Calling a spade a spade: More people killed in the name of religion than any other reason. The Holocaust, and Islamic Jihad, two leading offenders!

This blog is intended to dispel notions that religions are peaceful, and that in order to be “political-correct,” one must not offend believers.

Attention will be given United States politics versus that of others, and a discussion of how the present Administration is dealing with friends, and with foes. With critical eye a discussion of the Administration political correctness, and its blind-eye to violent Islam, and that of others, will be pursued.

Particular attention will be given to the fact that the major source of today international terror is done in the name of Islam, and the largest single event that destroyed [innocent] people, and did so because of their religious beliefs, or ethnicity, was the Holocaust. The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to “wipe Israel off the map,” an act that he may well be able to carry out after enough nuclear devices are produced by his regime, will be carefully monitored, especially in light of that fact that such an event would be approaching the magnitude of the Holocaust, if it occurs.

Close scrutiny will be given the Middle East, including, but not limited to the fact that the State of Israel is the major obstacle to Islamic encroachment on the Western world. Will Israel with its formidable nuclear arsenal, “take-out” Ahamadinejad’s nuclear capability, which could be deployed against Europe, as well as Israel? The apparent deterioration in United States relations with Israel will also be reviewed, especially with an eye on President Obama’s apparent Islamic sympathies, which do not seem to be always reciprocal.

In the Twenty-first Century armed conflict seems to be concentrated among Muslims. War between brethren (i.e. Yeman and Saudi; Somalia; the Sudan, etc.), or conflict in the name of Islam, a Jihad, if you will, the means for forcing Islam on the world. Another item of interest has to do with the fact that the Muslims are divided, Shiites, Sunnis, and others, they are continuously at each other’s throat. Islam is using Israel, or what they call Zionism, as a uniting element, a “temporary glue” that hold them together for their present common cause, if they did not have Zionism to exploit, and their own one can expect a set of catastrophic conflicts (i.e. the recent Iran/Iraq war, etc.).

Not being Islamophobic, I have read the Koran and realize that those who believe, those who accept its words, must rid the word od infidels, not a peaceful suitable for civilized societies. That notwithstanding, it is clear that modern Muslims can, and do, accept the Koran in a manner compatible with Twenty-first Century society; and, like religious Jews who do not put to death those who do keep the Sabbath, or stone adulterers, adhere to the religion yet let others (infidels) believe as they wish.

Strict adherence to the Koran requires all Muslims to destroy infidels, but in reality, most Muslims accept a compromise, just like Christians, and Jews do, and adjust to be compatible with the world in which they live.

Obama’s Afghan war: Overuling McChrystal, it is now the C.i.C. war! Is the 30,000 commitment a “down-payment” towards 150,000 total allies troops in Afghanistan?

Was it naivety, stupidity, or the need to have a final word, that prompted President Obama to overrule General McChrystal request fo 40,000 troops, and commit “only “30,000?”

It was not stupidity, since Barak Hussein Obama is not a stupid person. His action in reducing the Afghan commitment must have been in part due to naivety, and in part an ego driven move to have the last word. Whatever the reason, the Commander-in-Chief took upon himself the ownership of the war in Afghanistan. By making the final call, the military decision, if you will, especially one that is not in line with what was recommended by the commander(s) in the field, the C. i. C., for all practical purposes, relieved General McChrystal from the ultimate day-to-day responsibility for the war, and assumed all accountability for the war.

Since most military experts agree hat the 40,000 request by McChrystal was on the light side, and because history, the terrain, and the local culture(s) in Afghanistan, suggest that a United States win will require an overwhelming force, one should count the days when events in the field start to suggest that the McChrystal number of 40,000+. was not quite large enough. Events in the field will likely demonstrate that the Obama 30,000 was clearly inadequate, and that at least 20,000 additional troops will be needed, for a troop level of about 150,000, similar to what the US had to commit to Iraq.

Obama’s eighteen months may be OK for an evaluation, but from all that appear relevant, no withdrawal can be expected in eighteen months, to the contrary, at least another build-up, an escalation, if you will, should be expected before any withdrawal can start.

There is little, or nothing that suggests that the US role in Afghanistan is a short-term mission; all indications are that US presence in Afghanistan will be protracted, it is likely not to end before both Obama’s daughters are old enough to vote!

Obama’s monumental blunder: 25% less troops to Afghanistan than military request! Or, second-guessing the military, Afghanistan is entirely Obama’s to win, or lose!

General Stanley McChrystal is President Obama’s choice to lead United States, and allies in Afghanistan; not complying with the General recommendation on required troop level to complete the mission was a major lapse in good judgement by President Obama.

In the unlikely event that as soon as new troops start to arrive in Afghanistan, events in the field will start to go the way planned by the United States, President Obama, and General McChrystal will become instant heroes. But, as can be expected, glitches occur, President Obama will immediately be the villan since he did not listen to his military experts and reduced the number of troops required in that theater by 25%.

Cutting the number of troops requested by the military by a man with no military knowledge, and add a deadline, be it only a tentative one, the President of the United States assumed the responsibility for any failures that may be forthcoming in Afghanistan.

Should events on the ground in Afghanistan do not go as the Allied command projected, the cut-back of 25% in the number of troops the military required would surely become the assigned cause for any failure, and President Obama who determined the final level of troop commitment would become an instant failure as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama in his naivety gave the military an escape valve should they not be able to succeed on the ground. Obama simply set himself up to be scapegoat, and political casualty, if the United States does not prevail in Afghanistan.

US economy must return to product-based economy, or fail! Without a product-base a service economy cannot be sustained.

An economy without a product-base, an economy based on service included government which produces nothing but service, regulations, and oversight, cannot sustain itself.

Since much of the “stimulus” went to government positions, may have a superficial boost, but does not offer a basis for a stable economy. Fast food, insurance, healthcare, and other services are important, but services products produced overseas is a sure route to economic failure. The President Clinton e-commerce boon was based on “virtual,” products, was destined to fail, as it indeed, did.

President Obama must start an effort to encourage the rebuilding of product economy, give producers incentives to get their products, or parts for products, built-in the United States, regardless of the cheaper labor that they can get from foreign sources. This is not to suggest tariffs on imported products, but rather to offer tax, favorable financing, and other incentives for those who produce “hard” products in the United States.

—-More to come! —-

Not able to secure allies support, Afghanistan is Obama’s war!

President Obama committed 30,000 United States troops to Afghanistan, expecting to get additional commitments from his allies; Obama will not likely get more than a token commitment from Europe, and perhaps even less from Canada.

There are many who felt that Obama’s election would help mend fences, improve the United States image in the world, an image that was badly damaged by George W. Bush. Obama is much more liked than was George W. Bush, he is admired for his oratory skills, embraced for his charisma, but he is not respected, nor was he accepted, as the “leader of the free world.”

The Muslims mock him, the Europeans do not trust his friendship (removal of the missile defence shield,) only 4% of Israelis consider him a reliable ally, and the list goes on.

Obama must accept that the war in Afghanistan is a United States war, not one being fought by an alliance. Unlike the “despised” President George W. Bush, Obama is not even capable to hold together a coalition of “the willing.”

Obama lack of world leadership which also represents a decline in United States influence, may be attributed, as Hillary Clinton suggested, and as Dick Cheney continue to state, to his inexperience, but it may be more than that.

Experience one can acquire, but Obama’s inability to stand by his allies, both personal (i.e. Wrght, Ayers, etc.,) and international (i.e. Europe, Israel, etc.,) may be a much larger contribution to his failure as a world leader. Effective leaders must have character, and Obama does not seem to be as well endowed in this area, as may be desirable.

President Obama, undoubtedly one of the best orators in human history (not withstanding his dependence on teleprompters,) is a bright and charismatic young mas, but throughout his political life, the young American President failed to demonstrate perhaps the most important trait a President should possess: Character!

Obama’s lack of character is likely to be one of the reasons that United States allies do not seem eager, or even willing, to follow the United States lead; a situation that may well leave the Afghanistan war, an American war!

100K+ US troops, the new Afghan baseline; will a surge to 150K follow? The 25% cut in McChrystal’s request will cause an “Afghan surge,” at a later date.

In a March 2009 blog I predicted the 100,000+ American troops will be committed to Afghanistan in the short-term. Cutting the request of General by 25% will contribute to the need for a later surge, an action that will bring troop levels those similar to the one that were reached in Iraq.

