31 October 2006

Meltdown to the Election

As campaign seasons go, this one has been one of the most outre that I have been witness to, perhaps in my entire life. Not saying much, I know, but this one is taking so many cakes that the bakery is going to have to go into three-shift production. So many races have just gone from bad to weird that it is hard to know where to start. So, local is better and that means Virginia Senate race where we have the incumbent George Allen (R) going against whats his face... oh, yeah, Jim Webb (D).

To start with we had the Washington Post pull a surprise on Allen by announcing that he... *gasp*... had Jewish ancestry! For shame! For shame! On Mr. Allen who's grandmother did not reveal this because she worried about Nazis after escaping Germany and fleeing to North Africa to escape the Holocaust? No. For shame on the Washington Post *not* to leave *any* part of *anyone's* life with respect to a Public Official as PRIVATE. That right to privacy also includes NOT having the Washington Post nose around in your ancestry *especially* if the individual involved did *not* want to talk about it because of the horrific experiences she went through. That was damned low even for the Washington Post.

The next major turn (and how many of them have there been?) was Mr. Allen bringing up the sex scenes that Mr. Webb had written about in a novel. Now I am neither here nor there on trashy novels, and most of what I have read in the way of intimate sex scenes is pretty dull stuff. And that wonderful newspaper the Washington Post asks the following in its coverage of this story, or non-story as the case may be:

With 10 days remaining before Election Day, the allegations about sex-laced passages in Webb's writings inject a new question into a campaign that has centered almost exclusively on character issues: Should the author of a fictional work who runs for office be personally held to account for the scenes in his books?
I will go the Post one better: Should a newspaper care about the ancestry of a candidate if said candidate does not make an issue of it? And do remember this happened right after it was revealed that Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) had... *gasp*... exchanged lewd and lascivious emails with a former page who was 'of age' at the time. And after it was revealed that Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) may have made some money off of a land sale that happened as part of a Federal Contract and that his 'maybe' partner is a known associate of the Mafia. But I notice only one of them stepping away from office due to accusations... oh, well, thats the media for you!

Say, did anyone notice that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) had asked the Soviets for help in the 1984 to run a media campaign against the President? No?

So back to written works: I hope that it was at least better than the dreck that serves as sex scenes in most novels. At least *that* would have some prurient interest value and might even have added some literary value to that... mmmm... body of work. Now, Mr. Webb could have done many things, most of which is saying: "Those are novels, folks, not how I view actual relationships." But, does he do so? I mean science fiction writers get away with all sorts of strange alien sex, and that doesn't even begin to *touch* the X-Files. Webb contends that he is taken out of context, that the sex scenes revolve around combat... hmmm? Sex AND violence? Covering all the bases are we? In any event he goes on to say these are depictions of what he saw in South East Asia, so its *real* fiction or fictionally *real*. Whatever.

Basically, he does say that he wrote them, that they are what he saw but *fictionalized* and that Lynne Cheney has written worse and complain about her, why don't you? You know a lurid lesbian scene in one of *her* books? Now, this was then brought up when Mrs. Cheney was interviewed about a children's book on the 50 States that she had written and was now in publication and that got on to Wolf Blitzer's show at CNN. And Mr. Blitzer then staged something that I would call an 'attack interview from ambush' on Mrs. Cheney, her husband and dragging her into a Senate race where she isn't even running! More on the Wolfster in just a moment, but first a note to Mr. Webb:

I was prepared to vote for neither you nor your opponent. The extremely dishonorable behavior of your response has changed my consideration as a Senator that cannot recognize that the Nation needs better ways forward against its enemies should *not* be replaced by an individual who flings about mud and personal smears outside of a campaign as justification for his actions *and* brings in someone who is partisan but running for absolutely no office at this time, anywhere.

That should be absolutely demeaning to you and if you had thought for one brief second about what you were going to say, you would have realized that.

The fact that you *did* this indicates that you know no bounds of personal honor or dignity and such individuals should *not* be in one of the highest offices of the Land. Thank you for clarifying yourself to me, Mr. Webb. Your opponent no matter how brain-dead, how sleazy, how incompetent at least has the dignity and honor to hold YOU to the things YOU have done.

It will take a really idiotic move by George Allen to lose my vote on this, but, in this race, that is possible. These guys are really heading out of the gutter and into the sewer and the cesspit appears to be getting very close.

Back to the attack interview for just a second. Mr. Blitzer was, in my opinion, a somewhat centrist individual, willing to put partisanship aside and have a little bit of dignity with his on-air guests. He has been a bit out-of-touch on some things and his personal slant was apparent on others, but, by-and-large he was no worse than most of the clueless commentariate of the mid-1970's that *tried* to appear neutral. That is now gone. After spending the majority of the interview time on politics and attack oriented questions he spared very little time for questions on the actual BOOK that was the point of the interview. After that, Mr. Blitzer confessed that he was surprised when Lynne Cheney responded so readily to his ambushing her with questions that were, in and of themselves, trying to drag her into a Senate seat battle that she had ZERO part in and then to further question what her husband said about waterboarding. He also remembered that she had been one of the co-hosts on CNN's Crossfire. So when his ambush hit he found himself with the tables turned when she questioned *him* about CNN's decision to air the Iraq sniper attack on a US soldier and its slanted coverage of the entire election and its 'Broken Government' program. Perhaps Mr. Blitzer should stick to talking about the things he had intended to interview people on and not stray too far from those. Especially when you know the individual is a damned skilled debater and your own organization is *not* above question and, in point of fact, is now quite questionable.

Finally, on just what Lynne Cheney did or did not put in her book, do remember that her daughter is a lesbian and trying to work out one's own attitudes and emotions via writing can be a huge help. Perhaps some of that spilled over into her writing. I cannot say for intent, but for the heavy amount of Gay and Lesbian support the Democratic Party gets, I am astonished with how operatives are manipulating them, in the case of Mr. Foley, and actual politicians are bringing up the fact that the wife of the Vice President having written something in FICTION about a lesbian relationship being a *problem* to be something highly suspicious. If you are in the GLBT community and *support* the right to privacy and not to be harassed about your orientation, then doing the same to those who do not want it publicized is absolutely contrary to the right to privacy. And as that is a basic right, going against that IS a civil rights offense.

In the Maryland Senate race we have incumbent Michael Steele (R) facing off against Ben Cardin (D) in a race that has featured many bits and pieces of strangeness. We have the entire Oreo portion of it which, quite frankly, I can make neither the here nor there of it, so it must be a really local thing. Apparently there is an accusation that Mr. Steele threw Oreo cookies at some debate in 2002, and that was brought up by Ben Cardin's campaign. Then one of his female staffers made some anti-jewish remarks and various allegations which are damned difficult to sort out, so she was sacked. Well, fired, I doubt if it was getting in the sack that did it, but one never knows. Then there is the fact that the Mr. Steele is attracting black voters because, well, he is black and his Democratic opponent is white. Yes, those Oreo things just keep popping back into your head, don't they? Be that as it may, Mr. Steele is throwing out that Mr. Cardin is just paying lip service to black voters while he embodies how far a black man can go when he sets his mind to it. Of course it doesn't help when Mr. Cardin brings up slavery.

From there this entire race really goes into the silly end of things. Mr. Cardin charges that... *gasp*... Mr. Steele believes in what the President and leader of his party are doing! And actually VOTES that way! Except, of course, when he doesn't. And Mr. Steele is apparently... *gasp*... a puppy lover! Damn those puppies! Mr. Cardin charges that his opponent can't even locate where the proposed new Metro line would be put in after finding himself flummoxed when asked about that in a debate.... and Mr. Steele then he finds out that the ad he made about that was at the *wrong* station. Apparently they are BOTH out of touch with the actual geography of Maryland. As Mr. Cardin has been finding his popularity slipping he even has pre-arranged an attack on the election system.

Michael Steele has been, perhaps the best counter-puncher of this election, as witness to what happened after Mr. Cardin tried to bonus off of the Michael J. Fox Missouri ad for their fetal stem cell initiative. He mischaracterized Mr. Steele's position as against ALL stem cell research which is not true, and also impugned Mr. Steele's character by saying that he did not care about those suffering from conditions that stem cell research might help. The response was devastating and absolutely classic in the response ad: a woman comes on and tells what Mr. Steele's position is and that he *does* care about those suffering with conditions that this research might help. How does she know?

She suffers from MS.

Michael Steele is her BROTHER.


Now Mr. Cardin has gotten Mr. John Kerry (D-MA) to do a swing through heavily black and Democratic Prince Georges County. Mr. Cardin should have stopped while he was sinking as a coalition of black voters in Prince Georges has just announced that they are crossing party lines for Mr. Steele.

In point of fact anyone asking Mr. Kerry for help, like Phil Angelides (D) running for the Governorship of California had best beware exactly who they are bringing in to their area. You would think that such a close runner-up to the Presidency would at least give *some* boost to your campaign, right? Well here is what the barely missed CinC of the Armed Forces had to say about them:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
Just wonderful, isn't that? Means so much to the youth of California! Luckily Mr. Kerry decided that this needed some explaining! So his attempt to do so is here, and I will try to do the short and sweet of it. He thinks it is wrong to think that *anyone* would criticize the military in Iraq. He is tired of being berated by Rush Limbaugh. He really thinks that Mr. Limbaugh's attack on Michael J. Fox's ad and the non-treatment of his disease during making such ads, which Mr. Fox admits to, is despicable. Mr. Kerry criticizes the Administration for widening the terror war instead of defeating the terrorists and that is all tied up with Katrina, too! He tries to characterize the handing over of handling of Afghanistan to NATO as 'cut and run'.

What Mr. Kerry does NOT do is apologize to the Armed Forces of the United States.

And what part of Saddam Hussein supporting terrorism and planning attacks against the US does Mr. Kerry NOT understand?

Further, what does Katrina have to do with Iraq?

And why is using Mr. Fox's own description of how he seeks sympathy unfair to Mr. Fox?

And, Mr. Kerry, how would you characterize Bosnia and Kosovo?

And Mr. Kerry, since you bring up your status of Veteran, perhaps we can finally get to see YOUR full, complete and unedited records from the Pentagon?

