DON'T EXPECT A ROBUST JOBS-BASED RECOVERY WITH OBAMA IN OFFICE
The president is simply clueless about how to create such a recovery. Worse yet, the Republicans who should know how are involved in intra-murals amongst their own party. What a tragedy this is. Add to this the Fed's continued stream of huge QE bond purchases propping up a moribund economy, and ironically, this guarantees NO robust recovery! Fed capital infusions make things look better than they are, which is just what Obama wants. These $85 billion, very-low-interest-rate infusions in a constant stream also squeeze private capital out of markets, assuring that the growth that occurs from the private sector will remain slow and spotty.
===================
CONSUMERS UNDERSTAND THIS ON SOME INTUITIVE LEVEL AND LACK CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT
So the will be cautious in spending. Of course there will be a Christmas uptick, but it will be lower and less sustained than it should be, or could be. Consumers lack confidence period. And they should. No one has shown leadership in which they can believe. Why should they take any risks? Obamacare is coming, and nobody really knows how it will work and what it will disrupt--not really--and during the next two years, there will be more unpleasant surprises than good news.
===================
THE SYRIAN INCIDENT MAY WORK OUT, BUT NO THANKS TO OBAMA'S WAFFLING LACK OF LEADERSHIP
My recent post in TheBrennerBrief.com opened with this cartoon…Charlie Brown lying on his back as Lucy, once again this year, pulls the football away as he goes to kick it. It just ran again last week on Sunday.
===================
DO YOU REALLY THINK IRAN IS SERIOUS ABOUT ITS SUDDEN CONCILIATORY GESTURES
I wish I did, but I am skeptical At least Ahmadinejad is gone, and he was a problem. His successor, Hassan Rouhani, is a much smarter and more skilled negotiator. He knows that antagonizing the USA is not in Iran's best interests. By making peaceful sounding overtures, he buys time for the Iranian nuclear program to proceed--and assuming the clueless Obama team goes along with him--he probably gets some relief from sanctions. This is good for the Iranian people, who have suffered the brunt of the sanction pain. It's hard to imagine how its good for the USA except it postpone any serious military action. Any American who trusts our naive, narcissistic president to suddenly finds some backbone and a foreign policy, will likely be sadly disappointed.
===================
THE BEST THING OBAMA COULD DO IS AGREE TO DELAY MORE OF OBAMACARE
There is no chance of "defunding it," not with a Democratic Senate majority, and even if the Senate were to flip to the GOP, the odds on repealing Obamacare would be minuscule, since it takes 67 Senate votes to over-ride a presidential veto. However, delaying parts of Obamacare to level the playing field a bit more, would be a "grand gesture" by the president—just the sort of thing he would feel good about doing. IF he doesn't the parade of companies dumping their plans on "Exchanges" will continue to grow and grow and grow. IBM has dumped its retirees, TimeWarner is dumping still more, as is Sears Holdings. Walgreens is joining in the dump. So is Darden restaurants, even though it could dodge some of the pain by moving still more workers to 29 hour weeks. Watch the list grow!
===================
MEANWHILE, MANUFACTURING ISN'T THE ONLY PLACE TECHNOLOGY CAN REPLACE PEOPLE
Chili's restaurants are installing computer touch screens into its tables, allowing diners to peruse menus, place order and pay bills. Ziosk, the vendor has had this technology for some time, and Applebee's has been testing it. Chili's claims that its goal is not to reduce wait staff, but rather to increase sales and consumer involvement. Sure! But if the wait staff doesn't need to present a menu, take an order or collect the bill, it's only logical that it will take fewer people--even though they still must deliver the food, clear the dishes and keep the beverages refilled.
If the folks who want McDonalds to pay them $12.50 vs. $7.50, get ready for keypads to enter your order and in the drive thru lane, a cash/credit card machine to collect (like most parking lots use now). The technology all exists. All it needs is the economic stimulus to put it into place!
===================
CEOS ARE DISCOURAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR
When CEOs are discouraged or lack confidence in the government and its probable actions, they simply pull back on spending, investment and risk. These are not dummies. They know that Washington is anti-business already, so what might they expect next. More, tighter regulations, or punitive actions by agencies such as the IRS?
===================
VOTING IN MEXICO--WITH YOUR ID--OF COURSE…BUT NOT IN THE USA!
SOMETIMES A CARTOON SHOWS THE FOOLISHNESS BETTER THAN WORDS
===================
MANUFACTURING'S RECOVERY IS POSITIVE, BUT WITH FEWER JOBS, MORE TECHNOLOGY
Jobs are coming back to the USA. A combination of technology and China's rising wages and shortage of skilled labor are once again making the USA a competitive source for many products. However, the returning jobs are not likely to be as numerous as the departing jobs were. Increased productivity, which makes products more competitive, require fewer people to make similar quantities of products. Also, the kind of jobs that are coming back are different than those that left--requiring different and higher skill and knowledge levels. The challenge for companies—and workers—is to measure up to the needs of the 21st century manufacturing environment.
===================
CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS STILL DROPPING, NOT GROWING
FROM KIPLINGER REPORTS:
"Note this worrisome trend in this agonizingly slow economy: Industrial capacity is growing faster than use. Manufacturing output is up, helping to keep GDP on a rising path. But businesses’ ability to produce is growing even more swiftly. While businesses aren’t inclined to invest heavily in new plants and equipment, what they are spending is targeted at machinery that boosts productivity.
So capacity utilization has dropped in recent months. Now 77.6%, it’s three-tenths of a percentage point below a year ago, six-tenths of a point less than it was just last March and an unhealthy 2.6 percentage points under the 40-year average. Well up from a dismal recession low of 66.9%, though. With slack in the economy increasing rather than diminishing, it’s tough to get the momentum in job growth needed to crank up the economic engine to a healthy running speed.
A capacity utilization rate of 80% or a bit higher is seen as desirable…high enough to spur growth, low enough not to spark inflation. Odds are the key ratio won’t reach the 80% mark for many more months. Meanwhile, businesses continue to let their profits pile up. From Jan. through March, corporations’ cash holdings rose by $46 billion, to nearly $1.8 trillion"
===================
GRIN OR GRIMACE: OBAMA-BASHING DOESN'T HELP, BUT REALLY--HE'S EARNED IT
Perspectives on changing people and finding work…. A doctor from France says: "In France , the medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man's testicles; we put them into another man, and in 6 ...weeks he is looking for work." A German doctor comments quietly : "That's nothing, in Germany we take part of the brain out of a person; we put it into another person head, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work." A Russian doctor says boasting :"That's nothing either. In Russia we take out half of the heart from a person; we put it into another person's chest, and in 2 weeks he is looking for work."
A US doctor laughs and answers loudly and immediately: "That's nothing my colleagues, you are way behind us….in the USA , about 8 years ago, we grabbed a person from Kenya with no brains, no heart, and no balls….and we made him into President of the United States, and now……. the whole damn country is looking for work.
===================
======================
CAN THE FRACTURED, DIVIDED GOP EVER WIN THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN?
(CAN THE GOP CONTENDERS ALL BE WORSE THAN BARACK OBAMA WAS—OR HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE—OR DOES THAT EVEN MATTER ANYMORE?)
Can the GOP (ever) win the White House again? That’s the question that must be “top of mind” for everyone who is fed up with Barack Obama’s poor performance as president and his failing big-government ideologies. Ignore that the next chance to do so is three years away. Forget that the candidates are unknown. Ignore that the GOP is horribly divided on its own ideological positions. None of those issues will matter, whoever the candidate might be, if the GOP doesn’t play catch up with the Democrat Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign methods and systems do their magic again.
I participated as a poll watcher in the ill-fated Romney campaign's Project Orca! It was the germ of a good idea, but not even close to what Obama & the Democrats used. And then it crashed on the late afternoon of Election Day. I truly doubt that the huge amount of effort... and data collected.... ever were really used for getting out more GOP voters!
IF the GOP ever wishes to be truly competitive in presidential elections, it must at least "catch up" with where the Democrat's approaches and use of social media efforts and their coordinated use to Get Out The Vote, were in 2012. Given his performance there was no way Barack Obama should have been reelected--except for this vital part of his campaign!
Studying the immense margins gained in heavily Democratic cities, it’s evident that "Romney, the person" did not lose, per se. Yes, he had his share of bad advice and gaffes. Yes, the too-many debates, with too many fringe candidates, run by biased liberal moderators, were also damaging. He also suffered from some of the McCain like "I'm not going to attack this guy and call him out on his lies," syndrome. Thus Obama skated by lying all the way.
However, in the end, on election day, the Obama/Democratic "machine" won it for him, by finding every possible voter in the Obama-rich cities—heavily concentrating on minorities, but also reaching out to young women, naïve youth, etc. and getting them and all their friends out to vote for Obama. These were the aggregation of constituencies that Obama’s policies appeal to. Almost all the blacks, who liked the Obama welfare themes. A big majority of Hispanics who feared the inept Romney message on his and the GOP’s attitude toward them and the millions of illegal (also heavily Hispanic) immigrants in America (non-voters for the most part).
Worst of all, the entire GOP, and its (and Romney's) campaign--and subsequent Get Out The Vote efforts--were woefully inadequate—deplorable might be a better term—or non-existent. The GOP turnout actually dropped in a year when it should have grown! The party was still using generation-old campaign tactics of phone banks (leaving mostly voicemails, which are summarily deleted), yard signs and conventional advertising. Rallies drew crowds, but mostly those already in the Romney camp.
Even when there was a desire to help expand or change this process, there was no one to even talk to about it. The old-fashioned party/campaign staff was in control and doing it their old ways. Simply finding a phone number or email address of anyone in a position of influence in the campaign was near impossible. All they wanted was volunteers to staff phone banks, an effort that reeks of the last century, not this one. And thus the GOP plowed ahead, insular and insulated from the folly of their ways, turning the prospect of victory into a demoralizing defeat.
Unless those problems are "fixed"—and fast—winning the White House back in 2016 is very unlikely--and that is a very bad prospect indeed. Not only would this kind of 21st century effort support presidential candidates, it also creates the so-called "coattails" that carry many other state and Congressional candidates to victory! But that presumes such an effort exists within the GOP “bag of tricks.” IT DOESN’T!
Can the Republicans of 2014-2016 even figure out how to speak to a huge natural constituency that they have alienated or ignored: HIspanic Americans. Hispanics have a strong work ethic, they are proud and productive, sensible and frugal; they have strong family values and want to get ahead in life here in the USA based on what they do, and how they do it. Those qualities make them natural Republicans--NOT Democrats. Now it remains for the leadership of the GOP to begin to realize this, and speak to American Hispanics with the respect and deep commitment they deserve.
Please share this article with everyone you know who is interested and/or involved in campaign politics, because that's where it all starts. Then the party must find and hire the IT and build the local GOTV organizations to really play catch up! Three years is barely enough time for such a Herculean task.
The pivotal question is, within a party so divided between Tea Party conservatives and core GOP moderates, WHO WILL LEAD THIS EFFORT? Not the candidate(s) since that person would only be known mid-year of the election year. The effort must start NOW! Might the Republican National Committee be a good place to start? This is an organization searching for a reason to exist and raise its own funding. Here is the reason. (Reince Preibus, are you out there? Are you reading this kind of message and taking it to heart?
A PRESIDENT WHO IS LOST, CAN'T LEAD THE USA, AND THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT
These are perilous times. During tough times, you would hope to have a solid leader to rely on. Unfortunately, the USA lacks that leader and it is causing the peril to grow. Now that Barack Obama has tossed the "hot potato" of what to do with Syria to the Congress, we see just how weak he is. The worst part is that this is one of the most difficult decisions in recent years, and Barack Obama's soaring rhetoric has painted him in a corner.
=================
NO GOOD CHOICES, LOTS OF RISKS
Do nothing and it comes across as if America condones Assad using chemical weapons. Attack and you take the chance of several outcomes--all of them bad: You miss everything, but still do some damage and kill some Syrians; Hit a chemical weapons stockpile and accidentally kill a lot of Syrians. Hit some military targets, and suffer retaliation in any of several forms—another chemical weapons release, a counter attack from Syria, (or Hezbollah, which controls about half of Lebanon and likes to attack Israel with little or not provocation), or even some Iranian forces join the party, and they all mount an attack on the only really juicy US ally in the area: Israel, which is the closest and preferred target. Public opinion and majorities in both Houses of Congress wanted no part of military intervention in Syria's civil war. There were no "good guys" to back anyway. The rebels are infested with al Qaeda, and Assad was the one who gassed Syrians in their capital city.
=================
SO WHAT DOES OBAMA DO? THE TERM "GRASPING AT STRAWS" COMES TO MIND
John Kerry, (bless his liberal heart), is working hard at trying to help this clueless Commander in Chief, figure out what to do. Kerry makes another one of those casual comments about Assad turning over all of his chemical weapons--then immediately discounts it as neither possible or practical. And "POW" the Russians grab it like a life preserver and "come to Obama's rescue" figuratively speaking. Syria is Russia's ally, and the last thing Putin and Russia want to happen is for the USA to send a few Cruise or Tomahawk missiles over to destroy the 5-6 functioning airstrips in Syria, and most of the planes parked around them. Of course among the other Kerry gaffe's echoed by others was the explanation that our military intervention would be "unbelievably small." Hows that for a threat?
=================
HERE WE ARE. PUTIN HAS TOTALLY ECLIPSED OBAMA IN STATURE AND GUILE
Obama, still clueless about what to do, thinks the idea of Assad turning over his chemical weapons to be inventoried, stored and ultimately destroyed? by a group led by Assad's ally, Russia and confirmed by the fine inspectors from the UN (Useless Nations). As if outsmarting Obama was not enough for Putin, he puts out an OpEd in that bastion of liberal drivel, the NYTimes, in which he verbally pokes Obama in the eye over the use of the term "exceptional" to describe the USA. Can this "clown act" get much worse. All Obama needs is the clown outfit from the rodeo to put on while he "declares victory" in this debacle.
=================
AS OF THE MOST RECENT REPORTS, THE COLLABORATION OF THE UN (?!) AND RUSSIA WILL MONITOR THE REMOVAL AND ULTIMATELY THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS…BY THE 2H OF 2014
There are a few questions as we anticipate this effort, which is being committed to be done in a time frame that is far less than a task of this magnitude would require (not including the destruction of the chemical weapons). In a war torn country like Syria with the violent rebels still trying to overthrow the Assad government, how easily will these weapons caches be contained? Will they be moved, or just identified? When they are, how will they be secured against being overtaken by rebel forces? And as far as the destruction, I know from conversations with a friend of mine (who has worked as a contractor doing exactly this in the USA) that destroying such weapons must be a delicate and carefully controlled process.
=================
GO SEE THE LAST TWO WEEKS POSTS ON THE "HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY" BLOG--FULL OF GOOD INFO
I GUESS USING THE THREAT OF MILITARY INTERVENTION BROUGHT ALL THIS INTO BEING--MAYBE?
I ONLY HOPE IT ENDS WELL…BUT WITH SYRIA'S GOOD FRIEND RUSSIA INVOLVED, AND THE UN ("USELESS NATIONS") IN CHARGE--I AM NOT OPTIMISTIC!
I THINK THIS ONE WILL REAR ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN.
--YOU READ THIS HERE--MAKE A NOTE.
=============
MC DONALD'S WORKERS WANT A RAISE TO $12.50, THAT'S ONLY ABOUT 60%+
Are they worth it? I doubt it. I make that statement because the worth of workers labor is valued by what consumers will pay for the results of their labor. Driving the price of a Big Mac or a Happy Meal up into the $8-10 range might just slow sales--A LOT! Then McDonald's will do what they know could be done now, but would be economically viable at $12.50 labor: Install touch pads for ordering instead of speaking the order, and install cash and credit card machines to collect the money and make change if necessary.
THIS IS NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY AT ALL
This is technology widely used at ATMs, many parking facilities, in airports, and of course on the ubiquitous tablets (like Kindles and iPads) and smartphones (you know, the ones that Obama provides to the poor people for free!). Once the technology is developed, it can also be used for ordering and paying indoors too. Between the two applications about 1/3-1/2 of the employees in a McDonald's would no longer be necessary! That, my friends is called replacing labor with capital equipment and technology--and it's happening all over the place. The more heated the cry for higher wages for lower skill jobs, the faster it will spread.
WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE--GO AHEAD--IT HASN'T KEPT UP WITH INFLATION ANYWAY
BUT, Like in all cases, there are unintended consequences. Youth and minority unemployment which is horrible (25-45% depending on who you include in the data) WILL GET WORSE! There are jobs that are not "worth" the "minimum wage"--in terms of what consumers will spend for the goods or services. The same people who scream for higher wages will scream just as pound when the cost to things they buy--goods and services--go up in cost proportionately. "There is no free lunch." and "The marketplace is a relentless truth-teller." and Companies that do not earn adequate profits to get a return on the capital they put at risk, simply go out of business and fire ALL their employees, and close down.
WITH THE HUGE NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED, YOU'D THINK MORE OF THEM WOULD WANT JOBS
However, when their combined WELFARE in all forms--Food Stamps, Unemployment, Disability, Housing Subsidies, Free Cell Phones, etc. etc. exceed what they can make in the job market--why would they want to work for it? How much can they get? $20,000-35,000 altogether. That is far more than take home pay from a minimum wage job. So go ahead and raise the minimum wage. Companies will find ways around it to get the labor they need. Or they'll pay the new higher wage, lose money and go out of business in which case EVERYONE LOSES THEIR JOBS.
and that, my friends, is TELLING IT LIKE IT IS!
=============
LAST, BUT FAR FROM LEAST, IS TO DEBUNK THE MTYH OF DEFUNDING OBAMACARE
Last week I published an Addendum to THE ENTERPRISE explaining how this is not only difficult, but nearly impossible. Since that time, I've exchanged messages with two members of Congress to confirm my beliefs. Here are the highlights of this situation f"telling it like it is!"
Defund Obamacare, even if it means shutting down the government, is the mantra you hear for a GOP strategy--from some factions of the GOP--but far from all GOP members of Congress share in that view. There are a couple of problems with that strategy:
1) Getting blamed for shutting down the government comes with large political liabilities going into the 2014 election cycle;
2) Even if Obamacare is omitted from the continuing resolution for discretionary spending (the part of the budget that will be up for renewal)--it won't effectively defund Obamacare. Here's why (from the Congressional Research Service report to Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., (R-OK):
As you can see, certain things just keep being funded, regardless of the vote on the Discretionary Spending and Continuing Resolution in the Budget. There is plenty of money already accessible to keep on with Obamacare.
Politicians like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz must be more focused on their own political aspirations than truly getting something done ---or telling Americans the honest truth. They want to avoid any votes in the US Senate because they know they will lose. They know the Senate can't/won't pass either a "defund" or "repeal" bill, so they are trying to put pressure on the House, which has already voted 40 times to repeal, delay or defund Obamacare--while the Senate hasn't voted once to do either of those.
They sell this kind of emotional 'snake oil' to people who hate/fear or don't want Obamacare (it's now between 1/2 and 3/4 of all Americans), and nobody asks 'is this true' or even possible Everyone hears what they want to hear and then blames House members and leaders for not doing something that will not work.
Consider these questions about the facts:
1. Which body has votes 40 times to repeal, defund or delay Obsmacare? The House
2. Which body can't seem to/isn't even willing to, pass any bill to repeal, defund or even delay Obamacare? The Senate
3. How is Obamacare set up? As mandatory spending (which means if you shut down the government, Obamacare is one of the only things that IS still funded. (the only way to change that is a CHIMP--(that's not a monkey)
4. What is a CHIMP? A Change in Mandatory Program that is needed to defund Obamacare? It's a REPEAL bill.
=================
OK. With those facts, does anyone believe that the Democrat-controlled US Senate is going to be willing or able to do something on the 41st time that they couldn't do for the last 40 times?
Or that a Democratic President who made the bill the centerpiece of his first term in the White House wouldn't veto any such bill as well.
