Iranian Mess

This week Wiley Lecture Series, a student organization in the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center, hosted its symposium entitled 'Iranian Hazard' with Dr. Paul Barretto, a consultant on international nuclear projects (his corner on NSSPI can be found here), and Richard Stoll, Professor of Political Science at Rice University. The problem with Iran, as they pointed out, is that America and Iran have had bad relations for many years, since we helped over throw a democratically elected government and instituted a more friendly dictator in his place. Now, their nuclear program is continuing to ramp up as they continue to acquire nuclear technology that is military specific and has no use outside of nuclear weapons and they increase the number of nuclear facilities they admit to be building.

A lot of people suggest a simple preemptive strike composed of numerous precision air strikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, but Iran has so far not crossed the red line of actually beginning to assemble a nuke, though they continue to work close to the line. A plethora of air strikes is not the simple easy solution that it might appear. First, it would require numerous, simultaneous strikes throughout Iran which could stretch our operational capabilities in the region. Second, We do not have the Intel we need to make the kind of precision strikes necessary. Iran's facilities are spread all over the nation and we do not even know exactly where many of them are. Third, our bunker buster bombs are beginning to be obsoleted by the bunker building capabilities of established nations and there is a considerable chance that even a direct hit on an Iranian nuclear bunker could fail to completely destroy it. Fourth, and most importantly, it is a temporary solution.We and the Israelis have knocked out nuclear facilities before, and though they delay development of the nuclear program, they do not take it off the table.

If we want to keep Iran from developing nukes, we need to remove their motivation to do so, which would make an interesting discussion in defining.

Something that surprised me Wednesday evening was the lack of power that the president of Iran holds. Iran is ruled by a smorgasbord of high elder councils, religious boards, clerics, etc., with the president being somewhere south of tenth on the political power rankings of Iran. Iran's military is also made up of two different pieces, the regular army, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the fanatics of the military. The military threat is not necessarily that Ahmadinejad will send Iranian forces in, but rather that one of the radical elements in one of the councils or a cleric will provide the little push the Revolutionary Guard needs to start some kind of conflict. Then, whatever the Iranian people think of their government, they will be very anti U.S., worse even than Iraq was.
As is usually the case, the situation is a lot more complicated than it would appear at first glance and will take time and energy to solve, and more than a little sacrifice on everyone's part.

Politics: Ready, Set...Lie

So the Presidential Campaigns are revving up and getting in full swing and I saw this article on Perry on Fox's website. In the article Perry is accused and criticized for: Violent remarks toward Bernanke, working for Al Gore and not being honest about it, and wanting to lead a Texas secession.

1. The Bernanke Comments

In the Article:" Exhibit A. On the same day he filed his candidacy papers, Perry was captured on camera suggesting Texans might want to rough up Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke if he tries to tackle the economic slump by printing more money.

"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," Perry said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "I mean, printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost ... treasonous in my opinion." "

In Reality: Fair enough, Perry probably shouldn't have said it, but keep in mind that democrats have been vilifying tea-party republicans (who proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance, the ONLY plan proposed by congress that S&P admitted would have prevented the downgrade, and also the ONLY plan the president and democratic leaders refused to discuss) as 'terrorists' and 'hostage takers'. So fair enough, Perry should refrain from suggesting physical violence, but nothing out of the ordinary.

2. Working for Al Gore's Campaign

In the Article:"Already, he was questioned Monday about his post as Al Gore's Texas campaign chairman during Gore's unsuccessful 1988 bid for president. Perry claimed these were the days before Gore was "Mr. Global Warming," but Politico.com noted that Gore was talking about global warming before his 1988 bid. "

In Reality: Read the above. 'Perry claimed these were the days before Gore was "Mr. Global Warming"'. So what if Gore mentioned Global Warming a few times. He didn't go off the deep end until after Bush beat him in the 2000 elections. Perry is right, Politico.com is being stupid.

3. Secession

In the Article: "Gibbs questioned how the governor who famously suggested a Texas secession from the U.S. is now seeking to lead the entire nation.

"Just two years ago, the governor of Texas openly talked about leading Texas out of the United States of America -- and now this campaign has caused him to profess his love for the United States. I think it's a remarkable turnaround," Gibbs said."

In Reality: To be fair to Fox, most of this comes from Gibbs, though they failed to contradict the blatant lie Gibbs told. Perry never said he would lead Texas in Secession. What he said was that if England continued ignoring what the colonies want then there might be problems...sorry, got mixed up there. He said that if Washington 'continues to thumb their noses at the american people, who knows what may come of it.' Thumbing noses may refer to pushing the healthcare bill through in secret sessions, confiscating copies of the proposed bill from voters wanting to speak with their congress men, denying voters access to their congressmen, lying about what was in the bill, etc, all of which was being done by the political establishment in Washington when Perry made the above remarks. If Perry was in any way wrong, then we might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Gibbs is wrong in that Perry didn't talk about leading any kind of Secession (he indicated that if anything happened it would be ordinary people fed up with Washington, not politicians), and that it wasn't Texas Seceding, it was American citizens from every state.