And finally, Mr. Kerry, you said you had a PLAN back in 2004, to actually WIN the war. Even in losing, if you had such a plan, you had a responsibility to PUT IT OUT no matter which party you belong to.

And to those partisans who claim this was some sort of 'joke' by Mr. Kerry: what sort of joke is it that would have *that* as a punchline? Demeaning to those serving in the Armed Forces no matter which way you cut it. Senator Kerry is tone-deaf, politically, and using the troops as an object of ridicule is despicable. And trying to say that George Bush is *not* bright and did not do well in school points to the fact that he did better than Mr. Kerry did. So perhaps Mr. Kerry was speaking from experience as HE got 'stuck' in Vietnam while his more intelligent and capable opponent did *not*. But that would just bring up Mr. Kerry's records again wouldn't it?

Now, speaking of Michael J. Fox and Missouri... well, Gateway Pundit has tons more on that than I can even begin to read! Let me say that as an individual who has a chronic condition, one should not try to bring this up as the false promises for decades have really started a hollow ringing sound. And that sound is also coming up for Clair McCaskill (D) in this Senate race in Missouri against incumbent Senator Jim Talent (R). Mr. Talent, just a couple of months ago was behind in this race. And then Clair McCaskill started to aim directly at her feet with deadly accuracy.

Most recently we have her anti-Iraq War ad that does, indeed, have a Veteran in it who was, indeed, hurt in Iraq. What he did *not* have happen was being wounded as he claims but, instead, suffering a volleyball accident. And now Vets that have served *with* him are deeply critical of his disingenuous attitude and playing up something that is no big deal.

On the Michael J. Fox ad we find out that Mr. Fox had not even *read* the amendment he was supporting. So that entire injection of himself and the poor portrayal of Mr. Talent's actual positions are wholly due to Mr. Fox not taking time to understand what he was talking about. Thus, this was not only no *help* to Clair McCaskill, but is now seen as a *hit* piece using a clueless actor as a mouthpiece.

Then there is the whole problem of Clair McCaskill not even being able to remember when she actually has served the people of her state. And then she had a minor 'clerical error' adhering to the election laws on commercials. And another problem with actually paying the proper amount to ACORN workers on her Get Out The Vote campaign.

From all accounts Mr. Talent is running a capable, but not noteworthy campaign and really doesn't need to as the implosion rate for Clair McCaskill is enormous.

Well, that is it for the silly season update. I expect to see even worse in the days to come as the Zero Party System finally puts itself back on track to inaction.

Because we are so good at that.

Would you like some 'extra generations' with this war?

Having come out of the 20th century and the Cold War era, the United States has gotten into the nasty habit of thinking that *any* conflict will take 'at least a generation'. Now the argument can be made that the first two World Wars was actually just a single war with a long cease-fire between them as all sorts of underlying social and National conditions were not addressed by the first part of that two-reeler. Those two wars, however, were the first wars fought between thoroughly industrialized Nations bent on not just trading provinces or colonies, but in conquest of their neighbors and some sort of regional or global hegemony.

The second of that two-parter, finally and fully demonstrated that Total War against the economic infrastructure is the reductio ad absurdum of warfare against industrialized Nations. The strength of the fighting force is measured in direct proportion to economic output and productivity as it depends upon it as a going concern. And to get rid of the economic base that supported the warfighting capabilities, the civilian population that supports that capability, and thus the military, becomes part of the targeting. To effectively get rid of urbanized military industrial capacity, then, one would like to end the industrial part of it and the urbanized part of it. Resultant logic to that is to deliver as much destructive capability in as small a time with the least chance of going wrong of having a lot of casualties on *your* side in that doing. Nuclear war was the result.

Nuclear devices, by being a weapon that could cover a wide area fits the terminology of 'Weapon of Mass Destruction': it destroys a large area at low cost. Chemical, radiological and biological weapons address human lives over a wide area and get that same nomenclature as they are also destructive to the 'urban' part of the equation to get rid of the 'industrial' part by denying it of having a workforce. The Cold War outgrowth between the USSR and USA was the recognition that having a 'Hot War' could end up with a staggering death toll. Any small incident could suddenly flare up to a world engulfing firestorm as very few weapons were needed to achieve that.

The main modes of US political thinking decided that the Jacksonian method of actually getting *rid* of an enemy was going to get us all killed. Can't have that! And so the other three strains became predominant and infused with some of the opponent's mindset. It is strange that the Left always worried about the USA becoming more like the USSR, when they are the ones pushing the exact same attitude and nostrums of the USSR to socialize everything and make Citizens beholden unto the Government.

So here is how the other three modes worked their way to things during that struggle:

1) Jeffersonians - The main attitude was that human freedom and liberty were innate in individuals, but trying to actually foster that might get everyone killed. So, back-burner *that* thought and try to keep it whole within the West. And then let the USSR have *its* say which we will *all* have to listen to, while their people don't get to hear OURS. Luckily, Eastern Europe remembered the older bonds it had with the rest of Europe and didn't listen so much to the slowly softening Jeffersonian line, remembering, instead, more of Jefferson than his modern day followers. And while Voice of America and all that were well and good, only a few stalwarts were able to get it due to jamming and such. So liberty and freedom at home, but *listen* to your opponent and think about it from *his* point of view... which was that capitalism was corrupt, the West was corrupt, that the West was a bunch of slackards and that capitalism had us enslaved while everything was just peachy-keen back in Minsk and Kiev. The idea of 'equal time' only applies to politics, I guess, and propaganda you just have to keep on taking it.

2) Wilsonians - They were the cause of this conflict in the first place. The League of Nations failed NOT because the US was not in it, but because it had no *function*. It was a debating society that could only condemn, but not do anything. The UN calcified the post-war structure and gave it a firm and stagnant cast, so that any attempt to move *out* of that problem was attacked by every little tinpot dictator on the planet that worried about their own Nation's ability to keep them in power. Because the post-war era did *not* push for elections in the freed Eastern European Nations and because the leaders had *lost their taste for war* they allowed such elections to be rigged and for the Communists to take over. That trend followed a pattern of wherever an insurgency was able to get some support and actually force an election. This was later picked up by the current opponents of Islamo-Fascism and we now have this wonderful ditty in our diplomatic lexicon: 'One man, one vote, once.' Thanks, guys! Meanwhile, the UN sucked down huge wads of US cash and spewed forth anti-America, anti-Capitalist, anti-Israeli, anti-West verbiage and programs to a fare-thee-well. That global dream of having an 'International Community' has turned into a ghetto with the worst getting well armed and threatening their neighbors or anyone they can get their hands on. During the Cold War this arthritic concept may have served as a 'pressure valve' once in a great while, but mostly it just worked hard at curbing liberty and freedom with its propaganda. Which the USA *also* had to listen to. Remember the USSR could do *no wrong* and America, apparently, *could do no right*.

3) Hamiltonians - You didn't start the Cold War. But you sure as hell got behind it with pushing huge military expenditures that would allow things like $300 toilet seats to come into existence. Beyond that, money was spent in Congress to 'spread the goodies around' so that every district had some sort of money being spent in it, even if it didn't do a thing to help the Nation. And the reasoning behind this was that almost everything that would be produced would not get much used: a high state of need meant ready cash, ready profits, planned obsolescence and padding programs with all sorts of line items to boost cost while keeping production the same. By this system the decade long procurement cycle was invented for military hardware, so that by the time something actually got off the drawingboards, designed, scale tested, full-scale tested, design competition, award, protest, acceptance you could finally start *making* it. Then you had all sorts of other acceptance tests from design, materials, originating place, factory floor inspection, partial systems test, full systems test, roll out test, production design test, factory acceptance test, delivery acceptance test, field acceptance test. Yes, it ALL got tested. And each of those put in at least a week of work stoppage, sitting around, not much happening and heaven forbid if something was actually found to be somewhat out of spec! Well, that re-work cost just got added in because this was *vital to the security of the Nation*. Then by trumping up Soviet design and manufacturing capabilities the INTEL community actually *believed* the companies involved and speculated that the Soviet Union would be around for at least 30 more years or so. In 1985. Six years later: poof. You folks would have LOVED the Cold War and possible nuclear holocaust hanging over everyone's heads to lasted at least 30 more years. Unfortunately, the consumer side started to eat the old industrial side's lunch, then breakfast, and was just getting to the soup portion of dinner when things fell apart.

Damn that Moore's Law, anyways!

So, there is the highly biased description of what made the Cold War *go*, not its ideological underpinnings. Now all of that stuff got encapsulated into a few foreign policy strains of thought which we are still living with to this day. One is "Realpolitik", which thinks that just because you address 'power politics' you are addressing ALL of politics and is concerned with keeping a 'balance of power' and not *ending* it. Those are the same folks who threw in the towel in Viet Nam as it just might threaten the 'balance of power' if the US won... no one ever bothered to ask about the flip side of that question on the US pulling out and losing. This stuff is similar to Realism in International Relations, but that does only address States as being 'rational actors' in the World and invests so heavily in the Nation State that it is seen as the *only* way to deal with problems. It was the way forward for the Cold War and Hamiltonians adored it, Jeffersonians where mostly neither here nor there and Wilsonians *chafed* that this antiquated idea of Sovereign Nations having autonomy in their new world of Wilsonian happiness.

Thus the standoff between the 'power politics' and the 'internationalist accomodationists' was the major thing in the late part of the Cold War. The first folks wanted the 'balance of power' to continue onwards and the other folks wanted to move away from this nasty idea of war and confrontation and head into a course for world peace. While the first was willing to make 'tradeoffs' in geopolitics, the other was definitely more in line with appeasement and 'lets all get along together'ism. And the upshot of both these fine schools of diplomacy was that an ally was left hung out to dry in the Communist winds and the surrounding Nations also underwent Communist conversion. At gunpoint. And both of these schools started a long road of defeat for which we are paying heavily today.

The final school of thought was told to go home and let the 'adults take care of things' as they were obviously WAY too fractious. Those were the Jacksonians who were told to go home by these so very capable 'adults'.

