----
Mauldin updates us on his thinking. (See 1 below.)
---
Has Ted Belman read D'Souza's: "The Roots of Obama's Rage?" If not he should. (See 2 below.)
---
Does Obama have a ploy regarding drawing Iran into talks. Will it work? Probably not. Will it prevent Iran from achieving nuclear status? Most assuredly not. Then why do it? Probably because it permits Obama to obfuscate and create the appearance of doing that which he does not wish to accomplish.
That would be consistent with his entire foreign policy initiatives.
In the meantime, Obama, once again, reminds the Saudis they had better not rely upon America. the same message the anti-Neo-Colonialist Obama has consistently been sending to the Israelis (See 3 below.)
---
Putin is in bed with Iran for four main reasons. First, Russia has provided Iran with nuclear equipment. 2. Russia is owed a ton of money by Iran for nuclear and various military equipment. 3. Russia's goal is to constantly thwart U.S. actions in the Middle East. 4. Russia's support of Iran highlights the ineffective actions of Obama and helps to spread fear among Saudis and our ties with other Arab and Muslim nations. (See 3a below.)
I was not aware Obama had any doctrine regarding Syria and Iran beyond ducking and obfuscation. Perhaps I have missed something. (See 3b and 3c below.)
---
Colbert King is a black writer for The Washington Post, and is infuriated over the various attacks on Obama. Yes, some of the attacks have been scurrilous but most have been deserved based on his policies, his own pronouncements and actions and have a convincing basis in truth. You decide. (See 4 below.)
---
Rob Gibson is a friend, a fellow memo reader and, most important of all, the extraordinary, highly talented and motivated director of The Savannah Music Festival. We were so fortunate to have him and Caroline return to their native Georgia Roots from The Big Apple! (See 5 below.)
---
From an old and dear friend and a more recent memo reader: "Hope all is well with you and the family. Your writing is prolific and thought provoking. It is a travesty what we must endure with Obama. I only hope we can have a change in November, but again the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.Morris "
My response: "Thanks and I hate to sat it nut so far you are right. Time will tell Ain't over til its over. Me"
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Tax That Other Guy By John Mauldin | February 25, 2012 The Fair Tax What About Those Who Will Not Vote for Any Tax? What Should Seniors Do?Why Shouldn't Everyone Pay Something?Comeback, America California, New York, Orlando, Conferences, and Webinars Don't Tax You, Don't Tax Me Tax that Man Behind the Tree! – Senator Russell Long, Democrat Louisiana (1918-2003) Last week's letter on taxes drew more response than any letter I have written in years. Questions that were raised simply beg for an answer, and some of the replies were very thoughtful, well-written suggestions for alternatives. This week I am going to do something I can't ever remember doing, and that is to use the entire letter to involve and respond to my readers. Let me begin by thanking all of those who responded, and to observe that every response I read was polite and courteous, even when aggressively disagreeing. Not every site on the internet has such a civil discourse among its readers. I appreciate that. Next week we will return to All Greece, All the Time or whatever the crisis du jour is, although I am much more interested in China of late. I will have to address the world's largest nation at some point soon. At the end of the letter, I provide some very interesting and fun links and a note on an upcoming webinar with investment legend Israel "Izzy" Englander. Now, let's zero in on taxes. The Fair TaxA rather significant and vocal number of you wrote in support of what is called "the Fair Tax," which is basically a national sales tax, suggesting it is a better alternative than a value-added tax (VAT). I should note that there are 70 members of Congress who have cosponsored a Fair Tax bill, so this is not outside the realm of possibility. It also speaks to the possibility of a tax on consumption being politically feasible, which I will again address later. I am going to use a longer, well-written reply from Roger Buchholtz of Kalamazoo, Michigan. I will only interrupt him a few times with a reply in brackets […] and then add a longer reply at the end. Roger wrote: "Dear Mr. Mauldin, "I just finished reading your article "The Cancer of Debt and Deficits" and agreed with your conclusion that it is time for radical tax reform. Actually, what was radical was the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913, after our Founding Fathers had twice prohibited it in the Constitution. "I am delighted to see that you recognize that consumption taxes are less damaging to an economy than income taxes. Income taxes tax productive behavior (work, saving, investing, etc.), thereby reducing the return/reward for that behavior. They, in essence, punish people when they are contributing to society. "As you have apparently concluded, a simple, Flat Income Tax is not the answer. I agree, because it will remain neither for very long. It will just allow all the tax favors to be bought and sold all over again, which will exacerbate today's corruption of our representative form of government to the point that our representatives too often represent special interests rather than their constituents. [I am not opposed to a flat tax, as I will address below.] "In addition, the Flat Income Tax would only slightly reduce compliance and efficiency costs (as all records must be maintained and returns filed) and it would continue the practice of imbedding taxes in the prices of the goods and services that citizens buy. Today, an average of 22% of the producer price of all American-produced goods and services are taxes imbedded in the price. This practice of imbedding much of our tax burden in the prices of our products places American labor and business at a great competitive disadvantage with foreign labor and businesses. In essence, a Flat Income Tax would have no long-term benefits and could delay true tax reform for a generation. [While I am not sure of whether it is exactly a 22% embedded tax cost, it is certainly high. There were several objections to a VAT because it would be a burden on businesses. I would note that ALL taxes are a burden. Others objected to a VAT as being a burden on consumers. As Roger points out, consumers are already paying a great deal in hidden taxes on what they purchase. Either the Fair Tax or a VAT can be structured to be revenue-neutral and eliminate the other embedded