration; aggressively pursue nuclear energy and green technologies; with incentives for private industry to aggressively pursue clean, renewable energy sources.

SECURE THE BORDERS – build physical barriers immediately as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy. If the boat’s sinking, you plug the holes first.

DEATH TO EARMARKS – zero tolerance for earmarks.

DEATH TO CORRUPTION – zero tolerance for corruption.

ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE – national unity requires a national language. That language is English.

IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX OR FAIR TAX – simplify the tax system by eradicating a tax code gone mad.

REDUCE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT – provide “whistleblower-style” awards for reducing the size of government and task the IRS (which will no longer have to worry about enforcing the tax code) with achieving the reduction goals on an annual basis

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION – Address health-care deficiencies – with competitive, free-market solutions, not Government largesse.

ADDRESS ENTITLEMENTS – engage a bipartisan consortium to create a multi-million dollar competition to encourage teams from private industry and academia to create solutions for our social security and Medicare liabilities.

This should not be a platform. It should be a promise — an ironclad commitment — to voters.

I’m asking for help here. If you agree, please email this post to your friends and/or post it on your blog (no credit or link needed). We need to resuscitate the Republican brand. ASAP.

Update: A Jacksonian published a comprehensive platform of similar traits in 2006.

In general, I like this proposal a lot. In my next post I’ll cover the details wherein my agreement is qualified. 

There is lots of misinformation out there about why the price of gas is so high. I’m certainly not an expert but when I listen to the ‘experts’ not one seems to be able to offer a simple concise description of the problem. Listen to enough of them though and a pattern emerges.

It all boils down to the American public being caught between three interrelated factors: the oil exporting nations holding down supply, the industrializing nations like China & India greatly raising demand and US environmental interests blocking any changes they don’t like.

That’s it in a nutshell.

For a more complete explanation of these factors and real solutions in principle, read on.

The most active environmentalists and therefore the most influential are on literally a religious mission to ’save the planet’… facts and reason be dammed in the face of their sought for ‘holy grail’. Religious fanatics do not acknowledge facts nor do they listen to reason, their fanaticism does not allow for it.

Since the ‘environment’ has become a ’sacred cow’ within the Democratic Party, they are blocking any Republican congressional efforts to alleviate the problem. That is because they believe that the Republican ‘cure’ is worse than the disease. Short-term they are mistaken, long-term they are correct that short-term solutions are inadequate. But all they are looking at is the long-term issue, meanwhile the cost of energy is bankrupting the country and funding terrorism. Those are, at the very least, equally valid issues.

The rise of China, India and other industrially developing nations has greatly increased demand for oil on the world market. The importance of that factor cannot be overstated. To service that demand and keep worldwide prices for oil affordable, we have to increase supply. 

The Middle Eastern OPEC nations are using the situation and limiting supply so as to raise the price and literally sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of western and developing nations. (Incidentally, as this is a form of usury (interest) it is hypocritical in the extreme for Muslims to betray Islamic precepts by ignoring this reality.) The ME nations are then using the ‘profits’ to buy ’positions’ in key western companies…that reality alone makes this a National Security issue.

There are two aspects to the problem; short-term and long-term. The hard truth is that short-term there are no substitutes for nuclear power, coal to liquid processing, synthetic oil, offshore exploration and increased drilling.

Since we are in a crises situation, immediate short-term relief is needed.  

As long as this country is dependent upon foreign oil we will of necessity have an interest in the Middle East. At this time and for decades to come our dependence upon oil is as total as a newborn baby’s need for its mother’s milk. We cannot survive without it, our civilization would collapse and just in the US hundreds of millions would die should the oil stop or even fall below necessary levels.  

Most Americans have bought into activist/media hype surrounding environmental concerns. To such a degree that since the mid 70’s there has been no new oil exploration, drilling or new refineries built in this country or off our coasts.
 
The same situation applies to nuclear power. Earlier concerns regarding nuclear waste are no longer valid as the French have been reprocessing used fuel successfully for decades, greatly reducing the amount of waste (down to 3% of plants that do not reprocess used fuel).
 
Proven and established technologies exist for the conversion of coal into liquid form. US coal deposits alone are sufficient to provide for the energy needs of our nation for the next 200 years but environmental special interests are blocking their implementation. No company will even attempt to try to proceed with development given the regulatory and permit process (thousands of required studies & permits needed). All of this is of course intentional but it is no longer the 70’s. 