In hindsight the Nation was, indeed, tired of war, but the Jacksonian concept put forth by General Patton of going after the USSR when we still had a huge army and gigantic airforce was anathema to the political class and the hierarchy. Similarly General MacArthur was prohibited in the Korean War from directly attacking China and cutting off supply lines and putting an end to that conflict because it would entail a huge, long-term cost of men and equipment to actually take on China. The question of what the true cost to the Nation would have been *then* is moot. The long-term cost to the Nation, however, has been pervasive and long lasting.

Today the United States is being targeted by non-Nation State actors that have some backing by Nations but taking out those Nations does *not* end the long term threat. And all of those folks wanting a 'balance of power' cannot come to terms with 'asymmetrical warfare' practiced by Transnational Terrorists. And those happy 'one world Wilsonians' are the first to ask: 'why do they hate us?'

Neither of these is coming to grips with the fundamental problem that individual liberty, unchecked, is anarchy and the way to address that is *not* by traditional warmaking or by traditional diplomacy that grew out of the Cold War. In point of fact these schools of 'Realpolitik' and Transnational Progressivism really don't think much about individual liberty at all and it is seen as a 'bargaining chip' by the first and something to be abolished by the second. And neither wants applecarts upset, even though others are already tipping them over. Many folks point to Jacksonians and call them 'isolationists' and with good cause: when oceans were true barriers to invasion and Nations ruled supreme, we much prefered that other Nations 'figure it out for themselves'. And because Jacksonians use the scale-free systems of honor and friendship as a foundation for their world view, we are the first to be able to place this new world into perspective while the other three schools of thought are floundering around wondering where their underpinnings went.

Jeffersonians who had signed up to the Wilsonian 'freedom everywhere' have had that dream betrayed by those advocating 'group rights' above that of individuals. Hamiltonians are *still* bemoaning the fact that their planned obsolescence cycle for military equipment has been thrown out the door by Moore's Law and refuse to get on the same page as the rest of the universe. Wilsonians are still pushing a vile and noxious dream of World Government in which you get whatever rights it wants to hand you.

Jacksonians realized that the world has turned into a neighborhood, time-wise and in shrinking distance, and that some of the new neighbors are pretty obnoxious sorts, especially those actively killing us. You want to talk about a 'Global Village'? Fine! Lets talk about fences and getting rid of some of the trash that is trying get their mafia in place and kill us. There isn't a cop to police these folks and they hide out in houses that our police can't get to but that WE CAN as individuals. Believe it or not that way of warfare is actually enshrined in the Constitution! That is because the young Republic needed a lot of help to get rid of some of the worst in its neighborhood including pirates, brigands and other less savory sorts. Lacking a real Army and a real Navy the US turned to its Citizens and gave them the ability to get rid of this trash and do it proudly as part of the Nation's need to get them.

When you ask a Jacksonian: 'why do they hate us?'

You will get this reply: 'I don't care. They want to kill us and they are not rational, so lets put an end to them before they can do it.'

This is a slap in the face to the other three strains of thought. Hamiltonians take it pretty badly because we are pointing out that the 'Arsenal of Democracy' is nearly obsolete as a conception in this fight. It requires skilled Civilians riding the crest of technology and surfing it to help the Nation avoid danger. Because our enemies are using it to go after us and Armies, Air Forces and Navies cannot stop them as they are NOT NATIONS. The 21st century has visited personal warfare back to the Republic and those that usually do the fighting are proscribed from doing so against many of them in foreign lands. We the People are not so proscribed to hunt these killers down and bring an end to them directly or indirectly at the guidance of Congress.

Jeffersonians should be in favor of this as it is a robust exercise by individuals putting themselves on the line to save their Nation and take the time honored method of doing the best they can and living or dying with the consequences. This is the *meaning* of American Rights pressed to the fullest: doing the things that no one else can do and doing it within the common framework of the Constitution. Instead we get moanings about 'is this right?' or 'what about justice?'. Since it is something that is done under Due Process and meets the needs of the Nation to go after its enemies it is BOTH 'right' and 'just'. It is just something that hasn't been done in over 150 years.

Wilsonians just despise this. It puts the ability of the individual to secure their Nation *above* that of all International Order and does *not* require a huge capital outlay. It is not amenable to review, to second guessing, to pontificating upon it because the people DOING the work are NOT working as PART of the Government just doing its work FOR IT. This is beyond what they can understand for their conception of 'World Peace' and blows it to hell and gone in one shot. Hamiltonians hate the idea of an ad-hoc Arsenal of Democracy and much prefer the older kind that gets replaced on a regular schedule. They like 'World Peace' that is well armed but doesn't use those arms much and hate the idea of individuals doing it on their own with whatever they can get their hands on. There is NO long-term money in that for SALES to the Government.

These things are why people cannot understand the Modern Jacksonian: we have simple ways of addressing the world and come to complex conclusions.

To Jacksonians honor amongst individuals scales *perfectly* to this world where the globe is no longer big nor oceans moats of protection. That is fine with Jacksonians as what is seen as an outlook on *life* works just as well within the framework of a neighborhood as it does in this new 'Global Village'. It adjusts INSTANTLY. Honor and friendship with due reciprocity and recognition work across ALL of the scales involved and Jacksonians represent and use *that* conception of how to live. It isn't *politics* it is a way to live life honorably.

To Jacksonians repayment 'in kind' for what people do is deserved. It is partly the 'Golden Rule' and partly 'You hit me, I will kill you.' It is asymmetrical as Jacksonians do not shove when they can kill and prefer to shout over shoving and, above all, prefer the quietness of family life over shouting. Shoving gets you nowhere, while killing enemies gets them dead. I do not want to talk with vermin who want to enslave me and extort me: I want them to stop doing that and since they will not, and they continue to attack, they deserve death. This scales less perfectly since the end of duelling in America and people are horrified at this notion. If that is the case with you, then you have become too civilized to survive what is coming to this world, I suggest learning how to adapt to this should be high on your agenda. The world will only change for the better if we go out and end those tearing civilization down. You can either support the fight, join in or you are an enemy. This is part of that scaling process. If you are not FOR civilization and not SUPPORTING civilization then you are tearing it down BY INACTION.

To Jacksonians using the best means at hand is just plain good sense and the most modern means are usually the best, although we NEVER throw out good working ideas. You never know when you will need to set up a dead-fall across a trail because your damn sniper rifle has gone out on you completely and your fast repair attempt went FUBAR. And Jacksonians don't have to wait for everything to be 'hardened' for battlefield use: we make do and make plans and get some basic backups in place and go forward with a workable plan. This scales from the lone huntsmen to the Armored Division. You never know what you will need to save your sorry ass when you have done some damn fool thing, all you know is that you are not going to go down without a fight. And if you can get out of this situation you will *not* do that damn fool thing again: you will find some other damned fool way to get your ass in a sling.

Modern Jacksonianism is Global in its outlook and we understand about 'bad neighborhoods' and 'the wrong side of the jihadist tracks'. These are easy concepts to scale for Jacksonians and we like to band together to get things done, even if it is just the backyard grill and keg of beer. And we like to do hard things because they are fun problems to solve and if the Nation will pay us to solve them, well... we are a damn crafty lot, too, and know good pay when we see it.  As it was put by another President about his life:

I do not forget that I am a mechanic. I am proud to own it. Neither do I forget that... the apostle Paul was a tentmaker; Socrates was a sculptor; and Archimedes was a mechanic. - Andrew Johnson
And may I point out that Jesus was a Carpenter? Mechanics made seige warfare devices, tentmakers made tents for armies and carpenters took part in much beyond mere house construction. There is nothing bad about having a manual trade as your main skill set because it will get you a job, keep you alive and give you some basis to survive when things go south on you. Tradesmen learn to *improvise* and get things *done* and enjoy doing that.

It is good to know the trade and do what is necessary to support the Nation and defend it even if no one has fought this way in 150 years or more. Jacksonians like to work and get things *finished* so that families can be raised safely and we can enjoy the time spent with good friends so that we may enjoy life together. We would much rather clean the neighborhood up NOW than put it off for our children and grandchildren to do. Because if we do THAT there is a good chance they might not be successful because we have not shown them what it takes to survive in this world of ours.

Jacksonians use these concepts to address the world. We were isolationist when the world was one of isolation and keeping to ourselves was easy to do. It is no longer that world and we have elevated our sights a bit and understand the landscape.

What in Hell is taking the REST OF YOU SO LONG?

You can't retreat, as there is no place to retreat to.

You have been attacked in your own home and the police can't get to your attackers but YOU CAN.

The answer is the ancient one that works for a Village without reliable authority: do it yourself with your friends and help out in the aftermath. That is how you *deal* with these sorts of things. You make friends and work together to MAKE THINGS BETTER.

Is the rest of the Nation far too sophisticated to understand this?

Or do you want a simplistic answer that was predigested by someone else and then regurgitated to you?

Neither of those speaks well of this Nation.

Do you want fries with that regurgitated pap?

How about some extra generations to this war?

28 October 2006

Senator Santorum hard pressed turns to...

A hat-tip to Captain's Quarters for an article on Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) who is facing an uphill fight to retain his seat.

And that links to the NRO text of Sen. Santorum's speech, which I will extract a few salient pieces from:

I am here again today talking about this issue because Islamic Fascism continues to rear its ugly head. And because it is being joined by others, becoming a hydra.

The war is at our doorsteps, and it is fueled, figuratively and literally, by Islamic fascism, nurtured and bred in Iran.

Islamic terrorists planned a mass kidnapping at the Central Synagogue in Prague just a few weeks ago. They intended to carry it out on Rosh Hashanah, when large numbers of Jews would be celebrating the New Year. Once the world's attention was focused on Prague, they intended to make impossible demands, and then blow up the synagogue and all within.

Those people were not marked for death because they supported the war in Iraq, or supported George W. Bush, or sent troops to Afghanistan. They were targeted because they were guilty of being Jews. This is evil.
Bolding is, of course, my own.