My point basically is not that Perry is perfect, he's not. He is, in my opinion, the best man for the job right now, and the next year is going to see a lot of people making volcanic mountains out of collapsing mole hills. The collapse of any kind of journalistic code of honor means that Americans need to develop discernment in their reading and the diligence necessary to actually do research on who they are voting for. The only thing that kills Democracies faster than a nonvoter is an uneducated and selfish voter.

A Republic, A Tyranny

As I have mentioned before, the root problem with the debates going on in Congress focus around how much the federal government will control the nation. The question that is being ignored is who will run the federal government.

In the Republic, Plato sets out what he thinks would be a perfect state and in so doing sets forth two propositions which are wonderful on the surface, but flawed underneath. The first is the foundation of the Republic's boundaries upon the people's need for beef, which pays no heed to the people's need for bacon; and the second is the running of the nation by a council of all powerful wise men, which pays no heed to the propensity of wise men to have particular area of foolishness.

The need for bacon being beyond argument, I will here deal with propensity of wise men to have particular areas of foolishness and further more the inability for a council of such men to run a country. Wise men, or rather those called wise men by the world, have the same difficulty in managing the details of a nation that general has in managing the details of a battle, both are esconsed so high above the fray over seeing the big picture that they have lost touch with what is really happening in each of the individual conflicts that put together make up the battle. The general has his plans and the wise man his theories, but neither has anything to do with particulars.

It is also important to note that a government such as Plato imagined it, an all powerful one filled with wise men, has another devastating draw back. Such governments tend to slowly be less filled with wise men without becoming less powerful, so that in the end they are all powerful governments filled with fools or madmen. Power does not corrupt so much as it produces stress, though the difference between the two for men with the moral framework of our current politicians is slight indeed. Plato makes an attempt at creating a system to perpetuate the rule of the wise, but he has nothing to perpetuate their wisdom. His solution, education, has just as much power to blind as it does to illuminate. Look at the rulers of Nazi Germany, most of the men who formed Hitler's government were geniuses with college degrees. And I don't think there are many who can claim to have the power to manipulate or shape not just a crowd but an entire nation as Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

Our current government no longer exists to 'promote the General Welfare'. Instead it exists to support itself, the first step in the direction of tyranny. I do not suspect the current members of our government to be working toward a dictatorship, I do not think that even most of them want a dictatorship. They are however moving in that direction by diverting portions of the government away from the public and toward itself. Vast amounts of money are spent each year from the national budget on keeping the present people in power. Whether this is creating programs that people want (but shouldn't have), jobs that could be done better in the private sector (or shouldn't be done at all), or government funds going to criminal organizations (like Planned Parenthood) it is in line with Plato's theoretical Republic, which is in itself a tyranny. The current politicians, having written exceptions for themselves into almost every law they pass and massive benefits for themselves into special laws for themselves, are content to play Plato's wise men on our nation, directing everything as they see fit, and making a rather colossal mess of the whole thing.

Our government was not set up to opporate like Plato's Republic, but instead was supposed to be a limited government run by good people. Now most of the good people are gone, replaced by greedy theorists, and the 'limited' part of our government is being reduced in every way possible.

Default, Aaaahh! Not.

Default is not the main problem confronting our nation at the present moment, as the usual suspects are screaming. The real danger facing us is that our credit rating may be downgraded from Triple A status. Default will occur if we fail to:

- either reduce the amount of money we have to pay every day to keep the government running,

- or increase the amount of money the federal government is allowed to borrow.

Our credit rating will be downgraded if the rest of the world gets the idea that we never really intend to pay it all off, i.e. by borrowing from China to pay the U.K., then borrowing from Germany to pay off China, then borrowing from the U.K. to pay off Germany, ad infinitum. We could avoid a Default and still have our credit rating downgraded, which would have a massive impact on our economy, slowing down any recovery further and possibly sending us backwards.

If the U.S.'s credit rating is downgraded, interest rates will increase drastically, which would hurt just about every single area of the American economy.

The only way to avoid this is to seriously cut our spending now. Anything else will damage the economy. Raising taxes will continue to constrict business and cut away at our manufacturing base, which is already weak enough as it is. Raising the debt limit will signal that we do not really intend to ever pay it off.

Joker One

I just finished reading Joker One by Donovan Campbell, a recounting of Campbell's time as a platoon leader in command of a platoon of Marines stationed in Ramadi Iraq. The book tells briefly how Campbell joined the Marines through OCS in college, his initial struggle to take command of his platoon, Joker One, and get it ready for deployment, but the bulk of the book is spent recounting the day to day struggle for the Marines as they took over from the Army in Ramadi and fought off attack after attack by insurgents.