Afghanistan is a complex country for outsiders to understand, let alone control. The geography, its neighbors, and the Afghan culture, would suggest that in order to bring a stable democracy to the country the Unites States will have to deploy an overwhelming force. The force that will be required to do the job is likely no less than 150,000, and, as Senator McCain suggested, be there for “100 years.”

It will not likely take 100 years, but more than the just eighteen + months that President Obama is targeting. The American public should plan on upwards of eight to ten years of troops in Afghanistan, and well over the 100,000+ troops presently committed to that country.

President Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan is far short of what require to stabilize the region, get rid of El Qaeda, and reduce the Iranian threat. Issues regarding Pakistan, and Iran are abound, they are only threatening the region, but they rather endanger the whole world. The Afghanistan situation should be completed in an orderly manner and not be terminated before the whole region reaches a stable state. Ending the Afghanistan mission before it is complete in order to yield to political, and popular pressures, would put the whole civilized world at long-term peril; a situation that must be avoided at nearly any cost.

Afghanistan: Dubya all over again? Overruling commanders; is McChrystal Obama’s Shineski? Or, is Obama committing a mule to do a job requiring a donkey and a horse?

When Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz decided to employ a business model for conducting the Iraq war, sold it to President George W. Bush, and had General Shineski dismissed because he demanded more troops, the beginning of unnecessarily extended and costly war in Iraq, was initiated.

Like Iraq, Afghanistan requires overwhelming force in order to defeat the Taliban, and El Queda’s insurgencies. The 30,000 additional troops Barak Obama is committing to Afghanistan ensures that there will be more American casualties, that there will be a number of small wins for the United States and its allies, but clearly not for ensuring a win in the war.

Setting a date for withdrawal, be it flexible as it is, is music to the ears of El Qaeda; it will not only give it a recruiting tool, it will allow the insurgent a relaxed atmosphere for determining how to act.

President Barak Hussein Obama just gave the Islamic enemy in Afghanistan reasons to celebrate. President Obama spoke of strategy for withdrawing, but not for escalating should conditions on the ground call for more troops. The Taliban and El Qaeda now know what the maximum level of [American] troops they are likely to faced, and therefore a tools for planning future activities.

It is too bad that rather than to do the right things, President Obama is acting in a compromise way, a manner to not upset the [political] “apple cart,” but in a way that can do nothing less than encourage the enemy.

The Afghanistan conflict has two primary facets. The military, a thoroughbred horse race; and the political, one that require a donkey to pull for the long-haul; Obama’ plan is to send a mule which can do both jobs, but that can not do either job in an optimal manner.

Muslin control of oil; an unintended, but dagerous, state! Or, Dubai, the begining of economic avalance?

The revelation of Dubai’s debt forfeiture, and what appears to be an all around economic meltdown, was not surprising. Dubai, as did its brethren Arab oil producing states, used oil income to feather its nest, not looking into developing other income producing resources of sustainable nature.

Dubai citizens are wealthy, as are all citizens of the UAE, and of most oil producing Arab states. Manual labor is left to imported people, mostly Palestinians who have third class citizen statue among its Arab brethren. While, at the same time, infrastructure work is done, in large part, by Westerners; European and Americans. The “locals,” are put in a position to take advantage of the richness, without assuming a responsibility to train for skills that are required for ensuring a future of the country, should, or rather oil revenues start to dry up, or keep up with the country’s expenditures.

Since expenditures in most oil producing Arab states have been growing at a faster rate than are oil revenues, most Arab oil producers borrowed a great deal of capital from Western financial institution. Many of these financial entities who were just recently bailed-out by the United States government, are likely significantly suffer from the economic break-down of Dubai and its neighbors, for many years to come.

In the United States, Home Land Security Administration is concerned with Islamic terror; while the economic impact of Islamic mismanagement of its oil revenues, may prove more damaging to the global community, than multitude of terrorist acts.

Islamic economic impact on the global economy may prove devastating. It is not likely that such effects on the economy were planned, or intentional; yet the results may prove no less damaging to the fragile global economy that was just starting to show weak signs of recovery.

Like the USSR, Afghanistan loss = loss of Superpower stature

loosing Afghanistan, which would be anything less than a clear win, would render the United States a “toothless tiger,” it would loose its “Superpowere” stature.

Similar fate followed the USSR misadventure in Afghanistan, the French in Vietnam, and almost to the United States in Korea, and than in Vietnam. It is unlikely that the United States will maintain Superpower stature should it not win the war in Afghanistan!

Dubai: Tip of the iceberg, a sign of things to come! Or, Islamic oil producers, their contribution to the next phase of global economic meltdown.

Dubai’s failure to live up to its financial obligation is not a surprise; Islamic oil producing states continue to spend money from present and projected oil revenues, never a healthy situation to be in.

Dubai, as are the other UAE states, built a show-place to the world, but they have done so on credit based on future income; the situation seems to have caught up, and the city-state now must postpone or simply stop from meeting its financial obligations..

The “glitz,” and Western style skylines of the Gulf States is amazing, but it is, as the case is often with Arabs, great form with very little, if any substance.

Dubai, a nomad country in a desert, had nothing to build an economy on, but oil. When oil income started tp grow beyond anyone’s expectations, this city-state decided that it must become a world-class commercial center. With oil money they built beautiful buildings, an island, a world-class golf course, automobile racing circuit, and other impressive Western style facilities.

While building all these show places, the government of Dubai did not build an income producing infra-structure, and remained dependant on oil revenues. Even their oil revenues did not follow the logical path of selling as much value added with the oil, as one possibly can add.

Technological establishment within Dubai, and the other Islamic oil producing states, are not built and manned by the Arabs themselves, they are rather imported “turn-key” operations. More often than not, these operations include staff, equipment, and even supply required for day-to-day functioning. When contracting for a hospital, for example, these oil producers generally acquire the facility with full equipment, and the personnel to operate it. Little, or near no local developed technical, or operating personnel is trained.

By virtue of their small population, and oil richness, citizens of Dubai, the other UAE countries, and the Saudis, are wealthy people. The oil producers use Palestinians for manual labor, American and Europeans fort skilled work, and simply live a life of leisure.

As is now happening in Dubai, however, and as one can expect from most, if not all, the oil producing Arab states, their rate of expenditure overtook the level of income, and debt payments are either postponed, or terminated, leaving many global financial institutions in trouble.

This is the beginning. In the next year, or two, one should anticipate numerous forfeitures by Arab oil producing countries that will send shock-waves throughout the industrial world. President Obama overtures towards the Islamic world are likely to prove wasted effort coupled with lost opportunity.

The small economic gains made by the Obama Administration are about to be overturned by those Muslims that Obama was hoping would help him reduce the international oil crunch and reduce the global recession!

The crunch on the oil produces has a great deal to do with leverage. Since their rate of expenditure will not allow them to slow oil production, and the competitive market place is not conducive to price increases, which may simply force increased production, it will then cause price reduction, and another production increase, a vicious-circle.

There will likely be forfeitures by oil producing states that will amount to many billions, likely in the trillion dollars to Western financial institutions. Should such situation develop, as it is likely to, neither the United States, nor any of its allies will be in a position to bail out such institution, and a more severe economic meltdown should be expected.

Why does Obama second-guess his military?

Why is President Obama second-guess his experts, the commanders on the field, and plans to send less troops to Afghanistan than they requested?

Afghanistan requires both military and political United States support; the apparent commitment President Obama is about to make, is short in both areas, leaving the country vulnerable to the Taliban, and perhaps El Qaeda.

Reducing the commitment for Afghanistan by 20% could well be the difference between getting the job done, and failing; did the young President feel it necessary to micromanage for his ego’s sake, or what? If the reason is cost, it is clearly irrational since 20% in the number of troops will translate to less than 10% in cost savings, not enough to justify the risk.

For example, if one goes to a medical expert (doctor,) and the expert recommends that one’s appendix be removed, does this leave the patient an option to ask that only 80% be removed, and ask for a discount?

Among other things, making a smaller commitment than was requested by the military, offer said commanders a reason to justify if the missionnot to be entirely successful; not an outcome the President wants.

It may not be too late for President Obama to commit the 40,000, leaving the door open for removing troops sooner rather than later, condition on the ground support such a move.