Now, Mr. Santorum is flipping things around on the 'hydra' bit, because Transnational Terrorism is much larger than *just* the Islamic offshoots, although those are currently the worst of the lot. And Islamo-Fascism does serve as a relatively good category term for those involved in the extremist, non-Nationalist offshoots of the Islamic varieties. But here he is doing something that the Left will absolutely hate: he is defining what people are doing by their ACTIONS not their INTENT. Although both are evil in the case of Islamo-Fascism from everything that can be seen, but this is a distinct 'no-no' to the Left. Actually judging people by what they DO is just unheard of in those precincts. Needless to say he has already written that part of the electorate off to his opponent, so no loss there.

Now here, Mr. Santorum is heading into troubled waters:
How many Americans realize that Iran declared war on us 27 years ago - in 1979 - and has been killing Americans ever since?
Actually, I have been for quite some time and lay quite a bit at their feet in the way of deaths of US Civilians and Soldiers in Tehran, the two Beirut Embassy bombings, the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar towers bombing. The US and its Citizens have been an active target for Iran since 1979 and remain so to this day. Those are all Casus Belli which have NO statute of limitations upon them.

Why is this troubled waters for the Senator?

The answer is simple: who sets the Nation to war when warlike acts are taken against the United States?

It is *not* the President who merely carries the standard forward to battle and secure the Nation with the Armed Forces.

No, the answer is: Congress.

Now he realizes that this IS hot water and starts to swim, and quickly:
He is only the latest in a series of Iranian leaders who have vowed death to us and visited death upon us. Our troops in Iraq are killed by Iranian weapons paid for with Iranian money, smuggled into Iraq by Iranian logistics, and utilized by Iranian-trained terrorists. A couple of years ago you needed a security clearance to know this. Today it is common knowledge. Iran is the centerpiece of the assault against us and the other countries in the civilized world, which is why I fought so hard for passage of the Iran Freedom and Support Act.

I fought for it, and, after years of opposition from the Democrats, some of my own colleagues, the State Department and even the White House, it is now law.
And when was the Iran Freedom and Support Act passed into law? On 30 SEPT 2006. Now there have been a few other bills, here and there on this topic, but this one is a teensy bit more assertive than those. The Iranian Hostage Crisis started on 4 NOV 1979 and ended on 20 JAN 1980. So using that last date the time between those dates is: 9,750 days. More than 26 years.

In that time Congress has changed hands, the Presidency has bopped back and forth and, in general, no matter how much one tries to pin this problem on *one* party, BOTH of them are at fault for not doing a thing to address this. Strange that the Republicans have had Congress to control for so long and only *now* start to address their responsibilities to the Nation in this area.

Still, its good chutzpah!

'Look I've been the cause of the problem for not addressing this and so has my party and NOW I promise to address it!'

Now he is *also* missing the mark by singling out Iran's Second Foreign Legion - Mahdi Army and not recognizing that they have been doing this since the establishment of their First Foreign Legion - Hezbollah in Lebanon. And as Hezbollah is now operating openly in Venezuela and recruiting there and Argentina and Brazil, there have been scattered reports of a Third Foreign Legion forming up in South America. Add that to the weak-State Syria acting in puppet fashion and you have quite a confluence of nastiness.

Is he serious about this? Well, read on:
Our growing challenge, however, is that Iran is not alone in its rhetoric, intent or capacity to threaten the security of the U.S.

It is important for Americans to know that the threat is more complex, and has grown more complex. The enemy that has to be named is greater than Islamic Fascism.

Just last month, in advance of the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Iran, Syria, North Korea and more than 100 other nations met in Cuba to discuss a push to broaden the world's definition of terrorism to include the "U.S. occupation" of Iraq and the "Israeli invasion" of Lebanon. Participating countries drafted a declaration condemning Israel but made no comments about Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel.

Following this meeting of the non-aligned movement, I introduced a Senate resolution that expressed concern relating to the threatening behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ideological alliance that exists between the countries of Cuba and Venezuela. We must support the people of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela in the quest to achieve a truly democratic form of government.
So, maybe he is trying to do something, but not putting any condemnation upon the UN *and* the so-called 'Non-Aligned Nations' is falling a bit short of the mark. In point of fact he still hasn't gotten to the entire concept of Internetworked Terrorism allying itself to Nations to strengthen the entire network. Cuba, North Korea and Syria are all implicated, but China, by not cracking down on illegitimate North Korean banking cannot be held blameless and Russia, surely knowing that North Korea was contacting one of the IRA's to pass supernotes, shouldn't be getting a free pass in this, either.

Now, he does go on to cite the problems with North Korea, but those are more properly those of China... which hasn't done much about Mr. Kim, save starve his people. HE gets enough food and so does his military. The US is merely a supporter of its allies in that area and we should act that way... with, perhaps, Congress pushing for that?

Luckily he comes back to talk more immediately about Iran and Venezuela:
Look again at the Iranians' strategy. A couple of months ago Ahmadinejad signed a mutual defense pact with his pal, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Two dictators, awash in petrodollars, and besotted with hatred for the United States.

President Chavez, who called President Bush "a devil" at the podium of the U.N., spoke to the applause of those in attendance as he decried America. Calling America an "imperialist power," he says his ambition is to become leader of global alliance of nations to "radically oppose the violent pressure that the (American) empire exercises." This summer Chavez honored Ahmadinejad at a gala and plans to visit North Korea, at which an "oil-for-missiles deal" may be on the agenda.
And a bit further on:
Did you know that Venezuela will shortly spend thirty billion dollars to build twenty military bases in neighboring Bolivia, which will dominate the borders with Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil? The bases will be commanded by Venezuelan and Cuban officers. This is what the brilliant Carlos Alberto Montaner-a survivor of Castro's bloody regime-calls "a delirious vision of history," and it is driven by a new alliance of dictators from Iran, Cuba and Venezuela.

It is part of the grand design so proudly announced by Ahmadinejad: the destruction of our civilization.
Now Mr. Chavez is buying a bunch of toy crap from the Russians and Iranians which isn't much good for military purposes against the US. We have gotten quite far beyond *advanced Soviet technology* and can pretty much make a scrap heap of a force armed with such. Venezuela, no matter how much it buys, will never have the fighting spirit of the Old Iraqi Army under Saddam... the one that vaporized as it was defeated. You remember the lack of *any* Iraqi forces to stand-down after the war there? The Iranian strategy, however, is to keep the US distracted until it has an operational Foreign Legion in South America that will be hard to root out. Iran would *like it* if a few other Nations in South America fell, but they are not counting on as they see the direction of the production of Venezuela for oil is in decline. What they are buying is distraction and breathing room to get their OWN forces put in place. Forces aligned to them and paid by them, just like in Lebanon and Iraq.

Still he gets the final design goal right, so not bad for a politico trying to operate in Foreign Affairs.

But then Mr. Santorum proves himself to be an astute watcher on things and finally *does* come out and say what the problem is:
And the sad irony is, we are dependent on the very people who hate us. American imports 60% of the oil we need to fuel our economy. We are underwriting their efforts to undermine us.

Venezuela is our fourth largest supplier of oil. President Chavez called oil "a geopolitical weapon" and said "I could easily order the closing of the refineries that we have in the United States. I could easily sell the oil that we sell to the United States to other countries of the world ... to real friends and allies like China."

A recent Congressional report found that Hezbollah may, right now, have established bases in Venezuela, a country which has issued thousands of visas to people from places like Cuba and the Middle East, possibly giving them passports to evade U.S. border security.

To make matters worse, Cuba and China, with help from Venezuela, are together exploring and drilling for oil only 50 miles off the US coast. 50 miles off our coast. In an interview on Al-Jazeera, Chavez said working with Cuba is an example of how they will "use oil in our war against neoliberalism."
The most painful part of that is the very pointed *jab* at the Left with the 'neoliberalism' bit! That is a painful knife to receive and glad someone worthy is on the receiving end of it. Bravo! Now he has gotten to the meat of the matter and WHY it matters, which has taken a bit to get there, but he is a politician, after all. I have verbose speaking so will not speak ill of his inabilities there as mine are bountiful. And what is even better is that he does not have Seatwarmerism: the ability to say you will do something on the border and then wait 20 years to think about it.

Now he goes on to make many references to past conflicts and the inaction of America before they began and gets to the modern time:
Many Americans are sleepwalking, just as they did before the world wars of the last century. They pretend it is not happening, that it all has to do with the errors of a single American administration, even of a single American president. Some even pretend that it will all go away if only the Democrat Party-including my opponent who did not even know the name of the former Iranian president whose presence kicked up a firestorm a few weeks ago by coming to America-is elected in November.

How do they propose to save us from these people? By negotiating at the United Nations? By removing U.N. Ambassador John Bolton office? By relocating American forces from Iraq to Okinawa? By abandoning the Iraqi people to Iranian and Syrian slaughter and domination? By engaging in more direct talks with a nuclear North Korea?

No wonder Mr. Casey won't say anything about the danger from North Korea's nuclear bombs. He can't. He has virtually nothing to say. Except he does have something to say about preparing to defend ourselves against North Korea. He told the Council for a Livable World he opposes building nuclear bunker buster weapons and would halt deployment of national missile defense until, quote, "further research proves the system will work."

Time for research is past. North Korea has been building nuclear weapons to put on missiles that can reach our soil.

It's time to wake up.
Why yes, indeed it is, Mr. Santorum and well past time since 1979 and definitely in the '80s and by the time of the Clinton era non-response, we were well mired in a fight that we had not even started yet. And now, what will Mr. Santorum do? Read on, after some diatribing against his ostrich-like opponent:
It's time to stop dreaming and start acting. We have to bring the fight to our enemies, and that means we have to do a lot more than respond to their attacks in Iraq. We must go after the regimes that recruit, pay, train and arm terrorists. I am not-NOT-talking about sending more American troops onto foreign battlefields, or even dropping precision bombs from safe altitudes. I am talking about political and economic warfare, to bring down the terror regimes in Tehran and Damascus. The best way to do that is to support their own people, most of whom are eager for freedom.

