===
The previous memo had a lot of typing and pasting errors. If you are interested in reading the corrected copy go to; dick-meom.blogspot.com and click on:"Whether Tis Nobler To Attack Or Not,That Is The Question! Shakespeare Provides No Answer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the CIA become so infiltrated with those pursuing their own agenda the Agency has been made mostly ineffective? (See 1 below.)
And more pros and cons regarding attacking Syria by David Goldman. (See 1a below.)
===
Unions - the bane of honest hard working labor and management. (See 2 below.)
| === Pelosi's rationale for going into Syria is similar to that she espoused when explaining why Congress should pass 'Obamascare.' (See 3 below.) I find it perverse that we were disaffected with GW because he made mistakes so we replaced him with a person whose mistakes make GW's look benign. Yet, we lashed out at GW, the press and media constantly berated him, many public citizens paraded around his Texas compound carrying ugly signs and yet not a peep when it comes to the buffoonery and incompetence of Obama because such carries the weight of racist overtones.. I expect double standards because Liberals are basically intolerant of other ideas believing only theirs' work. However, it appears politicians are getting an earful from their constituents when it comes to attacking Syria so Obama may not get the duck cover he sought. Then what? Does he do nothing , wipe his brow and set the stage for blaming Republicans for the aftershock that will surely come one day? Does he go ahead and defy the Congress whose acquiescence he sought? Stay tuned because it is only going to get more interesting, more frightening and more tragic. Funny how mistakes can mount and particularly when the decision process is based on emotion rather than sound reasoning.! === |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Gulliver Tied Down by Lilliputians
By David P. Goldman
One in five applicants for jobs at the Central Intelligence Agency have ties to Muslim terrorist organizations, according to the latest round of Snowden leaks. And Israel is a major target of American counterintelligence. Washington is insane.
Three years ago, the Washington Post sketched the elephantiasis in the U.S. intelligence establishment without, of course, access to the detailed numbers leaked by Edward Snowden last week. It doesn't matter how much money you spend if you can't hire people you can trust. If you spend $52 billion in the "black budget," you create so many conflicting bureaucratic interest groups as to cancel out any possible signal with a wave of noise.
As I pointed out in a 2010 post at First Things, at last count there were fewer than 2,500 Americans
studying Arabic at advanced university courses (not counting, of course, the internal training of the U.S. military). Fewer than 250 were studying Farsi. The total pool of truly competent Arab speakers coming out of American universities per year probably is in the low hundreds. How many of these can U.S. intelligence agencies recruit? If we can't recruit translators among Americans whose background is verifiable, we rely on first- and second-generation immigrants from Arab countries whose background is not verifiable. We should assume that our intelligence services are riddled with hostiles. We are Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians.
Israel, by contrast, has a surfeit of Arabic translators — the language is taught in every Israeli high school, and is easy for Hebrew-speakers to master. Israeli friends of mine who were trained as Arabic translators for intelligence work were sent to guard duty in the Negev because the military had too many skilled linguists.
The U.S. has relied extensively on friendly Arab intelligence services, above all the Egyptians, to fill the gap — except that the Obama administration did its best to bring down the Egyptian military in 2011 and install the Muslim Brotherhood. The Israelis have plenty to tell, but little that Washington wants to hear: Israel never fell victim to the mass delusion about the so-called Arab Spring, and has warned throughout (along with Saudi Arabia) that Iran's nuclear ambitions must be crushed. Israel therefore is treated as an intelligence target rather than as a collaborator, while the Arab intelligence services who most might help us — Egyptian and Saudi — must regard us with skepticism in the best of cases and hostility in the worst.
America is flying blind into a hurricane. Americans who write about the Middle East now depend on what other countries choose to leak to us. Washington isn't in the loop any longer.
Mr. Goldman, president of Macrostrategy LLC, is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and the London Center for Policy Research.
1a)The Pros and Cons of Attacking Syria
A Symposium
By David P. Goldman
Go after the dog's master, not the dog.
Kudos to Michael Ledeen for explaining that the road to Damascus starts in Tehran. As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explained on Aug. 25, "Assad's regime isn't acting alone. Iran, and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, are there on the ground playing an active role assisting Syria. In fact, Assad's regime has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran's testing ground. … Iran is watching and it wants to see what will be the reaction to the use of chemical weapons."
We are at war with Iran, and I have little to add to Michael's excellent summary. As he reiterates, we have been at war with Iran for decades. The only distinction is that Iran knows this and the Obama administration pretends it's not happening. Because the American public is disgusted with the miserable return on our investment of 5,000 lives, 50,000 casualties, and $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans are too timid to push for decisive military action to stop Iran's nuclear program — although air strikes rather than ground troops would be required.
I made a similar case on March 29:
It's pointless to take potshots at Obama for failing to act on Syria. What we should say is this: "Iran is the main source of instability in the Middle East. Iran's intervention in Syria has turned the country into a slaughterhouse. By showing weakness to Iran, the Obama administration encourages its murderous activities elsewhere in the region."
I also recommend Ed "Give War a Chance" Luttwak's Aug. 25 op-ed in the New York Times, "In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins." Victory for Assad would be victory for Iran. "And if the rebels win, " Luttwak wrote, "moderate Sunnis would be politically marginalized under fundamentalist rulers." The whole region is paralyzed and ripe for destabilization. Saudi subsidies are keeping Egypt from starving, literally. "Turkey has large and restless minority populations that don't trust their own government, which itself does not trust its own army. The result has been paralysis instead of power, leaving Mr. Erdogan an impotent spectator of the civil war on his doorstep." I would add that Turkey also is at economic free-fall with its stock market down by 40% in dollar terms since April.
Luttwak argues that the U.S. should favor "an indefinite draw." Here I disagree: the chemical attack shows how easily Iran can manipulate events in Syria to suit its strategic objectives. The best solution is Yugoslav-style partition: an Alawite redoubt in the Northwest including Latakia (where Russia has its naval station), and a Sunni protectorate in the rest of the country, except for an autonomous zone for Syria's Kurds. Everyone wins except the Turks, who understandably abhor the idea of an independent Kurdish entity. Someone has to lose, though. What has Turkey done for us lately?
Obama probably will choose the worst of all possible alternatives. Daniel Pipes warns that this course of action "will also entail real dangers. Bashar al-Assad's notorious incompetence means his response cannot be anticipated. Western strikes could, among other possibilities, inadvertently lead to increased regime attacks on civilians, violence against Israel, an activation of sleeper cells in Western countries, or heightened dependence on Tehran. Surviving the strikes also permits Assad to boast that he defeated the United States. In other words, the imminent attack entails few potential benefits but many potential drawbacks. As such, it neatly encapsulates the Obama administration's failed foreign policy."
If the problems of the Middle East look intractable now, consider what they will look like if Iran can promote mass murder from under a nuclear umbrella. The hour is late. If we Republicans can't summon the courage to advance fundamental American national security issues in the midst of crisis, we will deserve the voters' contempt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Goldman, president of Macrostrategy LLC, is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and the London Center for Policy Research.
2)California's Union-Sponsored War on Farmers
United Farm Workers and its government allies are working hard to destroy jobs.
'At what point do you look at this picture and ask, 'Why are you fighting anymore?'" muses Dan Gerawan, whose third-generation family farm in Fresno, Calif., has been under assault by California's labor-regulatory complex.
Within days a state mediator could impose an unwieldy labor contract that may force him out of business. However, the ultimate victims will be his farm workers.
Mr. Gerawan's story illustrates the devolution of California's progressive dream. His grandfather migrated from Dust Bowl Oklahoma and started a small farm, which his father expanded into the country's largest grower of peaches and nectarines. Dan and his brother grew up toiling in the fields alongside the workers, as they still do.
Employees of Gerawan Farming can earn more than $15 per hour (the state industry average is $8.70) plus modest retirement and health benefits. The Gerawans also pay for the workers' English-language instruction and their children's Catholic school tuition. Silvia Lopez, who has worked on the farm for 15 years, says "there's no place that they care about safety and benefits like Gerawan," and that workers can talk to the owners if they have a problem.
-The United Farm Workers muscled its way onto the farm in 1990 but quickly lost support. In that year, the UFW won an election to organize Gerawan workers (with just 536 total votes) and in 1992 was certified by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Yet after holding just one bargaining session, the union lost interest and never procured a contract.
Then, after nearly two decades without negotiations, UFW organizers turned up last October and demanded a contract that would require employees to pay 3% of their wages in dues (between $600 and $1,000 a year). Gerawan also says that the union wanted the company to fire workers who didn't pay up.
The UFW needs the cash to pay its own bills. Since its heyday in the 1970s, the union has lost roughly 90% of its members. Last year, it spent $1.2 million more than it collected, based on Department of Labor filings. Hitting up Gerawan's 5,000 workers could double the union's revenues, and the easiest way to extract the money from workers was to enlist the state's help.
Early this year, the Gerawans and UFW representatives met to discuss the union's demands, but in March the union abruptly broke off negotiations and petitioned the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to compel Gerawan into binding arbitration to impose a contract. A 2002 state law allows farmworker unions to sidestep collective bargaining and demand state mediation of first-time contracts. No other labor group in the state has this right.
Meanwhile, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is driving legislation that would allow farmworker unions to request state mediation whenever a contract expires, thus obliterating collective bargaining. Unions often prefer mediation because they don't have to negotiate with management, and workers don't get to vote on the final contract.
Mr. Gerawan says an imposed contract would hurt his ability to manage staff and resources and could ultimately force the farm out of business. In addition to the dues, the United Farm Workers general counsel Mario Martinez says the union wants full-blown pension plans and more expensive medical benefits.
The Gerawans and their workers have been resisting the union power grab. First, the Gerawans complained to the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board that the union had abandoned Gerawan workers two decades ago, and therefore mediation was inappropriate. The five-member board, dominated by left-leaning academics and labor attorneys, rejected the complaint because the union was never officially decertified. Most of the current workers were unaware that the union was ever certified, since 95% of them weren't around in 1990 when the vote took place.
Lupe Garcia, who has worked on the farm since 1977, requested that he and 15 other workers be allowed to participate or at the very least observe the mediation, which under state law is "on the record" and should be open to the public. The state board denied the request, ruling that the workers were represented by a committee of employees handpicked by the union.
Mr. Garcia then sued the state for violating his and fellow workers' due process. A Fresno Superior Court judge has yet to rule on the case. Meanwhile, Gerawan workers are circulating a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. They already have more than 1,250 signatures. To be valid, a majority of workers must vote to decertify. The clincher: The election must occur before the mediator imposes a contract, which could happen anytime in the next three weeks.
Meantime, one Gerawan worker recently filed a police report claiming that a union operative threatened him with physical assault if he didn't support the union. Others tell me union operatives have shown up at their homes and passed around fliers that suggest workers could earn "libertad con papeles" (freedom papers)—i.e., immigration amnesty—if they pledge support for the union.
The union's general counsel, Mr. Martinez, says the workers' allegations are "complete lies," and that the union is being vindicated by the "neutral state-appointed officials" on the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Meanwhile, the union has filed 14 unfair-labor-practice complaints in an effort to undermine the company's support among workers. (Gerawan denies any wrongdoing.)
Last month, the union charged Gerawan management with aiding the decertification effort because three of its 55 supervisors had helped circulate the petition (notwithstanding Gerawan's instructions not to). The Agricultural Labor Relations Board's attorneys requested a temporary restraining order from state court against Gerawan and permission to allow the board's staff into the fields to instruct Gerawan workers of their rights—on the company's dime. The attorneys also argued that employeescould be considered "agents" of the employer if their anti-union activities reflected their managements' views.
Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ordered the company's supervisors to stop circulating the petition, but he added that the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board appeared to be "in cahoots" with the union and that "it is important for the Court to be suspicious of government agencies and ensure that the rights of everyone are protected."
The board isn't the only state body that appears in cahoots with the union. According to Mr. Steinberg, the Senate president, Gerawan has "unlawfully coerced, interfered with, and restrained its agricultural employees." Mr. Steinberg's former campaign adviser Richie Ross, who works as a registered lobbyist for the UFW and a consultant for Democratic legislators, strong-armed the senator's bill through the legislature last month.
"I don't think we will survive" if Gov. Jerry Brown signs the bill, says Mr. Gerawan. "The state doesn't want good employers." Nor does it seem to care about protecting workers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pelosi Doctrine: We Have to Enter Syria’s Civil War to Find Out What’s In It
By Doug Giles
Y’know, I wouldn’t have a hard time believing that the U.S.A “needs” to blow into Syria and rain hellfire down upon Assad and his ilk except for the following:
1. It’s their problem.
2. The “rebels” we’d now be supporting look a bubble off level.
3. The folks who’re selling us this quagmire make Pinocchio look like Moses and their foreign policies have been as successful as Crystal Pepsi.
4. Aren't we a wee bit late?
Let’s break the aforementioned down, shall we?
Point number one: Aside from International law (which doesn’t apply to the Syria scenario), and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and an acknowledgment of the War Powers Resolution, from a pragmatic perspective, shouldn’t we let them sort their own business out? Geez, people, we can’t even fix Detroit – what the heck are we going to offer Damascus?
Earth to Washingtonian dipsticks: Our house first, please. Yes, let’s take care of our business for, oh … the next millennium and then look around the world for some fixer uppers, okay? Personally, I’m sick of us rushing off to some Suckistan, at the expense of our troops' lives and billions of dollars from our broke-ass nation to “fix” folks who wish to remain stuck in the Stone Age.
Point number two: The creepy “Rebels”. These “freedom fighters” look certifiable to moi. They look like terrorists. They sure don’t look or act like disgruntled gymnasts pining for democracy, especially that “rebel” from this summer’s video who killed one of Assad’s boys and then cut his heart out and ate it. That’s koo-koo where I come from. No air support for you.
Look, if BHO and Lurch want us to believe the “good-rebel-freedom-fighter” horse-hockey then they need to shut down YouTube for a while, because vids like the one the NYT ran this week of these lovelies executing Syrian soldiers while screaming “Ollie, Ollie, In Come Free”, or whatever it is they yell, make folks with a semi-decent BS Detector think we’d be helping replace something with nothing, or worse. If I was president, I wouldn’t provide them with air support or a pellet rifle, but rather dump bales of high THC ganja and Yanni CD’s in an attempt to get them to all chill out.
Point number three. Obama, Kerry and McCain want us to trust them that injecting the US into Syria’s civil war is the right thing to do? Hey, Kukla, Fran and Ollie: why don’t you ask a cop how smart it is to insert oneself into a domestic dispute? This has got bad idea written all over it. This sounds similar to what my redneck cousin Slappy said when he tried to ride a blade on the wind turbine in West Texas, “Hey, y’all. Watch this!”
Plus, when did Kerry become the hawkish war-monger? Didn’t he caterwaul about US involvement in another civil war a few decades ago? Yes, I believe that he did.
In all fairness to Señor Kerry, maybe he’s evolved. Maybe he was against involvement in another’s civil war before he was for it. Maybe his use of Teresa’s Botox has short-circuited his synapses? Maybe he didn’t know war could be so cool until Obama started it? Who knows? Only John and God know.
Furthermore, a lot of folks aren’t too stoked on following your lead in Syria, Mr. President, because your recent brain farts in the Middle East have left Libya and Egypt as a hot bed for Islamic lunatics that really hate our guts. And that’s not just this right-wing zealots thoughts, it’s also Colbert’s, Stewart’s and Kucinich’s. You know you’re done as a Leftist when Dennis and HuffPo go sideways on you.
Indeed, the nation is not down with your plan to kill more Syrians to send them a message not to kill Syrians. And don’t bother with the dead children diatribe because, as Colbert said, if you truly gave a crap about the plight of the kiddies you’d invade Chicago, Planned Parenthood and your own White House.
And finally, aren't we a little late to their war? It’s been cranking, in earnest, for the last twenty-four months. Aren’t the true “freedom fighters” pretty much dead already? Shouldn’t we have stepped to the plate, say, before 100,000 people were killed and the Islamic lunatics showed up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment