EFTA00718433.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: jeevacation@gmail.com Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 02/17/13 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:47:38 +0000 Attachments: Obama,_in_State_of_the_Union,_makes_case_that_middle_class_isjob_one_Scott_Wilson TWP_February_13,2013.pdf; Wayne_LaPierre,_More_Guns_Needed_ForjHellish_World'_Filled_With_Hurricanes,_Kidn appers,_Drug_Gangs_Christina_Wilkie_Huff_Post_02_13_13.pdf; Top_Ten_Mistakes_the_Bush_Administration_ls_Repeating_from_Vietnam.pdf; A Timelinefor the_Iraq_War_Faiz_Shakir_ThinkProgress_2012.pdf; TITe_Growingforporate_Cash_Hoard_Bruce_Bartlett_NYT_FEBRUARY_12,2013.pdf; No,_Marco_Rubio,_government_did_not_cause_the_housing_crisis_Ezra_Klein_TWP_Febr uary_13,2013.pdf; Texas_Senator_Goes_on_Attack_and_Raises_Bipartisan_Hacklesiohanthan_Weisman_Feb ruary_15,_2013.pdf; Simon_&_Garfunkel.pdf Dear Friends On Tuesday evening in his 1st State of the Union Address since reelection, President Obama challenged Congress to do whatever they can to assist the American middle class squeezed by rising costs and stagnant wages, making clear that he will devote much of his second term to closing the income gap between rich and poor. Obama called restoring the country's middle-class promise "our generation's task," casting the ability to work and prosper as a basic American principle in jeopardy because of a changing economy and partisan dysfunction in Washington. Arguing for an active government role to tackle inequality, Obama proposed a series of ways - some old, some new — to improve access to education and expand job training programs. He would raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour — a nearly 25 percent bump — over the next three years. Not being saddled with the worry of a re-election the speech was a full-throated rebuke and disavowal of the conservative argument that government must shrink and cower. In particular it was a rebuke of the economic theory that a government's role in revival is to retreat and lift/relax regulations. It was an embrace of the country's growth and diversity and an elevation of those down on their luck. And it was a bring-it-on gesture to the gun lobby and the politicians who fear it. Many of his previous economic plans have stalled in a divided Congress. But speaking from a position of political strength — and facing a deficit of less than $1 trillion for the first time in his administration — Obama suggested that the American public supports many of his goals, even if many in the chamber do not. In an hour- long address focused tightly on domestic issues, Obama also announced that he will bring 34,000 American troops home from Afghanistan over the next year, cutting the U.S. presence there by almost half and concluding the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Throughout the speech, however, was a warning that the nation's progress, which he repeatedly called "unfinished," is in peril unless Obama and Congress can work together on the economy's behalf. "We gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded," he said. ". . . It is our generations task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth — a rising, thriving middle class." EFTA00718433 With the President and congressional leaders unable to reach agreement on how to avert sequestrations — automatic government spending cuts — that starts in just a little over two weeks away — and which will fall hardest on those who can least afford them and could turn the economy into a tailspin. He called for "bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform" and emphasized that his proposals would not add to the $854 billion deficit, only reallocate money already in the budget to finance them. "But let's be clear: Deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan," Obama said. "A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs — that must be the North Star that guides our efforts." The President is taking his message on the road over the next few days, visiting North Carolina, Georgia and Illinois to discuss various economic proposals. The proposals include spending $40 billion to upgrade bridges as well as starting a fund, known as the Energy Security Trust, responsible for researching ways for more American cars and trucks to run on cleaner fuels. When Obama spoke Tuesday about immigration legislation, gun control and climate change — issues that rank high on his domestic agenda — he did so by connecting them directly to the American economy. He called on Americans to cut in half the energy wasted by homes and businesses in the next two decades, something that would benefit the environment as well as the economy. Green jobs, he said, will be the ones helping drive future employment growth. He seems to have decided to move beyond his political opponents and the pundits and talk directly to the American people. The proposals include spending $40 billion to upgrade bridges as well as starting a fund, known as the Energy Security Trust, responsible for researching ways for more American cars and trucks to run on cleaner fuels. When Obama spoke Tuesday about immigration legislation, gun control and climate change — issues that rank high on his domestic agenda — he did so by connecting them directly to the American economy. He called on Americans to cut in half the energy wasted by homes and businesses in the next two decades, something that would benefit the environment as well as the economy. Green jobs, he said, will be the ones helping drive future employment growth. In his most passionate moments, the President demanded action against gun violence as part of what he called "building new ladders of opportunity" for low-income communities aspiring to rise into the middle class. Focusing on the poor, the President said, 