That is why I drafted legislation that commits America to support freedom in Iran. A free Iran will be our friend, not an implacable enemy. We know that is true, because public opinion polls taken by the regime itself show that more than seventy percent of Iranians want to choose their own system of government and elect their own leaders.
Now, think about this very carefully. Here we have the vestiges of 20th century views that are mired in the mid-20th century, at that. Transnational Terrorism can and does exist without Nation State backing. al Qaeda is a case in point, but Aum Shinrikyo, for all of its strange 'end of the worldism' beliefs was actually *more* capable and able to leverage Western industrial capability and knowledge in an effort to just kill and do nothing else. It received little spin-up from the overall terror network, but it *fed into it* methodologies and designs based on what they had done. Luckily the Islamic brands of terrorism aren't industrially savvy and so don't get the fine points, but al Qaeda did pick up methodology and then some just by observing another organization at work. NEITHER of those was State sponsored, supported or funded and will exist WITHOUT Syria, Iran, North Korea or Cuba. One was supported by rich Sheiks in Saudi Arabia and by a distributed financial network, and the other was supported by a network of computer sales stores and low cost religious labor. While the information and contacts that flow IN to the network from Nation States gets distributed throughout the entire network, the network ITSELF is not amenable to simply removing Nations.

That is the *problem* with having survived the 20th century, an era when Nation States ruled supreme: we are not used to thinking about things in *any* other way until it is too late.

Going on, from there to cite 'Free Trade' without mentioning the fact that such supplies our Enemies with low cost goods at NO added burden to the seller starts to wildly miss the mark. So close to the final conceptual leap and then turning hard back to the 20th century for answers.

From there he goes on to energy policy, which I find amusing as it is Big Government band-aidism at its worse. He does understand some of the problem and has stated the problem with lack of drilling and refining capability, but then moving into coal liquefaction is... well, interesting but not salient. I have looked at an Energy Independence Policy that puts government into the back seat, just enforcing some bare minimums and giving polluted Federal Land to folks wanting to run refineries, all the time paying prizes to companies willing to get the one, true source of energy down *pat* for the Nation. I look at some other folks trying to do the 'green' route and then offer a stop-gap policy from now until the final energy solution is up and running.

That is the sort of wide-ranging ideas I *expect* from a Senator and am not seeing. Big Government is not helping this problem and is a cause of much of it and 'band-aid' solutions without a framework will have their own problems due to lack of foresight. That is only minimally better than the other Party wishing to move back to caves at some point so as to lower pollution levels.

He closes up with some nice phrases here and there, and is basically saying: the other side is clueless and I have got ONE CLUE!

Well, better than nothing, thats true.

But a way forward to 20th century solutions that DIDN'T WORK THEN?

So interesting to come that close and then step away from saying: 'I am going to push for Congress to let *any* American willing to fight in their own way to take Warrant and Letters to do so and the Government will reward them for those things Congress sees needs be done.'

All trust in the Government.

None in the People.

And for that BOTH Parties are guilty.

Oh, and who is he appealing to?


We take the Direct Approach.

The Do Nothing Nation

This one from the disreputable AFP, so it may not have actually been said, check your local chicken entrails to make sure. Coming from Ehud Olmert talking about the 'International Community':

"Like the 1930s in Germany, the international community hears voices today calling for the destruction of Israel and does nothing," he said Friday during a speech at the country's Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem.
And since there is no Nation greater than that of the United States we find ourselves accused of doing nothing! Yes, of being slothful!

And, yea and verily, this is TRUE!

America wishes to ascend and excel at all thing and one of the foremost of those is being slothful and slovenly! We much prefer to do nothing to the point where we wish to be the very foundational definition of *doing nothing*. If nothing can be done then Americans will find a way to do it 50% slower than any other people on this planet! And we go further in our attempt to reach these great heights of sloth so that no one can ever attempt to compare us to anything better, save a corpse which has *perfected* slothfulness.

The United States sits at the Pinnacle of the Pyramid of Procrastination and prefers to put off what should be done today until tomorrow in the grand hopes that someone *else* will take care of it FOR US! Yes, as the Head of this 'International Community' and Commander in Chief of Chastisement we will berate everyone else for not doing a damn thing and then berate ourselves for the same and take much more time in the debating than in the actual time it would take to get things done. What other Nation would put off defeating an enemy for over 10 years and debate the pros and cons and whys and wherefores of the actual doing when the actual doing only takes 3 months?

But the United States goes even *further* in its broadened conceptions of sloth and laziness to attempt new heights of it so that we may be even further removed from the actual affairs of the world so as not to be bothered by them. What other Nation, once taking an action, then so heavily chastises itself on a continual basis that minor problems fester into world damaging catastrophes? We *still* haven't figured out what to do when National soil is violated overseas and the debating on that has given the enemies of the world time to try and figure out if there is ANYTHING that will move America, save a largish asteroid hitting in Topeka, which would REMOVE it from the face of the planet. We argue and complain so bitterly and continuously that the LAST place anyone should go for ACTION is the United States of America, because we GUARANTEE that no one, no where will do it slower than WE DO.

When people see movies of Action Heroes from the United States, they must remember that we put those up of examples of what NOT to do! Never, ever take up arms against your enemies unless you *first* debate the question for a decade or more. And then, if the enemy gets so bothersome as to actually kill US Citizens we will send BUREAUCRATS to investigate, thus giving the perfect *Slothful Seal of Approval* by the United States Government that NOTHING WILL BE DONE. No other Nation has ever done this to the degree that the American people do and we are DAMN PROUD OF THAT FACT!

And when we finally do take action to do anything, the first thing we do thereafter is to have a Government Inquiry on if the action was a 'good thing', if it was done in a 'timely manner', if the proper sums have all been accounted for, if the decisions of actually *doing* the decision were done right, and, then, to hand out blame for those individuals who did NOT have Deific qualities of foresight into the future and proved to be mere, fallible humans. And that is for something so simple as putting in a Sewer Line that *everyone* needs. Yes! And then you should see what we do for DRUG APPROVAL! And none of these compares to the heights of indolence and vituperation from Americans sitting in chairs on such things as the presence or absence of three words that have been on the National Currency for Generations! Oh, no other people on the planet can reach these lofty heights of non-action and sluggishness.

The goal of any Governmental Inquiry is to spend more time and money than was spent on the ORIGINAL ACTION, so that people learn that having to do things costs more than double to the Nation. We see no wrong that cannot be righted without having to first make the conditions worse, and only *then* throw our hands up and say it isn't worth the time to do it anymore.

All of this is done so the next fool individual who suggests action will have so much longer to get anything looked at, will be so ridiculed, have their background investigated all the way back to conception and find out if their toilet training went well, that no one will suggest doing anything. While we cannot perfect the sloth of the grave, we aim to perfect the sloth of the living to the greatest extent and beyond the wildest dreams of 19th century opium dens or 1960's communes. Our greatest saying is: "God helps those who helps themselves" That said, we expect everyone else to help themselves FIRST so that we don't have to be bothered with it! And after that you look to God, not to the United States.

When it comes to 'Action Heroics' the American people prefer to point fingers and complain at anyone who suggests doing anything, anywhere that might actually HELP the Nation. The reason that the US does not follow the sane lead of its neighbor to the south in regard to its *own* southern neighbors is that taking action sets a *bad example*, and we dare not do that as a committee would then be needed to investigate that. We prefer to set NO example on anything save the molasses slowness of our beings in doing things, so that the concept of activity is banished forevermore from the world and the universe.

The American people see all of their rights for themselves and the right of not doing a DAMN THING is the foremost of all rights inherent in mankind. We are impressed by the Japanese people making so many interesting labor saving devices, but less than impressed with their industry and forthright attitude and are doing our best to infect them with good old US sloth. It has worked so well that their population has even tired of reproduction and is in a heavy downward spiral. That is why so many legal immigrants are needed in the US: we are too lazy to have sex and raise children! The number one goal of the United States is to stop all endeavors by other Nations to *do things* and get them to the point where they complain far more than they do anything.

Soon we hope the entire human race will expire from laziness and the awesome achievements of the United States will have won over the planet to the point where it gives up this idea of remaining in orbit and falls into the Sun!

That is the Goal of the United States: to ensure the right of sloth is enforced throughout the world.

And we put the 'L' and the 'H' into sloth as the other letters are busy in 'United States of America'.

When the time comes we will reclaim those letters and give the *true meaning* to the Citizens of the United States and their slothful behavior.

27 October 2006

Stem cells... "A cure is just around the corner"

There has been some shouting and finger pointing at the Michael J. Fox advertisement for embryonic stem cell research and much characterization of that ad and the faults of it. Be that as it may, other folks, suffering other conditions are dragged into this and it is said: "These people would benefit, too!!"

Being one of those people and long-time sufferer of Type 1 diabetes let me add my two cents worth in on this from what I have seen.

Ever since the discovery that not producing insulin caused diabetes there has been the saying: "A cure is *just* around the corner." And since the 1930's that has been exactly the case. Remember that when you read onwards...

Now once defined as 'juvenile diabetes' due to typical age population, Type 1 is now recognized as something that can strike any time in life and has typical schema of how it happens. Type 2 has the majority of diabetes sufferers at 90% of the diabetic population. Type 2 is a resistance of the body to its own insulin production and/or a slow metabolic decline due to overused and overstimulated insulin producing beta cells. It is generally a slow onset disease and used to strike an inverse population of the elderly, but it is also now spreading in typical age range.

Type 1 is a fast onset condition. The cause of that condition took decades to figure out and the cure was seen as the amelioration of that underlying causation. Stop the cause, stop the effect. We have come to understand that it is an autoimmune disease with uncertain trigger mechanisms: for some reason the body's immune system decides that insulin producing beta cells are not wanted and attacks them. The body does try to compensate by increasing production from remaining cells, until those, too, are taken out. The tipping point is sudden and an individual can lose 90% of their beta cells before anything is noticed because the body has much in the way of excess capacity.

So the cure must go after the immune system *and* getting cells to produce insulin back on line without being attacked. Which is why we saw all sorts of transplants from organ donors, and that actually works if one can tolerate the immunosuppressant therapy. Newer drugs are helping to address, that, too, so that the effects of the drugs are not so awful. Getting the idea of "a cure is just around the corner" here?

The treatment for Type 1 is subcutaneous injection of insulin, to be slowly absorbed by surrounding tissue into the blood stream. Insulin used to come from slaughterhouses for pigs and cattle and sheep, but that changed when the whole recombinant DNA concept put human insulin producing capability into other cells more amenable to industrial production. Insulin uptake has been slowed by using variations on the long-chain insulin molecule so that there are now very slow uptake insulins that serve to give a basal absorption rate and thus keep blood glucose levels down, and only some of the fast acting insulin for just after meals. Beta cells produce insulin in response to need on a cycle of about every 15 minutes or so. They have a feedback mechanism directly into the bloodstream and the entire body reaches homeostasis due to that mechanism. For Type 1 diabetics your conscious thought patterns ARE that feedback mechanism. All of this took decades to develop, with "a cure just around the corner"!

Now, here is one of those things that really do make you scratch your head and say: What were they thinking?

Over in the X-Ray crystallography arena there were stunning and wonderful advances in finding out that you can shoot X-Rays through crystals of any substance and get the ratios of atoms in the substance and even a good hint at what it's structure is. That is how DNA was finally figured out: trying to make the structure that would create the known diffusion pattern out of the known chemicals and their ratios. That took awhile. One of the first things to be looked at was, naturally, insulin. The actual insulin produced by your cells is *not* what is bought in the bottle. The body produces a three part molecule that comes in two long strands and one very short strand, in the form of an 'H' labeled: a, b, c. What your body does is this: a cell will take up that molecule if it is needed, snip out the 'c' portion and put the 'a' and 'b' portion together to form the long chain, active insulin molecule. Type 1 diabetics get around that with the man made stuff as it is 'ready to go' straight from the needle.

In your body this structure is, itself, one that stops the molecule from putting itself into a cell and having it use up more sugar. The uptake system for naturally made, internal insulin means that in its 'H' arrangement it is *inactive*. It is only picked up at *need*, otherwise removed naturally by your body through various means. So Type 1 diabetics have to manage the forced cellular reaction cycle to avoid sudden onset of low blood glucose levels due to too high an insulin compensation. A normal body doesn't worry about it as the molecule it makes is *inactive* until needed. That is why the beta cells take 15 minutes to recycle: they measure the blood glucose level on their own and then put out an amount and retest in 15 minutes. Too low and they do *not* add more. Too high and more is sent out.

One of the early thoughts for insulin was to use an inhaled form, as injection sites, even when well rotated, can gain scar tissue and start to have problems providing a steady uptake of insulin. But, the molecule wouldn't pass through the lung lining.... I mean that was so often stated to me as I first learned about my condition that it was taken as THE TRUTH. Everyone was looking to add enzymes to insulin and do it nasally or get it encapsulated so it could somehow be digested... everything was looked at because insulin wouldn't pass through the lung's lining.

Welcome to 2006.

Inhaled Powdered Insulin.

It is full, three part, as the body makes it, human insulin.

It is crystallized and then powdered finely.

It will pass through the lung lining.

I had to talk to my endocrinologist about this, and that is the thorough description.

It doesn't need anything, although some preservatives and dessicants to keep it from going bad are most likely added. Those will not pass through the lung lining or really do much of anything. Having had exercised induced asthma in the 1970's, I can tell you that inhalers were available at least that far back for this purpose and much further back other types could easily have been adapted to this.

Stem cells?


Why is it that 1950's era technology was NOT fully tested to ensure that powdered, crystalline insulin did NOT pass through the lung lining?

That experiment is barely a Master's Degree work. Off the shelf components. Off the shelf capability. Off the shelf everything.

An effective treatment for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics is getting them insulin on-time and in the right amount. The body self-regulates uptake of the three-part insulin molecule so that you cannot overdose on it and it remains inactive until used. This can be done by getting crystalline insulin through the lung lining. How many decades has NO ONE LOOKED INTO THIS?

Excuse me but "A cure is just around the corner."

To this day that is still true.

Diabetes research into the underlying causes of the disease has boosted the overall scientific understanding of the entire immune system, and how it can go haywire all on its lonesome.

An effective, non-invasive treatment has been sitting on laboratory shelves for decades. Even worse, not one single biochemist or medical student saw fit to question what 'everyone knew' or at least do the necessary rigorous follow-ups to previous work to ensure that it was done properly.

Stem cells?

"A cure is just around the corner."

Sure it is.



Oh, yeah.

And I, for one, have been around the block a few times.

Make me no more promises.

For I am tired of the lies of promises unkept.

The Plan to Stabilize Iraq

The following is a cross-post from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

[UPDATE: Apparently there are some folks who need some backgrounding on my views of the Middle East and don't like the various and sundry links I provide and thus go off on tangents everywhich way. So the quick and easy links to further verbiage are as follows: Creating an Army - a MUST READ; Synopsis view 21st century US armed forces; How to fight in the 21st century and why; Transformed warfare and transforming our view of it ;Why Cold War ideas on Iran will not work; Transnational Terrorims and how it evolves; How States play a part in Transnational Terrorism, but do not drive it;Iran raises curtain on Act II; What Peace in the Middle East means; The Golden Opportunity; The major faultlines driving the Middle East a MUST READ for this article; What is Lebanon to Iran?; Iran's First Foreign Legion - Hezbollah; Iran's Second Foreign Legionn -Mahdi Army; Iranian Foreign policy; Iran's First Foreign Legion Act II, phase I; Iran's First Foreign Legion's teething pains;War with Iran first view, second view; Coalescence of Barbarism; Legitimate armed political party is an oxymoron; The al Qaeda plan for Victory - a MUST READ; The Long Term Consequences of Defeat - a MUST READ; Terrorism is illegitimate war not civil crime; The strategy in Iraq - a MUST READ; Ending unreal 'Realism' - a MUST READ and priority to examine the tribal overlay in the Middle East; Post-Warism - a MUST READ and necessary to understand the underlying structural problems of the Middle East; Some reminders of how Iran operates circa 2000; James Baker and the ISG echo chamber.

And if you don't like this plan, then perhaps a Jacksonian Retreat would interest you?

So, yes, I have taken time to look at the Middle East, see the problems, trace their roots, look at historical analogies and fits, see what does and does not work in similar situations, and so on. There are quite simple driving forces in the Middle East, but there are many of them. They must be understood individually and then put into interplay which is multi-divided factionalism. A good start there is the War of the Roses and the entire Italian Peninsula circa the Medicis, plus the Spanish Revolution. For the last time the West failed and continues to do so elsewhere, the post-warism article is a chilling concept as no one wants to address complexity arising from simple causes. The complexity is in the number of things and the interactions, but not in the underlying causations. This article addresses how to use a simple set of actions to strike across those causational drives and put them to work in a different means. And do note that stability is not "Peace". The world has never known this thing called "Peace", but has been more peaceful and less peaceful over time. Keeping conflict down is a dynamic tension, not a static one, which must shift scales and magnitude continuously. This plan aims to start getting that dynamic in place and to hold some of these offshoots to account. Getting from here to there requires changing the direction of those drives away from ones that they are currently in and destructive. That requires that we *do something else*, not just pull out moldy plans and try to apply them but to understand the dynamics in the region and address they dynamics to set up a better and more self-balancing one. In conception the actual plan is extremely simple, but its outcomes are not simplistic. Simplistic plans to address complexity fail due to the complexity shifting in response to the plan. This plan addresses the shifting complexity so that it can change to a new state that is dynamically self-balancing. No one else has tried to address this nor put a map from here to there.

The commentary rules are enforced. One free criticism and THEN PUT UP YOUR OWN PLAN WHICH IS BETTER. If you cannot do that, then do not criticize those trying to build. It is 'Put up or Shut up'. Building and solutions are necessary, and criticism without either is mere destruction and self-preening. Offer better and help build or be quiet. Thus ends the update.]

Many are complaining about the fighting in Iraq and the fact that there appears to be 'no end in sight'. On two levels this is correct and on one level wrong. It is firstly correct that fighting for liberty and freedom is an ongoing and endless task. That is part of being Republic run as a representative democracy: even if the whole world came to understand and accept this, the slide into Authoritarianism and Dictatorship must be watched for and fought. And since those that purport such things have come to value their rights over yours, violence ensues as this meets resistance. Authoritarian and Dictatorial regimes offer the simplistic view of one man or one party rule being 'perfect for the times'. It is not perfect for *all* time. That must be fought as it gives rise to the end of liberty and freedom of individuals. Further, even Nations that are fully democratic can go to war and have conflict: democracy is not an antidote for the human condition, but it alleviates the worst of it. Nations will always have National needs and goals and those will be at cross-purposes to other Nations even in this conceptual perfect world of democracy.

On a second and more specific level, Iraq can only be stabilized to a relatively high percentage, even if the MNF and Iraqi Armed Forces are *perfected* and able to wipe out those currently fighting them and their leaders. Why is this the case?

1) Because the native Ba'thist insurgency has disappeared and no longer exists. This has, in actuality, escaped the attention of the MSM, most military analysts and ALL political analysts. Ba'athism hit the 'ash heap of history' in Iraq soon after the Riverine campaign ended at the border town of Tal Afar. Facing very long and tenuous supply lines, hatred by the Sunni population that was viewing them as 'just another set of thugs' and still being targeted by al Qaeda, the Shia militias, MNF and, increasingly, the New Iraqi Army, National Guard and Police, the Ba'athists have quietly shuffled off the board to Syria. They do what they can, but their adherents are either dead or fled. This is necessary to the long-term stability in Iraq and the only success of the current plan is in this sole point. In removing the Ba'athists as a 'major player' the other players now gain high and stark definition. Thus, while the actual milieu of players is decremented by one, the remaining players gain much higher visibility for each and every act they do because they are, generally, sectarian. The higher media profile now entrenches the remaining players that use the media to push their agenda of hate-filled destruction. That said the current plan is addressing this, but doing so on the much slower basis of tribes needing to realize that the current crop of players have no good end for them.

2) Now for one of the major players we have al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia infiltrating into the southern Sunni population, with their adherents being in the percentage points of that population, with an upper limit at 10% or so. And, as the Arab Sunni population is 20% and declining of the entire population that is a 2% base to draw upon and an even smaller fraction that is willing to die for al Qaeda. Foreign infiltrators still make up a good percentage of their forces, but those are being more rapidly identified and, after having attempted to put their version of Sharia law into place, the rest of the Sunnis have had it with them. The Arab Sunni tribes are joining with the Government to help put al Qaeda out of business and will, presumably, have as much chance as, say, France or Great Britain has of doing that: nil. The tribes have recognized that as splintered tribes their *say* was getting diluted and exploited by outsiders and still is, to some extent. Getting picked off piecemeal by al Qaeda and Ba'athist remnants has endangered their entire tribal structure and society. They heavily resisted the US post-invasion clean-up until they found themselves coming face to face with the New Iraqi Army. They could 'fool those dumb Americans' for awhile, but their shrewd Iraqi cousins of the Shia strain were joining up with the New Iraqi Army and Police and even the 'dumb Americans' used a hard training and indoctrination cycle to start understanding the tribes, making friends and undermining enmity. These two things forced the Sunnis into National politics and is now forcing the tribes to band together and join up with the Government to find protection. They have realized the old Franklin saw: "We can hang together or hang separately." They then started to sign up to the New Army and Police forces and were even MORE harshly targeted by al Qaeda. This is making al Qaeda unwelcome even more than previously.

3) The Shia population is, itself, split into three major groupings, each consisting of multiple factions within those groups. Thus the 60% Shia majority is in no way seen as cohesive as a sectarian outlook as the splintering of Shia Islamic thinking that is based in Iraq has brought out many separatist groupings and followings who are willing to switch allegiance and be opportunists. That said they do fall into three main groups that broadly cover those intra-sect rivalries. They are as follows:

a) The followers of Iran/Khomeinist views. This is estimated to be a relative minority within the Shia population with estimates running between 10 % to 20% of the Shia population. These followers are mostly in the southeastern and Iranian border regions, with some good sized number of adherents all the way to Baghdad, where it starts to peter out badly. These are typified by the Iranian Foreign Legion of the Mahdi Army led by al Sadr, the Badr brigades, tribes aligned with their brothers in Iran and many imported followers from Iran over the porous border. Thus Iran is directly backing these groups and tribes for sectarian reasons and no love is lost between them and the majority of the Shia community over this. The simplistic view is that these folks are the *cause* of the troubles. Even in that view, however, the source of this being Iran is *not* being addressed. The current government, needing Sadrist support to come to power, has now found itself in the difficult position of having to *neutralize* the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades. They are reluctant to do so as their government has a low probability of remaining if that support is withdrawn and trying to even *ask* for Kurdish or Sunni Arabs to *help* them may isolate the government even further from their majoritatian base.

b) The followers of al-Sistani, the 60% majority of Shias and possibly more, in Iraq. Ali al-Sistani *wants* a Federal and non-sectarian government and has been stating so since the end of the major part of the conflict against the Ba'athists in 2003. His viewpoint, privately as related by numerous authors and reporters, is that he says the Sadrists will be *taken care of*. And, all indications of the emotional phrasing of that language is on the order of a Mafia Don talking about a smaller, rival gang. These folks who follow al-Sistani, hate, with avengence, the Khomeinist schools of thought and volunteered in huge numbers during the Iran/Iraq war. The reason we have not seen mass bloodshed of 'Lancet Proportions' is due wholly and completely to this grouping that supports a secular and common Federal Government. They do, however, sit on their hands and offer INTEL and anything else that does not make them an obvious target at home and sign up for the Army and Police in droves. The followers of al-Sistani are becoming the committed Nationalists of the New Iraq and prove that day in and day out by fighting and pacifying *anyone* in those organizations, even the upstart minority followers of al-Sistani that are militant.

c) The highly secular city dwellers and remoter tribes that approach religion in a more Westernized fashion as something of 'personal belief' but not to be fought over with blood and guts on the street. This grouping makes up 20% to 30% of the remainder, with a high cross-over to al-Sistani for belief, but non-alignment with him in actions. These folks do *not* want a return of Ba'athists, view Iran with crawling skin and are also signing up for the military and police, although not in proportion to the Sistani followers as these folks have the jobs in manufacturing, banking and industry necessary to get the Nation up and running. These are the people getting heavily trained in Western Nations and have stood up a National bank and lending system, a stock exchange, a foreign currency market, are measuring employment rates and can now figure out 'sector outputs', have targeted spending on agriculture and infrastructure so as to stand up the Nation as a whole. They are joined with a scattering of non-aligned Sunni tribes and the Kurds in the north to get an entirely new power grid in place that will slowly replace the old one which was a Soviet monstrosity. Re-conversion of power plants away from their Ba'athist patchwork use of crude oil to their original capability for natural gas is a slow and ongoing concern that will take until about 2012 to complete. Once done the natural gas now vented and wasted will be used for power generation and crude oil will go to refineries. Iraq, like the US, lacks refining capability. Unlike the US they do NOT have environmental laws and will be putting up new and modern refineries in the coming years. These people are targeted as they are the *glue* holding the Nation together for this generation. The followers of al-Sistani will take that long to get educated, trained and aligned into the infrastructure of Iraq to give it a solid manufacturing foundation and some large amount of heavy industrial employment. They have seen the results of decades of living off of oil wealth in other Nations and want ZERO part of that. The overall objective is to make Iraq into a modern, manufacturing Nation with a strong natural resources segment, not a vestige industrial sector living off of the leavings of crude oil sales.

What a 'best case' scenario holds is a decade or more of 'holding action', sectarian strife, and a slow and steady push by the New Iraqi Army in a slow form of 'sectarian cleansing' against the Khomeinist followers and the minoritarian al Qaeda and Ba'athist supporters. This is a *Hamiltonian* conception that works just fine, so long as everything remains *just as it is*. Looking at the 'Defeatocrats', The Jacksonian Party reply is: fat chance of THAT happening!

So the two-levels of correctness are covered: ideologically - representative democracy is in a continuous struggle against simplistic authoritarian, theocratic, socialistic and other viewpoints that diminish human freedoms, and, on the specifics of Iraq, this is played out against two sectarian ideologies looking to make a new Empire that is global in expanse, thus quavering *there* will start that ball rolling in a harsh manner that we will live to regret and quickly.

And those bemoaning 'staying the course' are realizing that *Hamiltonian* ideas cost time, lives and money, require some sort of stability and take for-freaking-ever to get anywhere. Americans like 'faster, better, cheaper' and hate 'choose 2 out of 3'. They do go together, unfortunately.

And as the *Jeffersonians* have been wishy-washy and unable to come to terms that 'all men are created equal' and actually mean it regardless of cultural background and SAY SO, they are not helping the matter. They should be the very FIRST to denounce ANYONE using cultural bias to demean the idea of human liberty being universal as something anathema and foreign to the Nation. Too busy knitting, I guess.

Finally, those splendiferous *Wilsonians*? They got us INTO THIS MESS and will NOT clean it up! The fool and daft notion of 'International Law' the 'UN handling everything' and then undermining the Nation's foreign policy in the region since "shuttle diplomacy" all the way to the Clinton diplomacy of 'huh?' and lack of foreign policy is still reflected by that lack of 'Guiding Principle Foreign Policy' under this Administration and Condaleeza Rice is a problem directly traced to Wislonian conceptions of higher world order. Both the Wilsonian Internationalists and the Wilsonian higher order folks want the Cold War paradigms to work and are unable to cut the bonds to that conflict to address this one properly. *Wilsonians* have not been addressing the Middle East since before we were attacked by Iran in 1979 and the first response we have given that had any meaning to this latest generation of deadly Islam was in 2001!

And they, the *Hamiltonians* and the *Jeffersonians* will NOT realize that this is a deadly conflict that cannot be addressed by 'wonderful international institutions'. These three strains of US political thought are holding onto the Cold War boat anchor after the chain has been released and the anchor, itself, is now submerging quickly. This lack of conceptual space leads to defeatism and there are long term consequences to that which these practitioners of these schools of thought try to wash their hands of, although the stench of it, it still clings to them. All three of these strains of American political thought are endangering the Nation *before* we even get to the Transnational Progressivists.

The *Jacksonian* viewpoint, which is the contrary side to the other strains of thought and reviews the struggle the Nation is in within the context of the actual, real modern world, and thus offers the way out and points out the incorrectness of the other strains lacks, is that: if the game is going against you, then it is time to change the operational parameters of the game itself, and then *play harder*. Jacksonians see that the US has been at war with Islamic Fundamentalism since 1979 and with Islam, periodically, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Strange that Jefferson could send the US Marines to 'kick butts and take names' TWICE and modern day Jeffersonians will not stand up for the SAME.

Jacksonians have a simple but not *simplistic* view of Foreign Policy based on HONOR not on things too complex to talk about to the common man. From that I put together a very basic set of Goals on the Global War on Terrorism that depends upon the strengths of the 18th Century Republic of the United States to still EXIST as it was enshrined in writing and we still hold to that to this very day. From that conception comes the plan of enaction which uses the enemies paradigm of 'asymmetrical warfare' against them in a way that *they* cannot combat effectively. This offers a way *out* of Iraq on a National level, also, as I went over a framework for Peace in the Middle East that is wholly consistent with the Foreign Policy, Goals on the Global War on Terrorism, *and* uses a robust conception of Foreign Policy to do the one thing necessary on a National level in the Middle East. It is the thing that Our enemies have been promising and I propose to turn the tables and GIVE IT TO THEM. By changing the nature of the *idea* of what the conflict in Iraq *represents* changes the actual GOALS of that conflict and offers new means to address it in ways that fall outside the scope of Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians and Wilsonians *combined*.

What is that, pray tell?

The Jacksonian way out?

I promise you, you will not like it.

