Unintended consequences

Have you ever pulled a loose thread on a sweater and found that instead of just breaking off, it starts a chain reaction that causes your sweater to unravel right before your eyes?

That's essentially what is happening right now around the world, particularly in Europe and the Middle East.  We've been pulling a string for some time now expecting it to break, but it hasn't.  

For years much of the "progressive" (Western) world has tried to either help the oppressed people under the boot of some of the most notorious dictators ever, or has tried to help themselves to the assets (oil) of those same evil Mid East dictators, depending on your degree of skepticism.  

What is now happening is the implosion of many of the institutions that we've taken for granted for the past half century.  They call it "unintended consequences".  We may have wanted to take down those evil dictators, but I doubt we wanted to destroy entire countries.  Remember what Gen. Colin Powell said:  "You break it, you own it."  Ouch!

The bad news is the world is unraveling right now, and it's going to get a lot worse.  The good news is, this is truly a battle of "good vs evil", and just as in WWII, I believe good will eventually prevail. 

Our politicians keep talking about reestablishing some degree of stability in the Mid East so that all those millions of refugees now on the move can go back home.  

HA!  Dream on!  Not gonna happen!  

There are too many competing clans and tribes and sects for [the countries formerly known as] Syria or Iraq or Libya (and probably a few others) to ever be put back together as they were.

Those Mid East countries' utter collapse appear to be the first of the unintended consequences.  Next might come the collapse of the European Union.  For decades they have welcomed oppressed refugees from vastly different cultures to their shores, then patted themselves on the back for their compassion.  Then they segregated them in essentially ethnic ghettos where their isolation led to them becoming "second class citizens".  Next came their radicalization, and now violence.

After the attacks in Paris last week, French President Fran-swa O'lon (aka Frank Holland) has invoked the European Union protocol that requires the EU to come to France's aid in their war with ISIS.  Most will, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.  

Some EU countries are worried about stirring up their own Muslim populations, and some lack the financial means to contribute very much.  All this on top of calls for each member country to accept their "fair share" of the  Muslim refugees now streaming in.  And to add even more to the Continental stress, this is also on top of the recent financial crisis that saw a massive transfer of wealth from the northern tier to the southern tier.  

The European Union is slowly but surely moving towards "every man for himself".  They simply have different fundamental national interests.  We'll see how they react to the considerable casualties likely coming their way.  Just as in WWI and WWII, Europe is going to bear the brunt of this latest war, too.

So will the United States be able to absorb the violence that will sooner or later find us, too, or will we be so "casualty averse" that we quickly throw in the towel a la Neville Chamberlain?  We talk a mean game for sure, but when we're faced with physical violence right here in our back front yard, are we going to cut and run?

I believe we still have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to see it through....barely.  The alternative will be so heinous that we'll have no real choice but to suck it up.  The war against ISIS in the Mid East is proving successful.  We're shrinking the territory they control and their casualties are mounting.  But desperate people do desperate things, and the more we hurt them there, the more they'll attack us here.  Hold on....this isn't going to be pretty.  

Just never forget....

S

What kind of half-assed war are we fighting?

Has our military gone all squishy between the ears or is it their civilian handlers who are too busy playing with dolls to conduct a proper war? 

Think about it....Al Qaeda is admittedly hard to hit.  They are a rag-tag group of individuals with small arms.  They can duck into a building or a hut or a cave anywhere to escape the prying eyes of aerial surveillance.  If you can't see 'em, it's hard to hit 'em.  But the terrorist group ISIS isn't Al Qaeda.  ISIS owns territory.  They have tanks and trucks.  They control producing oil fields that make millions of dollars (?) to fund their operations.

It seems to me it should be be a fairly simple thing to see a tank in ISIS territory.  If you see a tank, and it isn't one of ours or our allies, it's theirs.  Push the damn button!  Boom!

They have convoys, complete with flags.  Push the damn button!  Boom!

They even have victory parades.  Push the damn button!  Boom!  *I know, I know....collateral damage*

This morning I read this:  "Our spokesperson Colonel (Steve) Warren previously stated that we were going to start going after ISIL's financial abilities."  

"START" to go after ISIS financial abilities?  Shouldn't we have done that on the first hour of the first day of our "war" with ISIS?

Have you ever seen a producing oil well?  They're NOT stealthy.  They have pump jacks, and storage tanks, and pipelines, and manifolds.  If it's in territory ISIS controls, it's theirs.  Push the damn button!  BOOM!

Yesterday French bombers attacked ISIS command and control facilities, weapons depots, training facilities, etc in their "capital" of Raqqa, Syria.  We shared our intelligence information with the French identifying the target's locations.   So if we knew where they were, why didn't WE bomb them weeks / months ago?   

Even the hacker group Anonymous has jumped in:   "Anonymous said Sunday that more than 2,000 ISIS-related Twitter accounts had been taken down in Operation Paris (#OpParis)."  So ISIS has had 2,000 Twitter accounts open until now and we didn't take them down?  Anonymous can find them but we can't?  REALLY?

If I'm going to get in a fight with someone, I'm NOT going to just flick 'em on the ear.  No, I'm going to hit 'em square in the face as hard as I can.  "Fair" and "war" don't belong in the same sentence.  I would lie, cheat, and steal to win and get it over with.

I'll admit I'm not a military man.  If any of you are, and can tell me why we haven't been fighting this "war" with a 100% effort, I'd like to hear from you.  As it is now, I just don't get it.

S

You (almost) read it here first

Yesterday I read in the news that Jihadi John, the public face (eyes?) of ISIS, the nut case who was their designated beheader, was killed in a US airstrike.  Good riddance!  

Then the news went on to say that our strikes have been responsible for a mid-to-upper level ISIS leader being killed every few days since the summer.  And how anti-ISIS forces in Syria / Iraq have inflicted on them recent battlefield setbacks, and how ISIS recruiting is beginning to fall short of replacing their losses.  Again, no tears from me.

But then a little light bulb went on in my brain that reminded me of the old saying, "Desperate people do desperate things".  The one thing a military cannot do is lose momentum.  Once momentum is lost, supporters stop jumping on their bandwagon.  It seemed logical to me that ISIS would need to do something soon, something game changing, to regain the momentum.

Since the only thing ISIS is good at is killing, I expected to see them commit a major atrocity somewhere.  My thoughts were they could attack the US, but really, there were targets softer and easier to get to elsewhere that could be attacked and help get ISIS back on the offensive.  Logically, that would be somewhere in Europe.

Before I could put my thoughts on the internet, it happened.  As we saw last evening, they chose Paris.  Over a hundred souls are dead, with another 300 injured, many critically.  French President Francois Holland has now said "This is war.  We are going to be ruthless!"  And I just heard a French commentator say "No boots on the ground there (Syria / Iraq) will mean more blood on the streets here."

This is going to be big.  Really BIG!  Where many countries, many different political persuasions, have been holding back, the pressure to get involved in a more substantial way may now be too much for them to resist.  For a western country to agree to contribute a mere handful of aircraft to the anti-ISIS cause will no longer be considered enough.  And after the Rooskies lost a passenger aircraft to ISIS, you know they are going to ramp up their kick-ass-and-take-name offensive.  Strange bedfellows, huh?

Now I'm wondering what is going to happen to / towards the millions of Muslims who live in western nations?  It's hard to not look at them with suspicion, but to do anything overtly discriminatory against them could backfire in a big way.  And it's already started.  I just heard a Republican presidential candidate say "Our president needs to do more to protect the American people instead of trying to protect the image of Muslims."  I get that, but still, it's a slippery slope we're walking.

IMHO, the big winners:  Political hawks (read: Republicans), the pro-gun movement in the US (yes, we tend to over react), and the western world's military / industrial complex.  

Doesn't the fact that we will likely soon be spending more of our human and national treasure fighting ISIS mean that they win, even if they lose?  

Maybe I should stop thinking.

S


 

A dirty little secret

But first, my Republican debate recap....

What happened to the sniping, and the jibes at The Donald's hair, and Ben's days as a juvenile delinquent?  NOTHING!  It never came up.  So boring!

Actually it was a fairly respectful exchange of real ideas.  For that I give credit to the moderators from the Fox Business News channel for doing an excellent job.  They didn't try to blindside anyone, they asked meaningful questions, and when the candidates gave rather soft, squishy answers, they followed up, "So to make this clear, you're saying you're NOT in favor, is that correct?"  Bravo!  They didn't let anyone do an end run as most politicians will do if given a chance.

Mark O. Rubio is IMHO the slickest of the bunch.  He is an excellent speaker, has good hair, was never rattled, but seemed to use too much "politician speak" to suit me.  He often speaks in non-controversial terms like "promoting family values" and "my parents were working people who loved us and worked hard to provide for us".  Well duh....who isn't for that?  He's definitely the voice of the Republican Washington establishment.  He did have some concrete ideas for immigration reform, though.

Carly Fiorina came across as the most hawkish on a stage of (mostly) hawks.  I'm thinking Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were watching at home saying, "Damn!  She's tougher than either of us!"  But she was almost scary looking....properly erect, glaring eyes, not smiling, almost gritting her teeth when she spoke.  Her demeanor reminded me of one of those bad boy Germans from the 1930's.  Her proposal for a zero-based budget is good, but the crooks inside the Beltway are not about to give up their slush fund.   Not going to happen!

Jeb did his best, but he still fell short.  Dr. C seemed in control, if not break-out hot, Donald Trump managed to muzzle his mouth fairly well except for one jab at Carly, Rand Paul....or is it Paul Rand?....is still wearing his tin foil hat, and even Ted Cruz (I almost throw up in my mouth when I say his name) made some good points.  Being the pragmatist that I am, I liked John Kasich, but as he's not one of the "beautiful people", I don't see him going anywhere.  So be it.

Now for my dirty little secret....

The Repub's talked much about tax reform, the common thread being the popularity of a simple flat-percentage tax and doing away with most deductions and loopholes, except the home mortgage interest deduction.  They argue it promotes home ownership and therefore good citizenship.  The truth is "The American Dream" of home ownership doesn't need to be supercharged by the gubment.

Here's why:  Roughly 65% of Americans own their homes, the rest for various reasons rent or live in mama's basement.  Of those who own, approximately half itemize their taxes and take the mortgage interest deduction.  The rest either own their home outright and have no mortgage (and therefore pay no mortgage interest), or are at that point in the life of the mortgage that they are paying mostly principle and very little interest.  For them the standard deduction (short tax form) works best.  That means only about 33% +/- of us actually take the deduction.  The 2/3 of us who don't take the mortgage deduction are subsidizing the 1/3 who are.

It's rigged.  This whole scheme exists primarily to benefit the lenders (bankers).  When they make a mortgage loan, it is front loaded with the interest, the principle paydown (the part that builds your equity) not coming until the final few years of a 30 year (or 15 year) mortgage.  In other words the bank gets their profit up front, then if you pay the loan off early (usually by selling it to someone else who gets a brand new mortgage), they don't care.  In fact they love it....they can start their front loaded money making scheme all over again!

To help them sell this ripoff, Congress years ago (1930's) began actively promoting home ownership via the newly created FHA, necessitating new mortgages.  Cha ching!  (If you don't think it's good to have friends in high place, just look at the bankers!)

Congress isn't offering us a mortgage interest deduction to help us.  (But of course they'll tell us they are.)  They're doing it to help their banker buddies!

My industry, homebuilding, goes all ballistic when anyone suggests the home mortgage interest deduction be eliminated.  "But nobody will ever buy a house again" they squeal.  That's BS.  Up until the 1980's (?) we could write off the interest we paid on credit cards and auto loans, too.  Guess what?  When the IRS phased those deductions out over a number of years, people didn't stop using their credit cards or stop buying new cars.  Not at all!

If we were to, over a decade or so, phase this deduction out it would bring in hundreds of billions of additional dollars to the Treasury every year.  If that money could be used entirely to reduce the national debt and not be siphoned off by Congress to fund other pork projects (like the Social Security Trust Fund was), imagine the effect on our financial stability.  

Imagine how much less the government would have to spend on debt servicing.  Imagine how much our country's credit rating would improve.  Imagine how much lower interest rates would be.  WE WIN!

All of us except the bankers, that is.  That's why this will never happen.  *sigh*

S

OMG! OMG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

So now the Federales say the Russian jetliner that crashed in Egypt a few days ago might have been blown up in mid-air by a bomb planted by ISIS or Al Qaeda or maybe Dick Cheney, but they're not really sure.  What I do know is that the news media is hyping this for all the ratings they can get.

Right now there are probably people all over 'Merica fretting over whether to go ahead with their plans to fly to grandma's house for Thanksgiving, or to surprise the kids with a trip to Disney World over the Christmas holidays.   

"But what if those mean jihadi people blow up OUR plane?  You heard what Blitz Wolfer said, didn't you?"

Whoa....whoa....let's review:  There are approximately 93,000 airline flights worldwide every day.  That's 33,945,000 flights every year, give or take a couple.  And how often, historically, have bad guys blown up airliners?  Even if they blew up one a year, that would still mean your odds were 1 in 33,945,000 that it would be your plane.  Would you go to Vegas and bet your 401K with those odds?  Really?

So what should we (you and I , Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public) do?  Easy....NOTHING.  Go about your business...go to work...go to school...go to a movie, do whatever you normally do.  Sure, we should always keep our eyes and ears open for anything suspicious, but that's just everyday common sense.   And honestly, I don't run with a rough crowd likely to bomb anything.  I doubt I'd be the one to hear a couple of jihadists making their martyrdom plans.

I'll admit, I don't have much faith in US airport security.  I think they're a bunch of lightweights.  But I do think there are plenty of super-smart intelligence operatives world-wide who would more than likely hear of something this dastardly (with the obvious rare exception) and alert our TSA Barney Fife's in time for them to get out their bullet.

Seriously, I think ISIS, if it did in fact blow up this airplane, has really messed in their mess kit.  While Western democracies are all too aware of public opinion and take great care to at least appear to dot their I's and cross their T's before they go on the warpath, not so the Russians.  They just crank up their tanks, gas up their planes, and start kicking ass.  Vladimir Putin is not known for his timidity.

It might be in our best interest to just sit back and let the Russians in Syria get all worked up....let them take out their anger on ISIS.  Let them wear themselves out and spend their limited fortune.  Let them be the proud owners of the largest debris pile in the Mid East.

*Now, where was I?  Oh yes...cleaning my guns*  ;)

S

Do the ends ever justify the means?

I've been reading a book about the Israeli Mossad, their version of our CIA, titled Gideon's Spies. It tells the behind-the-scenes stories of some of the exploits of that fabled intelligence service, including many of the details about the numerous assassinations they've carried out.  They're pretty brutal, for sure.  Which begs the question, do the ends ever justify the means?  Is assassination ever right / justified?

Let's be clear here:  This isn't something that only the Israelis, with their backs to the sea, do to stay alive.  James Bond ^, the legendary British MI6 agent does it all the time....I've seen him!  The fact is, the British do it, the French do it, the Russians certainly do it, and so do many, many other countries.  Including your good 'ol USA.  

Our difference is we are rich enough and powerful enough that we can (usually ?) pay others to do our dirty work, enabling us to maintain "plausible deniability".  Just like we don't torture terror suspects....but we do send them to Jordan, or Egypt, or Kazakhstan for a pleasant visit with those nice folks. 

I remember my mom telling me "two wrongs don't make a right".  True, but if one of those wrongs is so heinous, and the consequences will be so catastrophic, THEN would another "wrong" be justified?

Yes, Israel has whacked scientists from Syria and Pakistan and Iran (and probably elsewhere) who were actively working on perfecting nuclear weapons, weaponized germs, etc, weapons those countries have vowed to use to "wipe Israel off the map".  And all indications were they weren't just idle threats.  Honestly, I can grudgingly understand the Israeli's  actions.

To use that same logic, if the US or the UK or France or Germany knew of a dastardly plot about to come to fruition, and if the country harboring the plotters couldn't be trusted to squash it, should we go in and "neutralize" the threat?

And where is that fine line between "yes", and "let's wait and see"?  And if "let's wait and see" prevails, what happens if they're wrong and the result is another 9/11?  Do those who erred on the side of restraint deserve responsibility for the catastrophe?  Would you have the cojones to "wait and see"?  And if you were too quick to say "go for it" (think GW Bush vs Iraq), what then? 

Let's face it, making leadership decisions is a tough business!  (That's why they all leave office with gray hair.)

To you, is this a black and white issue, or is there a big gray area?  (Pun intended.)

S

Trouble in Paradise?

Refugee centers in Sweden are being burned to the ground in what appears to be a statement against the significant number of refugees the country has allowed in.  The multiple arsons have all been at facilities which house or are slated to house immigrants.

[>100K immigrants are expected to arrive there in 2015.   Sweden's current total population is estimated to be 9.8M]  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sweden has long had a reputation for being hospitable to asylum seekers, apparently up 'till now.  It seems there is a backlash growing against the sizable Middle Eastern community of refugees that have made their way to Sweden in recent years.  There are even a number of areas (55) where police, fire, and EMT service is not readily available due to Muslim "gangs" who are terrorizing their neighborhoods.  The gangs run things there, not the civil authorities.
  

The Swedish EMT union (?) has even declared that they would not respond to calls to those areas unless they were provided "military grade" equipment and protection.  [NOTE:  That was in 2014.  I'm not sure if that situation still persists today.]

Here is the real world we face:  Refugees are welcomed in, given all the advantages of their host countries social welfare system, yet are not being assimilated into the mainstream of society. They remain isolated and often unemployed, leading to social unrest.  This is common in much of Europe, and has led to the rise of many nationalistic, anti-immigrant political parties.
  

Just opening your doors out of the kindness of your heart, then walking away while patting yourself on the back is just asking for trouble.  Without having a long term top-to-bottom plan to assimilate new immigrants, including having at least a reasonable hope of jobs available for them when they get here, is just moving problems from one place to another.  

In a perverse way, this kind-yet-not-well-thought-out gesture is actually playing right into the hands of terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.  Masses of poor, isolated, and unemployed youth are fertile recruiting grounds for evil doers.  It's happening every day!

"Yeah, but that's over there, and we're here.  No problem, right?  Right?"

It's a crazy, dangerous "damned if we do, damned if we don't" world we live in.  Just sayin'.

S