Saturday, April 11, 2009
Birthday Coming
My birthday is coming in a few months, so this should serve as adequate notice to save up some pennies and get me one of these. I'll even let you ride along. That is of course, an MD520N if you must know. Think of it as part of a broader stimulus package it that helps.
http://www.mdhelicopters.com/v2/images/product_md_520n_main.jpg
Two killed in Michigan college shooting - CNN.com
Two killed in Michigan college shooting - CNN.com
Allow me to correct this reporter: "One killed in Michigan college shooting." This sad individual killed his (presumed) girlfriend/wife or ex-version of the same then committed suicide. He was not "...killed," rather he killed himself.
Oddly enough, 1/2 of all deaths attributed to guns in this nation are suicides. Research has shown that while the suicidal seem to like using guns they will use what they must to kill themselves. That is, removing guns from the metaphorical reach of the suicidal won't prevent their death just the proximal cause. Put another way, 1/2 of all gun deaths are essentially unavoidable deaths in the sense that the determined suicidal person is somewhat locked into their doom.
Without arguing the merits of various gun-grabbing philosophies, dishonesty doesn't help the cause. Reporters should also learn to be a bit more precise in their language lest they appear both incompetent or ideologically-driven in their work.
Allow me to correct this reporter: "One killed in Michigan college shooting." This sad individual killed his (presumed) girlfriend/wife or ex-version of the same then committed suicide. He was not "...killed," rather he killed himself.
Oddly enough, 1/2 of all deaths attributed to guns in this nation are suicides. Research has shown that while the suicidal seem to like using guns they will use what they must to kill themselves. That is, removing guns from the metaphorical reach of the suicidal won't prevent their death just the proximal cause. Put another way, 1/2 of all gun deaths are essentially unavoidable deaths in the sense that the determined suicidal person is somewhat locked into their doom.
Without arguing the merits of various gun-grabbing philosophies, dishonesty doesn't help the cause. Reporters should also learn to be a bit more precise in their language lest they appear both incompetent or ideologically-driven in their work.
Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million - NYTimes.com
Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million - NYTimes.com
I wonder what sociological issues this imbalance will exacerbate in China. While 32 million more boys than girls doesn't seem like much in a population of more than one billion, when those boys and girls all reach puberty together the imbalance will be magnified and the results will be manifest. At the very least it will mean Chinese women coming of marriageable age can be much more choosy. I'm not sure, based on the article, but I'd imagine that the problem is worse in China's rural provinces and the results will be less visible outside their borders. Regardless, too many young men in a population never seems to work out well.
I wonder what sociological issues this imbalance will exacerbate in China. While 32 million more boys than girls doesn't seem like much in a population of more than one billion, when those boys and girls all reach puberty together the imbalance will be magnified and the results will be manifest. At the very least it will mean Chinese women coming of marriageable age can be much more choosy. I'm not sure, based on the article, but I'd imagine that the problem is worse in China's rural provinces and the results will be less visible outside their borders. Regardless, too many young men in a population never seems to work out well.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Capitalism v. Socialism
What this report tells me is that few Americans seem to know the difference between the two. A telling passage from the article:
This suggests that while Americans support what capitalism is, they don't support the term for it.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism. It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today
relies on free markets.
This suggests that while Americans support what capitalism is, they don't support the term for it.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
BLACKFIVE: US Merchant Ship Captured By Somali Pirates?
BLACKFIVE: US Merchant Ship Captured By Somali Pirates?:
"President Obama will enclose a stern message with the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD box set he sends the pirates."
From the comments over at BLACKFIVE discussing the US-flagged container ship seized by pirates, then un-seized by its crew. The commenter was replying to another who was speculating what Pres. Obama's reaction to this attack was going to be. American-flagged vessels are considered to be American territory and their attack would seem to require decisive response by our leadership. Lets hope that the area code on the DVD set allows the Somali pirates to watch the movies on the DVD players they have already stolen.
"President Obama will enclose a stern message with the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD box set he sends the pirates."
