11/04/08--The Day of National Suicide?

The Geek is old. Age gives only one compensation for the physical deterioration of passing years. That is experience. The basis for saying, "Been there. Done that. Have the scars to prove it."

The first election the Geek consciously (as opposed to vicariously due to years of studying history) remembers is the Truman "give 'em hell, Harry" come from behind victory in 1948. While he hopes for the impossible--history repeating itself with only the names changed--the Geek does not really expect it.

While the Geek is not persuaded that John McCain is the best of all possible choices, at least from the foreign policy and national security perspective, he is infinitely better than the man with no discernible past, no recognisable character, and an overabundance of True Believing ideology who is projected by pollsters, pundits and media alike to be the next president. The junior senator from Illinois will, despite the inevitable fissures in the Democratic Party, be a metaphorical knife held to the throat of the United States. An instrument of national suicide.

This should not be taken to imply that the Geek is convinced that the Republican Party is some sort of repository of good judgement and excellence of strategic thinking. As his repeated flailing at the idiocy of the current administration's ideologically driven foreign policy have shown, this is not the case.

Considering the range of foreign policy and national security challenges--many, if not most resulting from the intellectual bankruptcy of the neocon ninny views of the current administration--the next administration will have to possess an inordinate amount of experience, expertise, and courage to even begin to reclaim the losses. Obama and his ideological mentors, handholders and advisers lack even the basics of any and all of these essentials.

Look at the world. Get a grip on its realities. The credit collapse and the resultant global recession (or is depression the right term?) is a foreign policy/national security problem. The seemingly endless and sterile debate over the price and availability of energy prime movers as well as the corollary, anthropogenic global climate change is a foreign policy/national security problem.

So also is the now almost forty year old Nixon-declared "War on Drugs" which like the current administration's "Global War on Terrorism" is both a disastrous exercise in mis-branding and aimed at an unachievable goal. To consider the traffic in illegal drugs and the consequences of that traffic requires a close and insightful understanding of foreign affairs--as well as a proper understanding of just what US national security is and what the achievement of national security might need.

If these global challenges weren't enough, the next administration must project, or at least protect, core US national interests in the face of a resurgent (but internally unstable) Russia, an intransigent and perfectly self-interested PRC and the still growing wave of Islamism. Then, of course, there are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add in the question of Iranian (and North Korean) nuclear ambitions.

While we're at it, the noisy collapse of pseudo-states in Africa should not be overlooked. People have an annoying habit of becoming emotionally aroused by graphic images of human wretchedness and demanding that their government, "Do something!" And, governments, particularly those of democracies, have the more annoying habit of going ahead and doing something usually without thought or planning worthy of the terms.

Does anyone really, really, the Geek means really believe that Senator Obama and his inner circle (including that mouth without discernible connection to a brain) Joe Biden have any more capacity than the current administration has shown over the past seven plus years to handle any of these problems? And we cannot console ourselves as many of us did (including the Geek) back when W. took the oath of office. "Well," we assured ourselves, "at least there is adult supervision."

Can't make that argument again. W. and his alleged adult supervisors have damn near killed the US internationally. They have thrown away our global prestige, appeal and credibility. They have overstretched our military almost to the point of terminal enervation. They have cost us much of our political will.

If one crew of ideologues--each and every one of whom had resumes of great thickness and seeming accomplishment--can do so much damage, what can putting another crew--most if not all of whom have far skimpier records--do?

With Uncle Sam's head already nearly severed from his body in a way that would make the most scrupulous of Islamist killers happy, what will it take to cut the last few shreds holding Sam together? The Geek hazards the estimate that it will take only one or two seemingly minor ideologically based mis-readings of the reality of the world and the threats it holds to finish the execution.

This is the twelfth presidential election since the Geek achieved the franchise. It is the first one where the outcome has well and truly scared him. (OK, to err on the side of accuracy the one four years ago got his knees knocking something fierce.) This time around, the Geek's scrawny knees resemble a manic set of castanets and his stomach churns such that he fears losing his upcoming lunches for the next several weeks.

If the MSM and the Democratic Party get their collective wish and Obama is handed the keys to the Oval, the Geek can only hope that somewhere in the president-elect's naive and ideologically intoxicated brain there is at least one small neural network marked, "self-preservation." If not that, the Geek falls back on his default hope--that the backroom types of the Democratic Party have more sense than their Republican counterparts showed during the last several years of crashing disaster.

It's not much of a hope on which to get a grip.

There is another rope of hope. The Geek grasps it strongly. Tightly. That hope is simple, but it has some slight root in history. In the past, as in 1948, the hoi polloi, all of us who are proudly members of the non-elite, who eschew the snotty, superiority of the self-defined elite, have shown the great good sense to do the unexpected and flip the electoral bird at pollsters, pundits and the rest of the We-Know-Best chattering class.

Democracy Ain't All It's Cracked Up To Be

In the midst of our current orgiastic paroxysm of vitriolic fervor over "history in the making" and (to quote the SF Chronicle,) seeing the coming of the "Jackie Robinson of politics," the Geek has to say, "Bah. Humbug."

Pace the recent pap from the current incumbent of the Oval, democracy is not what has made the US a great country. If George W. Bush wants complete refutation of his paean to the glories of elections he need look no further then himself.

The American style of democracy has tossed up some great leaders. Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower and Truman all come to mind. The country has survived, even flourished through the administrations of many, many lesser sorts. Names such as Harrison, Fillmore, Buchanan (no, not Patrick), Cleveland, Taft, Harding, Clinton and oh so many others are to be found on that list.

We have flirted with disaster when the elections tossed up men such as Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, and H. W. Bush. We have even muddled our way through the overstretched ambitions of such as Lydon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

George W. Bush occupies a special niche, a unique place in the results of democracy. With W. We the People managed to twice put a one man disaster area into the Oval. Never before has the electoral process produced such a result.

The manipulations of political operators and the skills of image creators convinced enough of us to put a man of such overweening arrogance and ineptitude into office. We were cozened in sufficient numbers to elevate a mediocre governor of a state where the term "hardball" is way too soft to describe the nature of the political game to the presidency.

No sooner were the votes (including those of the Supreme Court) counted then he surrounded himself with a coterie of ideologically driven cretins. The combined effect of W. and his neocon ninnie crew has been to plunge the world into economic chaos and involve our country in two unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged wars.

As if that wasn't enough the bunch went on to warp the powers of the Executive Branch so as to make it a clear and present danger to each and every one of us. Finally, the current administration has sought successfully to distort the relation of government and business to a point which uncannily resembles the corporate state of the fascist countries of seventy years ago.

Admittedly, the numbers show that most of us had nothing to do with the debacle. We either voted for the other guy or we sat on our hands. Still, all of us are and will continue to pay the price for the sins of a minority.

We the People ought to get a grip on that reality.

This is important since from all the signs of MSM and pollsters alike we are about to do it again. We are about to admit through our votes that the spinners of image and the weavers of (specious) truth have manipulated our myths and emotions. We seem on the verge of electing an ideologue without experience but with both great ambition and a powerful commitment to a particular social/economic/political worldview and agenda.

The man, of course, is the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

From his mentors and advisers, speeches and votes we know that Senator Obama is, in European terms, a Left Socialist. We also know that the senator has little, if any, knowledge of how international affairs and national security policy might best be formulated and conducted.

In a real sense, the Obama embrace of the Left Socialist view of economic and social justice bothers the Geek less than his intellectual bankruptcy in foreign affairs. The reason for this is simple. The Republican, Senator McCain is a Right Socialist.

In American political terms both the Right and Left Socialists along with the "Center Socialists" of both parties are the descendants of the most pervasive and arguably pernicious political doctrine in US history--Progressive Interventionists. (Interventionist in this context does not mean intervening in the affairs of other countries but rather the direct intervening by government into the personal decision making of the individual citizen.)

Interventionist Progressivism arose from the late 19th Century Progressive movement. Progressivism was (and is) inherently elitist. But, the interventionist form outstrips its progenitor.

The progressives believed sincerely that the government could and should operate in a way such that the quality of life for each individual citizen would be improved materially, intellectually and even spiritually. At first, the belief expressed itself through emphasizing the role of government in regulating the worst abuses of corporate economic power and providing expert instruction to the individual in how to live better, healthier, more fulfilling lives.

When it became apparent that while government regulation could provide some admittedly limited benefits in the quality of individuals' lives, the educational orientation had failed. People kept making poor choices, bad decisions and suffering the consequences.

The interventionist progressive program emerged in fits and starts from just before World War I over the next three quarters of a century. The interventionist belief was and is that government must act directly upon the citizen to ensure that he cannot make bad choices, bad decisions and suffer the consequences.

Another, more recent term of British origin which epitomises the goal of the interventionist progressive perfectly is "Nanny State." Senator Obama is dedicated to the Nanny State both in principle and in practice.

That scares the Geek more than the harsh metallic click unexpectedly heard in the thick bush deep in hostile territory ever did. The Geek could take action to protect himself against the bullets which would shortly follow the metallic click. He (and you) can do little if anything to counter the threat of the all-embracing, warm, protecting (and stifling) arms of the Nanny State.

Senator Obama, in common with all interventionist progressives, undoubtedly is of the view that J.S. Mills' definition of state coercion being limited to the protection of the individual from direct, material and substantial harm resulting from actions of another is hopelessly outdated. Reactionary horse-and-buggy thinking.

They are, of course, wrong from a historical perspective in maintaining that limited government is bad government. This is every bit as anti-historical and anti-reality as George W. Bush's hosanna to democracy.

What brought America greatness both in the past and the present has been the willingness to take risks, and to learn from failures. To learn from experience and profit from what has been learned. To pursue happiness without the let or hindrance of government provided only that one's pursuit did not directly, substantially and materially harm another.

Exacerbating the ideological toxin of the current brand of interventionist progressivism is its affection for High Minded ideals such as ending global poverty or talking without preconditions with people who believe that they are absolutely in the right to stone thirteen year old rape victims and kill for "honor."

To enter the mindset of the High Minded, the True Believers in cultural and moral relativism, one must be a member of the elite. The High Minded True Believer cannot concern him or herself with the mundane realities which preoccupy the hoi polloi. To be a High Minded True Believer one must place one's self in some sort of perverted Platonic universe where the abstract is important and the grubby realities of the world and its peoples irrelevant.

Senator Obama's statements as well as those of so many of his most vocal supporters show a remarkable unwillingness or inability to live in the world of real people. In this respect the Senator and his ilk are joined shoulder and hip with their ideological opponents of the current administration.

Neither Obama nor Bush are able or willing to take the world and people as both actually are. Obama, like Bush, insists upon imposing an absolutely rigid ideological framework upon the lives and works of humanity in all its varied and opposing forms.

Bush spelled disaster because of this reality.

Obama in the Oval will do the same. For the same reason. Ideology over all else.

Get a grip on that.

Sarkozy Is Blunt. But Right On

The Geek gives French President Nicholas Sarkozy a really big "thumbs-up." Not only is he the first TACAMO type to lead the French since le grande Charles, he has a unique willingness to call things as he sees them--a quality which would benefit politicians in other countries.

His most recent demonstration of Harry Truman style "plain speaking" came in a closed meeting of French diplomatic personnel. Fortunately some of Sarkozy's observations leaked out around the locked doors. To cut to the chase: Nick the Man eviscerated Senator Obama's stance on Iran.

According to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html) Sarkozy perceives the views of the Nice Young Man From Chicago as "utterly immature." He went on to note that Obama's position was based on "formulations empty of all content."

Back during the all-conquering Obama World Tour last July, the French president met at some length with the smiling senator. At the shake-and-grin press conference afterwards, Obama allowed as how the Iranian nuclear research and development effort was serious and endangered Israel.

The Obama exhortation directed at least in part to the mullahocracy was a slight genuflection to Sarkozy's strong argument that any change in direction regarding Iran by the next US president would be "very problematic."

Apparently now Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the semi-united front offered by the P5+1 to open direct talks with the mullahs. Without preconditions, if one takes the Nice Young Man at his word.

Over the months since meeting with Obama on his European Triumph, Sarkozy has reportedly fretted over the reality that the senator's position on Iran was "not crystallized" and like unset Jello could wiggle all over the plate--and the table. Reportedly senior advisers of Sarkozy who met with the Nice Young Man came away with an identical set of impressions.

The criticism leveled by Sarkozy against Senator Obama on Iran could be extended accurately to other important foreign policy venues. Arguably, the Nice Young man has positions on Iraq and Afghanistan which are not yet "crystallized" or are "utterly immature" and founded on "formulations empty of all content."

One cannot help but wonder whether a man who is obviously without the slightest grip on the realities of Islamist goals and strategies or the nature of counterinsurgency would take charge and move out on Afghanistan where the US could still fail to achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing." Considering that Obama clings to the long disproved thesis that poverty causes Islamist terrorism, how would he deal with the on-going struggle with those who promote and employ indiscriminate violence to effect political change?

Sarkozy and an increasing number of European political leaders and opinion molders are becoming increasingly aware that there is an alternative worse than the hyper-hawk unilateralism of George W. Bush and Associates. The growing consensus is that an Obama in the Oval would have a high probability of resulting in super-dove unilateralism.

The world is a far more unstable and dangerous place than the Nice Young Man appears to recognize. Islamists litter the mountainsides in Afghanistan. They also lurk in the souks and mosques spreading in the vast arc from Morocco to Indonesia.

The North Koreans are nuclear and less than predictable. The Russians are upgrading their military capacities both conventional and nuclear. The PRC is an ever more potent threat to US interests both in Asia and around the world.

Then there are the failed and failing "states" of Africa.

Of course, there is the growing trend to dictatorship in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez whose latest "democratic" move is jailing of opposition candidates in the upcoming provincial and municipal elections less than two weeks after We the People may give Obama the keys to power.

The Geek could go on, but it is too depressing. Suffice it to mention the glowering presence of a global recession (depression?) and the historical reality that very bad economic times are usually associated with increases in international political instability and the rise of revolutionary regimes promising prosperity at the expense of others.

You want to bet on Joe Biden bringing adult supervision to the Obama Administration?

Don't. That was the role presumed to be fulfilled by Dick Cheney in the current administration. We know how that came out. Not that the Geek sees Biden as another Cheney. He isn't. Not goal oriented (or if you prefer) sociopathic enough.

Even so, Joe the Bloviator is not suitable for the mission of adult supervision. There is one reason for this the Geek opines based on reviewing Biden's Senatorial career.

In foreign policy and national security matters, Joe the Mouth is roughly as competent as Joe the Plumber.

The Geek Goes Off Message--Sort Of

Today the Geek read a post by a blogger for SFGate. (Sorry, the Geek lost the link, but as a button-pusher he is a fine tuba player.) The post well and truly rankled the usually easy going Geek.

In the estimate of the SFGate dude, the US and the world stand on the cusp of a genuinely world-historical moment. By this the writer meant the forthcoming election. Suffice it to aver that whatever the reasons may be, they have little if anything in common with Dr Martin Luther King's demand that Americans judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.

It is true that the election of a man with a half African genome may serve to convince many Americans that the days of racism and exclusion are behind us. It is even more true that such is not the case. The celebration of the forthcoming world-historical moment is based on myth, not reality. Worse, it is a pernicious form of racism--giving a man a free pass on his character, ability, policies and proposed programs because of the color of his skin (and perhaps the charm of his smile)

The Geek will leave aside any commentary on the probable course of domestic policies under an Obama administration, particularly one backed by a solidly Democratic Congress much as he may fear the looming tidal wave of Progressive interventionism and the concomitant establishment of a run-by-the-experts "Nanny State." After all, the Geek's real area of interest and experience is foreign and national security affairs.

The bloviating Joe Biden, whose career as a "foreign policy expert" in the senate the Geek has watched with much mirth, was right when he opined that a President Obama would be tested in the first months or year in office. While contemporary public opinion polls may show that Obama is much loved outside the US and that many around the world expect that there will be vast changes in the relation between the US and other countries, there are more than a few sharp, able and sinister men waiting with long knives in hand to "test" the newby at the White House.

Even experienced and very able presidents have been tested, not by sinister design but by the normal course of world affairs. FDR was tested by the rise of expansive and aggressive Nazism. He knew he was being tested. He knew perfectly well that the Nazis represented a threat to core American strategic interests. Still, there was nothing he could do to ward the growth of the threat or even its breaking over the map of Europe with seismic force.

Harry Truman, another vastly experienced man, infinitely more experienced and able than either Senator Obama or Senator Biden, was caught flatfooted by the North Korean invasion of the south in June 1950. However, Truman's strength of character, well of experience and coterie of very able advisers allowed for the quick, effective and, in the short-term, very unpopular decision to go to war under the auspices of the United Nations.

Mr Truman's "police action" was widely condemned by the Republicans of the day. The war was unpopular--more unpopular than the Vietnam War during the worst days following Tet. It was decried as a "no-win" war, an endless war without point and without favorable result.

The long term view shows Truman was right. The war was "no-win" but, more importantly, it was the war that we did not lose. The outcome of the war established a paradigm useful today: the accomplishment of the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing."

When General Eisenhower defeated the loved one of American academics and liberals, Governor Stevenson of Illinois, those on the Left predicted horrors beyond count. The reality was different. Ike's military experience gave him both the moral authority at home and the stature overseas to take advantage of the death of Stalin and (with the accidental assistance of the South Korean government) end the Korean War.

Beyond that Ike's knowledge and ability allowed his administration to forge the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which made the Cold War years stable (most of the time). Ike was tested in Southeast Asia and the Mideast and passed the tests not with an "A" perhaps but with at least a C+.

JFK, who in comparison with Obama was quite experienced, was tested multiple times. He failed the following: The Vienna Summit, The Bay of Pigs, the war in Laos, the war in Vietnam, the Hawk missile sale to Israel. If the Soviets had not proven more responsible than the jocks of the Kennedy administration, the world would still be recovering from the very narrowly averted nuclear exchange.

Flashing forward a few years, the Geek asks, "Do you remember the vastly inexperienced one time nuclear engineer turned Georgia governor and then president?"

You got it! Jimmy Carter. He was tested. As by the coming of the Iranian Revolution. He failed. Failed badly. Sure, the Shah was a less than lovable guy. His regime did violate human rights. But, is the aftermath, the mullahocracy an improvement?

Then there was the policy wonk from Little Rock (or Hope, if you prefer his boyhood home.) He was tested too. He failed. But, foreign policy was not his thing. You might recall that he was bigger on such matters as after dark basketball, school uniforms and Monica Lewinsky. Enough said.

The blogger in SFGate wrote one thing with which the Geek agrees completely. He characterised the past eight years of Bush/Cheney/neocon ninny regime as a "fetid swamp." It has been just that--at best. The current administration was tested and failed.

It failed because of ideology and willful ignorance. The failure of the current administration has been severely negative on the US and the world.

Senator Obama has no experience. He has little noticeable positive character. He does have much ambition. He possesses much capacity at building and playing to the myth of American racism and its bright shadow, inclusiveness.

Also the Senator embodies a great body of ideology. The Geek is impressed by the degree to which Obama is a True Believer in the Western European Left Democratic Socialist world view and political agenda.

The deadly combination of a miserable deficiency in character and experience and a hyper-abundance of ideology assures that when the long knives of test are drawn and sharpened, they will plunge deeply into the senator turned president--and the United States.

That may constitute world-historical moment. But, it won't be one to celebrate.

Sen Obama, Rev Jackson, Reality Calling

In his never ending quest for a microphone or a television camera the Reverend Jesse Jackson has informed the world that Obama will remake the Mideast. In the course of this globe shaking activity, the Reverend Jackson opined that he fully supported the long-advanced position of Senator Obama that talks without preconditions between the President of the United States and the Mullah-in-Chief of Iraq are both necessary and proper.

Apparently neither the Reverend Jackson nor all-but-inaugurated Obama have bothered to ask the folks running the Islamic Republic of Iran what their take on precondition free talks might be. The Iranian government has rectified this oversight.

It turns out that the mullahocracy has a couple of preconditions of its own which must be met before there could be any meaningful direct conversations between itself and the US government. The position came in an exclusive interview between Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor and Fars News Agency. (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8707210851)

There are only two stated conditions. But, they are doozies!

According to Fars the VP averred that as long as there were US troops in the region and the US continued to support the "Zionist Entity," there was no possibility for talks.

So, to have the Obamaesque talks without preconditions all the United States must do is retract all forces from the "region" however broadly the statesmen in Tehran might define it and stop all support of whatsoever nature for the State of Israel.

And, why, pray tell, Mr Vice President should the US undertake these two adjustments in its policy?

The VP asserted, "It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran."

Oh, really, just how did you and your mates in the Islamic Republic's hierarchy come to that conclusion?

The VP did not deign to dilate on his assertion but merely piled a second on top of the first according to the Fars account. "Iran is not obliged to reestablish ties with the U.S."

Neither, the Geek hastens to add, is the US under any obligation to reestablish ties with Iran and may not benefit in the slightest from any ties should they be established.

The reciprocity aspect of international relations eluded the Vice President for Media Affairs. That is not surprising considering the breathtaking arrogance of his next comment to the gentleman of the Iranian press. "If they take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared." (Quotes in original.)

At least the Veep for sweet talk was honest in his final remark. "It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in U.S. attitude."

So, let's see if the Geek has it right. To achieve the Obama-Jackson goal of no-precondition talks with Iran all the US has to do is this. Get the hell out of the Mideast and Persian Gulf region as defined by Tehran. Toss Israel over the side. Say, gosh a rootie, mullahs, you are right, a peace loving Mahdi Bomb is a great idea.

Yes. Yes. And, yes. Those big three and maybe a bunch of other minor adjustments of American attitude would prepare the ground for talks.

As has been indicated in previous posts, the Geek is no fan of US policy regarding Israel over the past forty-five or so years. Likewise, he is not convinced that the all sanctions, all the time approach to the unpleasant behaviour of Iran is the best approach, simply that it is better than war at this time.

Be that as it may, the idea of precondition free talks with a regime which can take the positions adumbrated by its VP for Media Affairs is preposterous on the face. One need not be a world class diplomat to realise that.

Evidently one needs more experience in diplomatic matters than the Reverend Jackson to connect the dots. Can the same be said about Senator Obama?

The Powell Endorsement

The Geek was neither surprised nor disappointed in former SecState Colin Powell's support of Senator Obama. Given the way in which Powell was manipulated, lied to, humiliated and ultimately rejected by the war-loving neocon ninnies of the Cheney camp, his disenchantment with the Republican Party is fully justifiable. Given the effort General Powell has given in recent years to the cause of black youth in America, there is nothing shocking about his view of Obama as a "transformational figure."

It is simply unfortunate that the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and very able Secretary of State is now so tragically wrong. Worse, the tragedy is not so much personal as it is national.

Colin Powell is wrong in his view that the McCain campaign is somehow transgressing the rules of civilized politics by correctly pointing out the strong personal and ideological linkage between Obama and the unrepentant co-founder of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers. Back when the Weathermen were up and running, Powell was insulated within the military from the winds of deep and abiding hatred for the United States and its government which blew through the minds of many young or youngish Americans.

Powell was still insulated from the realities of the ongoing actions of the direct descendants of the Weather Underground in the early 1980s. His position in the inner circle of the national security community would have been too lofty to be at all aware that the legacy of the Sixties was still alive and well in New York City.

To put it bluntly, Colin Powell is and was ignorant about Ayers and his ongoing hatred of the US. He is also ignorant of the potential, the very real and high order of probability potential of ideological affinity between Ayers and Senator Obama.

Ignorance may be blissful but it is not helpful in political decision making.

The former Secretary also indicates dismay with McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as Veep. The Geek agrees with Powell that the Alaska governor is inexperienced and would not be up to the task of being president should McCain turn toes up in the first year or two after taking office. While it is improbable in the extreme that John McCain will emulate William Henry Harrison in short tenure of office, anxiety over Palin's readiness is justifiable, but scarcely critical.

In any event the Geek would expect that former Secretary Powell would be more suspicious of a very experienced person in the Vice Presidency. After all it was Dick Cheney, a vastly experienced and viciously effective knife fighter in bureaucratic rivalries who was Powell's bete noir. Frankly the nation is better off with an inexperienced person serving as VP if the Cheney paradigm is any indication.

In so far as Colin Powell's perception that the McCain campaign's tactic of late is somehow divisive or underhanded, all that is necessary to recall is that Powell acknowledged in his memoirs that his presidential thoughts were aborted by the potential down-in-the-gutter nature of much political campaigning.

Apparently Powell's view was that war is preferable to presidential politics. War, at least, has some semblance of rules, of means to lessen the barbarism. Politics doesn't. Cheney proved that Powell was right.

Parsing the former Secretary's endorsement one is struck by the absence of any real reason for the statement of support. It appears that beyond being "transformational" and having some mystical power to be "inclusive," the junior Senator from Illinois meets some undefined minimal standard of suitability for the highest political office in this country.

Unless Colin Powell is actually some sort of closet Western European Democratic Socialist, one can only conclude that he has been blinded to reality by the Senator's beguiling smile or, less flatteringly, some other aspect of the Senator's physiognomy.

Or, perhaps, Powell is like many who watched the Supreme Court's decision as to the outcome of the Florida vote with trepidation barely moderated by clinging to the hope that the grinning shrub from Texas would be surrounded by a dependable coterie of adult supervisors who would make up for his obvious deficiencies.

We hoped back then. Nearly eight years ago. We hoped. We got Cheney and his neocon ninnies.

It's The Economy, Stupid!

We the People may hope that life is that simple. The politicos may fervently wish that the next four years will revolve around the economy alone. Even the MSM may wish to pretend that life is so one dimensional that economic man will occupy its attention to the exclusion of all else.

Heck, wouldn't that be nice? In comparison to foreign affairs and national security policy, economic matters--even the collapse of major banks--seems so simple. It's all a matter of money. And, money is just so manageable. Right?

Sure, spending money is easy. Appropriating money is easy as well. Collecting money is harder, but not so hard as solving foreign policy dilemmas.

The Geek has to admit it would be enjoyable for him if the world would simply go away for a few years. He has a backlog of books to read. And, he has gotten bored with watching the same global problems rise up every day defying the solution du jour from the Inside-the-Beltway deep thinkers.

The truth is the real world won't let us alone. Foreign affairs won't go away and leave us to feel our way out of the fiscal fog.

The Mideast is not going to suddenly break out in peace. The dove will not become the national bird of Israel. Nor will the symbol of peace replace the sword on assorted Arab flags. Hamas will not morph into the Woodstock Nation.

The US has accomplished its minimum strategic goal in Iraq. Our forces can withdraw without the odor of defeat attaching itself to our boots.

Beyond that one more-or-less happy thought, life for the next president will be demanding in the region. Unless we wish to continence defeat, more troops must be deployed to and die in Afghanistan. Reaching the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing" will be harder in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq. Not only is Pakistan a coterminous state, so also is Iran. The potential for Iranian proxy efforts in Afghanistan is lesser than it has been in Iraq due to the Sunni-Shia habit of mutual distaste. Still the Iranian proximity will be unhelpful. Equally unhelpful is the world wide appetite for Afghanistan's number one commodity--opium. (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, it's not the opium but the refined products of the poppy.)

Nor is it likely that Iran is going to join the ranks of adult, responsible global citizens. The mullahocracy is unlikely to discontinue its support for insurgents in Iraq, or Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas. It is not probable that the Iranians will abandon their quest for the bomb, particularly as they can continue to count on the PRC running interference for them.

Before anyone decides that North Korea can be relegated to the category of "no problem," we have to note that the recently agreed to (for the umpteenth time) framework, does not address the Hermit Kingdom of the North's highly enriched uranium production efforts. This means that even if the Northerners turn over a full and accurate accounting of every decigram of plutonium produced and even surrenders their stockpile to adult supervision, the denizens running the NKPA will continue to have the capacity to pursue bomb making.

Russia has problems. Lots of them. Economy and demography are among the number. So also is the running sore of separatist movements. A test launch of a new ICBM in no way addresses the larger scale deficiencies of the Russian military and the infrastructure which supports it.

In spite of its difficulties and arguably because of them, Russia may well become more of a global bad boy in the next few years. The US will have to deal with Russia realistically and hardheadedly. No more looking the Russian leader in the eyes and discerning some sort of hidden truth there as W. Bush apparently did.

If all those threats and challenges seem too far from home to concern us, then look down south. Hugo Chavez not only dislikes the US intensely (to put it mildly), he has donned the mantle once worn by Fidel Castro. Chavez intends to tweak the beard of Uncle Sam as often and hard as he can. To this end he has not only embarked upon an unprecedented arms purchasing campaign, but has joined hands with Hezbollah and Iran. Chavez and his running buddies, the jefes of Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, are not inclined to make small plans in their opposition to the Colossus of the North, Neither are they the kind to back down without genuine cause.

Still too far from home to worry you, bucko? Then try Mexico. The shooting war between the drug gangs as well as between the gangsters and the government has made the Land Down South one of the most deadly environments in the world. Over the years there has been a strong tendency for violence and disruption in Mexico to spill over into the US. The Great Fence of Presumed Security is not likely to stop this predilection.

Mexico too far away? Jest kaint get all that fired up over what those taco benders are doing? Well, matey, how about the following

The US national debt is very large. Is all of it owed to Americans? No. Quite a bit of it is owed to foreigners. Quite a bit is held by Sovereign Wealth Funds. Some of those are controlled by states whose governments are not all that favorably inclined toward the US and its policy goals.

(Can we say, for example, Peoples Republic of China? Or, how about repeating after the Geek, "House of Saud?")

A diplomatically phrased but no less menacing version of, "Remember, boy, we hold your note," can have a significant inhibitory impact upon US policy initiatives.

OK, to again err on the side of accuracy, foreign ownership of US notes can do far more than simply inhibit policy demarches, but you get the point. The net effect of the current financial market morass will be a significant increase in national indebtedness. Much of that increase will end in the hands of foreign governments.

Then there is that old standby, foreign oil. Unless and until We the People and those who purportedly represent us in Congress and the Oval resolve to "drill, ye terriers, drill" in order to buy the time necessary to develop new and better forms of energy prime movers whether nuclear, clean coal or renewable, the US remains to some extent at the policy and self-interest mercy of foreign states.

This has been a (necessarily) abbreviated tour of the horizon. It should have been enough to illustrate the accuracy of the Geek's contention: The next administration will be a foreign policy oriented administration.

We have seen what can happen to our nation and its place in the world under an administration more controlled by ideology than a strong sense of realpolitik. We cannot afford another ideologically driven regime.

We cannot afford another Cheney. We cannot afford another loyal water carrier like Condy Rice. We cannot afford more ninnies whether neocon or progressive.

We have also seen what happens to our role in the world under an administration which was naive about foreign policy. The Clinton Administration was both naive and uninterested in foreign and national security matters. Beyond that, the President lacked experience and thus moral authority to deal with the senior military establishment.

We and our nation will not do well with another group of naive and disinterested folks in and near the Oval. Remember, we've been there. Done it. Have the scars to prove it.

The polls and the MSM to say nothing of most of the Gang of Five Hundred urge the Geek to accept the political reality. The Geek is urged by all other than Joe the Plumber to accept and embrace the coming of the Obama administration.

The Geek can accept much. Embrace much. Life and war have taught him the necessity of doing so. He is unwilling to embrace the prospect of more years of failure for our nation. Sixteen years of naivete, of ideology, of blown opportunities is enough.

Elections over the past forty years have more often than not revolved around choosing the lesser of two evils. This time around, for the first time in eight years the Geek must choose the Republicans. He must hope that change means less ideology and more realism in both foreign and economic policy--the inseparable twins.

He can only hope that enough people go along with the same choice.

Joe Takes On The Elite

The saga of the MSM and the Gang of Five Hundred versus Joe the Plumber is definitely the "man bites dog" story of the campaign to date. The Geek admits that despite his academic degrees and past employment, he is closer to Joe than he is to the elite represented by the MSM, most of the Gang of Five Hundred, virtually all members of the professorate and beaucoup supporters of Senator Obama.

The reason for this is simply that the elite and their champion, the Nice Young Man From Chicago, have a view of the United States and its place in the world which is antipodal to that held by the Geek. And is probably held in pertinent part by the Joes of this country (other than Joe Biden obviously.)

Admittedly the Geek found Joe the Plumber's position on the US invasion of Iraq both poorly based and almost pathetic in its earnest wrongness. On the other hand the Geek has to salute Joe's view of those who denigrate and blame the United States for all the ills of the world.

During his years in the academy the Geek grew to hate the never ending crescendo from his coworkers regarding just how evil the United States was in each and every portion of its foreign policy. He grew tired, physically ill actually, listening to distortions of history made to prove the correctness of the blame-America-first agenda of these coworkers in the field of history.

While it is evident from the content of many posts that the Geek is not a cheerleader for many US foreign and national security policies, particularly those of the neocon ninnies of the current administration, he is quite unpersuaded that the US is either an imperialistic menace or the handyman of the devil in its foreign dealings.

Blindly and willfully ignorant? Yes. Too willing to carry water for Israel? Absolutely.

But venal and malign? No. Absolutely not.

Over the years the Geek has also grown tired of the repetitious serenade sung by the chattering classes to the superiority of foreign ways. Twenty-five years ago there was nothing but hosannas sung to and about Japan. Japan was the model of cooperation. The acme of concern for the equality and dignity of the individual worker on the factory floor or in the cubicle. Japan was hope and progress and prosperity and on and on and on.

More recently the object of the elite's affections has shifted. Now the worshipful songs and adoring stares are bestowed upon the European Union.

The EU is the model of post-racial, post-ethnic, post-national ideals and practices. The EU is the archetype of multi-cultural sensitivity, the apogee of collaborative egalitarianism, the height of assuring that no person will somehow be left (in Senator Obama's words) "standing behind," the more successful, the richer, the politically potent, the socially dominant.

Seventy-five years ago the progressives argued that if only the US aped the ways of the Soviet Union, life would be so much better for the common man. Forty-five years ago members of the Geek's generation who should have known better took the position that if only the US became more like Cuba, or North Vietnam or even, (the Geek shakes his head) the Peoples Republic of China, prejudice would vanish, economic and social justice (whatever those might be) would triumph and all would be right in the land.

From the Soviet Union to assorted semi-communist dictatorships to Japan and now to the European Union the American elite of academics, occupational chatterers and progressive politicos have found much to love elsewhere while discovering even more to hate here at home.

Get a grip!

Joe the Plumber and others of the oft times despised and usually patronised hoi polloi have a better handle on what is right here and not-right overseas. The Geek talks with Joe's peers out here in the wilderness. None of them think that life is perfect in the US. None think that improvements in the equity of economic and political life can not and should not be made.

But, none are of the view that the government is better suited than the individual to make decisions. None believe that the advantages of Ivy League education or possession of either a law degree or a journalist's notepad confer a unique ability to perceive what is best for the individual American, the American nation as a whole or the role of the US in the world.

The Geek has yet to hear a member of the hoi polloi express a longing sigh and wish he lived under the tender eye of the EU and its bureaucracy. The Geek has yet to read a single word written by a certified member of the hoi polloi averring to the belief that "experts" in government or academia or even the health care industry are better equipped by education and disinterested perspective to make decisions on behalf of the individual.

The concepts "individual" and "freedom" have long dominated the belief structure of Americans and continue to do so among the hoi polloi, among the Joe the Plumbers. It is only the elite, those who claim membership in the self-defined group of those-who-know-best, who find both the individual and his freedom somehow reprehensible, in some way atavistic.

The US has no special wisdom, no fount of knowledge denied to others in the world. Neither did the Soviet Union. Neither does Japan or the European Union.

Joe the Plumber may not have a plumber's license, he may owe back taxes but he is smarter than the elite represented by their anointed savior, Barack Obama, the Nice Young Man From Chicago. Joe knows something that escapes the elite.

He knows that the US, its success and its future, has been the work of Americans not Western Europeans. He knows that we are the product of a unique history and that we reject the legacy of that history only at great peril.

This is an insight that eludes Senator Obama and his cheering section in the MSM.

Not Made In America

The other day Senator Obama made reference to the desirability--no, the need to redistribute wealth in America. As the Geek watched the video of the encounter between the Senator and the plumber, he was reminded for an instant of another senator in another run for the Oval.

More than seventy years ago, Louisiana senator Huey (Kingfish) Long made a strong populist run against FDR which was terminated not at the polls but by bullets. The centerpiece of the Kingfish's campaign was "share the wealth." He proposed to assure every American a decent life by taxing the rich and passing the proceeds among the non-rich majority.

Not surprisingly Long's notion had a great deal of popularity. He even backed it by alleging as did Senator Obama that sharing the wealth would stimulate employment and business expansion.

Egalitarianism has a long history in the American view of life. The ideal of equality is embedded not only in our jurisprudence, it has become a part of our defining mythology.

Equality under law may be said to constitute a critical component of an authentically American ideology. It is an ideal which the nation has pursued in fits and starts for the entire history of our country. Some day we may achieve the ideal in practice.

Political equality is in the same category. Slowly, but certainly the nation has expanded the franchise and still aspires to limit--if not eliminate--the advantage that copious gobs of money gives some Americans in the political process.

Social equality is also part of our defining made-in-America ideology. We have never accepted deference as the natural role of any American. It is one of the hidden strengths of the long rejected draftee based military.

Economic equality is not a part of any made-in-America ideology. We long have espoused equality of economic opportunity. Remember the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in that magnificent piece of political propaganda, The Declaration of Independence?

Equality of economic or any other sort of opportunity does not and never has in the authentic American ideology guaranteed equality of outcome.

Equality of outcome, particularly equality of economic outcome, is a central portion of several foreign made political ideologies. It is part and parcel of Fascism, National Socialism, Communism and the dominant creed of post-war Western Europe, Democratic Socialism.

Senator Obama's comment to Joe the plumber was redolent not so much of Huey Long's hallucination of a long, long lifetime ago as it is of today's Western European elite.

It's no wonder that the Nice Young Man From Chicago was such a hit with the Europeans last spring. Heck, it would have been more of a wonder if he hadn't been.

To put it simply, Senator Obama speaks their language. He espouses their dominant political ideals. He was just as good a European as Angela Merkel or Nick Sarkozy.

European origin ideologies have held a deep appeal for many Americans for many, many decades. No shock here, we are a nation of immigrants. Also, many of these ideologies have an inherent appeal since they loop nicely with some of the centralities of the American life.

There are, however, two factors which serve to strongly characterise the authentically American ideology which are not found in the various "isms" made-in-Europe.

We are, and have been throughout our history, a nation of individuals. While there are times when the focus on individualism seems to be carried too far, it should never be overlooked that the American people have been repeatedly seen by foreigners as unique in their capacity for voluntary cooperative action.

As individuals we act, contend, succeed, and fail. As individuals we either take or choose not to take advantage of any or all equal opportunities.

Then there is that elusive thing called "freedom." Freedom, like its kin "liberty" have often been hard to define, difficult to appreciate no matter how easy they are to say--or to lose. Over the centuries we have often seen freedom and liberty only after they have been taken away. Or gleefully tossed aside in the search for security.

The inventors and practitioners of Democratic Socialism come from a historical context in which individualism and freedom are not major features. Submitting to the dictates of society as pronounced by government, be it monarchy, dictatorship or parliament is a long standing reality of the European experience.

Even the British who were our progenitors in the individualism and freedom game as illustrated by the brilliance of J.S. Mill and Adam Smith, have shucked that tradition over the past few generations as the search for security grew ever more potent. Countries of British ancestry such as Canada and Australia have also willfully eroded the historical trajectory of individualism and freedom as their societies came under stress and sought the refuge of government arranged security.

For reasons too lengthy and complex to be considered in the context of a single post, the left or progressive sector of the Democratic Party of which Senator Obama is a proud member has embraced an ideological agenda which was made-in-Europe not America. While many European plants have flourished in American soil, it is doubtful that this one will do so.

The question confronting Americans today is the same as that which presented itself to our British progenitors and cousins in Canada and Australia. Will we surrender the primacy of the individual and the freedom of the individual in an ultimately futile search for absolute security?

Will we spread the wealth of our individuality, our freedom, until they disappear as any but the thinnest of films?

Will we become the Europeans of the Western Hemisphere?

History Never Repeats Itself--Or Does It?

There was a time long, long ago when the foul odor of fear clogged all American's nostrils. There was a time long, long ago when US banks quivered and fell, when businesses closed. There was a time long, long ago when the sound of the auctioneer's call sounded from a thousand courthouse steps as tens of thousands lost their homes, their farms, their hopes.

A charismatic man with a winning smile and an awesomely beguiling voice accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party for the office of President.

At this man's acceptance speech he made a promise to the American people. This promise became the mantra for the campaign.

No. It wasn't a call for "change."

FDR promised the American people a "new deal."

The words were in and of themselves meaningless. What else could be promised in the midst of the worst economic collapse the US had experienced in over a half century. More of the same?

Not hardly. FDR's promise of a "new deal" and his skillful working of the fears which struck so deep and hard in the collective psyche of We the People gave him the election. Sent him to the Oval with an overwhelming mandate. At the same time We the People, expressing both fear and hatred for the Republicans who were (wrongly) indicted in the court of public opinion for having both caused the depression three years earlier and being indifferent to its effects upon the people, gave FDR a veto proof Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

At his inauguration FDR spoke the most true and accurate words of his fourteen years in the White House when he said that the only thing the nation had to fear "was fear itself." He went on to address this fear in a flurry of legislation meant to provide for recovery, relief and reform. This legal snowstorm is the First New Deal. It lasted one hundred days.

For all the hype and hoopla, for all the bloviation then and now regarding whether or not FDR was a socialist or a conservative, the most important reality of the First New Deal was that it failed.

Not completely, of course. Some of the actions meant to alleviate human misery did do some good, did palliate some wretchedness. Some of the reforms did bring a greater measure of order, stability and fair play to the stock market.

But, in the area that mattered most, in the centrality of defeating the depression, the First New Deal failed. The American public grabbed its collective gonads not in a gesture of defiance but in token of fear and looked inward. Gazed at themselves and the systems of government and economy in which they lived and hoped to work.

Fear brought dismay. While many young Americans joined with the legions of young ideologues who believed in the majestic effectiveness of centralised, rational planning by "experts" and descended upon the new New Deal agencies, others, also true believers, followed the seductive message of social justice, political equality and economic parity coming from the Soviet Union. These Americans believed along with journalist Lincoln Steffens that, "I've been over to the future--and it works."

Under the lashes of fear and distrust, Americans flung ideological grenades at each other, enlisted under banners of foreign origin and doubted that the nation could survive--at least in the form which they had inherited.

The seemingly intractable depression went on and on. The First New Deal was followed by the Second. FDR challenged the Supreme Court and won--using fear as a weapon. The Court submitted in 1937 and allowed the creation of the administrative state--the system of federal authority under which we currently exist.

The administrative state was one of the many unintended consequences of the rather conservative FDR's efforts to defeat the depression. Other legacies of his fight against the uncertainties and deficiencies of the market are not so unintended.

An example is Social Security. FDR rejected the economically sound approach preferring instead the politically invulnerable "contract between generations" course of action. The FDR decision has saddled our young with the impossible task of providing for their own lives while carrying an enormous aging population on their backs. The polite term is unfunded entitlements.

"Wait one, Geek! Where the hell are you going with this? You're supposed to be focused on foreign affairs, military matters and that sort of good shit."

The Geek hears you, my friend, and is heading in that direction. But, it is necessary to understand first and foremost that there is no disconnect between domestic affairs and foreign policy. That is true in good times. It is even more true when We the People are consumed with fears over what is happening here at home and don't want to notice a damn thing outside of the scope of our up-close-and-personal apprehensions.

The decade of the Thirties was a time like the present. Both then and now illustrate why the Chinese toast, "May you live in interesting times," is actually a curse.

Throughout the years of the depression, throughout both of FDR's first two terms, the world grew increasingly dangerous for the US. The emergence of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan threatened core national and strategic interests of the US.

While we cowered in our cloud of fear and while our conflicting ideologies battled one with the others, we ignored what was happening over there--and over there and over there. These years, the years when the threats of Germany, Italy and Japan could have been dealt with quickly and effectively, were the period of most profound isolationism.

There is an irony here. A profound irony. A delicious irony for those who appreciate such things.

While We the People sat in our morass of fear, uncertainty and battling ideologies waiting for FDR and his bright core of experts to solve the never ending depression, war was brewing away in both Europe and Asia. When the war broke over our heads and shoulders with unmistakable force on Sunday 7 December 1941, it solved our depression.

Within six months of the bombs falling on Pearl Harbor we had suffered defeats on every front except one. That one? The Home Front.

The depression was as dead as the men lost at Pearl or on Bataan. We had full employment, full paychecks and would have had full lunches had it not been for rationing.

Playing to our fears FDR brought us a few reforms--some of which were and remain both useful and important. He also brought us the administrative state. Unfunded entitlements. And, worst of all, the unfounded expectation that the Federal Government could effectively address all the ails of economy and marketplace.

In conjunction with the fears of We the People, the administration of FDR also helped bring about as an unintended consequence the greatest and most destructive war in human history.

The New Deal for the American people may not have ended the depression but it did do much to assure the outbreak of the war which did bring recovery. At the cost of nearly a half million American lives.

That is something to remember today as we face genuine global threats to us and our interests. It is something to remember today as we face the latest storm of fears.

It is something to remember today as a man with a winning smile and a real gift for public speaking promises us "Change."

The Geek Must Be A Racist

Even though the Geek is three-eights autocthonous American (which makes him only one-eighth less a "person of color" than Senator Obama) he would be branded a racist by the Obama campaign and other supporters of the Nice Young Man From Chicago. The reason is simple. The Geek is completely unpersuaded that elevating Obama from the Senate to the Oval is in the best interests of the United States.

Rather the Geek is convinced that the election of Obama would be another example of collective bad judgement by the American people. It would continue the disasterous trajectory of electing individuals who were ill-equipped by any factor beyond ideology and ambition for sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

As a nation we survived (barely) Governor Clinton. As a nation we have been schnitzeled by Governor Bush. Given the parlous state of affairs today both domestically and in foreign relations, we may well not survive an Obama administration.

In so far as he has a record during his few years in elected office Senator Obama has demonstrated two things. He is a creature of the machine, whether Cook County or the Democratic Regulars. Second he has shown a remarkable ideological affinity for what might be politely called "left socialism."

The Geek has carefully and repeatedly read the Senator's two monuments to awesome hubris and ambition--his "autobiographies." Leaving aside the impossibility of filling a notebook let alone two monographs on one's life when only in the early part of one's fifth decade, the two memoirs are most notable for what they leave out, not what they include.

The books are a record of a remarkably empty life, devoid of details and misleading as to many of the few particulars referenced. Perhaps that is keeping with a man who has a charming smile, an empty suit and a reliance upon TelePrompters even in the most "informal" presentations.

Most disturbing to the Geek is Senator Obama's sketchy rendition of his relationship with William Ayres. Dr Ayres along with his partner, Bernadine Dohrn, were central to Senator Obama's political debut in Chicago a decade or so back.

The MSM have been remarkably laid-back in their search for the roots of the Obama-Ayres relation particularly in comparison with their hound-dog-on-the-trail barking after Sarah Palin. When the MSM have mentioned Ayres and Dohrn in connection with the terrorist group the Weathermen, it has been fashionable to characterise the group as being bombers with a high regard for human life, for planting bombs where Federal and other property might have been damaged but no lives taken.

Of course that approach requires a selective amnesia equivalent to Senator Obama's. The Weather Underground cell in New York City planned an attack against the NCO club at Ft Dix which would have claimed two hundred plus lives.

It didn't simply because the plotters were as inept at making bombs as they were skilled at planning the attack. The bombers blew themselves and a Greenwich Village house into small fragments while preparing their IED's.

Senator Obama and the MSM would also have us believe that the Weather Underground wasted away to nothingness more than thirty years ago as the leadership languished either in jail or on the run. This overlooks the reality that a Weather Underground successor organisation was alive, well and plotting in the Big Apple at the same time as Mr Obama was a student at Columbia. One of the Weatherman follow-ons was sentenced in 1990 and another remains a fugitive even today.

Overall, the Geek is reminded of another election which saw a likable, articulate man with a great smile running against a symbol of "failed Republicanism."

JFK was a man with a carefully shaded past. No, Kennedy didn't have a (perhaps close) acquaintance with an unrepentant terrorist. (Although he did get in the rack with a woman who was an intelligence agent for a hostile foreign power.)

Rather Kennedy had a history which was carefully crafted to turn an unfortunate act of maritime stupidity into war hero status. And, JFK had a ghost written book on courageous profiles which was both a best seller and the presumed basis of Kennedy's intellectual repute. Then there were the successful attempts to conceal both Senator Kennedy's medical conditions and the treatments for them.

Much has been made of Senator Obama's lack of experience--a couple of years in the senate and a time before that in the Illinois state legislature. In comparison Senator Kennedy was a powerhouse of expertise having been in Congress for twelve years, most of those in the Senate.

When considering the value of experience, and character, it is instructive to review Kennedy's actual accomplishments in the Oval as opposed to the myth of the Kennedy "Camelot."

Kennedy failed in his widely heralded Summit with the Soviet leader Khrushchev. This resulted, in part, in the Berlin Wall Crisis. It also resulted in Kennedy's vow to be "tough" with the Soviets.

Toughness drew a line which led to the commitment of support to South Vietnam. It led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which had the Soviets not shown more good sense than the Americans we would still be recovering from the nuclear exchange.

Toughness resulted in the wide open "covert" campaign against Castro which would have culminated in a well planned attack upon Cuba which was averted only because JFK was shot in Dallas.

Kennedy's administration also brought the Alliance for Progress--which failed--and the Peace Corps which didn't fail but has scarcely been a world altering institution.

Domestically the years of JFK brought a tax cut which did serve to boost the economy out of a very mild recession. Beyond that the Kennedy record is as skimpy as his war hero record.

Remember John Kennedy was far more experienced than Senator Obama. JFK was mildly lacking in character, integrity and personal history. Senator Obama is more challenged in all these areas.

John Kennedy was not an ideologue. Senator Obama is.

JFK faced challenging times as has every president in the past century. The next American president will face problems larger in scale and more vexing in complexity than did Kennedy.

Even though JFK was relatively advantaged in character, integrity, lack of ideological blinders and experience than is Senator Obama, his administration must be evaluated as long on image and short on accomplishment; long on risk-taking and short on rewards.

Is it legitimate to expect better from an Obama presidency?

The Geek thinks not. Color him a racist, Congressman Lewis.

GOP Does The Wrong Thing--For The Wrong Reason

In an action ignored by the MSM in the tidal wave of financial crisis and bail out bill votes, Senate Republicans blocked an enhanced Iranian economic sanctions bill for the second time in roughly a month. The bill which had already been passed by the House was a melding of two previous bills (one "authored" by Senator Obama) would have both taken action against companies doing business with Iran's banking and energy sectors and encouraged divestment in foreign companies commercially involved with the mullahocracy.

On 2 October Sen Wayne Allard of Colorado exercised his "prerogative" to stall passage.

Unsurprisingly Senate Majority Leader Reid accused the Republicans of playing politics with the legislation because of Obama's connection with it. No doubt that is part of the story.

But, only part.

The rest of the story revolves around the word, "prerogative."

How's that?

Earlier attempts to pass the components of the bill as two separate enactments were resolutely opposed by the White House. The opposition came not because the Cheney-Bush Administration had suddenly gone soft on Iran. No. Nothing like that at all.

The opposition came, not because the neocon ninnies of the Current Administration hated Iran less, but because they love the "prerogatives" of the Presidency more.

Of all the sins committed by the Current Administration--and they are legion--none has been greater than its single minded fixation upon elevating the power of the Presidency to heights undreamed of by such "imperial" presidents as Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt. The goal pursued so diligently by the neocon theoreticians under the direction of Dick Cheney was to exalt the power of the President to a level surpassing that advanced by Alexander Hamilton.

As Vice President Cheney made clear and public more than seven years ago, well before 9/11, the Administration had the intent of permanently "strengthening" the Offices of the President and Vice President. He put it in terms of regaining power lost to the Congress since Watergate and its aftershocks. But, it was clear that his vision was not limited to simple restoration of authority.

He wanted more. Much more.

Along with his personal legal counsel, David Addington, Cheney used the Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as a sort of in-house Supreme Court for the Administration, as well as his close personal relationship with George W. Bush to pursue the end of firmly installing the Unitary Presidency Theory as the axis mundi of American government.

The pursuit of secrecy along with the invocation of executive privilege were part of the process. So also was the constant reiteration of the discredited notion of "inherent powers" deriving from the President's role as Commander-in-Chief.

Brilliant but warped young neocon lawyers exemplified by John Yoo cranked out the necessary opinions from the bowels of the OLC which made "legal" reprehensible actions such as the use of waterboarding and other mechanisms of "intensified interrogation." Or, the unending confinement of "unlawful enemy combatants."

The neocon views of Yoo and Company justified the President's action of unilaterally abrogating the ABM Treaty with Russia (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, the Soviet Union.) The notion that the Senate having ratified the treaty and thus, under something called "the Constitution," giving it the force of Federal law should ratify the abrogation was brushed aside as an unnecessary and Constitution eroding infringement on the President's sole "prerogative" to conduct foreign policy.

Cheney, Yoo and all the other neocon ninnies overlooked then, as they have more recently, the slight consideration of historical fact.

During the run-up to and the waging of the War of Independence, much patriotic vitriol was poured on the idea of the British monarch's "royal prerogative." During the writing of the Constitution and the campaign to see it ratified, the proponents of the new US organic document took great pains to show how the American president would not have any shadow of the much hated "prerogative." (Take a look at Federalist 69 for a good example of this. Madison at his most incisive.)

The President as Commander-in-Chief is "First General" of the US military. He has the authority to conduct the war. He does not have the authority to decide to have a war so that he might conduct it.

Congress is given the sole power to decide when the US is going to wage a war. Then the President, not the Congress, conducts it.

In a similar way, the President conducts foreign policy. He does not have the "prerogative" to define it on his own authority. Neither does he have the sole capacity to formulate it.

Given that the Constitution is silent on the precise distribution of authority to formulate and define the foreign policy of the US, it stands to reason that Congress and Executive must engage in the messy game of conflict-and-consensus.

When Congress wants to take the lead in foreign policy, particularly when it considers legislation which places it in the role of not simply formulating policy but directing a specific mechanism of implementation, the Executive has both the right and obligation to inform Congress as to its stance on the proposed act. If Congress passes legislation which the Executive finds unacceptable in the conduct of foreign policy, then the correct course of action is to veto the bill.

Claiming "prerogative" is not the right thing to do.

But, at least the claim was consistent with the Current Administration's multi year campaign to manufacture the-all-powerful-presidency from the gossamer of historical distortion and legal logic rooted only in a will-to-power.

Fantasyland By The Hudson Gets More Fantastic

Once upon a time Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann was a Roman Catholic priest. He was smitten by a very seductive idea--liberation theology. So, the priest became a Left Socialist. Well, actually he became a Castro-leaning Communist. Fr (perhaps Sr would be more appropriate) Brockmann joined the Sandinistas of Nicaragua.

Along with the Ortega brothers Sr Brockmann was a noted adversary of the US during the years of the Reagan presidency. From the perspective of Washington the priest turned Sandinista was a bete noir of the darkest sort. We wanted him dead.

The Reagan Administration did not get its wish. Sr Brockman survived the years of the Contras. He weathered the period of political isolation which followed the end of the nasty little Contra War and the election of an anti-Sandinista government

Proving once again that the Lord works in mysterious ways, the Sandinistas came to power finally in an election that met the usual criteria of seeming to be open, fair and free. Sr Brockmann became Foreign Minister. As such he pursued policies which were not closely aligned with those of the US.

Be that as it may, US administrations had changed. The Soviet Union was of interest only to historians. Communism (and history, but not historians for which the Geek is thankful) was declared dead by American academics and others of the chattering class. Sr Brockmann was neither hated nor desired dead by the denizens living inside the Beltway. Even the neocons had bigger fish to catch and fry in the Mideast.

Now the whims and winds of democratic process have made Sr Brockmann the new President of the UN General Assembly. The priest turned Foreign Minister offered his maiden speech the other day. He proved two things.

You can take the man out of the cassock, but you can't remove the priestly from the man.

Communism may be officially dead, but lambasting capitalist Western pigs (and Israel) is alive, well and a crowd pleaser. Lest you think the Geek gets it wrong, the transcript is available at the UN site. (http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/statements/160908opening63.shtml)

Sr Brockmann makes his sentiments clear and unmistakable. Compared to the new GA President, Senator Obama frankly hates the poor and wretched of the earth.

I am aware of the great expectations which the vast majority of the dispossessed inhabitants of our threatened planet have placed in the United Nations to bring them peace, security and to defend their right to life and to full development. We must not fail them. It was most of all for the dispossessed of the world that I took up the challenge of presiding over this sixty-third session of the General Assembly. It is to them — to all our sisters and brothers on this Earth — that I dedicate my presidency. We must unite our efforts, with all the seriousness that the task requires, to meet their expectations. I trust that I can count on all of you to give me your most generous cooperation. On behalf of Nicaragua and the entire Latin American and Caribbean region, my extended homeland, I thank you for your confidence.

When you hear words like this the time has come to hang on to your wallet--with both hands.

When Fr/Sr Brockmann gets on a roll he rolls ever faster. Here is one specific case. Food.

At the root of the problem of world hunger is the unequal distribution of purchasing power within and between countries. Rather than concentrate on increasing food production as the single solution, the central focus of our efforts should be on the reduction of the inequalities in our world’s food production system.

Apparently Brockmann has a an old-school Marxist conspiracy theory view of global economics or at least the farming part of it.

Not convinced that the new GA president mouths the same slogans of long dead Kremlin Commissars? Try this. Brockmann's view of two critical internatinal institutions.

Both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are basically controlled by the United States and Europe. Both institutions have been and continue to be used as instruments of domination. The world resents this and this situation must change. The necessary democratization of these international financial institutions requires a change in the share system and the system for electing the respective Boards of Directors.

You bet. Let's see now. Hmm. (Snap fingers.) Why not let the recipient nations control the Boards. That way those greedy donor nations won't be able to be so damn controlling.

Brockman lets go with one barrage of Marxist or quasi-Marxist rhetoric after another. Climate change. Fresh water. Making the UN more "democratic." Assure that the will of "We the Peoples" cannot be ignored by sovereign states. Ya da. Ya da. Ya da.

Then the one time guerrilla fighter cuts to the chase. Terrorism. He has a take on the subject that would have warmed the heart of the Soviets and Castro back in the good ole days.

Terrorism and human rights. Any act of terrorism, whether or not it is committed by a Government, engenders more terrorism. Initiatives to stop this vicious cycle must begin at the level of State terrorism. Otherwise, the official struggle against terrorism perpetrated by individuals or organizations will lack moral authority and will never succeed in curbing what some see as nothing more than a defensive, albeit equally reprehensible, form of terrorism on the part of civil society. The question is how to overcome this vicious cycle of violence; towards that end, terrorism by powerful States against relatively weak States must stop.

There it is. The US, the West, Israel are the true terrorists. Unless and until these evil actors stop whatever it is they do that the Brockmanns of the world disapprove of there can be no effective "official struggle" against non-state actors.

Just in case the assembled Assembly didn't get his point, the priestly ex-guerrilla spelled it out.

No State should appropriate the right to decide on its own which States are terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism, and which are not. Less still should States that are guilty of wars of aggression, the worst form of terrorism imaginable, presume to arrogate that right unto themselves, and further, to unilaterally take action against those it has stigmatized.

All together now: Spell U-S-A.

Brockmann decompresses with some of the usual dabba-dabba-do about disarmament and the horrors of the nuclear arsenals now in existence. He neglects to say a word concerning the nuclear weapons being sought but as yet still unmade. Such as the Mahdi Bomb.

After genuflecting before the totems of gender equality and saving the children of the world, Miguel ends on a note that must seem reassuringly familiar to at least some Americans: "Change — real, credible change — is the watchword of the day."

No session of the UN General Assembly has been pleasant for Americans unless they are remarkably masochistic in their high mindedness for a mort of years. This one promises to be not only more of the same but a further descent into the recycled muck of the Cold War, the America-as-Evil-Empire rhetoric of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.

Come to think of it, those were Sr Brockmann's years of glory and ambition.

A further thought just struck the Geek. The sentiment of a realpoliker from the Italian Renaissance who wrote, "leave behind no wounded enemy."

It seems like the Reagan Administration did.

McCain's Right (Sort Of) Obama's Right (Sort Of)

The Geek is normally not of a mind to watch candidates' debates. They tend to be pre-scripted posture sessions of little substance. He made an exception this time. Guess there was some eagerness to see if either man had a good grip on the upcoming foreign policy presidency. Or would both guys be so wrapped up in the current financial sector "emergency" that foreign affairs would be covered with brief campaign boiler plate.

There was substance. Interestingly, both men were equally right and wrong on the challenges of Iran and trans-national terrorism. Of course each man was right in a different way The same is true with how each was wrong.

Spell it out, Geek. You're losing me.

OK, bunky, here's the way the Geek saw it.

Obama got it right when he said that Afghanistan and Pakistan constituted the "central front" of the anti-terrorism war.

McCain was wrong as a cat barking when he dissented, averring that Iraq deserved pride of place.

Obama saw the Iraq invasion as a dangerous and counterproductive diversion of US resources and political will. (The Geek's summary of what he believes Obama was trying to articulate.)

McCain is gripless when he avers, as he did last night, that the Iraq invasion constituted the critical component of the "war on terror." He was as out to lunch as the neocon ninnies of the Bush Administration when he said five and more years ago that the war in Iraq would be short, sweet and low cost.

Obama was wrong on the "surge" in Iraq and McCain was right. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there would have been no need for a "surge" if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

Neither man squarely acknowledged that the US and its allies were on the verge of losing the war with Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. If anything the military situation in Afghanistan today is worse from our perspective than the way the war in Iraq was going just before the "surge " commenced.

There are several reasons for this unpleasant reality, none of which were even indirectly referenced by McCain or Obama. The first was the dilatory way in which the US and its allies initially prosecuted operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda. The second was the failure to properly consider the actual relationship between elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services with Taliban and al-Qaeda. The third was the failure to take proper account of the ethno-linguistic and religious nature of the human terrain straddling the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In the what-we-should-do-next department, Obama was dead perfect wrong. The initiation of more "clandestine" cross-border operations by the US would be utterly counterproductive. The time for that option expired months--if not years--ago.

Unilateral actions now would both further alienate and destabilize the Government of Pakistan (GOP)to say nothing of strengthen the hand of the indigenous Pakistani Islamists. It would also undercut the position of the various tribal khans within the FATA whose lives and hold on power are increasingly threatened by the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

As these khans increasingly recognise the danger they and their tribes are in they will be more willing to mobilize the tribal forces and take the war to the Islamists. These khans and the trigger-pullers they can muster are the FATA-land equivalent of the Concerned Local Citizens and Awakening Councils of Anbar and other provinces in Iraq. Unilateral US action whether by ground or air will erode--perhaps fatally--this indigenous option.