The biggest thing that I took away from the book was an incredible respect for our men and women in uniform. Even as they grew frustrated at the insurgents, Campbell's men refused to shoot at terrorists who surrounded themselves with children while firing AK rounds at the base. In contrast, one of Campbell's men was mortally wounded when a RPG round blew off his legs while he and other Marines remained in the open to provide medical care for a crowd of thirty children who had been hit by an earlier RPG.

I highly encourage the book, though if you are squeamish you might want to skip several pages, since Campbell does not edit out the injuries his men suffered. Campbell wrestles with issues from how to lead his men into situations he knows are incredibly dangerous to how to deal with a populace that allows terrorists to stockpile weapons in their houses. All in all, I highly recommend the book.

Government: The Problem For All Our Solutions.

I know a lot of people are wondering why the federal government cannot get the debt problem taken care of, and I thought I would take a few minutes to hopefully shine some light on a few of the problems.

• Neither House Democrats nor President Obama have presented a plan. They have critiqued various parts of the Republican plan, but have not presented a plan themselves.
• The spending cuts that Democrats in Congress, and President Obama, are willing to allow are far in the future, while the tax increases they are demanding take effect far sooner. Also, in the past when democrats have made deals with Republicans such as "one dollar in tax increases for three dollars in spending cuts", the tax increases have taken place and congress never actually gets around to making the cuts. This is what happened to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
• Republicans think that the way out of the recession is to allow more money to stay in the private sector, increasing business capital to allow more job creation. Democrats on the other hand think that the economy can be jump started by the government spending large amounts of borrowed money in incentives and programs.
• Republicans worry that if we simply raise the debt ceiling, then U.S. debt will be downgraded in value as people loose faith that it will ever be repaid. Everyone will be paid by money borrowed from somebody else until eventually nobody else will lend, leaving the last group of lenders will not get paid, and nobody wants to be the second to last group that doesn't get paid.

People like to talk about government being necessary to get us out of this mess, but may I point out that government got us into this mess by forcing/encouraging companies and banks to loan money into the housing market that could not be repaid. It wasn't corporate America that made a deal with the devil, it was the Federal Government trying to create a perfect world that made this mess.

That is what is at the base of the current difficulty. Is government the solution to the problems that plague our society, or is it, as many of the founding fathers said, a necessary evil?

Hunting

I read an article yesterday either in TIME or WORLD that discussed some people's obsession with watching the death of animals they are about to eat. As someone who has done a lot of hunting and trapping, I thought now might not be a bad time to explain to those of who do not hunt or trap why we do what we do and what our mindset is. I cannot speak for everyone, and I recognize that every hunter is different.

Hunters can be broadly divided into four groups; The adrenaline junkies you see on TV who shoot an animal with big antlers from a few miles away, the hunters you rarely see who are simply trying to put meat on the table, those who are doing pest control on wildly over populated areas, and those who hunt to stay in touch with nature.

Many of the hunters on television are nothing like the majority of hunters, but there seem to be more of them every year. Such hunters are after notoriety and adrenaline highs. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a great hunter or relishing the flood of adrenaline from a hunt, I and many others are disgusted by the hunters who leave it at that. There little to be proud of in shooting a deer from thee hundred yards away while it was eating on what is for all intents and purposes a bait patch, and then taking the antlers only, leaving everything else to rot and be eaten by buzzards. People with this mindset occasionally move beyond the bounds of law and become poachers, using floodlights, silenced rifles, and night vision to kill trophy bucks on other people's land and then sell the antlers for hard cash.

Many hunter on the other hand are simply trying to put meat on their table. Deer meat is far more healthy than beef, and one deer can provide several meals for an average family. During the great depression deer became a valuable source of food in rural areas, where men would kill thirty or forty deer to feed their families.

Most people today do not 'need' to kill wild animals to put food in their table, yet hunting remains a popular activity. Fathers taking their sons deer hunting is a common practice in Texas, and its not because we have a wild fascination with killing things, but because we want to be responsible stewards of our world. I hunt in order to help keep the deer population at the point the land can reasonably support it, to provide food for my family, and because the hunt is one of the greatest experiences a man can participate in.

It is widely propagated that hunting damages the populations of deer especially. This is quite simply a myth. Last year I spent a few days on my grandfather's ranch in Texas and killed four deer in three days. I was shooting a scoped high power rifle from a four wheeled vehicle at deer that we saw while we drove back and forth doing chores for his cattle. The area is over run with deer, due in part to the vast ranches surrounding the area that do not allow hunting. Already the deer population is beginning to reach over population and running out of food, and the current drought is not going to help at all. The result will be a large number of deer dying from starvation and disease because the population has not been kept in check by responsible hunting. When I was with my grandfather, he asked that I always aim for the oldest doe, thus removing two or three fawns from next years population with each shot. That is responsible hunting, what many hunters engage in from year to year, trying to properly manage the land they have been given stewardship of.