It is developing into a national security problem for the US but those are ‘dirty’ words among liberals. Just as Republicans focus exclusively on short-term solutions, Democrats focus only on the necessary cost and disadvantages of short-term solutions. Thus they attempt to obfuscate the problem. ’Misdirecting’ ordinary citizens with talk of the ‘evil’ oil companies and their ‘windfall profits’. But an ‘inconvenient’ truth is that the oil companies make less than a 9% profit margin.

That is hardly excessive. Oil companies have no control over the cost of crude oil. All they do is process it into gasoline. The oil exporting nations set the price of a barrel of oil, which directly determines the cost of gasoline ‘at the pump’. Windfall profit taxes will not lower the cost of gas at the pump so its disingenuous to tout it as ‘doing something about the problem’ at best it’s a delaying tactic.

By the way, ‘Excess’ profits go to shareholders, who are not just ‘fat cats’ but retirement funds, middle class investors, union and public employee pension funds. Profits do not “just go into greedy people’s pockets”. With the occasional exception of an Enron, in any major corporation every penny in a companies income is supervised, overseen and specifically directed. Management’s compensation is fixed both to salary and percentage of profits.

Profits also go toward exploration, research and development; such as Canada’s oil sands, a highly significant future source of oil for the US. Take away those ‘windfall’ profits and the law of unintended consequences will bite us right on the ass…  
 
Eventually, if the cost of gas rises high enough public outrage will compel Congress to actually do something to address short-term needs. Meanwhile it sucks to be us…doesn’t it?

However, Long-term, only alternative energy technologies will prevent future energy crises. There is no substitute for development of new choices in energy sources; they are also a necessity. They are also a National Security issue. In time, practical alternative energy solutions will be developed.

The resources do exist. Enough sunlight falls on just an area the size of Saudi Arabia to power all of the worlds present needs for electricity. The moon has vast quantities of helium3 lying on its surface. Helium3 is like uranium on steroids. That resource alone could power the world for millions of years. Clean fuel cells are mere years away from commercially practical mass-production.

Ironically, as is generally the case in a dispute, each side is partially right. The problem is that neither side will acknowledge the valid points each side is making. As always, there is no substitute for sincere cooperation in achieving solutions.

On a positive note, all of this is temporary (20-50 yrs), once we develop truly practical alternative energy technologies these problems will fade away. But right now, it’s a serious problem.

Democrats have to agree to limited but adequate, development of short-term solutions.

Republicans have to agree to legislation with real technical safeguards, regulatory oversight and mandatory financial and legal consequences for businesses that violate environmental parameters regarding exploration, drilling and development of new oil, coal and nuclear resources.

Republicans and Democrats have to agree on federal legislation with near-permanent incentives and rewards for development of alternative energy solutions. Place a big enough carrot in front of companies, entrepreneurs and creative individuals and they will rush to fill the need.

That is the proper role of government. Set the rules of the game, make it worth playing on that field and fairly referee the action! Then get out of the way and let the players, play!

Geoffrey Britain

The real NeoCon rationale for invading Iraq.

Since this is a new blog, I’ll briefly touch on a few pertinent points about myself. I am a neoconservative.

I reached that intellectual position independently, never having read anything about neo-conservaticism prior to forming my views. In fact, it was quite a while after 9/11 before I even realized that others had reached the same conclusions and that they were called neo-conservatives.

Obviously there is some individual variation in views but for the most part I am firmly in that camp.

However, I am not Jewish and only sharpen my fangs every other night, so I realize that for those reasons some may disqualify me from being considered a true neoconservative ;-)

Having reached my neoconservative views independently, after long and deep reflection on the issues of Islamic terrorism, I believe I can offer insights into the neoconservative rationale in the WoT. I trust reasoned presentation will demonstrate the veracity of my assertions.
Reportedly, some NeoCons are now denying that the administration ever claimed that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam’s ‘non-existent’ WMD’s. That is a hypocritical falsity as that was the primary rationale put forward to the American public and International community. But it never was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, we did go into Iraq hoping to find WMD’s, while knowing that the WMD’s might not be there by the time we invaded and, yes we knew there might not be any WMD’s… But everyone in possession of intel believed Saddam had them; Gore, Kerry, Reid, Hillary, Pelosi, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are all on record asserting that to be their belief, so while Bush may have been mistaken, he cannot fairly be accused of lying in saying that he believed Saddam had WMD’s.

That said, the Administration was less than frank in giving the impression that WMD’s was the primary reason we were invading Iraq. That mistake has led to great difficulties in responding to criticisms of invading Iraq.

There is an “Axis of Evil” that is as much an enemy of our way of life as the Nazi’s and Communists were previously. To deny this is to reveal either profound ignorance, insane denial or purposeful deceit. Saddam’s Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil, and though potentially dangerous, one of the lesser players.

NeoCon’s themselves haven’t been very forthright with the American public as to the complete NeoCon rationale.The reasons for the ‘misdirection’ in the public Neocon arguments are understandable, though I have argued from prior to our invasion of Iraq that this was a fundamental strategic mistake and that it would come back to haunt us and, it has. The reason for disingenuousness was twofold, consisting of a domestic reason and an international rationale.

Domestically, it was decided that the true NeoCon argument was ‘too complex’ for the American public to easily grasp. An arrogant, if somewhat arguable presumption, especially with the counter arguments that the left and the MSM were certain to mount against it. Therefore it was decided to ’simplify’ the rationale in hopes that this would ensure that the Neocon strategy in the WoT would be implemented.

Internationally, because we couldn’t fully reveal publicaly our strategy, as that would benefit those at odds with our national interests, especially with the MSM determined to undermine any confrontational strategy.

It is important to note that the NeoCons in the Bush administration sincerely believed their analysis of the Islamic terrorist danger the West faces to be correct and that only one ’solution’ had a chance for success.

That of course is debatable and that debate did take place but the NeoCon’s carried the argument, at least with Bush. They ‘won’ the debate because Bush is a ‘bottom line’ kind of guy. He does not like complexity and evaluates analysis and ’solutions’ based in fundamental principle; asking himself, does this make sense on a basic level?

Arguments as to whether this is ’smart’ miss the point, it’s simply one way of evaluating information. As in any methodology, with advantages and disadvantages. Its effectiveness is a matter of ‘quality of execution’ rather than its value ‘per se’ as a method of decision making.

The primary reason for invading Iraq was not even the very real danger that one day, when able, Saddam would gain and then give WMD’s to terrorist groups. It was reasonable to presuppose that Saddam, in all probability was at the very least maintaining the capability to resume WMD development programs . While an important reason, it was not the essential reason for the invasion of Iraq.

The primary reason(s) for the invasion of Iraq was twofold: and of a short-term tactical and long-term strategic nature. Those reasons were; First, to send a very clear message to other nations that the ‘game’s’ rules had changed. That the US was now serious, that al Quada and Islamic Terrorism had, in the words of Yamamoto, once again “awoken the sleeping giant”… AND to establish a ‘beachhead’ of democracy in the very heart of the Axis of Evil. NeoCons posit that in the long term, the surest way to defeat Islamic terrorism is the growth of democracy within the ME.

In order to understand the rationale driving the NeoCon strategy in the WoT it is essential to understand the NeoCon analysis of Islamic Terrorism. It is simple but never articulated clearly, cohesively and directly. Woven throughout Bush’s speeches are all the elements of the NeoCon rationale but Bush’s great weakness is his inability to articulate the entire argument in a concise, cohesive manner.

Here is the NeoCon analysis of Islamic terrorism in a nutshell.

First the context:

Islamic Terrorism is a world-wide radical religious philosophy absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Western values and institutions. It is a ‘clash of civilizations’ only in that individual freedom, democracy and separation of church and state are seen by Fundamentalist Radical Islamics as a direct and permanent threat to traditional Islamic values.

One that in a modern world of Television, the Internet, cultural interchange and the ability to rapidly travel to other parts of the world dooms ‘first wave*’ Islamic societies to cultural assimilation by the west if interacting freely with ‘third wave*’ information societies in the West and East is allowed to continue.

Now the structural make-up:

The phenomenon of Islamic Terrorism is threefold in nature. This is absolutely necessary to a full understanding of the threat it represents to Western values, institutions and societies.

The threefold nature of Islamic Terrorism consists of:

1.) Various ideologically disparate terror networks. Ideologically fueled by hate-filled radical Fundamentalist Islamic mullahs operating out of state-funded madras’s.

These hate filled mullah’s are key and they ARE promoting an interpretation of Islam that IS inherent to the religion. Apologists attempt to deny this observation by pointing to the earlier meccan part of the Koran’s very few tolerant verses.

But the later, medinan Koran contains many, many calls to jihad against ALL unbelievers until the entire world is under the control of Islam. ISLAM must change. It must have its reformation**. It is virtually the ‘Spanish inquisition’ of our times.

2.) The Rogue nations who use these networks as ’stealth’ quasi-military arms of aggression in a struggle with other nations to ensure the furtherance of their national goals and agenda.

3.) The ‘enabling’ status-quo nations, who out of short-term national self-interest, block as much as possible any effective actions against the Rogue nations, especially in the U.N.

It is impossible to defeat the terror networks without defeating the rogue nations. Either dissuading them from further support, as in Libya’s case or through direct overthrow and destruction of the underlying social structures that support terrorism within these nations. (As will eventually be the case with Iran.)

It is imperative that the ‘enabling’ nations, primarily Russia, China and much of the EU be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Direct confrontation is neither desirable nor practical. We must essentially ’sideline’ them through adroit diplomatic maneuvering. Bush tried that but the Mainstream Media effectively undermined support for that course of action.

It is imperative to recognize that the leadership of the enabling nations are NOT our friends. Put colloquially, they are the type of ’friend’ who seeks to ’stab us in the back’ smiling as they do it. Never revealing the internalized hate until the knife slips in and we turn to them surprised saying, “Et tu Brute?”

Iraq was chosen because it was overall, the best place to start among the Axis of Evil nations in implanting democracy.

Not as some have simplistically believed out of a frat-boy bravado by Bush over his father’s attempted assassination, though as any of us in his position would, he undoubtedly appreciates the ‘icing on the cake’.

Consider the advantages Iraq offered: No one would miss Saddam; he was a singularly unsympathetic figure.

The propaganda bonanza of 25 million people freed and the deaths of 300,000 per year stopped. A tremendously impactful reality for captive peoples across the ME.

Though clearly ‘perverted’, generations of Iraqi’s have been raised in a secular environment. Iraqi’s have been accustomed to living with real separation of church and state, arguably they are the ME nation most predisposed to acceptance of democracy and seperation of church and state.

Thus making the transition to democracy less problematic, raising the prospects for success from impossible to merely very difficult. Close proximity to the other Axis of Evil nations, providing immediate and unavoidable comparison by the citizens of Iran and Syria with their social arrangements and the new Iraqi freedoms.

Thus the resulting ‘revolutionary message’ that a successful Iraq presents; If Shiite’s, Sunni’s and Kurds can govern together in relative peace, then why not in their own country? Strategic military proximity to Syria and Iran thus creates pressure to ameliorate their behavior.

The final two truisms that fuel NeoCon analysis:

NeoCon acceptance of the proposition that free will and it’s necessary foundation freedom, is an innate human quality, a ‘universal’ human need, thus one that in time, transcends any culture.

Secondly, in crises situations, the choice is never between good and bad options. In a crisis, the options are very bad to even worse. By definition, it would not be a crises, if there was a good solution.

The key to understand is that invariably, in a crises, choosing the short-term, less-bad option leads to long-term much-worse results.These are the realistic decision-making principles that are driving Cheney’s advice and Bush’s choices.

There actually is a method to the administration’s ‘madness’…

Bush’s personal qualities, relative NeoCon silence and a leftist mind-set viscerally opposed to confrontation have led to the view that NeoCons are a secret cabal who do not have America’s interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.

NeoCons are simply tough-minded former liberals who have sought refuge within the Republican Party in the face of today’s peace-at-any-cost, liberal mind-set ruled democratic party.

Just like Reagan, they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the party left them.

Geoffrey Britain

* Refers to Alvin Toffler’s ‘wave’ theory of historical progress; The Agricultural, Industrial and Informational waves of historical dynamics and the resultant societies representative of those historical transitions. Islamic societies are fundamentally tribal, ’First’ wave societies. The US is the foremost example of a formerly ‘Second’ wave society transitioning into a ‘Third’ wave society. (this is why conventional thinking regarding the desirability & possibility of a return or reassurgence of manufacturing in the US is mistaken)

** Arguably, the Bahai faith is the reformatory engine that Islam has already rejected.

A difficult lesson

wisdom gleaned from life in dealing with fanatics, tyrants and bullies

Hello world, to those of similiar view and, any who welcome reasoned discussion.

Passion and a strong point of view are appreciated. 

As the conservative commentator Dennis Prager states, “I value clarity more than agreement.”

But if you lack courtesy and simple manners you are not welcome till you acquire said virtues.

This is a discussion forum for grown-ups.

My primary aim is not to convince others of the ‘correctness’ of my view.

Rather, it is gaining a deeper understanding of the issue under discussion wherein my interest resides.

Geoffrey Britain