The best tactic seems to be to force a "Delay" on implementation, which the Obama Administration and HHS has already done voluntarily on some provisions. (The "Employer Mandate" is the biggest one--delayed one year in implementation.) Other approaches are to try for more "Waivers," which has been widely done by the Obama Administration.
=================
OK, I KNOW I SAID I WOULDN'T EMBED FILES, BUT THESE LINKS ARE TOO VOLUMINOUS TO PASTE IN HERE. GO READ THEM AT YOUR LEISURE
For ambitious readers, here are examples. If you don't want to stop and go to these sites, I'll summarize. There are already a lot of waivers, and getting more of them may be a good way to slow or reduce the negative effects of Obamacare, but it still doesn't fix the fundamental problem: THIS HUGE BILL HAS SO MUCH IN IT, THAT EVERYONE IS "PARALYZED" BY THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN AND THE LACK OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF ITS CONTENTS AND IMPACTS. That is what is holding back the US economic recovery!
OBAMACARE WAIVERS ARE NUMEROUS AND DIVERSE
Just read the titles in the links and you can see what they cover!
THERE YOU HAVE IT. DELAY AND CHIP AWAY AT OBAMACARE. USE IT TO EXTRACT OTHER CONCESSIONS IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET (Continuing Resolution) DEBATE AND THE DEBT CEILING CRISIS (Which is next in line in October.)
IT ALWAYS AMAZES ME HOW MUCH WE DON'T LEARN FROM THE MASSIVE MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS WE ENDURE
If you take the time to just skim this article from the WSJ, and if you believe it at all, you will quickly come to the understanding that the portrayal of the "two sides" in Syria's internal conflict is a gross oversimplification. You will also figure out that the Assad regime knows this, and most people who don't dig into it very deeply are clueless. I cannot believe that President Obama and his staff don't get this. They probably do. But they are reacting to politics and polls, and are clueless about (or careless about) how to lead our country through such a perilous situation.
On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War—The conventional wisdom—that jihadists are running the rebellion—is not what I've witnessed on the ground. By
ELIZABETH O'BAGY
With the U.S. poised to attack Syria, debate is raging over what that attack should look like, and what, if anything, the U.S. is capable of accomplishing. Those questions can't be answered without taking a very close look at the situation in Syria from ground level.
Since few journalists are reporting from inside the country, our understanding of the civil war is not only inadequate, but often dangerously inaccurate. Anyone who reads the paper or watches the news has been led to believe that a once peaceful, pro-democracy opposition has transformed over the past two years into a mob of violent extremists dominated by al Qaeda; that the forces of President Bashar Assad not only have the upper hand on the battlefield, but may be the only thing holding the country together; and that nowhere do U.S. interests align in Syria—not with the regime and not with the rebels. The word from many American politicians is that the best U.S. policy is to stay out. As Sarah Palin put it: "Let Allah sort it out.
Reuters
Free Syrian Army members man a checkpoint in the Aleppo countryside in June.
In the past year, I have made numerous trips to Syria, traveling throughout the northern provinces of Latakia, Idlib and Aleppo. I have spent hundreds of hours with Syrian opposition groups ranging from Free Syrian Army affiliates to the Ahrar al-Sham Brigade.
The conventional wisdom holds that the extremist elements are completely mixed in with the more moderate rebel groups. This isn't the case. Moderates and extremists wield control over distinct territory. Although these areas are often close to one another, checkpoints demarcate control. On my last trip into Syria earlier this month, we traveled freely through parts of Aleppo controlled by the Free Syrian Army, following roads that kept us at safe distance from the checkpoints marked by the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq. Please see the nearby map for more detail.
Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards. The jihadists pouring into Syria from countries like Iraq and Lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. Instead they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas of the country.
Groups like Jabhat al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate, are all too happy to take credit for successes on the battlefield, and are quick to lay claim to opposition victories on social media. This has often led to the impression that these are spearheading the fight against the Syrian government. They are not.
These groups care less about defeating Assad than they do about establishing and holding their Islamic emirate in the north of the country. Many Jabhat al Nusra fighters left in the middle of ongoing rebel operations in Homs, Hama and Idlib to head for Raqqa province once the provincial capital fell in March 2013. During the battle for Qusayr in late May, Jabhat al Nusra units were noticeably absent. In early June, rebel reinforcements rallied to take the town of Talbiseh, north of Homs city, while Jabhat al Nusra fighters preferred to stay in the liberated areas to fill the vacuum that the Free Syrian Army affiliates had left behind.
Moderate opposition forces—a collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Army—continue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime. While traveling with some of these Free Syrian Army battalions, I've watched them defend Alawi and Christian villages from government forces and extremist groups. They've demonstrated a willingness to submit to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils. And they have struggled to ensure that their fight against Assad will pave the way for a flourishing civil society. One local council I visited in a part of Aleppo controlled by the Free Syrian Army was holding weekly forums in which citizens were able to speak freely, and have their concerns addressed directly by local authorities.
Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces, and they have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France. This is especially true in the south, where weapons provided by the Saudis have made a significant difference on the battlefield, and have helped fuel a number of recent rebel advances in Damascus.