While it would be emotionally satisfying for US commandos to winkle Osama bin Ladin out of his presumed FATA-land cave, it is a highly unlikely eventuality. To make the attempt (presumably repeatedly until success was obtained) as Senator Obama stated would be to undertake a fools mission, a forlorn hope.

On the Pakistan issue, Senator McCain got it right. We must work with the Pakistanis, frustrating and irritating as that may be. The Geek agrees that we wasted the ten or so gigabucks funneled to Pakistan over the past seven years as a result of the Bush Administration's constitutional unwillingness to accept that the money would be diverted from its intended counterinsurgency and counterterror usages to big ticket items directed at India.

But conditions in Pakistan have changed in recent months. This includes the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. The civilian government of Pakistan must have seen it as a wake up call of unmistakable nature. Not only are their (to quote a line from Blazing Saddles) "phony-baloney jobs" in danger, so also were their lives.

While the GOP is undoubtedly overstating the body count resulting from the recent military operations in FATA , there is no denying that the war is being carried to the border sanctuaries at long last. American cooperation, understanding and discretion can not but assist this long overdue process.

On Iran there is no doubt that Senator McCain had it all over Senator Obama in the who-has-a-firmer-grip department. The Geek can write this even though admitting that it rankled him when McCain overly emphasized the Iranian "existential" threat to Israel. The Geek had a great desire to scream at the screen, "You're running for POTUS not Prime Minister of Israel.

The position of Senator Obama (oft restated) of negotiations without preconditions is, as Senator McCain made clear, "naive" and "dangerous." However, Senator McCain's position is not without dangers as well.

Unless Senator McCain can put a lot of blue sky between his view of US-Russian relations and the isolate-the-bastards position espoused by Dick Cheney and other neocons, there is no hope of making the current (or projected) sanctions effective.

Even far more biting sanctions will, in the Geek's estimate, prove unlikely to modify Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Tehran has invested too much of its political capital as well as Iran's resources in the project.

The world (including Israel) may well have to learn to live with a nuclear weapons equipped Iran. Here again close collaborative efforts between the US and Russia are essential. If Iran's mullahs were to be presented by both the US and Russia extending its nuclear umbrella over the Mideast and Persian Gulf states, the probability of deterrence being effective would be increased by orders of magnitude.

Unfortunately Senator McCain gave no evidence last night of seeking to distance himself from those in the Bush Administration. He made no mention of how he would seek collaboration with the Kremlin. That was a major malfunction by the Senator.

The Geek was surprised that neither candidate (nor the moderator for that matter) mentioned the other nuclear elephant in the room. North Korea.

The Hermit Kingdom of the North is a far more clear and present danger to US national and strategic interests than is Iran. The regime there is even more resistant to sanctions and other niceties of diplomacy than is the mullahocracy in Tehran. The North Koreans have shown that they have mastered the implosion bomb. They have thirty of more kilos of Pu239 on hand with more en route from the spent fuel rods extracted earlier from their Yongbyon reactor.

The North Korean reality is an elephant that can be ignored only at great risk. The Senators should have at least genuflected before that fact.

The night showed that We the People have a hair raising choice. Ignorance and inexperience. Or knowledge, experience and a neocon predilection.

Lord help us.

Join The Navy!

Since the Monster Debate on Foreign Policy may be postponed so that the candidates may posture appealingly next to the Wall Street Emergency Rescue and CEO Reduced Compensation Act of 2008, there is a little time for one or both contenders to reconsider his stance on US policy in the Mideast. In the (remote) hope that reevaluation might take place, the Geek has a modest proposal or two.

The United States is and always has been a maritime power. Maritime powers have an enormous advantage over continental powers such as Germany or Russia. Control and use of the sea allows for timely force projection without overseas bases.

This means that a maritime power can practice balance of power politics. The British played that game with great effect during the 19th Century. The US dabbled with the idea off and on during some of the 20th. The time has come for us to play the game with cold calculation.

What has been the historic US interest in the Mideast and Persian Gulf?

No. Not the oil. Or at least not the oil in and of itself.

Our interest since the middle of World War II has been assuring that no single nation controls all or most of the region's oil. For nearly sixty years the US employed economic, military assistance, diplomacy and covert actions to achieve the policy goal.

The Rapid Deployment Force was conceptualised in the wake of the Iranian Revolution as a way of continuing to assure the oil region did not fall under a single country's hegemony. That same reason underscored the (in)famous "tilt to Iraq" during the Iraq-Iran War.

The policy requirement of preventing a regional hegemon from emerging prompted the massive deployment of US and other forces to Saudi Arabia in the run up to the Kuwait War.

Had the foreign forces left the Arabian Peninsula in the wake of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, a major motive for Osama bin Ladin's 1996 "Declaration of War" against the US would have been undercut. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Although the massive American presence in Saudi Arabia was removed, the relocation of our bases to the UAE was a classic case of "too little, too late."

A strong argument may be made that the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq could have been adequately enforced by aircraft from naval carriers operating over the horizon in international waters. There was no crying military need for a large US presence anywhere in the Peninsula. Even the highly unlikely possibility of a resurgent and aggressive Saddam would have been detected in time for sea based, invisible force to be brought to bear.

With that as background, it's time to get a grip on the options now available.

The first option is to get out of Iraq. The US might take the Iraqi government and its delusions of adequacy seriously. The Iraqi politically articulate elite doesn't want our forces in its country now that the noise level has been reduced to an acceptable level.

Fine. It is no longer possible for the US to "not lose" militarily in Iraq. It is most assuredly not our responsibility to make certain that the Iraqis can do a passable job of running their own country.

We have accomplished our minimum necessary policy goal. We have not lost. The black turbans could not and did not defeat us either militarily or by enervation of our political will to continue the fight. Now it is up to the autocthones. The Iraqis in all their varied sectarian and linguistic stripes have to decide how the show is going to be run.

As long as we follow a balance of power approach, our basic policy of assuring open access to the only thing in the region that matters--oil--is preserved. We can do that best by remembering that we are a maritime power.

A second requirement of a new, balance of power oriented policy is to constructively engage Iran. The Iranian regime(s) have shown a willingness to do this, most recently in 2003. It wouldn't have been easy to arrange an all-inclusive bargain then and it will be immensely more difficult now, but that is no reason not to go ahead with the effort.

This approach does not imply an Obama-esque "negotiations without preconditions." Rather it relies on old style diplomacy with the only wrinkle that the US will have to eat some crow to jump start the process. For those who argue that we can't deal with Tehran while the mullahocracy supports Hezbollah, aids black turbans in Iraq, and slips assistance to Taliban, the Geek replies that history is the guide.

Remember that the US talked openly and repeatedly with the Soviet Union--to include a Summit Meeting in 1967--even though the Soviets were sending weapons by the shipload to North Vietnam and these weapons did in fact kill and wound Americans. (The Geek has a personal involvement in the latter part of this reality and carries fragments of Russian origin metal in his body to this day.)

Sure, an effort at constructive engagement might not pay off now after years of sanctions and saber waving, but the risks are far smaller and much more easily controlled than those attendant upon the military option. And, the benefits are far greater.

Beyond that, should force be necessary, the US possesses the over-the-horizon platforms to assure the rubble formerly called Tehran to bounce past the tropopause. Still, tough talk, tough bargaining is to be preferred over tough action.

Then there is Israel.

The seemingly eternal problem of Israel.

The time is long past for the US to treat Israel with the same respect, dignity and self-interested basis as it treats all other countries.

Yes, the US should be every bit as concerned with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Israel as it that of France, Germany, Canada or Georgia.

Yes, the US should have all the normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel that it does with other countries.

All the normal features of relations the US has with other democratic, more or less pluralistic regimes should and must exist with respect to Israel.

But no more than that.

No more excessive military aid. No more excessive diplomatic and political support. No more foreign aid. (Israel is by all normal criteria a developed nation and needs foreign aid no more than does Canada or Sweden.)

For our own national interest we must give the Government of Israel (GOI) a choice regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Choice one: negotiate a two state solution immediately and in good faith with our support. Choice two: continue as an oppressive colonial power in the West Bank and Gaza without our support.

Again, the US has the over-the-horizon capacity to assure Israel's territorial integrity and national sovereignty. By giving the GOI the stark choice outlined above, we are not withdrawing from effective overwatch and protection.

Will this, any of the foregoing realpolitik approaches be embraced by either of the two major candidates?

No.

John McCain has openly embraced the neocon perspective and his campaign advisers include people such as Max Boot who have learned nothing from the greatest US foreign policy debacle in history and are eager to have the Israeli tail wag the dog of US policy. Senator Obama is a neophyte in foreign policy which makes him captive of the same Democratic movers and shakers who have followed the Israel uber alles view for more than forty years.

Also, the Geek is well aware of the Israel Lobby which, like the China Lobby of sixty and more years ago, has shown itself both willing and able to inflict massive damage on the interests of the United States in order to further the interests of another country.

Lord, help us.