From the comments over at BLACKFIVE discussing the US-flagged container ship seized by pirates, then un-seized by its crew. The commenter was replying to another who was speculating what Pres. Obama's reaction to this attack was going to be. American-flagged vessels are considered to be American territory and their attack would seem to require decisive response by our leadership. Lets hope that the area code on the DVD set allows the Somali pirates to watch the movies on the DVD players they have already stolen.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Another GB Packers Pre-Draft Off-Season Yawns To Conclusion
The GBP, at least under Ted Thompson, have been about as exciting as narcolepsy when it comes to signing big-name free agents. Not even the pretense of seeking after talented but available football players. I suppose though that after last year's fiasco maybe the sounds of crickets chirping isn't so bad . . . but 6-10 leaves a nasty taste in the mouth that just doesn't want to go away. Maybe draft day will be exciting, maybe Thompson will make a deal for Tony Gonzales (just a suggestion). Maybe I'll have to learn to live with Chicago Bears fans sardonic glee again.
Lets hope for the best, as I define it.
Lets hope for the best, as I define it.
Obama/Gates plan to Change the US Military Takes its First Steps
Gates Budget Plan Reshapes Pentagon’s Priorities - NYTimes.com
This really represents a continuation of some of Donald Rumsfeld's policies. In recent years several other largish military systems have been canceled when their outlandish costs have exceeded their likely modest benefits. The XM-2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzer (11 billion $) was cancelled in 2002, the RAH-66 Comanche (~24 billion $) was cancelled in 2004, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt (6 billion per ship x 30+ ships) appears to be dead in the water as well.
The writing appeared to be on the wall for the FCS years ago and Gates' budget plan seems to formalize what most of us (who care to know about such things) already knew. FCS was a bloated program which would have given the US Army under-armored combat vehicles which were over-reliant upon not-yet invented technology at a seriously high cost without adding capabilities to offset the negatives.
If nothing else, the Iran/Iraq adventures have shown what military weapons systems work well in combat and which don't. That is, in a war against an enemy with vastly inferior firepower, horrible training, nonexistent air power, and poor logistical support. How American doctrine and equipment would fare against Chinese, Russian, or North Korean forces is another question entirely that I can't answer conclusively.
Hopefully what this means is that DOD procurement procedures will become somewhat more rooted in the reality-based world the rest of us live in.
This really represents a continuation of some of Donald Rumsfeld's policies. In recent years several other largish military systems have been canceled when their outlandish costs have exceeded their likely modest benefits. The XM-2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzer (11 billion $) was cancelled in 2002, the RAH-66 Comanche (~24 billion $) was cancelled in 2004, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt (6 billion per ship x 30+ ships) appears to be dead in the water as well.
The writing appeared to be on the wall for the FCS years ago and Gates' budget plan seems to formalize what most of us (who care to know about such things) already knew. FCS was a bloated program which would have given the US Army under-armored combat vehicles which were over-reliant upon not-yet invented technology at a seriously high cost without adding capabilities to offset the negatives.
If nothing else, the Iran/Iraq adventures have shown what military weapons systems work well in combat and which don't. That is, in a war against an enemy with vastly inferior firepower, horrible training, nonexistent air power, and poor logistical support. How American doctrine and equipment would fare against Chinese, Russian, or North Korean forces is another question entirely that I can't answer conclusively.
Hopefully what this means is that DOD procurement procedures will become somewhat more rooted in the reality-based world the rest of us live in.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Changes are coming, but what will they look like?
Now that the long-awaited drawdown of US forces in Iraq has begun, I’d like to look at the apparent course of American foreign policy in the Middle East and to that end break it down into several subsections.
(Subsections: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, other players, and the United States)
First, Iraq. While overall strength may be reduced (as measured by number of troops deployed) American influence will not, I believe, be significantly diminished. If anything I believe that the new Iraqi army, after working and training closely with the US forces, respect and fear our combat ability even more. The Iraqi elite while wishing the US would just go away realize that isn’t going to happen. Therefore the elite will continue to work with America when it makes sense. Soft power (economic, diplomatic, cultural) will continue to increase in effectiveness as it begins to displace hard power. The longer that the US remains a powerful influence upon the Iraqi populace, the deeper the transformative cultural changes will be.
That change is what American neo-con policy wonks dream of in their deepest, most hidden dreams. That Iraq becomes for the US what India has become for the UK. A powerful former possession which, while no lapdog, shares a somewhat common ethos and view of the future. The evolution of India-UK relations seems then to be a roadmap for future American policy. Sadly the course of US-Iraq relations could also take the route that US-Central and South American relations followed. It is imperative that the US shows Iraq a vision of the future that links their rational self-interest with US foreign policy and domestic security aspirations. The triad of peace, prosperity, and security for Iraq should be the ultimate goal of US policy if America hopes to secure any meaningful progress in the Middle East. The shortcomings of US policy in Latin America stem from the US’s failure to facilitate the realization of that triad. Extracting natural resources and labor at bargain prices while propping up whatever regime facilitates that extraction isn’t how two nations build a healthy relationship. While the Middle Eastern labor pool isn’t particularly prized their natural resources certainly are, and not just by the United States. What is needed is that approach known as nation-building. In Iraq’s case, the light beer version of nation-building might be enough. Iraq already has all the institutions a nation needs in place, it just need to help in surviving the rapid evolution which Iraq is living through. The Iraqi people have bought into their government deeply enough that a new polity seems not just possible, but probable. The entire region is watching Iraq with understandably mixed hopes of their own, wondering if and how their own governments will weather the storm of change.
(Subsections: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, other players, and the United States)
First, Iraq. While overall strength may be reduced (as measured by number of troops deployed) American influence will not, I believe, be significantly diminished. If anything I believe that the new Iraqi army, after working and training closely with the US forces, respect and fear our combat ability even more. The Iraqi elite while wishing the US would just go away realize that isn’t going to happen. Therefore the elite will continue to work with America when it makes sense. Soft power (economic, diplomatic, cultural) will continue to increase in effectiveness as it begins to displace hard power. The longer that the US remains a powerful influence upon the Iraqi populace, the deeper the transformative cultural changes will be.
That change is what American neo-con policy wonks dream of in their deepest, most hidden dreams. That Iraq becomes for the US what India has become for the UK. A powerful former possession which, while no lapdog, shares a somewhat common ethos and view of the future. The evolution of India-UK relations seems then to be a roadmap for future American policy. Sadly the course of US-Iraq relations could also take the route that US-Central and South American relations followed. It is imperative that the US shows Iraq a vision of the future that links their rational self-interest with US foreign policy and domestic security aspirations. The triad of peace, prosperity, and security for Iraq should be the ultimate goal of US policy if America hopes to secure any meaningful progress in the Middle East. The shortcomings of US policy in Latin America stem from the US’s failure to facilitate the realization of that triad. Extracting natural resources and labor at bargain prices while propping up whatever regime facilitates that extraction isn’t how two nations build a healthy relationship. While the Middle Eastern labor pool isn’t particularly prized their natural resources certainly are, and not just by the United States. What is needed is that approach known as nation-building. In Iraq’s case, the light beer version of nation-building might be enough. Iraq already has all the institutions a nation needs in place, it just need to help in surviving the rapid evolution which Iraq is living through. The Iraqi people have bought into their government deeply enough that a new polity seems not just possible, but probable. The entire region is watching Iraq with understandably mixed hopes of their own, wondering if and how their own governments will weather the storm of change.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Just a reminder, imaginary reader: Christmas is coming
Please, for the love of all that is good and decent; somebody please bring me one of these.
Updated 3/22/2016 because the link was dead and I had no idea what I wanted so badly. Try this, instead.
Sub
Updated 3/22/2016 because the link was dead and I had no idea what I wanted so badly. Try this, instead.
Sub
Obama, Israel, Iran, and Few Options
The composition of Barack Obama's presidential cabinet is daily becoming more clear. A strong influence is evident from the last Democratic presidential administration with Bill Clinton's wife leading the pack. What does this mean in terms of the change in probability that the United States may or may not become involved in a military strike against the nuclear weapons research and production capacity of Iran?
First it is instructive to parse out who would stand to benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran. First and foremost would be Iran itself. Having even a small nuclear arsenal (assuming a delivery system is available) is a powerful deterrent against future aggression by other nation-states of course, and a certain amount of prestige also accrues. The capacity to use nuclear weapons also lends a very big stick to the stick-carrot dichotomy of foreign policy, assuming that Iran's adversaries would be intimidated by such a thing.
So, obviously Iran benefits. Who else might stand to benefit from Iran's ability to (theoretically) obliterate the cities of Teheran's enemies? Syria, of course is closely allied with Iran and is in a constant state of quasi-war with Israel. Syrian leaders might justly feel that fear of attack by Iran would temper any Israeli military response to further provocations along the Syrian-Israeli border. For the Syrians then the benefits of Iranian nuclear weapons development outweigh the potential liabilities.
What are those liabilities? The same issues that prevent Iranian nuclear empowerment from being a net advantage to everyone else; namely that it is widely assumed Israel possesses a potent nuclear weapons arsenal of their own. While Israel's threats of atomic retribution are veiled at best, one would assume that if attacked by nuclear weapons themselves vengeance would be swift, devastating, and widespread. Israel rightly believes that they are surrounded by enemies both very open and very hostile. After a hypothetical nuclear first-strike by Iran it would be likely that at least a few Israeli cities would be reduced to smouldering, radiating, holes in the ground. Israel has some credible ABM (anti-ballistic missile) capability with its US-supplied Patriot missile systems and its home-developed Arrow 2 Theatre Missile Defense systems, though they would be unlikely to form a leak-proof barrier to a determined attack. With the sure knowledge that any nuclear weapons use by the Israelis would harden the loose coalition of Arab nations in their region against them, one could be assured that Israel would make all efforts to ensure that their enemies were critically weakened to forestall any attempts to take advantage of their own nuclear disaster.
This has been a drawn-out way of saying that Tehran and Damascus would certainly be destroyed. Other likely targets would include regional military force concentrations, especially aircraft and naval assets. Looking at the list of nations which had warred with Israel in the past is disquieting: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, and others. With the present US military presence, Iraq would be spared. Others on the list are weak, bit players, and could be expected to sit out any conflict if left alone. Libya in the past has aided the enemies of Israel as has North Korea.
The list of threats to Israel is long, but with estimates as large as 200+ available nuclear weapons so is their ability to render a fearsome nuclear strike with plenty left over to use for a second strike or as a diplomatic tool.
So clearly a nuclear armed Iran is a direct enemy of Israel. Ahmadinejab's frequently veiled and not-so veiled belief that Israel should be destroyed is all the evidence of hostile intent a reasonable person needs to perceive the threat of a nuclear first-strike against Israel. Between the physical damage of the nuclear explosions themselves, the EMP damage, and resultant fallout, large parts of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and depending upon wind patterns,Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Turkey, and Iraq could face a contaminated future. Then the Iranian retributive strike. Military sites from Saudi Arabian airfields to Iranian centers of population and industry might well lie in ruins. A nuclear-armed Iran therefore is an indirect enemy of every Middle Eastern nation as well as Libya and North Korea tangentially and every industrialized nation economically. With the potential obliteration of oil production and distribution facilities throughout the region the world's economy would take a deadly blow, and in the present climate of global recession and depression, a blow which might take decades to recover from. At the worst, scenarios which addled survivalists have prepared for might come to be pass. Bad times all around at the least, and worst times at the worst.
Now how does this all tie back into Barack Obama's cabinet choices? First, a philosophical theme seems to be emerging. For whatever else one might think of Bill Clinton he seemed to pursue a very pragmatic foreign policy. That is one of minimizing threats and foreign provocations while also minimizing any inconvenient idealism abroad. Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Iraq continued to be disasters for the most part during Bill Clinton's presidency, but they were almost never American disasters. He continued to support Israel as have other presidential administrations have to help maintain the regional balance and status quo. With a decidedly Clintonesque inner circle forming around Obama it will be hoped this ideology will be adopted as Obama's own, if it isn't already.
If, however, Obama metaphorically leaves Israel twisting in the wind, its enemies will be emboldened. Nothing good can come of that. For better or worse, as Israel proved at Bushwer and Osirik, they will destroy nuclear capabilities which become active. Unlike Bushwer and Osirik, the targets in Iran are much better defended, dispersed, and have been hardened against attack. The United States effectively controls Iraqi airspace and would be in the unenviable position of choosing between assenting to Israeli overflight or engaging their aircraft with USAF assets. Either way the United States would be perceived as an ally, active or supportive, of Israel. Again, nothing but trouble there.
What are Obama's choices? Regime change via hard power in Iran I believe is off the table. Hawkish as I am even I think that would be a terrible idea. Regime change via soft power looks better but with the mullah's grip on power somewhat firm unlikely to be successful. Declaration of a formal US military protective agreement with Israel might be part of the equation. Israel is already perceived to be America's pet lapdog so we could hardly be perceived any worse. Still, this approach seems unlikely as Obama will likely be loath to make such binding agreements on such a contentious issue.
Whatever options Obama has, doing nothing will just lead to us all waking up to the news that Israel has just launched a massive coordinated assault of all known Iranian nuclear weapons development sites with a correspondingly large report of damage and death.
What do i think will happen? I believe that Obama's Secretary of State will work the phones hard, but to no avail. Israel will launch their expected preemptive attack and announce their intentions to defend themselves with all vigor, including the use of widely-distributed mushroom clouds on the homelands of those who would be their enemy. Obama will be forced by circumstance to allow overflight of Iraq to carry out this mission although I doubt aerial tanker or other logistic assistance would be given. The USAF will not allow overflight of Iraq by Iranian aircraft and ABM defenses would definitely be activated. The middle eastern security situation will of course deteriorate and the calls to pull out of Iraq will increase. Oil prices will skyrocket just as western economies are at their most fragile making an already bad situation worse. Obama not be allowed to choose middle ground; either he will actively support Israeli defense or he will be forced to abandon the traditional American position entirely.
Either way its a big crap sandwich, and our only choice will be to learn to like the taste of crap.
First it is instructive to parse out who would stand to benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran. First and foremost would be Iran itself. Having even a small nuclear arsenal (assuming a delivery system is available) is a powerful deterrent against future aggression by other nation-states of course, and a certain amount of prestige also accrues. The capacity to use nuclear weapons also lends a very big stick to the stick-carrot dichotomy of foreign policy, assuming that Iran's adversaries would be intimidated by such a thing.
So, obviously Iran benefits. Who else might stand to benefit from Iran's ability to (theoretically) obliterate the cities of Teheran's enemies? Syria, of course is closely allied with Iran and is in a constant state of quasi-war with Israel. Syrian leaders might justly feel that fear of attack by Iran would temper any Israeli military response to further provocations along the Syrian-Israeli border. For the Syrians then the benefits of Iranian nuclear weapons development outweigh the potential liabilities.
What are those liabilities? The same issues that prevent Iranian nuclear empowerment from being a net advantage to everyone else; namely that it is widely assumed Israel possesses a potent nuclear weapons arsenal of their own. While Israel's threats of atomic retribution are veiled at best, one would assume that if attacked by nuclear weapons themselves vengeance would be swift, devastating, and widespread. Israel rightly believes that they are surrounded by enemies both very open and very hostile. After a hypothetical nuclear first-strike by Iran it would be likely that at least a few Israeli cities would be reduced to smouldering, radiating, holes in the ground. Israel has some credible ABM (anti-ballistic missile) capability with its US-supplied Patriot missile systems and its home-developed Arrow 2 Theatre Missile Defense systems, though they would be unlikely to form a leak-proof barrier to a determined attack. With the sure knowledge that any nuclear weapons use by the Israelis would harden the loose coalition of Arab nations in their region against them, one could be assured that Israel would make all efforts to ensure that their enemies were critically weakened to forestall any attempts to take advantage of their own nuclear disaster.
This has been a drawn-out way of saying that Tehran and Damascus would certainly be destroyed. Other likely targets would include regional military force concentrations, especially aircraft and naval assets. Looking at the list of nations which had warred with Israel in the past is disquieting: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, and others. With the present US military presence, Iraq would be spared. Others on the list are weak, bit players, and could be expected to sit out any conflict if left alone. Libya in the past has aided the enemies of Israel as has North Korea.
The list of threats to Israel is long, but with estimates as large as 200+ available nuclear weapons so is their ability to render a fearsome nuclear strike with plenty left over to use for a second strike or as a diplomatic tool.
So clearly a nuclear armed Iran is a direct enemy of Israel. Ahmadinejab's frequently veiled and not-so veiled belief that Israel should be destroyed is all the evidence of hostile intent a reasonable person needs to perceive the threat of a nuclear first-strike against Israel. Between the physical damage of the nuclear explosions themselves, the EMP damage, and resultant fallout, large parts of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and depending upon wind patterns,Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Turkey, and Iraq could face a contaminated future. Then the Iranian retributive strike. Military sites from Saudi Arabian airfields to Iranian centers of population and industry might well lie in ruins. A nuclear-armed Iran therefore is an indirect enemy of every Middle Eastern nation as well as Libya and North Korea tangentially and every industrialized nation economically. With the potential obliteration of oil production and distribution facilities throughout the region the world's economy would take a deadly blow, and in the present climate of global recession and depression, a blow which might take decades to recover from. At the worst, scenarios which addled survivalists have prepared for might come to be pass. Bad times all around at the least, and worst times at the worst.
Now how does this all tie back into Barack Obama's cabinet choices? First, a philosophical theme seems to be emerging. For whatever else one might think of Bill Clinton he seemed to pursue a very pragmatic foreign policy. That is one of minimizing threats and foreign provocations while also minimizing any inconvenient idealism abroad. Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Iraq continued to be disasters for the most part during Bill Clinton's presidency, but they were almost never American disasters. He continued to support Israel as have other presidential administrations have to help maintain the regional balance and status quo. With a decidedly Clintonesque inner circle forming around Obama it will be hoped this ideology will be adopted as Obama's own, if it isn't already.
If, however, Obama metaphorically leaves Israel twisting in the wind, its enemies will be emboldened. Nothing good can come of that. For better or worse, as Israel proved at Bushwer and Osirik, they will destroy nuclear capabilities which become active. Unlike Bushwer and Osirik, the targets in Iran are much better defended, dispersed, and have been hardened against attack. The United States effectively controls Iraqi airspace and would be in the unenviable position of choosing between assenting to Israeli overflight or engaging their aircraft with USAF assets. Either way the United States would be perceived as an ally, active or supportive, of Israel. Again, nothing but trouble there.
What are Obama's choices? Regime change via hard power in Iran I believe is off the table. Hawkish as I am even I think that would be a terrible idea. Regime change via soft power looks better but with the mullah's grip on power somewhat firm unlikely to be successful. Declaration of a formal US military protective agreement with Israel might be part of the equation. Israel is already perceived to be America's pet lapdog so we could hardly be perceived any worse. Still, this approach seems unlikely as Obama will likely be loath to make such binding agreements on such a contentious issue.
Whatever options Obama has, doing nothing will just lead to us all waking up to the news that Israel has just launched a massive coordinated assault of all known Iranian nuclear weapons development sites with a correspondingly large report of damage and death.
What do i think will happen? I believe that Obama's Secretary of State will work the phones hard, but to no avail. Israel will launch their expected preemptive attack and announce their intentions to defend themselves with all vigor, including the use of widely-distributed mushroom clouds on the homelands of those who would be their enemy. Obama will be forced by circumstance to allow overflight of Iraq to carry out this mission although I doubt aerial tanker or other logistic assistance would be given. The USAF will not allow overflight of Iraq by Iranian aircraft and ABM defenses would definitely be activated. The middle eastern security situation will of course deteriorate and the calls to pull out of Iraq will increase. Oil prices will skyrocket just as western economies are at their most fragile making an already bad situation worse. Obama not be allowed to choose middle ground; either he will actively support Israeli defense or he will be forced to abandon the traditional American position entirely.
Either way its a big crap sandwich, and our only choice will be to learn to like the taste of crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