Thanks to geographic separation from extremist strongholds and reliable support networks in the south, even outdated arms sent by the Saudis, like Croatian rocket-launchers and recoilless rifles, have allowed moderate rebel groups to make significant inroads into areas that had previously been easily defended by the regime, and to withstand the pressure of government forces in the capital. In recent months, the opposition has achieved major victories in Aleppo, Idlib, Deraa and Damascus—nearly reaching the heart of the capital—despite the regime's consolidation in Homs province.
At this stage in the conflict, barring a major bombing campaign by the U.S., sophisticated weaponry, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems, may be the opposition's best chance at sustaining its fight against Assad. This is something only foreign governments, not jihadists, can offer. Right now, Saudi sources that are providing the rebels critical support tell me that they haven't sent more effective weaponry because the U.S. has explicitly asked them not to.
There is no denying that groups like Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham have gained a foothold in the north of Syria, and that they have come to dominate local authorities there, including by imposing Shariah law. Such developments are more the result of al Qaeda affiliates having better resources than an indicator of local support. Where they have won over the local population, they have done so through the distribution of humanitarian aid.
Yet Syrians have pushed back against the hard-line measures imposed on them by some of these extremists groups. While I was last in northern Syria in early August, I witnessed nearly daily protests by thousands of citizens against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in areas of Aleppo.
Where does this leave the U.S. as the White House contemplates a possible strike? The Obama administration has emphasized that regime change is not its goal. But a punitive measure undertaken just to send a message would likely produce more harm than good. If the Syrian government is not significantly degraded, a U.S. strike could very well bolster Assad's position and highlight American weakness, paving the way for continued atrocities.
Instead, any U.S. action should be part of a larger, comprehensive strategy coordinated with our allies that has the ultimate goal of destroying Assad's military capability while simultaneously empowering the moderate opposition with robust support, including providing them with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems. This should be combined with diplomatic and political efforts to first create an international coalition to put pressure on Assad and his supporters, and then working to encourage an intra-Syrian dialogue. Having such a strategy in place would help alleviate the concerns of key allies, like Britain, and ensure greater international support for U.S. action.
The U.S. must make a choice. It can address the problem now, while there is still a large moderate force with some shared U.S. interests, or wait until the conflict has engulfed the entire region. Iran and its proxies will be strengthened, as will al Qaeda and affiliated extremists. Neither of these outcomes serves U.S. strategic interests.
Ms. O'Bagy is a senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.
=======================================
THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM A CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MEMO ON 7/25/13 (REPLY TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS REQUEST) WHICH I RECEIVED AFTER ASKING FOR BETTER INFORMATION FROM MY REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS:
Defund Obamacare, even if it means shutting down the government. That is the mantra you hear for a GOP strategy. There are a couple of problems with that strategy: 1) Getting blamed for shutting down the government comes with some large political liabilities going into the 2014 election cycle; 2) Even if Obamacare is omitted from the continuing resolution for discretionary spending (the part of the budget that will be up for renewal)--it won't effectively defund Obamacare. I am sorry for sending you a page or more of "legalese," but you can read it if you doubt this fact. If you don't want to read it, just jump to the paragraph with the bullet points. It shows where the money to keep charging ahead with Obamacare is squirreled away its supporters in Congress and the White House.
MORE TO READ ON TOPIC OF THE WEEK: SYRIA--AND WHAT TO DO?
BEFORE ANYONE ASKS, HERE IS WHAT I POSTED LAST WEEK ON THE SYRIA SITUATION (Read the Addendum coming separately to learn more!)
“Mind Your Own Business” on News from Syria–For Now
“Mind your own business,” was the advice I got from my mother while growing up. If it’s not your fight, stay out of it, unless its very clear which side is right and which is wrong—and even then, it’s wise to stay out of it unless it gets “really bad.” Maybe the policy should be “Mind Your Own Business on News from Syria–For Now.”
Clearly, IF Assad actually did use chemical weapons (as it seems), then that passes to the “really bad” test. The problem is that we also don’t know if the rebels aren’t “really bad” too. There were rumors that they had also used chemical weapons, and that the rebel group has many al Qaeda members in it.
One thing is clear—in the Middle East and a lot of Africa, nothing is clear. Culturally they are so different from Americans that we have proven to be terrible judges of “right & wrong” in terms of their internal, cultural conflicts.
America may have done some good by getting rid of the vicious dictator Muammar Gaddafi and his sons in Libya, but we still are not sure how much better the regime we supported will turn out to be. The US government clearly fumbled and bumbled the situation in Egypt. It’s still in disarray, and it’s not clear whom we should support even now—or why.
The conditions in much of central Africa are so unstable, and often so corrupt and brutal, that there are new factions, uprisings, slaughters and acts of genocide reported regularly. Charitable help seldom even gets to those it was meant for, either.
Worst of all, the USA has plenty of clearly defined enemies to worry about, work on, and deal with, without supporting groups of rebels that may be infested with al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and a raft of others who are “near, if not clear, enemies!”
If we learned nothing else from the decade long, futile, poorly managed and hugely wasteful war in Afghanistan, it is that our uncertainty in who to support often results in weapons that we furnished later being aimed at or used on us—our forces!
