New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

I just thought I should share this little news article from my favorite (and most pro-Palestinian) European news network.
Here is an excerpt-

“Reports from Turkmenistan say President Niyazov has ordered the closure of all the hospitals in the country except those in the capital, Ashgabat.”

Enjoy

Popularity: 23% [?]

This is an article from todays Financial Times that I found very interesting.

“There has been a striking decline in support for terrorism in Muslim countries over the past five years, according to the annual take on world opinion by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Of the 16 majority Muslim countries included in the survey, 15 have shown waning enthusiasm for terrorism in general and suicide terrorism in particular, it says.”

You can see the whole article here

Popularity: 50% [?]

Today President George W. Bush linked the war in Iraq to the fight against Al-Qaida. While he has done this many times before, it was one of his most controversial speeches as he “lashed out at critics who say that al-Qaida’s operation in Iraq is distinct from terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.”

I would briefly like to give our president a foreign policy lesson.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization that Al-Qaida; it was formed by now infamous terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was created in Afghanistan by Al-Zarqawi after the retreat of the end of the war with the Soviet Union. He ran a terrorist training camp that had no correlation to Al-Qaida or Osama Bin Laden and was operating with the intent of overthrowing the Jordanian government (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian who resents the Jordanian Kingdom for not following strict Sharia law).

He left Afghanistan prior to the US invasion and traveled to Iraq where he was famously treated at an Iraqi medical facility. However, this occurred prior to the invasion and he still had no tie to the terrorist organization, which attacked American on September 11th. While he was in Iraq he established ties with a radical Kurdish militant group and also manifested contacts with senior Iraqi intelligence and military officials. It was not until nearly a full year after the invasion (in 2004) that al-Zarqawi announced his coalition with Al-Qaida. Zarqawi allied himself with Al-Qaida with the belief that it would legitimize his guerrilla movement to the rest of the Muslim world and increase his recruitment of foreign fighters. In 2004 al-Zarqawi renamed his organization Al-Qaida in Iraq, note that Al-Qaida in Iraq is a different entity than Al-Qaida with its own separate command structure and military imperatives.

It is true that there is an organization called Al-Qaida in Iraq, but it was not until after the US invasion (a full year after) that there was a correlation between the radical Sunni groups which killed over three thousand Americans in 2001 and the group which is responsible for many of the roadside bombs and beheadings in Iraq.

Today both groups share similar broad goals, however prior to US intervention in Iraq the groups had separate ideologies and goals and were only united in a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It is true that there is now a connection between the people who attacked us on our own soil and those we are now fighting in Iraq, but to say that Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden are leading operations in Iraq on a day-to-day basis is plane wrong.

Popularity: 38% [?]

Foreign Policy magazine has a terrific article on the state of affairs in Iran:

“Iran’s radical president is sinking fast, and he knows it. Now, there’s only one man who can keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of the unemployment line: George W. Bush.In Tehran, the mood is quickly shifting. And it’s easy to feel it every time you stop to buy a newspaper, have a coffee, or wait in line at the grocery store. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s star is fading fast.Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.”

continued…

Popularity: 34% [?]

Then I heard what must have been another joke. Dennis Kucinich actually suggested that we decrease the size of our military. In proportion to GDP and federal spending, we currently spend less on our military today by percentage than at any point in US history. Two thirds of all of our federal spending goes to pointless and over bloated programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the utter disaster that is the Department of Education. Christopher Dodd actually had the nerve to suggest cutting military programs such as the F-22 fighter jet. With the increase in Chinese military spending and now with Russia aiming its nuclear arsenal at Europe why would we even consider cutting programs that ensure US military dominance. It is imparative as a preventive measure to ensure that the US military has a technological advantage of thirty years over the other major powers (as we currently have). It is clear that we do not have enough soldiers as we need. In the first gulf war over five hundred and fifty thousand soldiers were placed on the ground as part of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Senator Obama has proposed an increase of one hundred thousand US soldiers; we should take it further than that and double the size of the US military.

We need to significantly increase the number of ground forces in the armed services, but the military also needs to add thousands of Special Forces units, Arabic translators, and cultural specialists. Our military needs to be bigger, not smaller, but it also needs to be smarter. One reason why the early operations in Afghanistan were so successful was because of the use of the “network” strategy. Less than one dozen four to eight man “A teams” which included a mix of CIA operatives and soldiers from different branches of the military coordinated the ground and air war against the Taliban. This network strategy enables commanders on the ground to make important decisions in real time without having to deal with heavy bureaucracy. One of the massive failures of Vietnam was the consolidation of Special Forces into SOCOM, which was a bureaucratic disaster that cost lives and money. It has been suggested that the Pentagon continue its strategy of decentralization. CENTCOM is the US military base of operations for the Middle East and its existence enables all Middle Eastern operational decisions to be made in real time, in the same time zone (CENTCOM is located in Qatar) and by military and civilian experts who specialize in the region they operate in. This is a huge step forward as it has enabled much faster and more well informed decision making than if day to day operations were run by the Pentagon thousands of miles away in Washington D.C. We should expand this strategy by sectionalizing the globe into other command centers that have access to their own air, sea, and ground assets, which would be capable of responding to situations in any part of the globe at unprecedented speed. I would recommend such networking with the State Department and the CIA and increase inter-corporation between all three on regional levels as suppose to agents, diplomats, and soldiers on the ground having to speak through professional bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

The last thing America needs is the weaker military Democrats like Dennis Kucinich are proposing.

Popularity: 22% [?]

There were multiple times that I almost died with laughter during tonight’s Democrat debate on CNN.
Of the more hilarious responses were those dealing with the gas “price gouging.” Some candidates (including John Edwards) called for a justice department investigation into “price gouging” by the big bad oil companies. Guess what morons, only twenty percent of all of the oil in the world is controlled by multinationals. As Mike Gravel observed, there should be no investigations into “price gouging” and nothing should be done to lower gasoline prices. Prices for crude oil are controlled by the global cartel known as OPEC which sets prices for the eighty percent of the worlds oil that is produced by nationalist corporations such as those in Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, ect. Democrats in congress have refused to allow any new oil to gas refineries be built in the United States for more than two decades. Most people do not understand that the oil in the ground is different than the gas in your car. It has to be refined from what is known as “crude oil” to usable gasoline. If we allow the “evil” companies like ExonMobile and others to build more refineries than the price of gasoline in the United States will decrease.
Eftychis

Popularity: 22% [?]

The Democratic Party cannot win the 2008 presidential election for one simple reason: Iraq. As much as I do not like his show, I caught this segment on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC the other night. In this segment, Keith discusses how the “American people have been betrayed” by the Democrats for “giving in to the president” and not following through with the mandate they were elected to do. He (like most Americans) says that the Democrats were elected in 2006 with the clearest mandate of any new Congress in US history: get US soldiers out of Iraq. Even someone with a moderate understanding of the complexities of government would know how difficult it would be for the Democrats in Congress to pass legislation and to force the president into withdrawal. Of course, the average American would not understand the logrolling and underhand deals that have to be made to pass any sort of bill in Congress and make it so much more difficult for the Democratic Party’s majority to get their way.

All the Democratic presidential candidates (with one exception) were supporters of the war initially and several of them have not overcome that obstacle. However, if the Democrats in the House do not pass a bill (even if it is purely symbolic) that is endorsed by the media (even those on the far left like Olbermann are rejecting the Iraq bill) by the end of the summer, the public will loose any faith it has in Pelosi and her minions.

As someone who watched the Democratic debate and the two Republican debates, I can say that while the Democrats only offered a plan for withdrawal, all of the Republican candidates offered some coherent strategies for stabilizing the country. The Republicans suggested increasing troop levels, bringing in the United Nations, and even dividing the country into three states united by a federal system. My point is that if the Democrats are unable to get US soldiers out of Iraq (which is very unlikely), the American people will look for people with solutions for how to stabilize the country and it is obvious that many of the Republican candidates are waiting to unveil their strategies.

The Republican candidate will have a distinct, if not so obvious, advantage when the national campaigning begins. The Democratic candidate may point out that the Republican Party began the War in Iraq.  Unless, however, the Democratic nominee is Barrack Obama, the Republican front runner can point out that not only did they authorize the war, but when the Democratic Party was elected into power in both houses, they failed to confront President Bush in nearly two years.

Both parties are in trouble, but right now the only thing going for the Democrats is their Iraq withdrawal strategy.  If troops are not pulled out of Iraq by the spring of 2008, mark my words: the Democrats will not win in 2008.

Eftychis

Editor’s Note:  This post was edited for grammatical consistency on May 27th at 12pm.  

Popularity: 43% [?]

Tonight I attended a Republican fundraiser for Mitt Romney. I will not go into details on the fundraiser but will rather focus on Mr. Romney. Let me just say this: if you thought he was impressive in the debate, he is a rock star in person. He is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. His wife is also very articulate and is First Lady material. Mr. Romney spoke about some interesting topics and while he was speaking with a specific audience (fiscally conservative but not evangelical audience) what he said will be a major part of his campaign. He used an example that when he was in Massachusetts he was asked to spend $250 million to rebuild a crumbling state courthouse. Romney was advised that many of these courthouses would have to be renovated over his term. He instead decided to build twelve new state courthouses that would be placed strategically so that each citizen would be within half an hour of a courthouse. How many courthouses existed before? 112 court houses. The reason these courthouses still remained is because most towns had courthouses prior to the invention as the car, but he questioned why when society as a whole has adapted to the car, why hasn’t government. Such spending only benefits people who work on senatorial campaigns who are then appointed as clerks or employees as these courthouses. As usual in government, until Romney came in to fix Massachusetts, the government employees got the benefits that should have been going to the people.

The point that Romney was making was that in business, you have to change to survive. If your business does not adapt within five years to major market changes, it will fail. Take the US auto industry (an example he used) they became complacent with their status as the auto super powers and neither Ford, GM, or Chrysler was prepared for the far superior and efficient business model of Toyota.
He thinks it’s ridiculous that the cabinet is structured as it is; he said he would appoint vice presidents and other positions to increase accountability and also extend presidential control over bureaucracies. For instance, dividing the military to report to specific regional commanders would reduce reaction times and improve US military operational ability. Currently the United States does this with Centcom, which controls operations directly in the Middle East and North Africa, but no other similar structure or organization exists in the military.
He called for energy independence within 25 years and thinks that it is ridiculous that the America spends a billion dollars a day to purchase oil from other countries (80% of all oil production is controlled by nationalized oil companies, not private corporations) and that we only spent a billion on energy research in 2006.

Overall he seems to want to bring a much more business like approach to government (and he has proved it in his record in Massachusetts). As he said in the debate, he thinks that Iran presents a real threat because nuclear material could get into terrorist hands (even if they’re government does not use it). He is for tougher sanctions on Iran but seems to want to take a more diplomatic approach and also to appeal to the Iranian people to seriously consider the consequences and responsibility that come with becoming a nuclear nation.
He wanted to give the troop surge a chance to work, he mentioned federalism in Iraq and I predict of the surge doesn’t work that is an option he will push for or claim that he will promote if he is elected.
He refused to say whom he would like as his running mate, but in all honesty I cannot think of anyone else who is as impressive as Romney (at least who was present at the Republican Debate last week from MSNBC.com and the Politico.com).
He is the most articulate candidate I have seen and while it was evident in person it is clear on TV too. The good news for Republicans is that there is a very strong, very Reagan-esk candidate to counter the Obama movement.

Popularity: 26% [?]

This is just a brief conservative reaction to tonight’s Democratic Debate on MSNBC.
Let me start out by saying what candidates do not stand a chance of earning the nomination. While Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) is well spoken and he has ideas that fall along the party lines, he is simply unelectable. There is nothing about him that makes him to stand out of the crowd and he is ultimately too boring of a candidate. Also, when he attempted to interrupt Barrack Obama during Obama’s thirty-second rebuttal he seemed childish and in fact I felt that he made Obama look like a powerful, mature, and experienced politician. Joe Biden is known to be crude and does not come off with the unflappable nature that can be seen in Hillary Clinton, in fact his most impressive performance occurred during a one on one with Chris Mathews after the debate, however most people will not have seen this. In general, Biden and Chris Dodd (S. CT) are not enticing and it is doubtful that either would even carry their own states in a general election, let alone the primary states next January. There is always one Howard Dean in the political arena and in this debate it was clearly Mike Gravel. He is far too radical to even get a percentage in the general election, but there are many democratic primary voters who would love to see him in the oval office. Come early Super Tuesday, Biden, Dodd will be out and while many in the far left would love to vote for Gravel they will vote for one of the front-runers to ensure they have the best chance at winning the white house.

I still stand by my belief that Bill Richardson (Gov, NM) is currently the premier vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. Richardson’s responses on foreign policy were some of the strongest of the night and he was honest in his beliefs on Alberto Gonzalez. For instance, when he was questioned about an Iraq withdrawal he utilized his previous foreign policy experience as a UN ambassador to explain how the international community can come together to stabilize Iraq. I also thought the fact that he is favored by the NRA will help to gain a number of western votes who like his executive experience and his stance on not raising taxes. It is important to note that he is the only governor running on the Democratic side and given that it is almost certain the Democratic presidential candidate will be a senator they will need someone on their ticket with proven executing experience.

John Edward’s has a nice southern drawl, but unless the primary voters in New Hampshire and states of the like decide they think that a woman or a black man are not capable of being elected, he will not get the nomination. John Edward’s two Americas speaks to many people and does recognize the gross divide between the rich and even the middle class in this country. However, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama actually gave a better explanation on how they would enact universal health care and actually I agreed with several of the points they mentioned such as allowing Americans to buy into a nation wide pool for healthcare along with Hillary Clinton’s statement that we have to fix the outrageous costs for people who even now have healthcare before we spend more money on another program. Edwards is a looser in this debate because he was not a winner. To clarify, he is trailing Clinton and Obama in the polls and he had to do something tonight to separate himself from the pack so that he can make some headway; he failed to do so and so while he didn’t loose altogether, he didn’t say anything to further his campaign. As the primary season approaches more democrats will move their support from Edwards and towards either Clinton or Obama.

Hillary Clinton did what she had too do, not stir a controversy and more importantly, maintain her composure. She made good points tonight and she also succeeded in not coming off as overly aggressive. Her answers were rehearsed but they didn’t sound practiced and memorized, which made her seem much more likeable. Her position in the race did not change.

Obama did very well tonight. He has to clarify on policy, but as Chris Mathew’s observed he gave multiple part answers to the questions he was asked and he came off as being knowledgably on foreign policy and willing to conduct diplomacy, and also he clarified that his pro-Israel stance (which he needed to do) and he came off as hawkish on the topic of Iran (a popular position in the US and even in Europe). The most impressive part of the entire debate was when Obama was asked to give a rebuttal to Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich attempted to interrupt Obama multiple times and it made Obama appear stronger, more mature, and even more experience. It put Obama in a position of power and he came off with an air of authority and a hue of gravitas that I believe a lot of people noticed.

As predicted, I do not think this debate did anything to change the landscape of the field for the democratic primary. Obama shinned, but not brightly enough to black out Hillary Clinton, and neither of them delivered any significant blow to Edwards that would remove him from the race. The damage done to Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were self inflicted, and Richardson made it even more apparent in his coherent arguments that he is the vice presidential candidate.

Popularity: 25% [?]

1. Initiate a National Service
2. A single State Solution between Palestine and Israel
3. Ensuring an end to energy dependence in the Middle East
4. Increasing abilities of non-governmental organizations, and US government organizations to provide immediate and effective disaster relief around the world that promotes pro-American imagery.
5. Outlawing Shari Law in the United States
6. Forming a joint anti-terrorism act with China, Russia, Japan, and the EU to ensure a task force greater than Interpol with no objective but to prevent global terrorism and also to create a multinational counter-terrorism task force capable of responding to nuclear, biological, chemical, and hostage crisis’s in every corner of the globe within 24 hours.
7. Providing cold-war level funding to form and operate pro-American television, Internet, and print sources outside of the United States.
8. Using covert military action and government sponsored economic means to open up rogue terrorist states to capitalism and western values.
9. Securing major American sea and airports to scan one hundred percent of cargo, also ensuring that the southern boarder of the United States is secure.
10. Rebuilding the national intelligence, enforcement, and emergency response community from the ground up to increase response time, preparedness, and capabilities, while balancing cost.

In the coming days I will create an in dept explanation of how to accomplish the steps I have outlined.

Popularity: 79% [?]