'Tonight, let's also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimatedfrom years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are stillfightingfor theirfirst job. America is not a place where chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that is why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them." To address the tens of millions of working Americans living in poverty, the President proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour over the next three years was among several new proposals that his advisers said were designed to close the income gap - and to "tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that itfinally becomes a wage you can live on." As part of his job training initiatives, Obama proposed spending what advisers estimated to be $1 billion to build "manufacturing institutes" where private and public- sector agencies, including the Defense Department and Energy Department, collaborate to prepare workers for the challenges of the new economy. He also proposed a revamping of our educational system, from universal "high quality preschool" to a redesign of high schools "so they better equip graduatesfor the demands of a EFTA00718434 high-tech economy" and changing the Higher Education Act "so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types offederal aid." The President also reiterated his desire to address problems in the U.S. voting system, typified in the last election by the hours-long wait some voters endured to cast ballots in crowded polling stations, many in urban areas. He mentioned the issue in his victory speech in November and on Tuesday announced a commission to study ways of making voting simpler. It will be chaired by the lead attorney from Obama's past campaign, Bob Bauer, and his counterpart from Republican Mitt Romney's, Benjamin Ginsberg. Obama spent less time on foreign policy, emphasizing the continuing fight against al-Qaeda and the impending conclusion of the war in Afghanistan — America's longest — at the end of next year. Playing to hawks, he also warned the leaders of Iran that "now is the timefor a diplomatic solution" to avert a military confrontation over its uranium enrichment program. But many of his foreign policy ambitions appeared aimed at improving the nation's economy, and he mentioned the tumultuous Middle East only in a brief passage, saying he would address the region further during a visit there next month. As usual Republican lawmakers reacted coolly to Obama's message, characterizing the program he outlined as a defense of big government at a time when they believe over-regulation and high taxes are keeping the economy down. "But hisfavorite attack ofall is that those who don't agree with him, that we only care about rich people," said Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who delivered the GOP response. ". . . Mr. President, I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors — hard-working middle-class Americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government They need a plan to grew the middle class." Both Rubio and Paul Ryan's (representing the Tea Party) rebuttals showed that neither are "readyfor prime time" and both men's messages were repackaged arguments and failed Republican policies from the past. Nothing new President Obama delivered a powerful State of the Union speech, conveyed with passion and emotion, with a vision of America's future, and his second term, in which the country is not in perpetual war, government plays an expansive role, Congressional obstruction is named and shamed and he is bold and unapologetically progressive. It should be remembered for many things -- from the emphasis on greater gender equality to the moving tributes for inspirational citizens and the presence of families whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. Hopefully the speech's longer term impact and economic messages, including the urgency of growing America from the middle out will resonate loudly and durably both inside and outside Washington, DC. And as my twelve year old daughter would say.... He Rocked! Leadership is defined not only by our words and our will, but by the very actions we take to back up our vision. Last night, President Obama delivered his State of the Union address (SOTU) to a nation that gave him the majority of its vote in 2012, and to a citizenry that is still overwhelmingly ready to continue moving forward. The president encouraged unity, economic growth, increasing the minimum wage, protecting voting rights, salvaging the middle class, combating climate change, enacting safe gun legislation, utilizing clean energy, educating our youth, bringing our troops home, immigration reform and much, much more. After his address, the president conducted a conference call with grassroots supporters, then took his message on a three-city tour. He backed his own words with action; now we, the people, must do the same. After all, movements begin in our EFTA00718435 own homes -- they don't come from the White House. If we want to see real substantive change in our lives and in society, then each and every one of us has to make it happen, period. "We may do different jobs and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us," stated the president in his SOTU remarks. But as Americans, we all share the same proud title -- we are citizens. It's a word that doesn't just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations, that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others.... Perhaps nothing summarizes the task before us all more than these words. It is not enough for us to simply list our grievances, or acknowledge challenges that exist; we must consistently work and strive to create the progress we seek. The president is our leader, and while he may guide us in the right direction, it is incumbent upon all of us to work together, take concrete steps and create a society that is more fair and more just for all. Rev Al Sharpton - this week It you ask the average American, they will tell you that America is a righteous country seeking peace. But when you really look at its history, American has been in more wars in more places around the world than almost every other country since its birth. There have also been numerous wars in which it has interfered with and "proxy wars" such as the Iraq-Iran, Contras in Nicaragua, as well as the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Congo, Chile and in Central America. Here is just a sampling of US military operations since the American Revolution. And although many do not carry the word "war," still tens of millions have been killed and trillions of dollars wasted. So why has America been in so many wars? And if you don't think so.... Just look at the sampling below: American Revolutionary War (1775-1781) Northwest Indian War (1785-1795) Quasi-War aka Franco American War First Barbary War (1801-1805) Tecumseh's War War of 1812 (1812-1815) Second Barbary War (1815) First Seminole War (1817-1818) Ankara War Winnebago War Black Hawk War (1832) Second Seminole War (1835-1842) Mexican American War (1846-1848) Navajo Wars Cayuse War Apache Wars Yakima War Rogue Rivers War Puget Sound War Third Seminole War Second Opium War (1856-1960) Reform War EFTA00718436 Paiute War American Civil War (1861-1865) Dakota War of 1862 Colorado War Snake War Red Cloud's War Comanche War (1868-1874) Modoc War Red River War Black Hills War Nez Perce War Bannock War Cheyenne War (1878) Sheepeater Indian War White River War Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. (1893) Second Anglo-Egyptian War (the Egyptian Expedition) Colombian Civil War (the Burning of Colon) (1895) First Samoan Civil War (1886) Ghost Dance War Chilean Civil War Second Samoan Civil War (1898-1899) Spanish American-War (1898) Philippines-American War (1899-1902) Banana Wars (including the US occupation of Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic) (1898-1935) Boxer Rebellion (doesn't actually have "war" in its name) (1899-1902) Panama — US forces go in to protect American lives and property (1904) Honduras — US go in to protect American Interest China — US forces go in to protect American property (1914) Mexican Revolution (1914-1917) World War I (1917-1918) Cuba — US forces go in to protect American business interest (1917-1922) Russian Civil War (1918-1920) World War II (1941-1945) Cold War (not a "real/physicalt' war) First Indochina War Korean War (1950-1953) Lebanon crisis (1958) Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) Dominican Intervention (1965) Vietnam War (1965-1975) Laotian Civil War (1968) Cambodian Civil War (1968) Lebanese Civil War (1982-1983) Operation Eagle Claw (1980) Grenada Conflict (1983) Beirut Conflict (1982-1984) EFTA00718437 Panama Invasion — Operating Just Cause to capture President Manuel Noriega (1989-1990) Iran-Iraq War Gulf War (1990-1991) Somali Civil War — Operation Restore Hope (1992-1993) Bosnian War (1999) Kosovo War (1996-1999) War on Terror (2001—present) War in Afghanistan (2001-War not ended yet) Iraq War (2003-2011) Second Liberian Civil War Libyan Civil War (2011) Again, there were/are numerous US military operations around the world not called `war', of such as the US invasion of Panama, the US invasion of Grenada, the US invasion of the Dominican Republic, the Moro Rebellion, the Rio de Janerio Affair, the Oahu Expedition, and Battle of Kororareka, as well as the War on Poverty, the War On Drugs and the Indian wars and various slave rebellions prior to the Revolutionary War. One has to ask, why as a country that professes peace are we so preoccupied with war, winning and instilling our vision of democracy, when a 102 year old woman had to wait in a line to vote last November in Florida, that was designed to discourage her and others. War with North Vietnam had been on the minds of Americans since the mid-1950s when a communist-led insurgency split the country and drove out the French colonial forces. President John F. Kennedy had sent military advisers and then troops into South Vietnam. After Kennedy's assassination, what to do about the Vietnam War became a pressing matter of business for the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson. In the 1950s and '60s the dominant idea in foreign policy circles was the Domino Theory, which stated that if one nation fell to the communists, the surrounding countries would fall, too. That is what had happened in Eastern and Central Europe after World War II, and the West was worried that with communist governments already in place in North Korea and North Vietnam, a failure to come to the aid of South Vietnam would mean the collapse of that country as well as all its neighbors—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, perhaps even Japan. Once the dominoes started to fall, there was no telling where they would stop. As President Johnson and his White House advisers which included many members of the Kennedy administration—discussed what to do, they failed to ask two hard questions: First, if the worst happened and South Vietnam fell to the communists, was it likely that all of South Asia would fall too? And, second, if the United States did commit its troops to fight alongside the South Vietnamese army, would this combined force be able to win the war? According to Robert McNamara, who was LBJ's Secretary of Defense, neither he, nor President Johnson, nor anyone in the White House asked those questions. In a televised address to the nation on August 4, 1964, LBJ declared, "I shall immediately request the Congress to pass a resolution making it clear that our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support offreedom and in defense ofpeace in Southeast Asia." EFTA00718438 Johnson was acting on high motives. A decade earlier the United State had been a signatory to SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization), in which the U.S., France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan pledged to prevent communism from gaining ground and spreading in South Asia. "America keeps her word," Johnson said. "A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us....This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity." The bill to commit more American troops to fight in Vietnam became known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, named for an exchange of gunfire between U.S. and North Vietnamese ships in the Gulf of Tonkin a few weeks earlier. It passed the House of Representatives 416 to 0, and it passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 2. But the war did not go well. No matter how many troops LBJ sent to Vietnam, the North Vietnamese were not defeated. As U.S. casualties mounted and Americans back home began to believe that the war was unwinnable, anti-war protests-some of them violent—erupted across the country, with demonstrators denouncing the president as a war-monger and a murderer of innocent Vietnamese civilians. Johnson's decision to increase U.S. involvement in Vietnam hamstrung his presidency and ruined his reputation. The man who had brought about the passage of the Civil Rights Act and a host of new social programs as part of his War on Poverty was hounded from office. By the time the United States withdrew from Vietnam in 1973, more than 1.5 million Vietnamese had died, more than 58,000 U.S. troops had been killed, more than 150,000 were wounded, and 2,000 were missing in action. With no clear goal other than to deny the Vietnamese for choosing their own leadership, based on a faulty 'Domino Theory' and not understanding that if democracy and free-trade is truly the best system of government over the long run it will win, the Vietnam War of choice it definitely one of the top three policy blunders in the country's history. So why didn't we learn from this and not repeat the same mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. And please remind anyone urging that America start a preempted war/attack against Iran or North Korea. HMI** Last week, the New York Times published a chilling account of how indiscriminate killing remains bad policy even today. This time, it's done not by young G.I.'s in the field but by anonymous puppeteers guiding drones by remote control against targets thousands of miles away, often killing the innocent and driving their enraged families and friends straight into the arms of the very terrorists we're trying to eradicate. The Times told of a Muslim cleric in Yemen named Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, standing in a village mosque denouncing Al Qaeda. It was a brave thing to do -- a respected tribal figure, arguing against terrorism. But two days later, when he and a police officer cousin agreed to meet with three Al Qaeda members to continue the argument, all five men -- friend and foe — were incinerated by an American drone attack. The killings infuriated the village and prompted rumors of an upwelling of support in the town for Al Qaeda, because, The Times reported, "such a move is seen as the only way to retaliate against the United States." Our blind faith in technology combined with a sense of infallible righteousness continues unabated. It brought us to grief in Vietnam and Iraq and may do so again with President Obama's cold-blooded use of drones and his seeming indifference to so-called "collateral damage," otherwise known as innocent bystanders. By the standards of slaughter in Vietnam the deaths by drone are hardly a blip on the consciousness of official Washington. But we have to wonder if each one — a young boy gathering wood at dawn, unsuspecting of his imminent annihilation, the student picking up the wrong hitchhikers, that tribal elder standing up against fanatics — doesn't give rise to second thoughts by those judges who prematurely handed our president the Nobel Prize for Peace. Better they had kept it on the shelf in hopeful waiting, untamished. Although I personally like President Obama, t disagree with his drone strategy and EFTA00718439 the culture in America that celebrates war, looking for wins and its blatant disregard for the immense suffering, destruction and death inflicted on millions, as a result of US military intervention around the world. Research firm Forrester is telling everyone who is listening.... that mobile, social, cloud, and data are big freight trains of change that are crashing through old business models and old business practices. Mobile phones are already well on their way to replacing cameras, cash, maps, remote controls, handheld gaming systems, boarding passes, tickets, cash registers, calculators, notepads, and much more. And they're becoming globally ubiquitous: 1.6 billion phones were shipped last year and by the end of this year, 1.4 billion smartphones will be in use. So the question is not so much what smartphones can do, as much as it is what can they not do. And the strategic imperative for organizations is to understand how they are going to meet the challenge of that change. Here are the top 10 implications for mobile, according to Forrester: Mobile becomes a strategic priority 1. Marketers will realize that mobile requires a total shift in marketing approach. This is one of the reasons Google baked mobile into AdWords by default, one of the biggest changes in AdWords in five years. 2. Tablets will be the biggest short-term disruptors. Advertisers like marketing on iPhones and Android smartphones, but iPad ads command the biggest premium. 3. Mobile platforms will catalyze next-generation connected experiences. We'll see more technologies likefitness trackers that know what you're doing without you having to tell them, or a smartphone app that lets you control your home from Tokyo. 4. Smart apps powered by big data and sophisticated analytics will help us complete tasks. Think a Sirifrom Apple that is more than just a cute add-on and that actually becomes a valuable personal assistant. 5. Mobile will play a leading role in engaging consumers in emerging markets. 75 potent of all new phones are being sold in Asia and Africa.... Mobile investments must rise 1. Mobile will require more formal organization, processes, governance. IT is gettingfed up of supporting what it cannot manage. 2. Leading marketers will take back ownership of mobile from agencies and vendors. You can't outsource core, and mobile is becoming core. So you've got to learn from the bestand bring at least some expertise in-house. 3. The role of mobile marketing manager will emerge. If Google needs a mobile marketing manager, why don't you? EFTA00718440 4. Finding the right strategic mix of staff will rise in importance. Even more than in other areas, you need the right blend of business, marketing, design, and technology expertise to succeed in mobile. 5. Spending will increase to enable mobile services.Mobile marketing has been a bit of a bargain, but as it's become core, that's changing. Technology and staffing costs are going up. This week Chris Matthews started his Hardball television show on MSNBC with the following description of The NRA's Chairman, Wayne LaPierre. I would like to share it with you: "Citizen LaPierre, who is this -- is he this screamer offire in the theater; this tumbler of the lunaticfringe? Wayne LaPierre, watch him go to work. He just sent out a mass manifesto linking a lifeline from every spooked-out crowd in the countryfivm one to the other; asking all to arm themselves while there's still time -- arm themselves. Afraid of looting after a storm? Get a gun. Upset by illegal immigration? Get a gun. Don't like crime or drugs? Get yourself a damn gun, man. That's the Wayne LaPierre message today. Worried about the debt crisis? Worried about the chaos that's coming afterward? You know the drill, get a gun. Ann yourself, America. It's not just a right, it's a duty. It's not just about Uncle Sam who's coming to get you in one of those black helicopters, it's that mob at the gate, headed over the Rio Grande as we speak, and rightfor your house up in Idaho, right as we speak. Lock and load. Do it now. There's not much time. They're comingfor you. You think this is crazy? Well, this is Wayne LaPierre talking, the head of the NRA. And what's that tell you? It tells about a new division in America between the confident people who think he's nuts and the scared, the really scared, who are listening to him right now" Matthews continuing: "I have never heard this kind of talk. This talk is crazy. It's reign of terror talk, likefrom the French revolution. Get your gun. You're the one next. Ifyou got any gripe in this country about illegal immigration, about the debt crisis, you better be armed and ready tofight." Like Matthews, I am disgusted with the idiocy, hypocrisy and cowardliness of our Politicians who allow someone like LaPierre and his organization to influence their policies that endanger our lives. If more guns was the answer to potential violence, every passenger would be allowed to bring a gun (or box-cutters) on an airplane.... THIS WEEK'S READINGS This past Wednesday Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association wrote a commentary on the conservative news site — The Daily Caller - because of the dangerous threats of hurricanes, tornadoes, riots, terrorist, gangs and lone criminals that Americans should buy more guns. "It's not paranoia to buy a gun. It's survival. It's responsible behavior, and it's time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that" In dramatic language, LaPierre wrote that "the American people clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedlyface: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster. Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn't there -- or simply doesn't show up in time." Using New York City in the wake of Hurricane Sandy as an example of just such a disaster, LaPierre said: 'After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all." The problem with that is that in fact the opposite was true. . In the five days following Hurricane Sandy, there were no homicides at all in New York City -- which is unusual, considering historical data. And if my memory serves me correctly, since I was in New York at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attack against the EFTA00718441 World Trade Center, there were no homicides and a significant lull in all types of crime for that similar period. New York and its staunchly pro-gun-control mayor, Michael Bloomberg, together represent a bogeyman that LaPierre referenced throughout his diatribe. "Michael Bloomberg and [progressive mega-donor) George Soros are each, individually, far wealthier than the entire National Rifle Association," LaPierre wrote. 'The hard truth is that due to Bloomberg, Soros, and the rest of their ilk, the dangers require that we increase our presence all across the country -- in Congress, the state capitols, and in your city and towns." Besides New York, LaPierre singled out the U.S.-Mexican border -- and Phoenix in particular -- as the other greatest source of danger to Americans. People need "semi-autos," he wrote, in order to protect themselves from "Latin American drug gangs [who have) invaded every city of significant size in the United States." When the fact/truth is that more than 50,000 people in Mexico have died by firearms, most of them coming across the border from the United States. The border, he said, "remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping." Phoenix, LaPierre added, "is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world." Here, too, statistics contradict his claim. A 2010 report by the FBI revealed that the U.S.-Mexican border is one of the safest areas in the United States, and among the nation's big cities, the four with the lowest violent crime rates were all in Mexican-border states: San Diego; Phoenix; El Paso, Texas; and Austin, Texas. In 2011, an investigation revealed that Phoenix police had grossly inflated the city's kidnapping statistics in order to get federal grant money. LaPierre also invoked Islamic extremist groups: "Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations [and] when the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won't accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama's 'mainstream' media enablers to go along." When the truth is that there is no evidence that any Islamic terrorist have ever entered the country by walking across the border from Mexico. Still to combat these threats, LaPierre urged Americans to purchase firearms and join the NRA. 'We must reach out to the tens of millions of gun owners who are not yet NRA members -- to the gun owners who care about their own rights but who have been duped by Obama and the national media into believing that the Obama and Bloomberg gun controls will only affect other people. They are naively sitting on the sidelines, imagining themselves immunefrom the coming siege." When is this stupidity ever going to stop? When are our public officials enact sensible laws that regulate the ownership and use of guns, similar to driving privileges? When in a country that 10,000 people die each year from firearms, is buying a gun going to be more difficult than getting the right to purchase marijuana for medical purposes? And if the country would be safer if everyone had a gun, why not allow everyone to bring a holstered six-shooter on an airplane, because that is as ridiculous as what Mr. LePierre wrote this week in The Daily Caller? For more, please take a look at Christina Wilkie article in The Huffington Post -- Wayne LaPierre: More Guns Needed For 'Hellish World' Filled With Hurricanes, Kidnappers, Drug Gangs. EFTA00718442 Over the past several months I have been seriously studying America's hawkish culture, that allows North Korea being touted as an imminent danger to the survival of America, when everyone knows it can barely feed its people and should anyone in circles of power in the US find evidence that it assisted a nuclear terrorist attack on our shores, the entire country of North Korea would ended up like Chernobyl. Since World War II, American politicians have used almost every opportunity they could, to orchestrate a military intervention. Considered by most historians, the Vietnam War is regard as the #2 blunder (if not #1) in the history of American international policy. But there is growing evidence that the Iraq War of choice may displace it as the #2 blunder in American history. Like American military involvement in Vietnam, Iraq was also doomed from the start for many of the same reasons. Both were poorly managed on the ground and lacking apparent strategy but more importantly both were unnecessary blindly conceived ventures, without any clear goals. Any strategist will tell you the absence of a clear goal, behind a big decision always leads to a failure. In the case of Vietnam — the fact that our politicians and generals poured to million tons of bombs, sacrificed nearly 58 000 American lives, as well as more than a million combatants lives and another two million innocent Vietnamese citizens, just because America might lose its "face in the world," (which actually happen), was something bordering on insanity. Hoping that the Russians would make the same mistake America armed and funded the Mujahadeen/Taleban when they were fighting the Russians. Once they force the Russians to abandon their military efforts, Afghanistan was ready to be rebuilt into a democratic society that could have been rebuilt as a pro-Western modern Islamic state. All it would have taken was an investment in infrastructure and education that would have been a tiny amount compared to the money America spent arming the Taleban. Instead, the moment that the Russians left the country, America left Afghanistan in the hands of religious extremists who felt they had been abandoned by the West after laying down their lives to protect the West against Communism. A decade later, that feeling was brought home in the 9/11 attacks. Again.... after the Russians withdrew, Afghanistan was ready and willing to become a modern pro-Western country. All it needed was a tiny amount of investment from the West. Instead it was left in the hands of extremists who turned their hatred on us. It is written: "the Vietnam War represented a colossal mistakefor the United States, and that American policy was plagued persistently by errors, blunders, misperceptions, and miscalculations." The amazing thing is that this same sentence is also a perfect description and interpretation of the Bush/Cheney military misadventure in Iraq fifty years later. Clearly, the Vietnam War was a result of the Cold War. In the 195os and '6os the dominant idea in foreign policy circles was the Domino Theory, which stated that if one nation fell to the communists, the surrounding countries would fall, too. This was based on what happened in Eastern and Central Europe after World War II, and the West was worried that with communist governments already in EFTA00718443 place in North Korea and North Vietnam, a failure to come to the aid of South Vietnam would mean the collapse of that country as well as all its neighbors—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, perhaps even Japan. The belief was that once the dominoes started to fall, there was no telling where they would stop. As Albert Einstein once said, "insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. " American military policies since World War II has been as series of misadventures, based on faulty premises, without any clear goals and with the bravado of a twenty-something year old mixed-marshal artist in a fight against someone half their size. (otherwise and ignorant bully) In an article in The Independent Institute by Ivan Eland - Top Ten Mistakes the Bush Administration Is Repeatingfrom Vietnam, he points out that if he had not skipped his current events classes while he was in college he might not have made the same assumptions and repeated the same blunders. The Bush administration, almost from the start, has eschewed any comparison of Iraq with Vietnam, in addition to George W. other officials in his administration apparently never read the history of the nation's heretofore worst war — making the same 10 major mistakes. I. Underestimating the enemy. As in Vietnam, the superpower's potent military has been astounded by the tenacity and competence of a nationalist rebellion attempting to throw a foreign occupier from its soil. For example, the U.S. military, a hierarchical organization, views the Sunni insurgency as disorganized and without a central command structure. Yet the insurgents are using this decentralized structure very effectively and are not threatened by any U.S. decapitation strike to severely wound the rebellion by killing its leaders. 2. Deceiving the American public about how badly the war is going. President Bush continues to talk of victory, and his chief military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, argued that the United States was making "very, very good progress" just two days before the more credible U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned that a civil war was possible in Iraq. President Lyndon Johnson painted an excessively rosy picture of U.S. involvement in Vietnam until the massive communist Tet offensive against the south in 1968 created a "credibility gap" in the public mind. The U.S. and South Vietnamese militaries successfully beat back the offensive, but the war was lost politically because the U.S. government lost the confidence of its own citizens. The Bush administration has fallen into the same trap by trying to "spin" away bad news from Iraq. Polls ominously indicate that Bush's trustworthiness in the eyes of the American public has plummeted more than 20 points since September of 2003 to 40 percent. 3. The Bush administration, like the Johnson and Nixon administrations, blames the media's negative coverage for plunging popular support of the war. Yet the nature of the press is that it would rather cover extraordinary negative events, such as fires and plane crashes, than more mundane positive developments. Vietnam demonstrated that normal media coverage of mistakes in war could undermine the war effort. The Bush administration should have expected such predictable media coverage. 4. Artificial government statistics cannot be used to measure progress in a counterinsurgency war. In Vietnam, the body counts of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong were EFTA00718444  always much greater than U.S./South Vietnamese deaths. Lately, the Bush administration has touted that fewer U.S. personnel are dying in Iraq. But U.S. forces have been pulled back from the fight to reduce U.S. casualties and to train Iraqi forces. In guerrilla warfare, despite unfavorable statistics, as long as the insurgents keep an army in the field, they can win as the foreign invader tires of the occupation. 5. The initial excessive use of force in counterinsurgency warfare instead of a plan to win hearts and minds. The U.S. military, since the days of U.S. Grant, has used superior firepower to win wars of attrition against its enemies. In Vietnam, the U.S. military used such tactics initially, but later adopted a softer counterinsurgency strategy only after it was too late. The Bush administration initially blasted towns like Falluja into rubble and only now, in an attempt to reduce support for the guerillas among the already angry population, is converting to a strategy aimed at winning Iraqi hearts and minds. 6. Failed "search and destroy" tactics belatedly gave way to the "inkblot" approach of clearing and holding ground. In both Vietnam and Iraq, after search and destroy missions, enemy fighters merely returned to areas when "victorious" U.S. forces left. But not enough U.S. forces are in Iraq to make the "clear and hold" method work. 7. "Iraqization" of the war parallels the unsuccessful "Vietnamization" in the 1970s. The Nixon administration never fully explained how the less capable South Vietnamese military could defeat the insurgency when the powerful U.S. military had failed. The same problem exists in Iraq. 8. As in Vietnam, there has been no "date certain" for withdrawal of U.S. forces. President Bush recently implied that U.S. forces would be in Iraq when the next president takes office. Such an indefinite commitment of U.S. forces convinces more Iraqis that the United States is an occupier that needs to be resisted. 9. Retention of incompetent policymakers. Lyndon Johnson retained Robert McNamara, the inept architect of the Vietnam strategy, as Secretary of Defense until McNamara himself turned against his own war. Bush has kept the bungling Donald Rumsfeld on too long in the same position. 10. Most important of all, starting a war with another country for concocted reasons, which did not hold up under scrutiny. Lyndon Johnson used a questionable alleged attack by Vietnamese patrol boats on a U.S. destroyer to escalate U.S. involvement in a backwater country that was hardly strategic to the United States. Bush exaggerated the dangers from Iraqi weapons programs and implied an invented link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In a republic, the lack of a compelling rationale for sending men to die in a distant war can be corrosive for the morale of the troops and public support back home. And the fact that people like Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain are suggesting that America make a pre-empted attack against Iran, shows that not only have they not learned from the misadventure in Vietnam, they have not come to terms like that America's military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq is as big as a blunder, if not bigger than the Russians made in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam. EFTA00718445 Like with Vietnam„ the Bush/Cheney Administration promised the country a "limited easy war" But when we look at American's military involvement in Vietnam, like with both Afghanistan and Iraq it was actually doomed by the fact that the United States was engaged in a "limited war." In addition, all three wars were poorly managed on the ground, leadership lacked clear strategy, and first and foremost they were unnecessary, blindly conceived ventures. Useless wars. Vietnam started on the base of dubious arguments, and as Lyndon Johnson admits, without "any plan for victory militarily or diplomatically." As we know now, the lack of strategy led to something more alarming - lack of clear goal. And the lack of clear goal, behind a big decision, always leads to a failure. It is easy for past decisions and former politicians to be criticized. Every generation judges its predecessors from the hillock of its position, but strangely enough every generation repeats one or another old mistake. The war in Vietnam started without a clear answer of "why" it was necessary and finished with a clear question "how" America "lost herface in the world." At the time when the war started what America was doing was really important, and the stakes of how the United States were presenting in the eyes of the world seemed much higher than today. The fundamental reason for American involvement in Indochina was the demonstration of commitment. The United States felt obligation to act in every point of the world where a country or a nation was still hesitating to which of two camps (capitalist or communist) to stick. The fear of American government from a "domino effect," where the emerging post- colonial nations bend towards the Soviet Union, was incorporated in the American politics of "containment" Thus Indochina had the unfortunate fate to be chosen as a battlefield where Moscow and Washington could measure their brawns. In this war, such as in Korea ten years before, Kremlin acted indirectly, supplying the communist guerrilla and North Vietnamese Army with money and arms, while Washington acted openly starting a real intervention. The actual value of Vietnam as a territory, economy or political presence on the world stage was insignificant. This has been proved after the war and this was not properly estimated by the American government at the time. When Vietnam finally became a communist state, the world system did not move even a bit. Indeed the event that shaken the world was the war itself and this "cold blood" conflict, far from the American shores, resonated unexpectedly hard in the United States and all over the western camp. Or if we return to the question that tormented Lyndon Johnson - how America will be perceived - the basic goal of Vietnam War was not achieved. The politics of "containment," in the form of limited, dispassionate war, proved not to apply to Indochina. The mistaken understanding of "limited war theory" by American leaders explains the character of Vietnam conflict and the reasons for its outbreak. The nature of Cold War required types of behavior appropriate for a world under the shadow of nuclear threat. In the bipolar world of the twentieth century the balance of power was important. The existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) made the opposing states careful in their actions. On the one hand WMD kept the existing status quo in a grip, on the other hand the U.S. and the Soviet Union were using every opportunity to change the balance of power in favorable direction (Or better, as J.L. Gaddis explains in his "Long Peace" - the Russians wanted to change the status quo, while the Americans were striving to save it). "Limited war" was considered as an instrument for accomplishing of such goal. Both powers regarded limited war option as a conflict, conducted on the world periphery 8 where the powers can check their EFTA00718446 determination without entering in full-blown conventional war and where the high morale of their armies can be kept awake. Indeed the limited wars prove to be more risky and bloody than expected. And the problem was their character: in every unconventional war the enemy is ghostly, often regular troops have to fight guerrillas - a fight that exhausts the resources, the morale and power of the armies; the expected support from the native population is never certain and the limited war has complex goals, questionable justification and often turns into a bog, where the "invader" has little chance for easy and safe escaping. Thus the outcome of Vietnam War can not be regarded as a surprise as the outcome of Afghanistan war, conducted by the Soviet Union, was not surprise as well. George Herring, in his book "LBJ and Vietnam: A Different Kind of War," gives a good, pragmatic explanation of the failure of American intervention. According to Herring the main cause for the American troubles was the character of the war. He says that this was a "guerilla type of war "America was not ready to lead a conflict "without distinct battle