costs. What both proposals do is eliminate nearly all other taxes, including Social Security, which adds directly back into both employee and business income.] "Now, let's compare two consumption taxes: the Value Added Tax (VAT) proposed by Marc Sumerlin and Larry Lindsey in their book and the Fair Tax Act that is now before Congress with over 70 cosponsors and the subject of two best-selling books. Both proposals replace the current Internal Revenue Code and are revenue neutral. The Fair Tax (HR 25) replaces the income tax, Social Security & Medicare taxes, and death and gift taxes with a retail sales tax. [As does the VAT.] "Actually, Sumerlin and Lindsey's VAT and the Fair Tax have much in common, but the differences are critical. *Both proposals replace the current Internal Revenue Code *Both are revenue neutral *Both tax final consumption only once *They have the exact same tax base, if they both have no exemptions *Business to business purchases are not taxed *The full amount of the tax is paid by the consumer *Both improve U.S. international competitiveness, as neither of them taxes exports, and are border-adjustable "How are they different? "The Fair Tax has a prebate, so that no individual pays taxes on their personal consumption up to the poverty level. This eliminates the perceived regressive nature of a consumption tax. The $100,000 personal exemption of their VAT serves a similar purpose, but everyone under their VAT will pay imbedded taxes that are even greater than they are today. "The Fair Tax collects the tax at the retail level, which is simple to understand and comply with. Only sellers of goods or services for final consumption (retail businesses) file monthly sales tax returns. This would reduce tax filers and compliance costs by about 90%. "The VAT, on the other hand, is collected from all businesses at every stage in the production process. Each business has to keep track of what taxes they paid on their purchase of inputs and subtract it from the tax they owe. This is called a credit-invoice system. It is complex record keeping and especially difficult for small businesses who don't have in-house tax experts. "The Fair Tax is transparent, the amount of the Fair Tax being clearly stated on the retail receipt. VAT retail receipts may state the rate of tax, but they generally do not state the actual amount of taxes paid. The visibility of the Fair Tax provides the natural restraint on the size and reach of government intended by our Founding Fathers. "European countries have tried to solve the perceived regressive nature of VAT taxes by creating all kinds of exemptions in attempts to make necessities tax-free. This opens the door for more and more exemptions, and vendors start gaming the system to qualify for the exemptions. These exemptions and gaming add to the already high cost of compliance under a VAT and encourage the buying and selling of tax favors, similar to today's corrupting trade in tax favors that occurs in the U.S. under our income tax system. "This combination of the Fair Tax Prebate (monthly payment to every legal household which offsets taxes paid on spending up to the poverty level, similar to today's personal exemption on our income tax return) and taxing ALL consumption at the same rate creates a consumption tax that treats everyone the same, is transparent, and is much simpler and much less costly to comply with. In addition, it eliminates the argument for exemptions, as all necessities are not taxed. That is the genius of the Prebate. "There is no evidence that the Fair Tax will encourage tax evasion via black markets or barter systems. In fact, the compliance rate for the Fair Tax, projected to be around 94%, is expected to be many times better than the 69% of the current tax system. Some of the reasons the Fair Tax will have a high compliance rate are: "Major corporations account for over 90% of all retail sales today, with 3.6% of corporations collecting 87.5% of all sales taxes (I don't think I'll be able to convince the clerk at Walmart not to charge me the tax), "Items most likely to be subject to barter are used goods, and used goods are not taxed by the Fair Tax, "Under an income tax or a VAT it takes only one individual to cheat on a tax return, but under the Fair Tax both the seller and buyer must cheat (Would you like to go to jail for me?), and "Because the Fair Tax reduces the number of collection points by over 90% (just retail businesses collect the tax) there will be considerably more audit capability by the government on those collection points. "With over $23 million in research on the Fair Tax, it is one of the most researched public policy issues in history. The many studies on its economic and social impact can be viewed at www.fairtax.org." – Roger Buchholtz I understand the philosophy behind the Fair Tax. Part of it is to get rid of the income tax and all the inequities that are built into the current tax code. And I like the fact that it is a consumption tax. Truth be told, if this is what came to the floor of Congress, I would be for it, over simply tinkering with the current system. And with a VAT, one could use a "prebate" type of structure as well, to deal with the regressive nature of a consumption tax, or exempt food or other items, as many countries do with a VAT. What I wrote last week was not meant to be a detailed analysis but more along the lines of a general proposal. The current system is broken. Rather than trying to "fix" it, let's use the coming need for reform to truly restructure the tax code. What About Those Who Will Not Vote for Any Tax?The next response comes from Stanley Harrison: "John, How can we accept your current plan or any similar (Simpson/Boles) plan that requires compromise to implement when large numbers of Republican congressmen have pledged to vote 'no' to any tax increase? They will not compromise, yet the founders of this republic had to compromise. Are you going to campaign against them?" The short answer is yes. Not dealing with the deficit will cause so much economic pain that it is hard to get people to imagine it. That has to take priority over not raising taxes. It is not a matter, at least for me, of what is desirable, but of what is necessary. I would prefer a smaller government, lower taxes, etc. But unless Republicans manage to install far more members of Congress than seems likely today, that's not going to happen. Waiting until there is a train wreck to fix the track is not sound public policy. What Should Seniors Do?Bill Daugherty wrote: "One very large obstacle to the idea of VAT replacing income taxes would seem to be the seniors lobby. 