It is to widen the war and take out SYRIA using Egyptian or Jordanian or Kurdish troops in an 'Afghanistan style' light infantry attack and use US air supremacy to wipe out the forces of Syria wherever they appear. From the moment allied forces hit the ground with some US Special Forces and USAF spotters, this force will be 'Rolling Hot': it will be a continuous forward assault starting from a small entry point and racing through Syria to demolish the regime there. That took two weeks in Afghanistan and three months in Iraq. Syria is the 'weak brother' of the Middle East and a hard case of influenza would turn it over, so two weeks sounds about right, given that any forces we get for this will be MORE CAPABLE than the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. And that is not saying much, believe me.

The modern US arsenal now will decimate any pre-2006 armored force on the battlefield via the use of Sensor Fuzed Weapons. Two were used in Iraq to wipe out the 'Elite Republican Guard' counter attack that was forming up and demolish its forward component and cause the rest of it to flee. Time involved: 10 minutes. Syria may think of this in conception, but not believe it operationally. Further, if used at a storage depot, this could wipe out any organized counter-attack before it begins. If Israel can have dominance over the 'impossble' Bekaa valley, the US will have absolute air supremacy over Syria. At that point, to drive home the stakes in this Middle Eastern policy, the Kurdish areas will be given autonomy and allowed to vote on joining their Iraqi brothers and the Nation of Iraq. The rest of Syria does not get this option and may find itself land locked with the port area and northern areas handed over to Iraq.

This result does multiple things simultaneously.

First: it removes support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. It will be isolated and contained without ready means of resupply. Israel will thank us as will the people of Lebanon. Hezbollah's days there will be *numbered* without a single US soldier needing to attack them and whatever Arab or Kurd force containing them during and after the conflict.

Second: it removes the entire Ba'athist support sturcture in the Middle East and removes it from the region totally. We will see ZERO return of Ba'athist insurgents in western Iraq. It will end all operations based out of Syria against Iraq from al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Ba'athist insurgents. It will remove easy overland supply from anywhere for the insurgents in western and central Iraq.

Third: it will bring a change in the demographic structure in Iraq and move it from its current: 60% Arab Shia, 20% Arab Sunni and 20% Kurdish Sunni to one of 50-55% Arab Shia, 15% Arab Sunni and 25-30% Kurdish Sunni. Exact numbers are hard to place, but the shift to a more Kurdish moderated Iraq is one towards *stability* and *prosperity*.

Fourth: it will be the first time an overland route from the Mediterranean to the Arab Gulf will appear in centuries under a single authority. To get *that* the Kurds will be holding the key to this and must be treated as full and fair EQUALS in a Federal Iraq and respected for their hard work. By playing the *middle man* Kurds suddenly gain regional respect and Iraq will look NORTH to the Kurds for answers, not East or South for division. The Arab tribes in the region will see which way the wind of this Sandstorm from the United States is blowing and push heavily for border provinces of their brothers in Syria to be allowed to join Iraq. The hammer will have fallen hard and they will not want a set of lesser hammerings from continuing on an insurgency that cannot be *backed*. This should be pushed to further move Iraq from Shia domination to one of divided equality between the major sects and get the tribes into more properly aligned provinces towards *them*. The tribes will suddenly start to get the hard understanding of 'Limited Federal Government' and 'Reserving All Other Rights to the Provinces and the People'. This is a *good* thing.

Fifth: this will be harsh payback to Turkey. They attempted to deny the Iraq war. They have not acted in good faith as allies. They will get conniption fits over a continuous Kurdish border of Iraq to their south. They will either have to 'put up or shut up' about integrating their society and getting equality of rights and opportunities for Kurds. Because Iraqi Kurds will now be seen as offering a way *out* to prosperity and equal rights for all Citizens. Turkey will have a scant few years to cleans their political climate of ideologues and follow the footsteps of Attaturk. My guess is that if they don't they will get a real, honest to goodness Civil War with Kurdish provinces staging it and trying to get *into* Iraq.

Sixth: the entire concentration of Iraq will be towards integration and securing its only unsecured borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia. This means that heavy,new infrastructure will need to be built in the new Iraqi provinces and the rump State of Syria given some minor trade agreements for use of that infrastructure. Let this smaller Syrian State realize that its bread is buttered on one side and that side is *not* that of conflict. My guess is the people of Lebanon will begin to take pity on the Syrians if they ask for Lebanese help.

Seventh: Iran will no longer like this idea of 'Getting the Caliphate' as they will now be facing unrest in THEIR Kudish and Azeri provinces along the Iraqi border. Funny thing is: once people start to see their brothers get freedom, they soon want it for themselves. Iran should be given harsh diplomacy to rid itself of nuclear aspirations, end funding to ALL of Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army and any other bits and pieces the State Department has found of their handiwork. They will balk. They will seethe. They will threaten. They will not be given the time to do a damn thing, really.

That was *stage one*.

Stage two is something folks will like even less, I am sure. The USAF and CVN battlegroups will be given time for R&R and resupply and whatever else they need to get back into fighting form. The next al Qaeda attack in Iraq traced back to Saudi Arabia will get this little bit of news in return to the Saudi Government: you have promised for a long time to get rid of these nasty and irrational fundamentalists their exporting of their vile creed. That you have promised for some years if not decades.

You have just seen Syria.

"Where's the beef?"

They will hem. They will haw. They will be face to face with the fact that their equipment is bought from the US as is their training. They will proclaim themselves protectors of the Holy Cities. They will do many things. They will invoke diplomacy and we shall use that to demonstrate that they really do *not* treat all parts of Islam equally. The second al Qaeda attack from Saudia Arabia will get this response:

"The US will back any non-aligned, Islamic forces to secure the holy cities in Saudi Arabia for ALL MUSLIMS. No muslim will be denied entry as part of this bargain. We will need 10,000 or so troops to do this and you will get aircover from the mightiest air forces on the planet. Luckily, the US owns them completely. Administration of the Cities will be done by 'Unity Councils' and supported by foreign donations. Every single sect of Islam gets ONE VOTE on the council. Size does not matter in this. It is FAITH that matters."

I can think of at least two or three Islamic Nations with a beef against Saudi Arabia and complaints against it. Iranians will not believe this, and yet still want to send forces. Their Regular Army will be *welcomed*. Iraqis will want a say in this just to counter Iran. The question is *not* getting 10,000 troops, but how to stop from getting a whole lot MORE. Either way this goes, either the Saudis finally start harshly pulling in the Wahhabists or the actual Islamic Coalition forming up in a couple of months and the end will still be the same. al Qaeda will wholly, and completely, lose its largest funding base. al Qaeda operations, already on a shoestring, will now get razor thin. In either case this works out much, much better for the US and we will STILL not have spent any significant troops to achieve these things.

The US will be seen as an 'honest broker' willing to support Islam and yet also cleanse it of radicalism. If Iran does NOT support this, it will be seen wholly and completely out for power ALONE without religious intent. The rest of Islam will be united in opening the Cities freely to ALL people of their faith without discrimination.

This is known as 'pulling the rug out from under the enemy'.

What is even better is that this offers a way out and a way UP for the Middle East. Iran, will either have to open up and HELP, in which case their people will get first hand knowledge of how the US operates and realize the insanity of going after us militarily and start to work hard on a new regime OR it will close up and become an immediate threat realizing that its existence is being threatened without a single shot being fired at it. It will lash out, in that case. And find the US Forces that have been stabilizing Iraq have already been shifting to counter them. The moment they *do* a two pronged attack from the southwest and northeast out of Afghanistan by US forces will put Iran out of operation in three weeks or so. Maybe even three or four months. Definitely not long as the regime is 'one deep' and are facing the hard demographics of their population coming to loathe them.

And who gets to run Iran while it recovers?

Simple: Afghanistan and Iraq.

There has to be some localized anti-terror cleanup in any event, and with US oversight, these two new democracies can help Iranians rebuild their Nation and understand how democracy *works* after having *hands on* experience. It would be a dissonance hear throughout the Middle East as the US would execute operations, but the control and oversight of what needs to be done would be jointly decided upon by Iraqis, Afghanis, a provisional Iranian council and the US. We can hold veto, but how to get this done is up to THEM, not US.

This does *not* eliminate the threat of Transnational Terrorism! Yes, all that fighting, dying, expenditure of capital and the original threat is still around. But, it will make the climate harshly more intolerant OF IT. And then, the third part of this plan, really ongoing from as soon as possible, is to actually exectue the Larger Goals on the Global War on Terrorism and start involving US Citizens and companies to hunt down and deprive these enemies of their goods, and their lives if need be. All that while securing banking and shipping and putting up border *defenses* that are *lethal*.

The concept for this war is to get a dialogue started within Islam by calling their bluff of being a "Religion of Peace". Jacksonians will help the Arab world clean up the mess of Syria and then enjoin the entirety of Islam to send REPRESENTATIVES to Mecca to hash out exactly WHAT ISLAM STANDS FOR. And while that takes a few *decades* the Middle East will find that its central Nations now have a dual ring of Democracies to deal with that it cannot ignore. The center of that ring is Israel. The first arm of that ring while be an expanded Iraq that cuts the Middle East in TWO. The final ring is staring in Afghanistan and causing a shift of thought there, so as to stabilize Central Asia. But that cannot be done until Islam hashes out just what, exactly, it IS. By putting the Holy Cities into the hands of ALL Muslims a new State is created that will be defended by them ALL. If they cannot find commonality and accommodation they will begin wiping each other out while the US sits on the sidelines. And if they can find commonality, then their unity will allow them to actually begin *purging* radical Islamic beliefs. Or unite them behind it, which will then, definitively, make them the "Religion of Empire". And with the US standing in the wings, that will last for a very, very, very short period of time.

Is this a good way forward? It is forward, goodness is for history to decide.

Wonderful? No.

Better than any damn thing that anyone else has thought of? Yup.

Put up or shut up. The 'same old, same old' is going to get us killed.

You wanted a new way forward to *stabilize* Iraq? Well, you now HAVE ONE.

A real live, honest to goodness plan.

A Jacksonian Plan.

So we can get this nonsense in the Middle East done with for good and all, and get the fighting down to the pesonal level. Because these terrorists don't DESERVE death at the hands of Our Armed Forces. Terrorists sully the concept of Armies and Nations. They need more personal retribution.

From Citizens that see profit in their hides.

That is what they *deserve*.

From We the People.