We know we have enemies in the governmental leaders of Iran and North Korea. That is clear. We don’t quite know what to do about them, but their Nukes, plus the ones in Pakistan (none too friendly to the USA either) are big concerns that do rise to the level of “our business.”
We believe China has a hunger to claim power over Taiwan (who we have pledged to protect), and over the South China Sea. At the rate it is stealing our secrets, it can duplicate many of our weapons systems within this decade–and then the Chinese will “tell us what to do—or else.” China also holds almost $1 trillion (7.5%) of our debt, and will keep buying the US a piece at a time. That’s “our business” too.
Our southern border situation is an embarrassment and a huge security problem too. Drug lords rule the Mexican side. Illegals only quit flooding across when the US job situation is weak (The one thing Barack Obama has done successfully to reduce illegal immigration: he killed US job growth!) We can’t even solve these problems right next to us.
Our country is financially “broke,” and our government is hopelessly gridlocked—often about how much further to raise our debt ceiling. We simply don’t “get“ why the Muslim world doesn’t accept our form of democracy and let us impose it on them! DUH? They live largely by the brutal and primitive rules of the eighth-century tribal nomads, and we are still struggling to figure out what rules apply for the 21st century! No wonder we disagree.
The foregoing should illustrate why the US leaders might consider heeding my mother’s advice to me, and “mind your own business.”
Should America be the world’s hegemon, its policeman and moral compass? You might think I’m channeling Ron Paul when I say, “No, not everywhere, and certainly not all the time.” Only when it is in our best interest—in other words, “your business.”
Even if the USA wants (it does) to intercede in Syria, (the chemical weapons evil certainly merits some action) how would we do it? And with what (worthy) faction would we align our efforts? Have we learned nothing from our repeated mistakes? Will doing nothing damage the US reputation more than an ill-fated, poorly conceived, or ineffective act of reprisal?
Should we “take out Assad?” How? Can we identify who was behind the heinous acts? How? And if we do, can we isolate that individual or group for retribution? And once we do that, can we walk away? Or will we become embroiled in another lengthy, expensive and frustrating war where there is no such thing as victory.
Should we blow up President Assad; where he is? If so, where is he? Should his wife and children also be collateral damage as a result of his warped, evil behavior? How many more innocent Syrians might die as a result of US intervention? Are there any of the rebel factions we would even feel remotely comfortable allying with?
Unless someone, some group, has a good idea about what to do, which doesn’t make things in Syria worse, and also can state clearly what it will accomplish, maybe it is time to just ”Mind Your Own Business” on News from Syria–For Now
As Congress debates how to intervene militarily, I am torn between two different thoughts.
1) It is admirable to stand up against the inhumane actions of a tyrant.
2) It is only advisable if/when the actions you take will help improve or remedy the situation.
Where does that leave America?
If we knew what to do, and how to do it, and that it would accomplish our purpose, then action is both advisable and desirable. When we do not, it becomes questionable and/or inadvisable.
================== HYPOCRISY & HUBRIS COMBINED & HONESTY FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE--LEADER WHO REFUSES TO LEAD; DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE DOESN'T KNOW… Make no mistake, I typically can't stand Chris Matthews. I disagree with his core ideology across the board--until now. This lip is from a May, 2013 appearance Matthews made on Morning Joe (Scarborough's morning show. In this case Matthews nails it! As compelling as Matthew's indictment of Barack Obama's unwillingness/inability to govern is, equally interesting is the stunned expression on the faces of the MSNBC talking heads shown in multi-screen shots.
PLEASE: Share this You Tube video with everyone you know, but especially with your liberal or moderate Democratic friends! We have a president who doesn't know how to lead, manage or govern, and doesn't want to know about things that turn out badly--so he campaign, blames, and equivocates. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S_XCZqDOgd4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=S_XCZqDOgd4
================== HONESTY--IS WELCOME, WHEREVER IT COMES FROM When a newsman, albeit fictional, tells it honestly like it is... Jeff Daniels portrays anchorman Will McAvoy who is disgusted at what America has become, blurts out a long, honest answer to a student's question: Why is America the greatest country on earth? In the show, now in its second season McAvoy plays a major news anchor, ostensibly a Republican. (However the show was created and is often written by Alan Sorkin, a noted liberal Democrat).
Since this great opening, it has used scripts based real news events and politics and quality has varied from impactful drama, to soap opera cliche filled episodes. Sorkin manages to work his liberal philosophy into the show, often playing it as the GOP moderate anchor's criticisms of current events. None-the-less, this is 3 minutes of must watch TV, that is painfully close to the real truth. Go watch it now, then come back and finish reading THE ENTERPRISE, http://safeshare.tv/w/UAGOcLSuLX
================== HILLARY'S "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"--CAN YOU EVER TRUST THIS WOMAN? (NO!)
In a future edition, which I will label "R rated", I can cite a series of Hillary Clinton statements that reveal the true character of this driven, devious and mean-spirited woman. But that's for another time. For now, just consider this on.
================== SOME HONESTY FROM A FRIEND
Since you are asking for feedback, I have some ideas that I believe would make The Enterprise better. As it is, the Enterprise clearly presents the “right of center” view of things……those who are “left of center” might even call it a “right wing rant” (I have “left of center” friends who have said this when I’ve forwarded it to them). I don’t mind your presentation at all as my views are similar to yours but I think that you are doing what a lot of other pundits are doing….i.e. playing to “your” audience. I would bet that the vast majority of your current readership has a similar world view as yours and mine. However, as The Enterprise has become so clearly “anti-Obama Democrats”, I am guessing that those who are “left of center” that initially read your stuff have migrated away as it has become so clearly “one sided”. While you do excoriate the “right wing Republicans” every now and again, the current “tone” is clearly more one of bashing the “left wing Democrats” and you sound more like one of the “far right nuts” than I think you want to. While it may be more work, I think you would set yourself apart if you also included pieces showing the viewpoint of the “other side” and then you could comment on where you find fault with their argument. This might make The Enterprise more “inclusive” and bring a sense of “balance” that I think is somewhat lacking right now. I think you should also highlight good things that are being done by more centrist Democrats (rather than just bashing the left wing Democrats) in order to reinforce this balanced approach. I firmly believe that the right way forward is to move America “to the center” which means forgetting about “Republican” and “Democrat” and becoming “Centrists”. I know you believe this too but the current “tone” of The Enterprise does not really convey this message. I currently forward some editions of The Enterprise to friends of mine that I know are “right of center”. I no longer send it to my “left of center” friends as they usually got “pissed off” by it and accused me of becoming one of those “right wing nuts”……for them I will only forward select pieces of what you have included that I think are particularly poignant. I send this in the spirit of continuous improvement and hope it feels that way to you. I appreciate your efforts to mobilize and inform a population that is often apathetic. I hope you are doing well and that we’ll run into each other sometime in the not-too-distant future.
A note to readers:
Please help me by bringing to my attention any "good things being done by centrist Democrats," that you can find…or even any good things being done by any Democrats.
You see, I actually like a few parts of Barack Obama's grand bargain (although it's mostly a warmed over tax & spend program to make government larger). I think certain spending, even in our deficit situation, would be OK—if limited to private sector infrastructure projects. Those would provide real jobs and true economic growth, while fixing something in America that needs fixing. But, knowing Obama, he will require all the construction jobs to be "union jobs," which will dramatically raise costs and exclude many qualified contractors from even bidding.
I actually also concur with a few of Obama's tax reforms--the part about lowering the corporate rate and offering a lower rate to repatriate US corporate profits held in foreign countries. Where Obama messes up both of them is trying to sneak in more of his job-killing, budget busting tax increases and layer in more government bureaucracy funding, connected to with the infrastructure idea.
================== A BURST OF BRUTAL HONESTY--COMMUNICATED TO A GROUP OF MY FELLOW BLOGGERS--AND NOW SHARED WITH YOU… This was an email I wrote to a group of my "colleagues." It deals with the question one of them posed: "What can we do about it?" referring to the Obama presidency and the Democrat induced demise of America. I have not yet heard from them, so I don't know how they even took it!
Here it is: …I want to add some thoughts on WHAT, that some of you might find distasteful or troubling. There is an important lesson we can learn from Barack Obama. He campaigns and talks like a moderate. In doing so he sucks in a lot of people who are later surprised at (or don't even notice) how liberal he is at heart! It works! He fooled enough people to get elected--twice!
All politics and governing involves some degree of "vagueness or deception" (but not outright dishonesty) and success (at politics) in our system of government requires a healthy dose of compromise--sometimes much more than is comfortable. The Republican Party CANNOT remained divided ideologically. America needs unity of the Republican Party-- if America is to survive as we want it to be--a free people--free in speech, in Constitutional rights, in its free enterprise economy, and in every other way, The alternative is the Obama government-controlled country.
No matter how "right" either "side" of the GOP might be ideologically, that is irrelevant unless the party factions compromise, AND set aside differences, focusing on opposing Obama and the Democrats--and in doing so choose "acceptably moderate" candidates and campaign on that kind of platform -- to retake the Senate in 2014 and then the White House in 2016. To do any less than find unity, likely leads to failure in the 2014 Senate races, and in the 2016 presidential race.
(America remains a "center right" country, but the rapidly growing dependency class of voters is dragging it leftward, fast! What became of the "Blue Dog Democrats?" Gone!)
We must "come together," and find as many common, (relatively moderate) positions as possible. This does not mean abandoning ideologically more conservative beliefs, or hopes and plans. It means simply modifying or tabling them, until in a position of enough political power to govern. Then we can debate the details of issues on which members of our party disagree, and find the best compromises--but from positions of strength, not weakness.
What WE can do is start spreading this kind of message in what we do, say, write, and share with everyone we can influence. Channel the emotions of all factions of the GOP into this unification effort. The time is NOW, and WE CAN START THIS moving! That's my pitch on this summer night. I hope you all take it in the spirit in which it is offered.
================== IS THAT ENOUGH HYPOCRISY, HUBRIS AND HONESTY FOR ONE EDITION…OR SHOULD I CARRY THE "SUBJECT" OVER FOR A PART II?
OR MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE ADDED "HUMOR"
The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World.
But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC , and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the Bottom for Murders.
These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States .
All 4 Cities are controlled by Democrats.
It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data.
Recent Comments