'What? I paid taxes on my income all my earning life, and now you want to change to tax me on my spending life as well?' Getting from Here to There will always be a problem. No solution can be beneficial to all age and earning cohorts." And David Oldham answered: "I think a VAT with exports exemption is a good idea. The point made in comments here about VAT hitting retired folk already hit by low savings returns is valid (I am in that category myself), but one has to ask the question, what do we older generations deserve for being instrumental or oblivious to creating such a mess for our kids and grandkids? We will all have to suffer the ultimate consequences." David makes a very solid point. Borrowing from our children, which they must pay in the future, to enjoy our benefits today is not right, any way you look at it. And with a prebate, that should take much of the argument away. Why Shouldn't Everyone Pay Something?But that leads us to this note from Robert Dumper: "John, do you really mean 'If you make less than $100,000 you pay nothing'? I believe that one of the worst things you can do is to allow some people to pay no taxes at all. "Paying no taxes just leads people to believe that all the government provides is free. They have no incentive to limit what the government spends. Their incentive is to just take all they can. I believe that people earning less than $100,000 would make up over half the electorate. You can imagine what kind of political force they would represent. They would have no investment in the system. I think this would be a recipe for financial disaster. I guess the Bad News is that almost half our current electorate pay no income taxes today, and look what that has done for us." Others wrote with similar concerns. A tax on only those making over $100,000 creates a large majority of people who would pay no taxes at all. I would reply that they would be paying a VAT. Under a consumption tax, everyone pays (although with a rebate/check for the lowest incomes, as I suggested). Others argued that it will reduce consumer spending as it raises prices. I can understand the concern, but I think that misses the insidious nature of all the hidden costs on what we buy. Getting rid of those would offset much if not all of the rise in costs. And not paying Social Security and other taxes would increase income, to also offset the rise in costs. Actually, Robert, it is closer to almost half of the country than you might think. The graph below from the Heritage Foundation came my way today (courtesy of Bill King, from a paper in England!). As of 2009, 49.5% of the population is not represented on a taxable return.  And this leads into Mira Awad's comment: "I like the idea of a progressive flat tax, similar to what some Republicans were proposing in the 1990s but without an exception for capital gains. Each household would get a large deduction for each person. They would pay 20-25% tax on the remainder of their income. (The rate would be set between 20% and 25% depending on how much money is needed, so I'm not sure of the rate.) No exemptions for anything else. It gets rid of that infernal mortgage tax credit that has jacked up the housing prices. It does so without making it impossible for families to pay their mortgages, because most middle class families will not be paying income tax (upper middle class will be). "… The Republicans should like it, because it puts a cap on taxes for the rich at somewhere between 20% and 25%. Democrats should like it, because it taxes income and capital gains at the same rate, partly repeals the Bush cuts in capital gains tax, and puts a floor on taxes for the rich. It also provides tax relief to the working class. Yes, someone would be paying more: upper middle class people who have big mortgage deductions now and the well-to-do who are paying less than 20% now. "This cures the basic unfairness in the American tax system, where 2 households of the same size and same income living next to one another in houses of the same value are sometimes paying wildly different portions of their incomes in tax, depending upon the source of their incomes and whether or not they have a mortgage tax break. One family can be paying 30% and another 10% while living under the same circumstances. Ridiculous. It solves the problem of Warren Buffett and his secretary. Perhaps Buffet is paying too little taxes, but no one has mentioned that the secretary's 30% tax rate is too high. (I don't know much about corporate tax structure, but it looks to me like the same flat rate could be applied to corporate income and capital gains.)" It is worse than you think, Mira. There are ways to defer large amounts of current income taxes using various strategies of taking current deductions and realizing the income over a longer period, if you pay enough taxes to make it worth doing so and know the right places to find that deferral. You can't avoid eventually paying the tax, but you can defer it for a longer time. And if you are paying a lot in taxes, it can make financial sense. And there are ways for those who own certain types of small businesses to shelter much more income than the traditional IRA or 401k. One small example from my own past. If you are a publishing company for a magazine or newsletter, you can write off the costs of selling a subscription immediately but only have to recognize the income over the life of the subscription. The current subscription income (even if it is all up-front) goes on your books as deferred income, which, if you ever look at the actual accounting statements of publishing companies, can reveal a great deal about the real health of the business. Which is why there are large mail campaigns in the last quarter of the year, as it helps on current taxes. Eventually you have to pay, and woe betide the publishing company that sees its subscription base fall too fast, as taxes then come due with no income to pay them. But when you are growing? It can really affect your current taxes due. If and when we clean up the tax code, there are a lot of things that need fixing. There will be a great deal of crying and gnashing of teeth by all sorts of industries, but no business should rely upon the tax code for its existence. Comeback, AmericaMy friend David Walker was the Comptroller General of the United States and head of theGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008. He now tours the country talking about the need for fiscal responsibility. He heads a group called Comeback America ( http://www.tcaii.org/) David points out that if you simply eliminated all the "tax expenditures" (tax deductions), taxes would go up $1.3 trillion a year. If you combined that with serious entitlement reform, a much lower tax rate (the lows 20s as the top rate), and did $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, you could balance the budget for the foreseeable future. His website lists numerous tax and budget proposals, besides his own. He points out the necessity (and I wholeheartedly agree) to have bipartisan cooperation to avoid a fiscal disaster. He demonstrates that we have $75 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Social Security, and pensions. Actually, the number $75 trillion is not all that interesting to me, for the simple reason that we can't pay it. It will never happen. Far more interesting is the question, when will we realize we can't pay it and what will we do? Or maybe, what will we do when the bond market decides we can't pay it and begins to ratchet up interest rates? Unless we begin to get control of the deficit, we could face a very bleak future. There are ways to get serious entitlement reform. The very conservative Congressman Paul Ryan and the quite liberal Senator Ron Wyden have combined to come up with a plan for reforming Medicare that goes a long way toward what is needed. And it has upset a lot of people serving in Congress with them. But such compromise and cooperation is precisely what must happen if we are to avoid a true crisis. Whether you agree with every small detail in their proposal, you should applaud their willingness to seek bipartisan solutions. I get rather strong letters from my conservative friends chiding me for not "keeping the faith." What we need, I am told, is smaller government and less spending. But when I press them as to whether the path we are on will result in crisis, they almost always agree that if nothing is done we will see a severe crisis. So my next question is, do they think we should hold the philosophical line, or allow the country to fall into economic chaos? I have spent much of my life holding that line. But my analysis is that without a deficit solution we will enter another depression that will take years to come out of. And waiting until one party or the other has total control of Congress and the White House is not the answer. We are getting to the Endgame. Time is running out. We have a few precious years to set the ship of state back on a better course. I would rather keep the ship from sinking than argue about what should be on the menu at dinner. We can worry about that when the leaks in the boat are fixed. And for those who asked, I still think we will do the right thing. Cutting spending will have consequences. We should do it slowly (over 4-5 years), and that will mean a Muddle Through Economy with more risks of recession. I talk of dire consequences only if we fail to fix the deficit. I think the former outcome is more likely. If you don't share my optimism, then you should plan for a depression. And if we get to the end of 2013 and it is clear that no compromise is forthcoming, I will probably get much more concerned. Maybe even become downright gloomy. Just saying. (And just for the record, the VAT as I outlined it, or a Fair Tax, or Walker's solutions would have me paying somewhat higher taxes, not lower.) There are more comments, and you can go to www.johnmauldin.com and click on last week's letter to read them. But this letter is already getting long and it is time to hit the send button. And move on. |
3) To draw Iran into nuclear talks, Obama avoids ousting Assad
Different policies, same goals.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal did not hide his anger before marching out of the Friends of Syria conference attended by 70 nations in Tunis Friday, Feb. 24 after they fell in behind US plans for avoiding direct action against Syria’s Bashar Assad. Filmed sitting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Saudi minister told a reporter that arming the Free Syrian Army was an “excellent idea” because they needed to defend themselves. Clinton remained frostily aloof on this obvious bone of contention.
As one of the world’s richest oil and financial powers, Saudi Arabia could buy and sell Iran several times over, and after seeing the ayatollahs get away with insulting America time and time again, the Saudi foreign minister did not pull his punches when he faced his US colleague. He was frank about Riyadh and the Obama administration being miles apart in their perceptions of current Middle East events; resentment over the US role in the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak remains a constant irritant.
This dissonance came to the fore when Saudi al Faisal accused Washington of reducing Assad’s butchery of his opponents to the level of a humanitarian issue and so saving his regime
Riyadh is no happier with Moscow than it is with Washington.
Saudi King Abdullah is reported by Middle East sources to have banged down the telephone on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Wednesday, Feb. 22, when he called to invite the oil kingdom to align with Russia’s Syrian strategy against the West.
Tariq Alhomayed, the talented editor of the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, who is regarded as having a direct line to the king, wrote later: “This was undoubtedly a historic and unusual telephone call.” He reported that Abdullah rejected out of hand Moscow’s proposal of a two-hour ceasefire in Homs, the Syrian city bombarded now for three weeks. He retorted that this would give Bashar Assad’s killing machine a 22-hour day carte blanche.
Alhomayed did not refer directly to the clash of wills between the Saudi foreign minister and the US secretary of state, except for a snide dig: “He [the Saudi king] is also the one who, during the Arab summit in Riyadh, first described the US army in Iraq as an army of occupation.”
Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu’s is of one mind with Saudi rulers in his aversion to big power policies for handling the Assad regime: Washington though horrified by the Syrian ruler's violence is yet shy of taking the final steps for his removal, while Moscow showers arms and intelligence on the Syrian despot to preserve him from his enemies.
It may be said that the Saudis and Israelis share a distrust of President Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, suspecting them both of keeping Bashar Assad in power to promote their divergent interests in Iran.
The Saudi king faults the “safe havens” plan under air force protection – the sum total of foreign intervention taking shape between Washington, Turkey, some European powers and Gulf emirates - because it excludes what he regards as the key component: Bombardment of the presidential palace in Damascus and the crushing of the Syrian army, the same treatment meted out to Muammar Qaddafi in Libya.
The Saudis therefore sees this plan as actually protecting Assad’s regime and not only his victims.
Underlying Obama’s restraint is his indefatigable quest for nuclear negotiations with Iran, which is impelling him to show Tehran he is even prepared to keep its ally Assad in power – albeit with clipped wings - for the sake of a negotiated nuclear accord.
The Saudis think the US president is dreaming if he reckons Iran’s rulers will be so grateful for Assad’s escape that they will be willing to give up their aspirations for a nuclear weapon.
They also think Obama misguided in aiming for Russian collaboration in making its political, military, technological and nuclear clout in Tehran available at some point for them to arrive together at agreed accommodations in both Syria and Iran.
Riyadh regards its case as proven beyond doubt by events of the past week.
Up until Monday, Feb. 20, Washington was bucked up by Iranian signposts apparently pointing to resumed talks with world powers on an eventual nuclear standstill and a freeze on uranium enrichment past five percent. Iranian emissaries in backdoor exchanges were forthcoming on US requests for gestures to confirm that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was serious about entering into diplomatic dialogue.
A rude awakening was not long coming.
Ten days ago, the Obama administration asked and received from Tehran final proof of goodwill, a promise that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors would be allowed to view the Parchin military facility.
US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, when he first met Israeli leaders in Jerusalem Thursday and Friday (Feb. 16-17), accordingly informed them that since Tehran had agreed to open this suspect site to UN inspection and nuclear negotiations were soon to begin, Israel had no cause to attack its nuclear facilities.
Tuesday, Feb. 21, the UN inspectors arrived in Tehran, certain they would be admitted to Parchin – only to run into their second Iranian refusal this month. Their visit was cut short by IAEA Vienna headquarters.
Every attempt by Washington to find out what had gone wrong drew a blank. Iranian officials withdrew into total hush and let the entire diplomatic edifice so painstakingly constructed by Washington start falling apart.
But Obama the eternal optimist has not given up. He is treating Tehran’s latest spell of intransigence as no more than a hiccup symptomatic of the run-up to parliamentary elections on March 2, after which Khamenei will revert to the track leading to negotiations.
This approach is what put Saudi backs up. They accuse the US and Russia through their different polices of granting the Syrian ruler a license to keep on massacring his people, regardless of any safe havens or “no kill” zones the West may be planning.
Netanyahu is likewise opposed to the Obama administration’s interconnected policies on Syria and Iran. His White House meeting with Obama on March 5 is not expected to put this dispute to rest.
3a) Russia's Putin warns against 'catastrophic' attack on Iran
By REUTERS
Russian president, days before elections, writes that the "growing threat of a military strike on [Iran] alarms Russia," says he hopes foreign countries don't intervene in Syria without backing of UNSC.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Russia is concerned about the "growing threat" of an attack on Iran over its nuclear program, warning that the consequences would be "truly catastrophic."
In an article on foreign policy for publication on Monday, six days before a March 4 presidential election he is almost certain to win, Putin also warned Western and Arab nations against military intervention in Syria.
"I very much hope the United States and other countries... do not try to set a military scenario in motion in Syria without sanction from the UN Security Council," Putin said, according to a transcript.
Russia has been a staunch ally of Syria's during an violent conflict fought between the Syrian army and anti-government opposition groups, some of which have become increasingly militant.
Russia, along with China, exercised its veto power at the United Nations Security Council on an Arab League-backed resolution that would have called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to quit.
On Iran, Putin said that "the growing threat of a military strike on this country alarms Russia, no doubt. If this occurs, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. It is impossible to imagine their real scale."
3b)Syria, Iran and the Obama Doctrine
By DAVID E. SANGER
ARM the Syrian rebels! And, while we’re at it, give the Israelis the tools they need — bunker-busters, refueling aircraft — so that if they decide to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, they’ll get it right the first time.
Both calls have resonated across Washington in recent days. The demand to level the playing field against the Syrian government — which is getting arms from Russia and Iran — came from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Talk of increasing the credibility of Israel’s threat to flatten Iran’s far-flung nuclear facilities has arisen in many quarters, from the Republican presidential candidates to think tanks that have charged that the Obama administration has not yet made “all options are on the table” a credible threat.
So far, the White House isn’t biting on arms to the Syrian rebels, and it has been deliberately vague on what kind of technology it has shared with the Israelis. The strategic calculus in the two cases is quite different. A humanitarian intervention in Syria would almost certainly become synonymous with a move to engineer regime change, just as the military action in Libya did. The argument over aiding Israel comes down to managing the very public dispute between Washington and Jerusalem over what is the effective way — bombs, sanctions or covert action — to set back, once again, Iran’s chances of getting the ultimate weapon.
In a post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan, post-Libya world, the White House reaction to both calls illuminates the conditions under which the 44th president is willing to use force, or see it used by others. But it also sheds light on that ill-defined concept that the administration refuses to call the Obama Doctrine.
Syria and Iran are hardly unrelated problems. In the minds of many on President Obama’s team, nothing would undercut Iran’s capability to cause trouble in the region faster than if the mullahs lost Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s brutal president, as their only ally in the Arab world. The argument commonly heard inside and outside the White House these days is that if the Assad government cracks, Iran’s ability to funnel weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas will be badly damaged — and its influence will wither accordingly. Similarly, if Iran’s effort to walk up to the edge of a nuclear weapons capability can be set back with a few well-placed GBU-31 bunker-busters, the country’s hopes of challenging Israel and Saudi Arabia to be the region’s biggest power will be deferred.
Or so the theory goes.
Usually the appeal of providing arms and technology for someone else to do the fighting is undeniable. It’s why Franklin D. Roosevelt invented Lend-Lease to provide planes, tanks and ammunition to the British in 1941 when they were broke, and it’s how Ronald Reagan got into trouble in the Iran-contra deal, an effort to arm Nicaraguan rebels by diverting funds from a secret arms deal with the country Washington is now sanctioning and sabotaging. At a moment when polls show the country has had its fill of ground wars and the White House talks of “nation-building at home,” there is something tempting about handing off weaponry to the rebels and the Israelis, wishing them good luck and reminding them to drop a line back to the White House if any of it works.
“If it was only that easy,” one senior national security official told me last week.
The first question that White House officials say they are asking about the Syrian rebels is the same question they asked about Libya 10 months ago: Who are these guys?
In Libya, Mr. Obama took a pass on arming the rebel fighters, electing to join in a NATO air campaign instead. (As it turned out, the United Arab Emirates provided a large number of small arms to help overthrow Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.)
In Syria, where the death toll is already above 6,000 by most estimates, there is no equivalent NATO operation; so far, a limited intervention to spur a coup or create a “safe zone” for Syrian civilians near the Turkish border is all still talk. So at first glance, providing arms looks like the next-best option. But the worry is that what started as a protest movement has morphed into what Steven Heydemann, a Syria expert at the United States Institute of Peace, described as “a dangerous and uncoordinated array of armed opposition fighters.” While there is an entity called the Free Syrian Army — not to be confused with the civilian Syrian National Council — it is less an army than bands of free-form militias. Some are tribal; some are linked by regional or ethnic bonds; there is no real command structure.
THE lesson of past conflicts is that while providing weaponry may help overthrow an odious government, the weapons are often later used to settle scores. The weapons provided to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan helped drive out the Soviets and made for great cinema in “Charlie Wilson’s War.” But some of those weapons were turned on United States troops after the 2001 American-led invasion.
The concerns about providing high-tech arms to the Israelis are entirely different. There is no closer American ally, and its military is deservedly regarded as among the most disciplined and tightly commanded on the globe. But President Obama now faces the same decision that President George W. Bush did in 2008, when the Israelis sought the bunker-busting bombs and refueling capability they would need for a truly broad, sustained attack on Iran’s far-flung nuclear sites.
Inside the Bush White House the Israeli request incited a huge fight. Vice President Dick Cheney, who by his own account advocated an American strike on a nuclear reactor in Syria (the Israelis did the job when Mr. Bush demurred), urged that the Israelis be given everything they needed. The majority of the Bush national security team, however, concluded that if the Israelis were given the technology, it greatly heightened the chances they would use it — and risk another Middle East war. The Obama team has come to the same conclusion.
“This is all about guiding the Israelis to a choice that is most likely to delay the Iranian project without prompting the blowback of an airstrike,” one senior member of Mr. Obama’s team said after a delegation led by Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, returned from Israel last weekend. The administration argues, publicly and privately, that a mix of sanctions and covert action will be more effective. Which takes us to the Obama doctrine. When it comes to the use of force, it seems to boil down to this: Mr. Obama is willing to use unilateral force when America’s direct national interests are threatened — the bin Laden raid is the most vivid example. But when the threat is more diffuse, more a matter of preserving global order, his record shows that he insists on United Nations resolutions and the participation of many allies.
This explains why the Israelis are straining so hard to make the case that in a few years Iran could have a missile capability that could reach the United States — they want to fit Iran into that first category. And it explains Mr. Obama’s hesitance to enter a civil war in Syria, where the daily scenes are horrific but American interests are indirect, at best.
3c)All of Western Civilization Could Soon Be Threatened By a Nuclear Iran
Martin Peretz
I don’t know whether it’s time just yet for someone, anyone to bomb Iran. But it’s been quite a few years since the wise folk in the strategy profession have been saying “sanctions need time.” This sounds very reassuring unless, of course, Tehran’s nuclear option beats out Tehran’s financial collapse. Just how much economic pain will the world’s self-appointed moral monitors permit even a repellent and perilous Islamic power to endure until all the strings of conscience are played and the will to act is foreclosed. Before you know it, in fact, all of Western civilization will be in the dock … and all of Iran’s highly plausible threats and convincing menace will be right there about to be executed. Yes, make no mistake about who will be the first to be imperiled.
The Germans waited until January 1942 to detail at the Wannsee Conference their plans for the “final solution to the Jewish problem,” which was actually already in full swing. Looking back through the madcap film images of Nazis as Chaplinesque funny men, the nightmare has aspects of comedy. I suppose there is a parodic aspect to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fulminations, what with the diminutive little man, his scruffy beard and open-collared white shirt, his formal dress, dining out at the National Council of Churches of Christ, addressing a special convocation convened by Lee Bollinger and lecturing at the Council on Foreign Relations. There is not much to lampoon in his boss, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose views on Israel are, if anything, more belligerent than those of Dr. A’jad and since he is actually supreme leader he should be taken seriously, much more seriously.
Now, of course, in Israel itself there is a plethora of views, some more hawkish than the mainstream, many (many more than you would think) less hawkish. And the same comparison can be made with the opinions of the cabinet which is also not at all monolithic. No one serious in this argument is completely predictable, except for Haaretz which is influential not because Israelis read its daily Hebrew edition—maybe 25,000 do—but because foreign correspondents are delighted to be confronted every morning with accusations against the Jewish state that somehow make the Holocaust less onerous to European souls. The Jerusalem Post is a somewhat more balanced but a suffusive religious undertone makes the skeptical reader feel he is always arguing with God. (As it happens, The Times of Israel is a new English language web daily created by the Post’s former editor, David Horovitz, a scrupulous journalist who had long chafed under his former owner’s whims.)
American military interlocutors are now publicly worrying that Israel does not have the capacity to cripple Iran’s nuclear designs on it. Is the inference that, if only it waited some more, the edge of the Israel Defense Forces over the Iranians would somehow increase? One principle of the IDF and, more important in a way, of the intrinsic Zionist idea is that Israel does not want, never wants American men and women to fight for it. That is why Israel is so irritatingly cautious about surrendering the whole West Bank (with half of Jerusalem) to capricious and weapons-wanton Palestinians. Ariel Sharon made that mistake already in Gaza, and the shelling of the Negev is its most dispiriting but lesson-teaching consequence. All the blather about 1967 cease-fire lines in just that … blather. A very tough regime of Israeli surveillance all over the West Bank and on its frontier with Jordan—how long do you think the peaceable kingdom will survive?—will have to be installed before Palestinian independence, so to speak, is attempted. (And that’s only if Arab Palestine isn’t like Egypt and Syria, which it might just be and as I am inclined to think it is destined to be. Alas.)
That one principle of the IDF, that they actually fight their own battles, is inviolable and inviolate, words with slightly different meanings but one carrying the implication of sacred. And sacred it is. No American force has ever actually done battle for Israel. None. Neither Bibi Netanyahu nor Ehud Barak is about to relinquish that idea and that reality. They may want to borrow some refueling equipment. But they already have enormous numbers of bunker busters, as the best-informed military correspondent in Washington Eli Lake reported just a few days ago. I should note (humbly) that Barack Obama approved the sale of 55 of these 5,000-pound deep penetrators to the Israelis already in 2009, when he had only begun to dicker with them over settlements. These are not all that they have, since their own armaments industry has been producing thousands of lesser and slightly lesser capacity devices. If Israel cannot do it, believe me it won’t.
So back to all the fretting in Washington. Do the heavy thinkers believe that Israel should just wait for Iran to have a certifiable atomic device capable of hitting any place in Israel? Hey, maybe the Israelis and we Zionists who worry about them should cross our fingers and hope.
I know that most of you don’t cotton to the editorials of the Wall Street Journal. Well, here’s one every responsible citizen should confront. It’s called “Containing Israel on Iran: General Dempsey Sends a Message of U.S. Weakness to Tehran.”
P.S. I know that some of my readers (and maybe even most of them) do not judge arguments and articles I cite by their historic evidence or their logic but by whether their authors are good guys or bad. But let me try again. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is a certified bad guy, what with him having been George W.’s emissary to the fraudulent international debating society and, what’s more, doing lots of his writing, including this article, in The Washington Times. I challenge anybody to try to make hash of this piece. Ditto for Ilan Berman’s little essay in the same daily on the same day.
P.P.S. Apropos my above reference to David Horovitz and his new e-paper The Times of Israel, Horovitz analyzed the prospects of an Israeli strike against Iran through the prism of Ehud Barak’s relationship with the prime minister, a fortunate bond for both and for the Jewish state primarily.
Martin Peretz is the editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The demonizing of Barack Obama
By Colbert I. King
February is African American History Month. Yet these are days of sadness.
The brilliance of hope, so blinding a few short years ago, has dimmed. The dreams of a 21st-century America, where achievement is based on skills, determination and merit, free from an arbitrary color standard, have been replaced with injuries inflicted by present-day haters as malevolent as some of our worst enemies of the past.
Who could have imagined a U.S. publication suggesting that Israel “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place.” In case you were unsure of what you’d just read, the writer clarified, “Yes . . . order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”
Those words were written only a few weeks ago, in a column by the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, a weekly newspaper that dates back to 1925. Andrew Adler’s call for President Obama’s assassination was immediately condemned by major Jewish organizations. He apologized, resigned from his post and has reportedly put the paper up for sale.
But it can’t be unsaid. To read in a mainstream publication that Barack Obama should be killed takes the breath away.
How many other Americans think the same way? Such thoughts didn’t start with Adler. They don’t stop with him.
Now, before some of you strike back with, “Hey, what about those scurrilous attacks on George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan?,” allow me to stipulate that crazed partisans and venomous pundits populate the left as well as the right.
What sets anti-Obama foes apart from the persecutors of Bush, Reagan et al., however, is that the purveyors of this brand of inflammatory rhetoric include the GOP presidential candidates themselves.
Their charges are rude, disrespectful and designed to question Obama’s loyalty to country and commitment to his faith.
John Avlon, CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and the Daily Beast, recently chronicled the kind of “radioactive rhetoric” that the presidential hopefuls are spewing to rev up their conservative base. I’ve chosen a few examples of my own.
