The new energy bill is hailed by all.  But I have this problem, whenever both parties sing  praises, in harmony,  I get a nervous twitch in my grey matter. 

Apparently my twitch in this case was generated by the year 2020.

We’re raising the café standards to 35MPG and everyone has until 2020 to get it done.  WHAT!?!  13 years to raise the fuel mileage standard  by 10MPG!  If we ever needed proof that congress and for that matter The White House don’t get it, this is the proof.

We developed nuclear weapons in less than 5 years.  We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years.  But….it’s going to take 13 years to improve gas mileage by 10MPG?

This bill essentially says we have neither the vision nor the will to address our energy issues in a meaningful manner.  Congress and The President did not take advantage, politically, of the fact that aggressive energy policy is desired by both the left and the right.  The left for environmental reasons and the right for the national security implications of requiring foreign oil from bad actors.  Bad actors in this case being, potentially,  Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

If you Google “national security, energy policy” you get over seven million hits.  Left, right, center, Democratic, Republican, Independent; take your choice.  Any number of leading lights in all of the above categories can agree that energy dependence is a centerpiece issue for the nation.  No doubt were you to associate energy policy with economics, or environmental issues you’d get the same results.  There is no lack of information, opinion, creative thinking and analysis regarding reduction of foreign dependence.   

35MPG by 2020 is not going to get us to where we need to go. Nor are more efficient light bulbs for that natter. 

When John Kennedy committed us to go to the moon only a tiny fraction of the required technology existed to actually do so.  Kennedy’s confidence in America led him to “know” we could do it.  He knew in his soul that America, when challenged, could accomplish greatness.  Where is that confidence now?  Where is the challenge? Especially daunting is the fact that the lack of confidence is emanating from our own leadership by setting our sights so very low, in the face of the threats we face.

 “Blood, toil, sweat and tears”, that was Winston Churchill’s promise to his fellow citizens in 1940.  There can be no doubt, given Churchill’s predilections  that it was carefully considered and rehearsed.  Britain faced an existential crisis that Churchill had feared and predicted for years in advance of it’s fruition in continental Europe.

Churchill illustrated in four words that the British were involved in a struggle for the nation.  He clearly defined in those four words what was to be the required commitment for survival against the gathering storm of Nazi Germany. He also predicted victory.  His prediction of victory was based on faith in his people, their courage, and the commonly held values of the nation which would not tolerate Nazi German designs. 

Churchill knew that there was, in fact, evil in the world, he believed that it could not be appeased, that it could only be faced and defeated.  His “wilderness years” argument was that the best guarantee of peace was strength.  These arguments were disregarded and denigrated.  The pre World War II political insistence on a  “Peace Dividend”  was based on the collective exhaustion that followed the devastating consequences of World War I.  

We have similar voices today, they are focused on radical Islam.  We have volumes of  available information: books, histories, commentaries on the nature of radical Islam, its strategies. tactics and goals. 

The stated goals of radical Islam are awesome.  A global nation of Islam, no boarders, no governments, just a universal commitment to Islam. The history of Islam proves that these goals are not simple rhetoric.  Islam achieved great power status and dominated vast territories from the sub continent to Europe.  They did so by intimidation and by the sword.  They have every intention of doing it again.  

And yet, we have managed no cogent  public focus on the issue, at least in terms of what is heard from our media and political “elite”.  They seem, generally, content to go no deeper than “acceptable” sound bites for the “war on terror” without engaging what that war really is truly based on and, more critically, what it could become. 

Simply, sadly,  that radical Islam is already racking up the wins!  We’re been helping them win.  The Islamist strategists that hold a vision of a Muslim dominated world have been and will continue to be exceptionally, patient, smart, clever and successful.

The history of Muslim incursions in Europe over the past thirty years is nothing short of incredible.  The Islamists have moved the nature of the political debate in Europe from a western perspective to a Middle Eastern perspective.  The promise of oil and freedom from terror was accepted by Europe.  Europe traded away their “fears” for a foreign labor force that would bolster their failing Social Democratic economic base.  Traded away support for Western values for the expected cover the Europeans would require in the eventual confrontation between radical Islam and the United States. 

Europe adopted unlimited immigration with no assimilation.  Second generation Muslims do not speak the language of their country of residence.  German courts have ruled in favor of the application of Sharia law.  Muslim violence is growing through western and northern Europe.  High percentages of the immigrant Muslim population are wards of state social welfare systems.  European relativism has resulted in a consistent set of excuses for nearly any aberrant behavior by Muslims. Newspapers are prohibited from mention of the ethnic or religious affiliation of criminals. The EU is adopting “acceptable speech” regulations, voices contrary the Social Democratic, politically correct way of thinking and speaking are shut out of the public dialogue.  The self defeating nature of the assimilation issues combined with the population growth demographics of native Europeans versus Muslim immigrants is staggering and is on the borderline of irreversible crisis.

Why is it important for Americans to understand what is happening in Europe.  Because one can detect the early warning signs of those same trends here.   

In a recent column by Tony Blankley he makes the point that a significant majority of Americans have become convinced that Radical Islam will be more of an annoyance to us than a true threat.  This perception is a win for the Islamists and follows the European model!

Recently the Saudi’s brought down 172 suspected terrorists including $32,000,000.00 in cash, sounds like a winner to me.  Terror cells with thirty-two million in cash on hand are an exceptionally hard reality.   One cell, thirty-two Million!!! .        

Iran has been granted a free pass to participate in the Iraqi war.  A number of sources identify these activities and planning as commencing well in advance of our invasion.  The Iranians, Syrians, Saudis and Al Qaeda had significant and effective planning in place for an insurgency in advance of our invasion.  In light of what has happened over the past four years can there be any doubt?  So far, they win that one too.

Our media has exposed significant portions of our intelligence infrastructure.  The exposure of the fact that we were listening to Al Qaeda satellite  phones, the NSA program to listen in on suspect oversees phone calls, the network of programs related to money movement: it just goes on and on. In every case Al Qaeda, et al, win! The Jihadists have no need of spies when the New York Times and insurgent factions within the State Department and the Intelligence Community will willingly perform that function for them. Ironically the very people and institutions that expose national security programs scream for a quick end to the conflict and excuse radical Islam as a result of poverty and discrimination. Radical Islam wins again!

The insistence that Islam be exposed to no criticism has been, by and large, famously successful in Europe.  The same application of money, influence, and shadow organizations have continued to solidify their footholds here.  CAIR on Capital Hill, the various indictments, trials, serious convictions and clear evidence of duplicity are reasonable enough evidence.  Recently an Muslim organization in Virginia took credit for the election of Jim Webb to the U.S. Senate by organizing Boy Scouts to canvas for Mr. Webb.  Maybe they did and maybe the didn’t, but they were prepared to take public credit for it, and that should tell us a lot.

The general position of the Arab nations is that “No Arab issue is up for debate until the Palestine issue is resolved!”  This may be the most successful staking horse in history.  Europe, as have many, accepted this as a threshold issue in concert with it’s Arab allies.  No talk of Arab transgressions, sectarian warfare, the essentially fascist, political structures in place throughout the Middle East, massive torture, human rights violations and so on.  Why?  Because “ we won’t talk to you about anything else until you do something about Palestine.”  Great political cover, accepted by many. They win! 

The Jihadists are telling us the truth!  Dozens, hundreds of sources will allow any one  to read and research for themselves the stated goals of Al Qaeda specifically and radical Islam in general.   We have no reason not to take them at their word.  They’ve done everything they said they would do. Why is it, then,  that we still don’t take them at their word?  We don’t as a nation believe them or believe they can win. They win again!

For the strategists of Jihad time and relative military might is inconsequential.  From their point of view this is a generational effort.  From their point of view the unifying influence of Islam will overcome any military or political movement.  From a historical point of view, it has already been a generational effort without significant evolution for some 13 centuries.  The proponents of fundamental Islam have won some and lost some but at the moment any perception other than they are on a winning track is naïve.  

We can’t stand up to the fight for 5 years without falling apart, politically.  This consideration was critical to the strategists of Jihad, they counted on a “Vietnam Style” anti war movement.  Their own writings and speeches consistently attempt to speak to the western anti-war movement and at the same time deliver a significantly more radical message to indigenous populations.  These multiple positions are typically not challenged in the mainstream media and no one is held to account. They win!

Then there is the oft mentioned fact that nothing has happened to us since 9/11 and how well we’re doing with that.  I hold in high regard, and with sincere respect  the thousands of skilled, dedicated people working hard and losing sleep to insure 9/11 does not happen again: here comes the but.  What if Al Qaeda very specifically decided not to pull off another 9/11.  What if it’s not fully about our efforts but their strategy?  Pre-election propaganda in 2004 had an effect opposite to the desired result.  Radical Islam may have learned a lesson from that attempt.  The lesson being, stay away from pre-election Americans.    

Al Qaeda needed us to attack Afghanistan. they needed to see American troops on the ground in the Middle East.  To damage America again in America would have mobilized us to swift retribution.  To have created another 9/11 would have reenergized the American public.  It would have also served to mitigate the nearly institutionalized anti-Americanism that currently pervades the international debate.    

9/11 may come again, but in an entirely new context and as part of evolving Jihadist strategic thinking.  Keep in mind reports that many senior strategists of radical Islam especially those within the Muslim Brotherhood were upset with Osama for 9/11.  They felt it came too soon.  They wanted the American public to remain asleep relative to their goals and aspirations.  They wanted more time to apply the European model to America.  They wanted time to deepen and mature their incursions into the cultural and political processes in America. 

The next 9/11, if it comes, will likely come on the heals of change in the Oval Office. It will be a  test!  Radical Islam has been testing us since the Iranian Revolution.  The list of attacks is well know to all.  Typically we have appeased the perpetrators or engaged in symbolic retribution, at least until President Bush, and he has not done all that could have been done either.   

Are we facing a gathering storm?  My existential communiqué’ with Winston says that we are indeed.  He tells me that not recognizing the threat for what it is strengthens it.  In 1899, still a young man,  Winston wrote the following:

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being
moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has
already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at
every step; “

As Americans, we must collectively, find a way to see the threat for what it is. We have to admit that in general we are losing more than we’re winning and that we’re behind the curve?  Can we come together over a multi layered approach to a brutal political ideology, cloaked in Islam?  I know we can it’s just a case of getting in front of it now, or reacting to the next 9/11.

It’s a choice between active and passive.  It’s a question of attacking the issue or hoping we’ll get lucky.  The idea that we can buy time against the threat is, likely,  the best possible thing we can do in support of the Jihadi strategic vision.    .       

If we, indeed can mobilize ourselves to once again recognize the reality of Mr. Churchill’s admonition that we may, for a time face only “Blood, toil, sweat and tears”  we may yet right our ship of state.  If we do not “Blood, toil, sweat and tears” will still come to us but it will come to us in the Jihadi design and on their terms!   

The debates this week were great, not at all painful.  Come on you clearly were not paying attention.  Granted the media spin is that the interesting moments could be best counted in seconds and that there simply “was not much there, there”.  I thought we had our moments.   

First a requiem: the amusement value provided by the “won’t win in my lifetime” Democratic candidates was unfortunately absent; I’ve grown to depend on those folks.  Alan Keys did what he could but he’s no Dennis Kucinich.  

The moderator was no_______________! (fill in the blank, you can’t screw this one up)

Fred Thompson firmed up his national security creds by refusing to raise his hand. 

Mike Huckabee left words out of sentences.  I know because I’ve heard them a few times.  

John Edwards passionately declared war against corporations not radical Islam, American corporations. Wait a minute, there was no discussion about radical Islam.  I found myself wishing he could be as passionate about terrorism and security as he was about American corporations. I think a rational threat assessment would bring American corporations in somewhere behind terrorism and radical Islam.

Mr. Obama wiped the cackle out of Hillary for a moment.  Mr. Obama may not get my vote but he has my respect.  I have a weak spot for snappy repartee as a retort to the snarky.    

Mr. Richardson suggested that as a component of trade agreements with China, China should adopt a constitutional form of government.  He rather threw it in at the end of a penetrating 30-second answer, but there it was, Bill is going to lead China to democratic institutions.  Why didn’t I think of that! 

Mrs. Clinton talked about “equivocal commitments” in relation to trade policy.  What is an equivocal commitment? 

There were a number of moments that left me confused in terms of the relationship between human rights abroad and U.S. Security Policy.  Since the major threats to us are Islamists, Russia and China and insofar as they don’t really seem to care what we have to say about human rights, I’m having trouble making the connection.  Granted an epiphany on the part of Osama, Russia and China would do the trick but, personally, that does not appear on my horizon.

Questions on new taxes were met with “cover” and with “ease”.  Mrs. Clinton said Taxes “would have an effect on people”, excellent cover for the future.  A wide variety of taxes was addressed carbon taxes, gas taxes, taxes on the rich taxes, corporate taxes, corporate carbon taxes, tobacco taxes. When Mr. Biden was questioned on the ability to pay for all of the new proposed programs, he noted, “It can easily be done”, yup easily

done.

Mr. Obama wants to end the war and concurrently politically stabilize the Middle East in our absence.  What? How?  No one has been able to politically stabilize the Middle East. I’m afraid I’m going to need a few more details on this one.     

Mr. Edwards, questioned on how he would procure corporate cooperation in light of his attacks said, in essence, that he would not attempt to procure corporate cooperation. By extension, you have to assume that Mr. Edward’s goals would be accomplished with regulation, not negotiations and engagement.  There is a logical disconnect associated with the idea that it is apparently OK to negotiate with Iran and Syria but not with American Corporations. 

I would venture a guess that average Americans would put the threat from American corporations somewhere down the list from radical Islam, weapons proliferation, terrorism and cultural incursion.  And yet, American corporate greed was an almost singular theme for Mr. Edwards the entire afternoon.

The conscientious on global warming was total, and voluntary hand raising was in play under Mrs. Clinton’s leadership.  In that context Mr. Richardson, want us to be “patriotic about something besides War.” 

Note to Mr. Richardson, we already are!  Second note to Mr. Richardson: your comment says a lot more about your attitudes than mine. How intellectually dishonest and shallow do you have to be for this to even occur to you to say?  This is exactly the stuff Democrats whined about for months, as they accused the President of trying to define patriotism.  The difference with Bill Richardson doing the same thing would be exactly what?

There was another conscientious about intelligence gathering and intelligence community behaviors.  It’s going to be rolled back!  American lives and rights will not bear the same importance as water boarded terror suspects with valuable information.  The culture of the Intelligence Community will return to a risk adverse status quo.  No good will come of that. 

Mr. Obama as the agent of change said in relation to the question about foreign policy advisors (post Hillary’s cackle): “there are a lot of good Clinton and Carter people available”! 

Carter people? Carter people?  No, please no!  Anything but that, I’ll do anything you ask, I’m begging you, please no Carter people!

Of course, we’re going to restore American’s image in the world.  Nevertheless, we have a problem or two here.  Many of the restoration statements called for eliminating the image of American arrogance by insisting that trading partners comply with our standards of human rights, unions, working conditions and a constitutional framework acceptable to us.  Sounds a bit arrogant to me and I’m an American.  This approach should really play well with the Chinese, Russians, Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East to name a few.     

The “what would you do in your first year” question had, as I recall, not a mention of substantial security policy initiatives other than “keeping the American people safe”. 

I hope Usama is not planning anything significant in 2009. 

Mr. Obama wanted to be president in Kindergarten!  So? I would venture a guess that between kindergarten and 1^st Grade half of my class mindlessly said the same thing. They also said they wanted to be any number of high-minded endeavors: doctors, lawyers, police officer, priests. That’s not the story.

All the campaigns comment on the kindergarten gambit.  Media reporters and analysts engage the “actual sentence”; hold up the “actual memo” for all as proof. That’s not the story.

The absent story is; someone had actually gotten hold of the sources for “the sentence” from “the memo”! 

Claiming no actual experience with campaigns, other than castigating the image on my television when someone insists on stupidity, I expected that there would be a discussion about what is actually involved in the commitment to chase a person’s history back to kindergarten.  The rhetorical question follows, why do you that?

The story should have been about the, apparent, depth to which opposition research must, in reality, exist. We’re I to run for office and my opponent had actual quotes of my elementary school utterances I would be both impressed and scared to death. I would be wondering “what the Hell else have they got” and where did the get it. 

The story should have been about political opposition research.  The story should have been about what, in this case, Mrs. Clinton is trying to accomplish when she or a senior advisor makes the decision to spend the time, effort and money necessary to chase an opponent’s life back to kindergarten.  In the interest of fairness, I don’t assume Mrs. Clinton is an exception to the rule.  Mrs. Clinton is likely better at it than the rest, but far from alone.  

Could it be that opposition research is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD.?  The political version of MAD’s fundamental premise would be the same as it was with Cold War Russia.  “If you drop a bomb on me I will drop three on you” and I will do it quickly.  However, in reality, if you really want to scare the Russians you must demonstrate you have the goods.  No goods, no fear!  Nuclear Strategy accomplished this, to a degree, with nuclear testing. 

I cannot help but wonder if the political version of MAD works the same way.  Mrs. Clinton knew that “the sentence” was not going to send anything seriously off track. Mrs. Clinton accurately assumed that the media would not “go deep.”  Hence, a relatively low cost “nuclear test” to deliver that “What the hell else have they got” moment that Mr. Obama, no doubt, experienced.

RON PAUL’S ATTRACTION:

One of the more fascinating dynamics of the current political season is Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, a Libertarian, is clearly out of the current mainstream and with, arguably, a distinct lack of the generally expected political polish. Why the groundswell for Ron Paul? 

The mainstream media’s analysis focuses on his anti-war stance and his appeal to those that are looking for a distinctly different approach to, well, everything, misses what I think is the real point of appeal. 

I believe there is a growing sense that America would be better off politically isolated when it comes to the international stage. 

Many if not an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that, in the grand sweep of history, there has never been a more significant force for good than America.  Americans, although willing to admit that tragic mistakes have been made along the way, also believe that those mistakes are overwhelmed by the positive impact of America.  Americans see themselves, accurately, as a fundamentally good, generous and welcoming people. 

Many are coming to the opinion, with significant points of reinforcement, that if we engage an issue we are wrong and it we do not we are wrong.  Many are coming to the opinion that we cannot win in the court of international opinion no matter what we do. Calls for American involvement are, typically, followed with criticism for the nature of the involvement. If we don’t engage we’re arrogant and unilateral, if we do, it’s just another example of American imperialism.  

Many are reaching the point of abject weariness: fatigue with our international engagements, allies that really are not, the “gotcha” environment of beltway politics and the absence of unifying issues that transcend partisan politics.  That sense of fatigue is leading to points of disillusionment and that disillusionment is leading to a growing sense that the answer is strategic isolationism: hence the Ron Paul attraction.

Mr. Paul’s positions call for fundamental disengagement from the mainstream trends that have been in place since WWII.  Mr. Paul calls for disengagement from a variety of trade agreements, international organizations, Iraq, Current tax policy, Federal controls related to education, strong immigration controls, entitlements and a variety of other issues. 

All these positions are typically Libertarian; they strike a chord with those that are having a hard time seeing what America’s way forward might be.  These positions appeal to many who feel, if not actually consider thoughtfully, that a massive “time out” might be the answer. Ron Paul is giving voice to that desire for a “time out”.

In terms of mainstream political thinking, Mr. Paul is not so much out of the mainstream as much as he is displaced in time. 

For most of our history, isolation from the intrigues of international politics was a hallmark of American policy.  This history begins with the founders cautioning about inter-tangling alliances and proceeds through to the 1940’s.  The isolationist aspects of American thinking were reinforced in the post WWI period as evidenced by our rejection of The League of Nations and was considered by Franklin Roosevelt to be his most significant political challenge in terms of committing America to WWII.      

Mr. Paul’s positions recall the fantasies of a simpler time; it relieves the stress of our self-appointed responsibilities in a complex and dangerous world.  Will Mr. Paul become President, highly unlikely?  Does his insurgency represent something of note, absolutely!   

D.E. Landry

xdel@cox.net

December 9, 2007  

Mitt, I feel your pain:

Some years ago I moved to the South having been a life long New Englander, Alabama to be specific.  I looked forward to it, I liked the South.  Much of the experience was positive, met a lot of nice folks.

I was brought up a Catholic although I had drifted away from it and was essentially non practicing.  I quickly came to understand that that church and religious affiliation was a much more significant issue in Alabama than it ever was in New England.  I ran a business and encountered Evangelicals on a daily basis.  They tended to be very, shall we say,  “up front” about their commitment to their faith.  I had no problem with that as I maintain a fundamental respect for whatever faith one might find themselves committed to.  Not an issue.

The shock however came when I discovered that a significant number of the committed Christian folks I encountered did not consider Catholics to be Christians!  “What are they” I asked but never really got a straight answer.  I was, to say the least, confused having been brought up and educated as a Catholic with Christ being the centerpiece of the churches teaching and ritual. 

Then another shocker! My wife and I were, at one point in time, affiliated with a Unitarian congregation.  My wife mentioned it casually to one of our neighbors and was quickly advised “Oh, that’s the church that the witches go to”.   

Therein comes my inclination to quickly and fully dismiss the Evangelical definition of what a Christian is or is not and by extension what a cult might or might not be. Mormons are part of a cult, Catholics are not Christians, Unitarian’s are witches and so on.  The degree of chauvinism existent in an Evangelical’s view of the faith of others is, to my mind, diametrically opposed to my understanding of Christian values.

So Mitt, I feel your pain.  I commend you for not expressing the frustration you must feel over an issue that should not be an issue in America.  Unfortunately, but to be expected, the media is on the wrong track for focusing on the fact that you did not offer a theological explanation of Mormonism.  The same commentators that have derided fundamentalist Christian views and expressed their fear of them as a political force are now on the train with those selfsame folks in insisting you explain your faith to them.         

ABANDON THE FICTIONS:

D.E. Landry

December 3, 2007

It is past time that we can afford to be guided by hope as opposed difficult realities.  What follows are just 11 issues of many that represent significant challenges demand our commitment.  The inability or reluctance to address these issues will guarantee poor policy decisions, pool planning and more not less problems. 

1. Pakistan is a reluctant, conflicted ally at best.  The evidence of Pak benign neglect relative to the terrorist infrastructure is extensive and convincing as is evidence of the ISI’s continuing relationships with and support for key Islamist leaders and functionaries.  We’ve been denied access to A.Q. Khan and questions related to what remains of his illegal proliferation network remain unanswered.  Pakistan does the exact minimum of what they “have” to do to maintain U.S. financial support.  Complex politics in Pakistan aside the facts remain.  The most recent evidence of the conflicted approach is Pakistan’s release of Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, former Taliban Defense Minister for Mullah Omar. Concerns that Pakistan could easily tilt toward Islamist political control remain valid and represent the most significant threat to global security we have seen in decades.

2. Russia can no longer be considered an ally of any kind. Russia is careening toward a return to totalitarian rule under Mr. Putin.  The era of strongman rule in Russia has been a fact for some years and will be well into the future.  The absolute refusal of Russia to participate in containing Iran, its recalcitrant attitudes in the U.N. and insistence on positions at polar opposites to the U.S. on a wide variety of issues is evidence enough.  Do the Russians have, from their point of view, reasons for opposition to the U.S.?  Yes, they do, but that does not abrogate the facts about current Russian positions and intentions from our point of view. Our point of view matters and it should matter unapologetically.

3. The North Koreans do not intend to give up nuclear programs.  They may intend to export them but by no means do they intend to give them up.  History predicts what can be reasonably expected in the immediate future from Dear Leader.  The six party talks have been the rough equivalent of the EU’s effort to contain Iran.

4. The expectation that China will intervene in a significant way with North Korea ignores China’s interests. China has no intention of removing the North Korean buffer to the democratic, capitalistic South.  Furthermore China has no interest in Korean reunification and no interest in a thriving democracy on it’s boarder in the event of unlikely reunification.  The expectation that China will chose a long-term policy of benign semi-capitalism is also misplaced.  China will remain benign only as long as it is in its interest to do so.  They will remain benign only as long as they can secure their energy flow.  Consider China’s recent strategic partnerships Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and Syria. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend does it also hold that the friend of my enemy is my enemy?  Additionally, the confluence of Chinese and Russian positions in the U.N. is frightening.  Add to that the dramatic growth of Chinese military spending and the intention to maintain that growth argues against a continued “benign” strategic approach by China.  Simply ask, exactly what threats does China see that justifies the growth of an already massive military infrastructure?  Ask yourself further what the testing of a “mine” designed for low earth orbit capable of destroying communication satellites might have as its goal? Benign?

5. Middle East Peace deals.  The fiction continues!  The numbers of irreconsible positions that exist between Israel and the Arabs have and will continue to be both undeniable and untenable.  The wide variety of “Peace Talks” over the years have proven, beyond doubt, that talks are nothing more than an effort to provide political cover, demonize Israel, create new flows of “aid” and buy time. Why not, it’s working.  Western Europe is firmly in support of Arab positions as is the U.N. and a majority of the third world.  Islamist regimes and non-state actors continue to call for the destruction of Israel and they have proven, historically, that they have the capability to kill any deal agreed to by the parties.  There is almost as much venom directed at Palestinian leaders that engage in “Peace Talks” as there is against the U.S. and Israel.  Exactly where might the common ground for an agreement that all factions in the Middle East could support exist.  Middle Eastern states are prepared to continue the fight they have waged for decades, right down to the last Palestinian, but no further.  A deal in Palestine removes a variety of primary political motivations that the Arab states have counted on for years.  A resolution of the “Palestinian issue” is simply not in Arab  interests. For years the Arab political structure has convinced many, notably the EU, that no other issue can be engaged until the “Palestinian Issue” is resolved.  This position has served as cover for the many inequities and institutional corruptions that exist in Middle Eastern states.  Resolution of the “Palestinian Issue” opens the door to engagement of issues that Arab states do not want engaged.

6. The strategic influence of Islamist thinking grows throughout the Middle East.  This influence will eventually turn to democratic movements to secure its place in the body politic.  We’ve already seen this trend in Palestine and Lebanon.  It will continue in Egypt and in North Africa generally.  The Islamists see clearly that this is their most likely path to power as evidenced in the carefully orchestrated and successful running of a limited number of candidates by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and by Hamas in Palestine and by Hizballah in Lebanon. .

7. Western Europe is “swirling the drain”.  The growing influence of Islamists, the refusal to revise immigration policies and the demand by the Social Democrats that Muslim sensibilities be appeased, understood, accepted and considered as  equivalent to traditional western values is undeniable: there are massive political infrastructures dedicated to this proposition such as the Euro Arab Dialogue (EAD).  Demographic analysis and projection of population trends in Europe is also undeniable.  Within a generation of two, assuming no change in European policies there will be controlling Muslim voting blocks in at least six European nations.  In northern Europe, the “We’ll be in charge by 2030” tee shirt is a common fashion choice by young Muslim men.

8. Terror infrastructure is an undeniably global issue.  There is no region on earth where you can confidently say that terrorism is not an issue or is not a threat.  Hell, even China has made terror related arrests.

9. State sponsors of terror are now creating alliances within our hemisphere such as Iran and Venezuela and Iran and Cuba.  The Ciudad del Este region in Paraguay near the boarders of Argentina and Brazil and known as the Tri-Boarder area has long been know as an outpost for terrorist infrastructure in South America. Reports indicate that elements from Hezbollah, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Lebanese Drug mafia operate in partnership, freely and openly in conjunction with local organized crime and corrupt government officials.  The estimated Islamic population of the region is 750,000!

10. Iran.  Iran has executed a brilliant series of moves to buy time for it’s nuclear program to mature. Iran has played the EU and by extension us as we agreed to the fiction that the EU could “talk Iran out of it’s nuclear program”.  There can be no doubt about Iranian intentions. Iran has made these intentions clear in a series of public pronouncements. They have essentially thanked the EU for it’s naiveté in the famous EU Three negotiations.  This series of negotiations and broken promises provided three years of space for the Iranians.  The “negotiations” were nothing more than stylized appeasement of Iranian objectives under the belief that just a few more “carrots” would turn the trick.  The most recent meeting with special EU/UN envoy Javier Solana is typical and consistent with the impact of the EU Three process.  When questioned after the most recent failure(11/20/07) to negotiate a deal to avoid additional sanctions the Iranian negotiator was asked about the impact of the current sanctions.  The response was typical of Iranian responses over the past three years.  "Nothing, no impact. In fact, we made the greatest technology headway and breakthroughs in that specific period of time."  Add to that the essential truism that Iran is the most significant state sponsor of terrorism on the globe!  The Iranians have begun to see declining returns on their terrorist investment making their ascendancy to a nuclear state even more important. 

11. Finally, and perhaps most critically our traditional alliances are simply not, what the average American expects of alliances.  The fact is that America and Western Europe do not share an alliance based on common values any more.  We are prepared to confront evil, Europe is only prepared to talk to it.  Kosovo provides sufficient evidence of EU effectiveness in the face of tyranny and mass murder.  There are volumes of information to evidence the almost endemic and frequently mindless persistence of anti Americanism in Western Europe.  Why? Because the political class and European journalism have pounded this theme for decades.  European anti Americanism is a complex subject but the fact of it cannot be denied.  If you think, our media needs work, take a look at European media and be happy for what little objectivity we have.  Free speech in Europe is in jeopardy to political correctness to a degree that, personally, I found unimaginable until I engaged the subject seriously.  The growing appeasement of Islamic demands is, to most Americans, nearly incomprehensible.  The riots in Paris should be a surprise to no one.  If anyone should understand the dynamics of what of behaviors grow out of appeasement the Europeans should, but they do not.  The riots are also evidence of the free speech issues, aforementioned.  The riots are by “youths” not Muslim youths although anyone who has studied the issue knows exactly who the “youths” are.  The Western European attitude seems to alternate between blaming the victims of the “youths” for a lack of sensitivity and of course American policy in the Middle East.  The EU has banned the use of the words Islamists or Terrorists to describe, yes, wait for it….. Islamists and Terrorists.  Our view of democracy and theirs are as far removed from each other as our view of sacrifice for ideals, confronting evil and the dangers of appeasement.  Our willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure to help others attain what we most value for ourselves, freedom is simply not a concept to which the average Western European can relate. It does not fit into the generally accepted post Marxian analysis of what motivates democratic, capitalistic nations.  It is an unfortunate commentary on how different we have truly become.

This list could go on to include a restructuring of American Military doctrine for the immediate future, the fecklessness of the U.N., internal American political dynamics as they relate to the war and terrorism, the impact of a failed energy policy, the intelligence debate, American debt held oversees especially in China, balance of trade deficits, the dollar and the early warning signals that what Islamists have accomplished in Europe has begun here.

Some of these issues we can engage, or try to, others must be resolved by the involved parties.  What we can do is to disregard fictional beliefs based on hope and the veil of partisanship and deal with the plethora of realities as they exist.  We can speak up to power as to what our priorities should be.  We can insist that these issues be engaged.  We can attack those that would “sweeten” the issues with platitudes and vague representations of engagement.  We can insist that we learn from the mistakes of others as well as our own. 

We can face the unforgiving realities that face us.