Newt Gingrich: Obama has a “Kenyan anti-colonial mindset” and is the “most radical president in American history.” Gingrich has also said: “This is an administration which, as long as you are America’s enemy, you’re safe. You know, the only people you’ve got to worry about is if you are an American ally.”
Rick Santorum: Obama has “some phony theology . Not a theology based on the Bible,” and he is “systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America.”
Mitt Romney: Obama associates with people who have “fought against religion.” “Sometimes,” Romney said recently, “I think we have a president who doesn’t understand America.”
As Avlon observed: “This line was straight out of the ‘Alien in the White House’ playbook, a riff that reinforced the worst impulses of some in the audience.”
In this political environment, there is no invective too repugnant, too vicious to throw at this president of the United States.
It is in this climate that we celebrate African American History Month and the achievement of generations against all odds. The demonizing and denigration of the nation’s first black president cast a pall over what should be a time of tribute to indomitable Americans.
But we soldier on.
African American History Month concludes next week, and George Washington University will host an event Tuesday “celebrating the African American legacy in Foggy Bottom.”
Since the discussion will be devoted to my old turf, I expect to be on hand. “Half the fun of remembering is the rearranging,” as an Internet posting put it, and this trip down the avenues of yesterday should be worth taking, even if it returns us to things that were hard to bear at the time.
It is the present, and what lies ahead, that is unsettling.
How will observers of African American History Month many years down the road regard the time in which we now live?
Ah, but these things are being said about Obama, we are told, because of his policies, not because of the color of his skin.
It’s never about race; it’s all about the defense of great traditions and storied principles . . . as in cases of the Civil War, Plessy, Brown, lunch counters, bus travel, the poll tax, Jackie Robinson.
It’s sad, and infuriating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Bach, bluegrass, and blues: Savannah Music Festival coming up
Savannah, Georgia: you might think of historic architecture, Civil War stories, southern food, river front shopping, a thriving visual arts community. Also think music: Savannah hosts one of the top music festivals in the world, a gathering known for innovative, creative collaborations which honor Georgia roots while drawing top international performers from classical, jazz, bluegrass, Americana and other traditions to the stages of Savannah.
The Savannah Music Festival runs this year from 22 March through 7 April. Here’s a taste of what’s in store:
On the festival’s opening night, Georgia based gospel group Sweet Singing Harmony Harmoneers with share the stage with award winning high energy bluegrass group IIIrd Tyme Out, while across town The Takacs Quartet, known from their blend of drama, warmth, and humor in presenting classical music, mark their first appearance at the festival with an evening of works by Beethoven, Schubert, and Bartok. In another venue, banjo master Bela Fleck reunites with his original band mates of twenty years ago, The Flecktones, for al range across musical influences from jazz to blues to world music
On the festival’s opening night, Georgia based gospel group Sweet Singing Harmony Harmoneers with share the stage with award winning high energy bluegrass group IIIrd Tyme Out, while across town The Takacs Quartet, known from their blend of drama, warmth, and humor in presenting classical music, mark their first appearance at the festival with an evening of works by Beethoven, Schubert, and Bartok. In another venue, banjo master Bela Fleck reunites with his original band mates of twenty years ago, The Flecktones, for al range across musical influences from jazz to blues to world music
At eleven o’clock on most festival mornings, you can catch top classical music artists in intimate performance at the Trinity United Methodist Church, and then at twelve thirty, have another chance to see roots, jazz and pops performers who headline evening concerts at the Noon30 series at the Charles H. Morris Center
You can dance to the zydeco rhythms of Nathan and the Zydeco Cha Chas, and take part in salsa dance part on another night
Listen in as in as twelve top high school bands play their hearts out in the Swing Central Jazz Competition, and follow the winners through to an evening concert where they will share the stage with jazz greats including Marcus Roberts and Wycliffe Gordon
Hear Texas troubadour Ruthie Foster bring together the fiery roots of soul, gospel, jazz, and blues in her work. It’s no accident that her latest album is called Let It Burn.
Hear Texas troubadour Ruthie Foster bring together the fiery roots of soul, gospel, jazz, and blues in her work. It’s no accident that her latest album is called Let It Burn.
Listen to festival associate musical director and world renown classical violinist Daniel Hope give his first Savannah recital in years
Hear Chris Thile, known for his bluegrass music with Nickel Creek and the Punch Brothers, investigate both bluegrass an Bach
There is, of course, quite a bit more: more dances, more roots music, more gospel, more jazz, more classical. There’s a strong education component as well, including education events for schoolchildren from the area, jazz mentorships, and in a new program this year, an acoustic music academy for talented string players in which they have the chance to learn from and work with festival artists.
Tickets for the concerts are already sale, both in Savannah and through the festival’s web site, where there is also detailed information about the artists and the schedule of events.
In past years, Georgia Public Broadcasting has offered radio programs featuring music from the Savannah Music Festival, which have been broadcast across the United States. Several of these are available on the site. If you’ll not be making it to Savannah, you’ll want to keep an eye out there for broadcast plans for this year’s events, as well.
photograph of The Takacs Quartet by Richard Houghton, courtesy of the artists
photograph of Ruthie Foster by John Carrrico, courtesy of the artist
photograph of Ruthie Foster by John Carrrico, courtesy of the artist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment