Cross Your Fingers! A View on The 2014 Election! ! An Utter Incompetent Liar! Million Dollar Swaps!

I am just in this kind of mood!

and this from a very dear and old friend and fellow memo reader:

A Conundrum is something that is puzzling or confusing.

Six contradictions of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

That pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century.


A Conundrum.

====

In a somewhat over generalized way I believe  the 2014  election will be about:   

A vote for Democrats is a vote to empower their party and re elect Harry Reid,

A vote for Republicans is hopefully  a vote for what is best for America in this critical time in our history.

And while I am at it the Black Caucus is comprised of far too many idiots and ideologues interested in perpetuating racially charged wedge issues simply to help them get re elected but then, lamentably, is not that what most all politics has come  to be?

What is best for America seems left on the cutting floor of partisan and intellectually corrupt  politics.

===

A gutsy woman's testimony has gone viral:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=589797007761126
===
My greatest concern is that history has shown very bad things happen because of miscalculations often brought about because of weak leadership.
.
I have no doubt, at some point, Putin will miscalculate but before that happens his actions may well give comfort to renegades in the various nation states juxtaposed to Russia and then things could get out of hand and what comes next no one knows.

Add to this, Obama allowing Iran to go nuclear and cross your fingers!  (See 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e below.)
===
An interview by a talented UGA student of my candidate for Congress - Dr. Bob Johnson.  (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
Abbas the Palestinian Fred Astaire?  (See 3 below.)
===
Progressives and Greens just love dependency regardless of whether it puts America at risk. (See 4 below,)
===
And so it goes! (See 5 below.)

Negative trends if America is to remain a Republic based on adherence to law and its citizens are to remain free , own property and live an independent life.  

Sent to me by a close friend and fellow memo reader.(See 5a below.)
===
Well Point is one of the largest in the business and if their rate increase is going to double next year all hell will eventually break out over Obama's "Affordable Health Care Act" which is proving, not only costly, but also destructive.

During his formative years, Obama was apparently never called to task and  because of affirmative action and being black he must have also been able to escape scrutiny.

If he were president of an American Corporation he would have been fired years ago for utter incompetence and lying. (See 6 below.)
===
Dr. "Tony" Cordesman assesses Iran's military capability.  (Our son worked as a summer intern with Dr. Cordesman.) (See 7 below.)

Meanwhile Israel also upgrades its military capability in the event of war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.  (See 7a below)
===
Finally, there are reports certain powerful people on Wall Street are warning that corporate purchases of their own stock, in order to  to raise earnings and give stockholders an increased return of capital, is being overdone.

The point being made is that where were the corporations when their stock was truly low?

I believe there is some credibility to this argument and most particularly when you see Icahn's of the world and their like bludgeoning corporations to do so in order to achieve some short term gain.

On the other hand corporations are flush with cash because there is little demand for expansion and they are able to refinance their debt at favorable rates.

What disturbs me more are corporations paying billions for ideas that have not produced a dime of profit etc.

It reminds me of the story about a man who saw his friend with a cat and he asked when did you get the cat.  His friend responded, a few days ago.  His friend then asked what he payed for the cat and the cat owner said a million dollars.  You paid a million dollars for a cat ?  Yeah, I got him by giving the cat's owner two  half million dollar dogs!
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  From Estonia to Azerbaijan: American Strategy After Ukraine
By George Friedman

As I discussed last week, the fundamental problem that Ukraine poses for Russia, beyond a long-term geographical threat, is a crisis in internal legitimacy. Russian President Vladimir Putin has spent his time in power rebuilding the authority of the Russian state within Russia and the authority of Russia within the former Soviet Union. The events in Ukraine undermine the second strategy and potentially the first. If Putin cannot maintain at least Ukrainian neutrality, then the world's perception of him as a master strategist is shattered, and the legitimacy and authority he has built for the Russian state is, at best, shaken. 

Whatever the origins of the events in Ukraine, the United States is now engaged in a confrontation with Russia. The Russians believe that the United States was the prime mover behind regime change in Ukraine. At the very least, the Russians intend to reverse events in Ukraine. At most, the Russians have reached the conclusion that the United States intends to undermine Russia's power. They will resist. The United States has the option of declining confrontation, engaging in meaningless sanctionsagainst individuals and allowing events to take their course. Alternatively, the United States can choose to engage and confront the Russians. 

A failure to engage at this point would cause countries around Russia's periphery, from Estonia to Azerbaijan, to conclude that with the United States withdrawn and Europe fragmented, they must reach an accommodation with Russia. This will expand Russian power and open the door to Russian influence spreading on the European Peninsula itself. The United States has fought three wars (World War I, World War II and the Cold War) to prevent hegemonic domination of the region. Failure to engage would be a reversal of a century-old strategy.

The American dilemma is how to address the strategic context in a global setting in which it is less involved in the Middle East and is continuing to work toward a "pivot to Asia." Nor can the United States simply allow events to take their course. The United States needs a strategy that is economical and coherent militarily, politically and financially. It has two advantages. Some of the countries on Russia's periphery do not want to be dominated by her. Russia, in spite of some strengths, is inherently weak and does not require U.S. exertion on the order of the two World Wars, the Cold War or even the Middle East engagements of the past decade. 

The Russian and U.S. Positions

I discussed Russian options on Ukraine last week. Putin is now in a position where, in order to retain with confidence his domestic authority, he must act decisively to reverse the outcome. The problem is there is no single decisive action that would reverse events. Eventually, the inherent divisions in Ukraine might reverse events. However, a direct invasion of eastern Ukraine would simply solidify opposition to Russia in Kiev and trigger responses internationally that he cannot predict. In the end, it would simply drive home that although the Russians once held a dominant position in all of Ukraine, they now hold it in less than half. In the long run, this option -- like other short-term options -- would not solve the Russian conundrum.

Whatever Putin does in Ukraine, he has two choices. One is simply to accept the reversal, which I would argue that he cannot do. The second is to take action in places where he might achieve rapid diplomatic and political victories against the West -- the Baltics, Moldova or the Caucasus -- while encouraging Ukraine's government to collapse into gridlock and developing bilateral relations along the Estonia-Azerbaijan line. This would prevent a U.S. strategy of containment -- a strategy that worked during the Cold War and one that the Europeans are incapable of implementing on their own. This comes down to the Americans.

The United States has been developing, almost by default, a strategy not of disengagement but of indirect engagement. Between 1989 and 2008, the U.S. strategy has been the use of U.S. troops as the default for dealing with foreign issues. From Panama to Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States followed a policy of direct and early involvement of U.S. military forces. However, this was not the U.S. strategy from 1914 to 1989. Then, the strategy was to provide political support to allies, followed by economic and military aid, followed by advisers and limited forces, and in some cases pre-positioned forces. The United States kept its main force in reserve for circumstances in which (as in 1917 and 1942 and, to a lesser degree, in Korea and Vietnam) allies could not contain the potential hegemon. Main force was the last resort. 

This was primarily a strategy of maintaining the balance of power. The containment of the Soviet Union involved creating an alliance system comprising countries at risk of Soviet attack. Containment was a balance of power strategy that did not seek the capitulation of the Soviet Union as much as increasing the risks of offensive action using allied countries as the first barrier. The threat of full U.S. intervention, potentially including nuclear weapons, coupled with the alliance structure, constrained Soviet risk-taking.

Because the current Russian Federation is much weaker than the Soviet Union was at its height and because the general geographic principle in the region remains the same, a somewhat analogous balance of power strategy is likely to emerge after the events in Ukraine. Similar to the containment policy of 1945-1989, again in principle if not in detail, it would combine economy of force and finance and limit the development of Russia as a hegemonic power while exposing the United States to limited and controlled risk.

The coalescence of this strategy is a development I forecast in two books, The Next Decade and The Next 100 Years, as a concept I called the Intermarium. The Intermarium was a plan pursued after World War I by Polish leader Jozef Pilsudski for a federation, under Poland's aegis, of Central and Eastern European countries. What is now emerging is not the Intermarium, but it is close. And it is now transforming from an abstract forecast to a concrete, if still emergent, reality.

Forces Leading to the Alliance's Emergence

A direct military intervention by the United States in Ukraine is not possible. First, Ukraine is a large country, and the force required to protect it would outstrip U.S. capabilities. Second, supplying such a force would require a logistics system that does not exist and would take a long time to build. Finally, such an intervention would be inconceivable without a strong alliance system extending to the West and around the Black Sea. The United States can supply economic and political support, but Ukraine cannot counterbalance Russia and the United States cannot escalate to the point of using its own forces. Ukraine is a battleground on which Russian forces would have an advantage and a U.S. defeat would be possible. 

If the United States chooses to confront Russia with a military component, it must be on a stable perimeter and on as broad a front as possible to extend Russian resources and decrease the probability of Russian attack at any one point out of fear of retaliation elsewhere. The ideal mechanism for such a strategy would be NATO, which contains almost all of the critical countries save Azerbaijan and Georgia. The problem is that NATO is not a functional alliance. It was designed to fight the Cold War on a line far to the west of the current line. More important, there was unity on the principle that the Soviet Union represented an existential threat to Western Europe. 

That consensus is no longer there. Different countries have different perceptions of Russia and different concerns. For many, a replay of the Cold War, even in the face of Russian actions in Ukraine, is worse than accommodation. In addition, the end of the Cold War has led to a massive drawdown of forces in Europe. NATO simply lacks the force unless there is a massive and sudden buildup. That will not occur because of the financial crisis, among other reasons. NATO requires unanimity to act, and that unanimity is not there. 

The countries that were at risk from 1945 to 1989 are not the same as those at risk today. Many of these countries were part of the Soviet Union then, and the rest were Soviet satellites. The old alliance system was not built for this confrontation. The Estonia-Azerbaijan line has as its primary interest retaining sovereignty in the face of Russian power. The rest of Europe is not in jeopardy, and these countries are not prepared to commit financial and military efforts to a problem they believe can be managed with little risk to them. Therefore, any American strategy must bypass NATO or at the very least create new structures to organize the region.

Click to Enlarge

Characteristics of the Alliance

Each of the various countries involved is unique and has to be addressed that way. But these countries share the common danger that events in Ukraine could spread and directly affect their national security interests, including internal stability. As I observed, the Baltics, Moldova and the Caucasus are areas where the Russians could seek to compensate for their defeat. Because of this, and also because of their intrinsic importance, Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan must be the posts around which this alliance is built.

The Baltic salient, 145 kilometers (90 miles) from St. Petersburg in Estonia, would be a target for Russian destabilization. Poland borders the Baltics and is the leading figure in the Visegrad battlegroup, an organization within the European Union. Poland is eager for a closer military relationship with the United States, as its national strategy has long been based on third-power guarantees against aggressors. The Poles cannot defend themselves and the Baltics, given the combat capabilities necessary for the task. 

The Dniester River is 80 kilometers from Odessa, the main port on the Black Sea for Ukraine and an important one for Russia. The Prut River is about 200 kilometers from Bucharest, the capital of Romania. Moldova is between these two rivers. It is a battleground region, at least of competing political factions. Romania must be armed and supported in protecting Moldova and in organizing southeastern Europe. In Western hands, Moldova threatens Odessa, Ukraine's major port also used by Russia on the Black Sea. In Russian hands, Moldova threatens Bucharest.

At the far end of the alliance structure I am envisioning is Azerbaijan, on the Caspian Sea bordering Russia and Iran. Should Dagestan and Chechnya destabilize, Azerbaijan -- which is Islamic and majority Shiite but secular -- would become critical for limiting the regional spread of jihadists. Azerbaijan also would support the alliance's position in the Black Sea by supporting Georgia and would serve as a bridge for relations (and energy) should Western relations with Iran continue to improve. To the southwest, the very pro-Russian Armenia -- which has a Russian troop presence and a long-term treaty with Moscow -- could escalate tensions with Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Previously, this was not a pressing issue for the United States. Now it is. The security of Georgia and its ports on the Black Sea requires Azerbaijan's inclusion in the alliance.

Azerbaijan serves a more strategic purpose. Most of the countries in the alliance are heavy importers of Russian energy; for instance, 91 percent of Poland's energy imports and 86 percent of Hungary's come from Russia. There is no short-term solution to this problem, but Russia needs the revenue from these exports as much as these countries need the energy. Developing European shale and importing U.S. energy is a long-term solution. A medium-term solution, depending on pipeline developments that Russia has tended to block in the past, is sending natural gas from Azerbaijan to Europe. Until now, this has been a commercial issue, but it has become a strategically critical issue. The Caspian region, of which Azerbaijan is the lynchpin, is the only major alternative to Russia for energy. Therefore, rapid expansion of pipelines to the heart of Europe is as essential as providing Azerbaijan with the military capability to defend itself (a capability it is prepared to pay for and, unlike other allied countries, does not need to be underwritten).

The key to the pipeline will be Turkey's willingness to permit transit. I have not included Turkey as a member of this alliance. Its internal politics, complex relations and heavy energy dependence on Russia make such participation difficult. I view Turkey in this alliance structure as France in the Cold War. It was aligned yet independent, militarily self-sufficient yet dependent on the effective functioning of others. Turkey, inside or outside of the formal structure, will play this role because the future of the Black Sea, the Caucasus and southeastern Europe is essential to Ankara. 

These countries, diverse as they are, share a desire not to be dominated by the Russians. That commonality is a basis for forging them into a functional military alliance. This is not an offensive force but a force designed to deter Russian expansion. All of these countries need modern military equipment, particularly air defense, anti-tank and mobile infantry. In each case, the willingness of the United States to supply these weapons, for cash or credit as the situation requires, will strengthen pro-U.S. political forces in each country and create a wall behind which Western investment can take place. And it is an organization that others can join, which unlike NATO does not allow each member the right to veto.

The Practicality of the U.S. Strategy

There are those who would criticize this alliance for including members who do not share all the democratic values of the U.S. State Department. This may be true. It is also true that during the Cold War the United States was allied with the Shah's Iran, Turkey and Greece under dictatorship and Mao's China after 1971. Having encouraged Ukrainian independence, the United States -- in trying to protect that independence and the independence of other countries in the region -- is creating an alliance structure that will include countries, such as Azerbaijan, that have been criticized. However, if energy does not come from Azerbaijan, it will come from Russia, and then the Ukrainian events will dissolve into tragic farce. The State Department must grapple with the harsh forces its own policies have unleashed. This suggests that the high-mindedness borne of benign assumptions now proven to be illusions must make way for realpolitik calculations.

The balance of power strategy allows the United States to use the natural inclination of allies to bolster its own position and take various steps, of which military intervention is the last, not the first. It recognizes that the United States, as nearly 25 percent of the world's economy and the global maritime hegemon, cannot evade involvement. Its very size and existence involves it. Nor can the United States confine itself to gestures like sanctions on 20 people. This is not seen as a sign of resolve as much as weakness. It does mean that as the United States engages in issues like Ukraine and must make strategic decisions, there are alternatives to intervention -- such as alliances. In this case, a natural alliance structure presents itself -- a descendant of NATO but shaped for this crisis, much like the alliance I forecast previously. 

In my view, Russian power is limited and has flourished while the United States was distracted by its wars in the Middle East and while Europe struggled with its economic crisis. That does not mean Russia is not dangerous. It has short-term advantages, and its insecurity means that it will take risks. Weak and insecure states with temporary advantages are dangerous. The United States has an interest in acting early because early action is cheaper than acting in the last extremity. This is a case of anti-air missiles, attack helicopters, communications systems and training, among other things. These are things the United States has in abundance. It is not a case of deploying divisions, of which it has few. The Poles, Romanians, Azerbaijanis and certainly the Turks can defend themselves. They need weapons and training, and that will keep Russia contained within its cauldron as it plays out a last hand as a great power.

1a)Thanks For Being So Cool About Everything

Commentary • Opinion 

By Vladimir Putin

As you know, the last few weeks have been kind of crazy around here. Last month, protests in Ukraine ousted the country’s Kremlin-allied president and ignited a wave of Ukrainian nationalism that threatened to destabilize Russia’s economic and military interests in the region. Of course, I couldn’t simply stand by and let that happen, so I intervened and ordered a forceful takeover of the strategically important peninsula of Crimea—a territory with historical ties to Russia that our nation had long desired. It’s certainly no easy task to forcefully annex an entire province against another country’s will, so I just wanted to thank you—the government of the United States, the nations of western Europe, and really the entire world population as a whole—for being super cool about all of this.

Seriously, you guys have been amazing. All of you. I really appreciate it.

To be honest, I was really dreading a whole big fight over this thing. When you first condemned the seizure of Crimea as patently illegal and in breach of the Ukrainian constitution—which it absolutely was, by the way—I feared for the worst. But then everybody stopped short of doing anything to actually prevent what was essentially a state-sponsored landgrab, and I just thought, “Wow, these guys are a pretty laid-back and easygoing bunch!” It really was a huge load off when you let everything slide like that.

Believe me, I know it must have been hard to stand idly by and do nothing as a foreign military invaded one of your allies, or just sit back and watch while we set up a complete farce of a referendum—a referendum supervised by heavily armed members of the Russian military, mind you—and used it as grounds for backdoor annexation. It also couldn’t have been easy to keep your cool when we sent commandos to raid the Ukrainian naval headquarters in Crimea. But you didn’t really make much of a fuss over any of it, and I couldn’t be more grateful for that. It made my job way, way easier.

I totally owe you one, no question about that.

Now, of course I get that you in the international community had to issue some sort of response. After all, you had to at least look like you were trying to fight for the people of Ukraine as we rolled armed vehicles into their country, made it clear that any dissent would be punished, and essentially rendered an entire people totally and utterly powerless in the face of a bigger, stronger country’s national interests. I totally get that. But I’m just relieved that you decided on a response as harmless as humanly possible, with no real and tangible repercussions on myself or my government. You really have no idea how much stress that lifted off my shoulders. It was a real lifesaver.

I also understand that moving forward, you’ll feel pressure to call a lot of high-profile NATO meetings, make statements to the UN, suspend this summer’s G8 summit, that sort of thing. I also get that all that kind of stuff is just a formal procedure you have to follow, because really, at this point you’ve laid your cards on the table. So I just want to thank you ahead of time—honestly, from the bottom of my heart—for ensuring that I can just concentrate on doing whatever I want in any formerly Soviet region that is of geopolitical, military, or economic value to Russia without having to worry one iota about suffering any consequences. Thanks for making that 100-percent clear to me.

There is one thing I want to say though, and I feel a little silly admitting this, but there was actually a moment earlier when I did feel a little dread. For one unnerving second there, I thought you imposed sanctions on Russia’s broad national economy, but then I saw the sanctions were just directed at a few of my advisers and some bank I don’t care about. Boy, talk about a major relief!

Really, this whole thing has gone so smoothly that my only real regret is that I just wish I had known earlier that you guys were this mellow about hostile military takeovers. It makes me wonder what took me so long to get around to this.

But you know, I really shouldn’t have been surprised, given how cool you were with my longstanding record of handling opposition political groups or independent-minded journalists, all those gay rights protests that cropped up last year, or even that whole ordeal in 2004 when we tried to take over separatist regions of Georgia by force. Just knowing I’m free to do things my own way—that I can fully ignore any domestic or international laws and any basic principles of human rights—just takes away a ton of the stress involved in making these big decisions.

And, by the way, if you ever need me to play along and act like these little Crimea sanctions and rhetorical warnings are in the least bit threatening, or feign anger by instituting entry bans on U.S. lawmakers and officials, or issue a few sternly worded responses to the international community’s condemnations, I’m completely down with that. I get the back-and-forth charade we’re playing here—the one that says you’re actually considering some real action against me. Seriously, going along with that kind of ruse is the least I can do, given all you’ve done for me.

I just hope you’ll all continue being so nice and accommodating moving forward—especially with what I’ve got planned for the rest of Ukraine over the next few months. By 

1b)   Putin's Challenge to the West

Russia has thrown down a gauntlet that is not limited to Crimea or even Ukraine.

By ROBERT M. GATES

March 25, 2014 6:52 p.m. ET

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a long-festering grudge: He deeply resents the West for winning the Cold War. He blames the United States in particular for the collapse of his beloved Soviet Union, an event he has called the "worst geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century."

His list of grievances is long and was on full display in his March 18 speech announcing the annexation of Crimea by Russia. He is bitter about what he sees as Russia's humiliations in the 1990s—economic collapse; the expansion of NATO to include members of the U.S.S.R.'s own "alliance," the Warsaw Pact; Russia's agreement to the treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe, or as he calls it, "the colonial treaty"; the West's perceived dismissal of Russian interests in Serbia and elsewhere; attempts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and the European Union; and Western governments, businessmen and scholars all telling Russia how to conduct its affairs at home and abroad.

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Getty Images

Mr. Putin aspires to restore Russia's global power and influence and to bring the now-independent states that were once part of the Soviet Union back into Moscow's orbit. While he has no apparent desire to recreate the Soviet Union (which would include responsibility for a number of economic basket cases), he is determined to create a Russian sphere of influence—political, economic and security—and dominance. There is no grand plan or strategy to do this, just opportunistic and ruthless aspiration. And patience.

Mr. Putin, who began his third, nonconsecutive presidential term in 2012, is playing a long game. He can afford to: Under the Russian Constitution, he could legally remain president until 2024. After the internal chaos of the 1990s, he has ruthlessly restored "order" to Russia, oblivious to protests at home and abroad over his repression of nascent Russian democracy and political freedoms.

In recent years, he has turned his authoritarian eyes on the "near-abroad." In 2008, the West did little as he invaded Georgia, and Russian troops still occupy the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions. He has forced Armenia to break off its agreements with theEuropean Union, and Moldova is under similar pressure.

Last November, through economic leverage and political muscle, he forced then-President Viktor Yanukovych to abort a Ukrainian agreement with the EU that would have drawn it toward the West. When Mr. Yanukovych, his minion, was ousted as a result, Mr. Putin seized Crimea and is now making ominous claims and military movements regarding all of eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine is central to Mr. Putin's vision of a pro-Russian bloc, partly because of its size and importantly because of Kiev's role as the birthplace of the Russian Empire more than a thousand years ago. He will not be satisfied or rest until a pro-Russian government is restored in Kiev.

He also has a dramatically different worldview than the leaders of Europe and the U.S. He does not share Western leaders' reverence for international law, the sanctity of borders, which Westerners' believe should only be changed through negotiation, due process and rule of law. He has no concern for human and political rights. Above all, Mr. Putin clings to a zero-sum worldview. Contrary to the West's belief in the importance of win-win relationships among nations, for Mr. Putin every transaction is win-lose; when one party benefits, the other must lose. For him, attaining, keeping and amassing power is the name of the game.

The only way to counter Mr. Putin's aspirations on Russia's periphery is for the West also to play a strategic long game. That means to take actions that unambiguously demonstrate to Russians that his worldview and goals—and his means of achieving them—over time will dramatically weaken and isolate Russia.

Europe's reliance on Russian oil and gas must be reduced, and truly meaningful economic sanctions must be imposed, knowing there may be costs to the West as well. NATO allies bordering Russia must be militarily strengthened and reinforced with alliance forces; and the economic and cyber vulnerabilities of the Baltic states to Russian actions must be reduced (especially given the number of Russians and Russian-speakers in Estonia and Latvia).

Western investment in Russia should be curtailed; Russia should be expelled from the G-8 and other forums that offer respect and legitimacy; the U.S. defense budget should be restored to the level proposed in the Obama administration's 2014 budget a year ago, and the Pentagon directed to cut overhead drastically, with saved dollars going to enhanced capabilities, such as additional Navy ships; U.S. military withdrawals from Europe should be halted; and the EU should be urged to grant associate agreements with Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.

So far, however, the Western response has been anemic. Mr. Putin is little influenced by seizure of personal assets of his cronies or the oligarchs, or restrictions on their travel. Unilateral U.S. sanctions, save on Russian banks, will not be effective absent European cooperation. The gap between Western rhetoric and Western actions in response to out-and-out aggression is a yawning chasm. The message seems to be that if Mr. Putin doesn't move troops into eastern Ukraine, the West will impose no further sanctions or costs. De facto, Russia's seizure of Crimea will stand and, except for a handful of Russian officials, business will go on as usual.

No one wants a new Cold War, much less a military confrontation. We want Russia to be a partner, but that is now self-evidently not possible under Mr. Putin's leadership. He has thrown down a gauntlet that is not limited to Crimea or even Ukraine. His actions challenge the entire post-Cold War order including, above all, the right of independent states to align themselves and do business with whomever they choose.

Tacit acceptance of settling old revanchist scores by force is a formula for ongoing crises and potential armed conflict, whether in Europe, Asia or elsewhere. A China behaving with increasing aggressiveness in the East and South China seas, an Iran with nuclear aspirations and interventionist policies in the Middle East, and a volatile and unpredictableNorth Korea are all watching events in Europe. They have witnessed the fecklessness of the West in Syria. Similar division and weakness in responding to Russia's most recent aggression will, I fear, have dangerous consequences down the road.

Mr. Putin's challenge comes at a most unpropitious time for the West. Europe faces a weak economic recovery and significant economic ties with Russia. The U.S. is emerging from more than a dozen years at war and leaders in both parties face growing isolationism among voters, with the prospect of another major challenge abroad cutting across the current political grain. Crimea and Ukraine are far away, and their importance to Europe and America little understood by the public.

Therefore, the burden of explaining the need to act forcefully falls, as always, on our leaders. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Government includes the act of formulating a policy" and "persuading, leading, sacrificing, teaching always, because the greatest duty of a statesman is to educate." The aggressive, arrogant actions of Vladimir Putin require from Western leaders strategic thinking, bold leadership and steely resolve—now.

Mr. Gates served as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 2006-11, and as director of central intelligence under President George H.W. Bush from 1991-93.

1c) Iran's Fortunes Rising in a Middle East Vacuum

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah

• On March 12, 2014, Israel was hit by massive rocket fire from Gaza by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). PIJ is completely dependent on Iran for its funding and equipment, and some of its operatives have also undergone training in Iran for the manufacture of rockets and explosives and for guerrilla warfare. There have also been recurring attacks on IDF border forces in Israel’s north as well – including along the Syrian border – where Hizbullah’s ties with Iran are well-known. All of these attacks on Israel come in the wake of the green light given by Iran against the backdrop of changing power equations in the broader Middle East.
• Iran has been leading an “axis of evil” as it devises and implements an ambitious plan to increase its influence across the Middle East and mold it in line with its revolutionary Islamic ideology. Central to that plan is ejecting the United States and the West from the region, along with what remains of their influence.
• The change in Iran’s behavior reflects its growing self-confidence since the recent rounds of nuclear negotiations with the West began, along with America’s rapidly declining regional and international status (vivid in the Ukrainian crisis as well). The more the United States’ regional and international status sinks, the more Iran’s self-confidence rises.
• Iran regards the U.S., and the West in general, as lacking the capacity to use military force to stop its nuclearization, or to curtail Iran’s assertive measures against the Gulf States and in the Middle East generally. Iran sees an opportunity to continue driving the U.S. and the West out of the region.
• Iran views Hizbullah and the Palestinian terror organizations as major components in its national security strategy, part of its long arm. Iran acts ceaselessly to provide these actors with rockets and the knowledge to manufacture them, along with other weapons. The latest developments, coupled with Iran’s growing realization that it is immune to a Western military attack, could lead it to make even bolder moves by itself and through its proxies.
• U.S. policy is increasingly impelling states in the Middle East to alter their framework of alliances. They view the United States as less and less reliable, and are seeking an alternate power instead. Possibilities include Russia, China, or – closer to home – Iran.

A Green Light from Iran to Strike at Israel

The massive rocket fire from Gaza at Israel by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) on March 12, 2014, under the rubric of “breaking the silence,” coupled with the detonation of explosive charges by Hizbullah along the northern border fence on Mt. Dov on March 14 and in the northern Golan Heights on March 18, suggests that Iran’s two main allies in the region were given a green light to step up the friction with Israel and gradually change the rules of the game that has been played so far.

PIJ is completely dependent on Iran for its funding and equipment, and some of its operatives have also undergone training in Iran for the manufacture of rockets and explosives and for guerrilla warfare. The already well-known ties between Iran and Hizbullah are now reaching a new level as Iran involves Hizbullah in the effort to rescue the Assad regime in Syria. President Bashar Assad’s war on the numerous, fragmented opposition factions has entered its fourth year, while so far costing some 150,000 lives.

These recent attacks on Israel, whose timing is not coincidental, were preceded by Israel’s interdiction of the Klos C weapons ship with its cargo of forty Syrian-made M-203 long-range missiles, along with mortars. The intended recipient was PIJ in Gaza. These large-warhead, precision missiles were meant as a game-changer in Gaza, to give Iran’s client a strategic advantage over Hamas, which has been increasingly beleaguered, with Sinai and al-Sisi’s Egypt in turmoil.

Iran is also reestablishing its ties with Hamas after a two-year hiatus in the wake of disagreements over support for Assad in the Syrian civil war. According to Palestinian sources, a high-level Hamas delegation headed by Khaled Mashal, head of its political bureau, intends to visit Iran soon to discuss “important issues.” The same source denied that “Tehran has closed all its doors in Hamas’ face,” and emphasized that “the relationship between the two sides has started to be restored in a positive and gradual manner.”1

According to the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas co-founder and member of the political bureau, and Marwan Isa, deputy commander of Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, played a crucial role in arranging the meeting in Tehran.2 Ali Larijani, head of the Iranian Majlis, said recently that the relationship between Iran and Hamas has returned to the way it was in the past and that Iran supports Hamas since it belongs to the resistance front, and since “our Islamic duty commands us to support the resistance.”3

Improving Ties among Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah

The course taken by the Klos C cargo – from Syria to Iran to Iraq – again reveals the key points of the “axis of evil” and the tightening links between them. This axis is led by Iran, which has been devising and implementing an ambitious plan to increase its influence in the Middle East and mold it in line with its revolutionary ideology. Central to that plan is ejecting the United States and the West from the region, along with what remains of their influence.

Especially noteworthy in this context is the intensifying cooperation among the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah triangle. At Iran’s behest, Hizbullah has entered the struggle to salvage Iran’s strategic asset, the Assad regime. Despite growing domestic criticism, in part due to scores of Hizbullah casualties on Syrian soil, Nasrallah has been carrying out Tehran’s directives. He has been compensated with advanced weapons (some of them Russian-made) that have been transferred to Hizbullah from Syria (according to foreign reports, some of these weapons consignments have been destroyed by Israel). Among other weaponry, Yakhont (Sapphire) surface-to-sea missiles along with surface-to-air missiles could affect the IDF’s future operational range. In addition, Iran has generously paid off Hizbullah with UAVs for attacking and intelligence-gathering, as well as in funds. From Iran’s standpoint, Syria and Lebanon have somewhat coalesced.

The Decline of the West

The change in Iran’s behavior reflects its growing self-confidence since the nuclear negotiations with the West began, along with America’s rapidly declining regional and international status (seen in the Ukrainian crisis as well). That decline was especially evident in Washington’s hesitant approach to the Syrian crisis after the regime’s use of chemical weapons was revealed, and in the adoption of the Russian diplomatic solution. Tehran saw this compromise as a victory for Iran in particular and for its resistance axis in general, and as clearly indicating the future deterrent capability of this axis vis-à-vis the U.S.-led West. The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said the United States had been defeated in Syria. “The scheme whereby they wanted to intervene militarily in Syria was defeated and their main plan failed, like the rest of their plans….This while the enemy said, ‘If we do not succeed to overcome Syria, we also will not succeed to overcome Iran.’”4

The more the United States’ regional and international status sinks, the more Iran’s self-confidence rises. That, in turn, will affect Iran’s approach to the nuclear talks and its willingness to compromise; the chances of its doing so were never high in the first place.

As Washington continues in its conciliatory course, which has come to be known as “leading from behind,” and Russia’s international status and power projection keep improving, Russia’s partners, including Iran, will take increasingly bold, subversive action in the region. Iran regards the United States, and the West in general, as lacking the capacity to use military force to stop its nuclearization, or to curtail Iran’s assertive measures against the Gulf States and in the Middle East generally (including supplying terror organizations with advanced weapons, promoting subversion, and aiding Islamic organizations). On the contrary, Iran sees an opportunity to continue driving the United States and the West out of the region.

Lessons for Iran from the Ukrainian Crisis

In that spirit, the Iranian Kayhan newspaper, which usually reflects the views of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, wrote that Iran should draw lessons from the Crimean crisis and learn from Russia’s conduct. The paper said Iran should rely on its military (implicitly, also nuclear) power and exploit evolving regional crises. Iran already seems to be applying these lessons.

Kayhan also claimed the events in Ukraine had again shown the effectiveness of military force, notwithstanding international relations theories about the supposed primacy of economic and media factors over military ones. “Military forces can decide, at a sensitive moment, the fate of a particular conflict…as long as they are under wise leadership. That is what happened in the Ukraine affair….We learn that the way to overcome a certain country, and stop its other kinds of power from functioning, is to weaken its military status.” For thirty-five years, Kayhan asserts, the West has striven to weaken Iran militarily, and is continuing to do so in the nuclear talks. And yet, the resolve of the Russians and the alacrity of President Putin have brought the West to passivity. The fact that the Western states are (again) talking of economic sanctions and the fact that NATO (despite having signed a defense pact with Ukraine) has not mounted a military response to Russia’s military move and maneuvers in Ukraine, instead settling (as is typical) for declarations – shows that the West is in a passive position.

Kayhan draws links between the West’s frictions with Iran and with Russia, and remarks:

From a national perspective, Russia is helped by Iran in addressing most of its security and diplomatic concerns, and in return Iran is helped by Russia’s support on the Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Afghan, nuclear, and other issues. Furthermore, in this affair Russia is in conflict with our enemies, that is, the West. That in itself means we must be pleased with the defeat of our enemies, even if we have criticism of the Russian side.

Kayhan went on to criticize Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for saying Iran was worried by the developments in Ukraine, and concluded that “it was Russia that had learned from Iran to stand firm against the West and cause it to be passive….We have to look at the benefits accruing from the Ukrainian crisis and use them to extend our power and influence.”5

Iran views Hizbullah and the Palestinian terror organizations as major components in its national security strategy, part of its long arm. Iran acts ceaselessly to provide these actors with rockets, missiles, and the knowledge to manufacture them, along with other weapons (antitank, antiaircraft, etc.). The latest developments, coupled with Iran’s growing realization that it is immune to a Western military attack, could lead it to make even bolder moves, sometimes through its proxies, than it has taken so far. The more confidence Iran feels, the more this tendency will grow, affecting its behavior toward its Persian Gulf neighbors as well.
Israel’s Destruction Is on the Islamic Agenda

Iran’s confidence is also apparent in its ongoing calls for Israel’s destruction. As the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard commanders move further from the “Rouhani effect” of Iran’s June 2013 presidential elections, even as Rouhani keeps winning international favor, they have been resuming their harsh anti-Israeli and anti-Western statements. For example, the Guard’s deputy commander, Hossein Salami, said recently at a conference on “The Islamic World’s Role in the Geometry of the World Power,” under a headline stating “Iran’s Finger on Trigger to Destroy Zionist Regime”:

Today, we can destroy every spot which is under the Zionist regime’s control with any volume of fire power (that we want) right from here….

Islam has given us this wish, capacity and power to destroy the Zionist regime so that our hands will remain on the trigger from 1,400 km. away for the day when such an incident (confrontation with Israel) takes place.6

He added, hinting at the aid Iran provides to states bordering Israel, that Iran is not the only state with such capabilities, since some of the other Muslim states’ artillery can reach targets within Israel.

There Is No Vacuum in the Middle East

In sum, if one connects the dots between the recent developments in the regional and international arenas, it emerges that the more America’s regional and international power wanes, the more Iran’s self-confidence grows. In the Middle East, Iran aspires to fill the void. The perception of American weakness makes Iran more self-assured and impels it toward more audacious moves on the Syrian-Lebanese and Palestinian fronts, as Iran makes use of the resistance camp in waging its ongoing anti-Israel struggle. If Iran continues to perceive American weakness, it will also step up its activities against its Persian Gulf neighbors.

One should view Iran’s reconciliation with Hamas against this background. It is not occurring due to ideology but as part of the wider struggle for influence that Iran is waging against Saudi Arabia in various parts of the Middle East as part of the broader Sunni-Shiite struggle. Iran seeks to benefit from the disagreements within the Sunni camp (such as between Qatar and the rest of the Gulf States) on various issues (such as the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt). Iranian control in Gaza would enable it to more broadly influence its political associates as well as the newly reconstituted Egyptian arena.

Ongoing American weakness and mounting tensions with Russia will likely have negative implications in general and on the nuclear talks in particular. Russia, which so far has played a negative role in those talks and usually has shielded Iran from strong measures, will be even less prepared to countenance such measures as the talks approach the point of decision. Hence, the chances of the talks diverting Iran from its military nuclear path, which were quite low to begin with, will dwindle to nothing. Moreover, given U.S. behavior in the recent crises, Iran has concluded that it will be able to violate a nuclear agreement without incurring penalties.

As Iran and other regional states view the matter, the Ukrainian crisis is another in a long series of regional and international crises in which Putin has emerged as a resolute, decisive leader on regional issues, while Obama has appeared weak, indecisive, and passive. The region’s Arab leaders, especially those of states once considered U.S. allies (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and even Jordan), are not impressed by U.S. conduct in the Syrian crisis and are closely watching Obama’s moves in the Ukrainian predicament; they are likely to be disappointed once more.

U.S. policy is increasingly impelling these states to alter their framework of regional and international alliances. They view the United States as less and less reliable, and are seeking an alternate power instead. Possibilities include Russia, China, or – closer to home – Iran. In the Middle East, where change occurs at a dizzying pace, anything can happen.

Iran, in any case, is acting to make itself the dominant, stable power of the region.

IDF Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael (Mickey) Segall, an expert on strategic issues with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East, is a senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the Terrogence Company.

*     *     *

Notes
1. http://alarabalyawm.net/?p=130781
2. Al-Quds al-Arabi, March 15, 2014.
3. http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81080143/Politic/Larijani_Zionist_regime_unlikely_to_start_a_new_war
4. http://www.mehrnews.com/detail/News/2136361
5. http://kayhan.ir/fa/news/7585/%D9%86%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%88%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86-%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2
6. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921220000944

1d)  Our world: Why Obama will not change gears

Most Americans think Obama not doing enough to stop Iran  (Photo: REUTERS)

Just before Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the US’s Broadcasting Board of Governors that controls Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty announced that it will be ending its broadcast to Iraq and the Balkans next year.

And this makes sense. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Iraq ceased to exist in 2011, when the last US forces got out of the country.

As for the Baltics, well, really who cares about them? Russia, after all, wants the same things America does. Everything will be fine.

As Obama said to Governor Mitt Romney during one of the 2012 presidential debates, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

During the election, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone promising President Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility,” on missile defense after the presidential election.

He asked Medvedev to ask Putin to give him “more space” until after November 2012.

With a five-and-half-year record of selling US allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and even the Syrian opposition out to please Putin, it should be obvious that Obama will do nothing effective to show Putin the error of his ways in Ukraine.

Obama doesn’t have a problem with Putin.

And as long as Putin remains anti-American, he will have no reason to be worried about Obama.

Consider Libya. Three years ago this week, NATO forces supported by the US began their campaign to bring down Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

As Patrick Coburn noted in The Independent over the weekend, the same Western forces who insisted that their “responsibility to protect” the Libyan people from a possible massacre by Gaddafi’s forces compelled them to bring down Gaddafi and his regime have had nothing to say today about the ongoing bloodbath in post-Gaddafi Libya.

Libya is disintegrating today. There is no central governing authority.

But Gaddafi, the neutered dictator who quit the terrorism and nuclear-proliferation rackets after the US-led invasion of Iraq, is gone. So no one cares.

Coburn mentioned the recent documentary aired on Al Jazeera – America that upended the West’s narrative that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was the work of the Libyan government. According to a credible Iranian defector, the attack was ordered by Iran and carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Ahmed Jibril’s PFLP-GC.

He wrote, “the documentary emphasizes the sheer number of important politicians and senior officials over the years who must have looked at intelligence reports revealing the truth about Lockerbie, but still happily lied about it.”

If the Al Jazeerah documentary is correct, there is good reason for the public in the US, Europe and throughout the world to be angry about the cover-up.

But there is no reason to be surprised.

Since its inception, the Iranian regime has been at war with the US. It has carried out one act of aggression after another. These have run the gamut from the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding hostage US diplomats for 444 days, to the use of Lebanese and Palestinian proxies to murder US officials, citizens and soldiers in countless attacks over the intervening 35 years, to building a military presence in Latin America, to developing nuclear weapons.

And from its earliest days, the same Iranian regime has been courted by one US administration after another seeking to accommodate Tehran.

A similar situation obtains with the Palestinians. Like the Iranians, the PLO has carried out countless acts of terrorism that have killed US officials and citizens.

From the 1970 Fatah execution of the US ambassador and deputy chief of mission in Khartoum to the 2003 bombing of the US embassy convoy in Gaza, the PLO has never abandoned terrorism against the US.

No less importantly, the PLO is the architect of modern terrorism. From airline hijackings, to the massacre of schoolchildren, from bus bombings to the destabilization of nation states, the PLO is the original author of much of the mayhem and global terrorism the US has led the fight against since the 1980s.

And of course, the PLO’s main stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the US’s only dependable ally, and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Yet, as has been the case with the Iranian regime, successive US administrations have courted, protected and upheld the PLO as moderate, reformed or almost reformed militants.

In many ways, then the Obama administration is simply a loyal successor of previous administrations. But in one essential way, it is also different.

IN A 2006 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, civil rights historian Shelby Steele argued that the reason the US has lost every war it has fought since World War II despite the fact that it has had the military might to vanquish all of its enemies is “white guilt.”

White guilt, he argued, makes its sufferers in the West believe that they lack the moral authority to act due to the stigma of white supremacy and imperialism.

Writing of the then raging insurgency in Iraq, Steele explained, “When America – the greatest embodiment of Western power – goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and the other against the past – two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.”

This neurotic view of America’s moral underpinning is what explains the instinctive American tendency to strike out at those who do not oppose the West – like Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt – while giving a pass to those who do – like the Palestinians and the Iranians.

But whereas white guilt has afflicted the US leadership for the past several generations, past administrations were willing to set it aside when necessary to advance US national security interests.

This cannot happen with Obama.

Obama owes his presidency to white guilt. His promise to American voters was that by voting for him, they would expiate their guilt for the sins of European imperialists and southern racists.

It was the American desire to move beyond the past that enabled a first-term senator with radical connections and the most liberal voting record in the Senate to get elected to the presidency.

But tragically for the US and the free world, Obama’s worldview is informed not by an appreciation for what Steele extolled as America’s “moral transformation,” on issue of race. Rather it is informed by his conviction that the US deserves its guilt.

Obama does not share Bill Clinton’s view that the US is “the indispensable nation,” although he invoked the term on the campaign trail in 2012.

From his behavior toward foe and friend alike, Obama gives the impression that he does not believe the US has the right to stand up for its interests.

Moreover, his actions from Israel to Eastern Europe to Egypt and Libya indicate that he believes there is something wrong with nations that support and believe in the US.

Their pro-Americanism apparently makes them guilty of white guilt by association.

So Iran, the Palestinians and Russia needn’t worry. Obama will not learn from his mistakes, because as far as he is concerned, he hasn't made any.

Caroline Glick is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.


1d)  American Fatigue Syndrome

If the U.S. doesn't lead, the strongmen win. For them it's easier.

By Daniel Henninger

By the time the second World Trade Center tower collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, the whole world was watching it. We may assume that Vladimir Putin was watching. Mr. Putin, a quick calculator of political realities, would see that someone was going to get hit for this, and hit hard.

He was right of course. The Bush presidency became a war presidency that day, and it pounded and pursued the Islamic fundamentalists of al Qaeda without let-up or apology.

During that time, it was reported that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer in East Germany, deeply regretted the fall of the Soviet Union's empire and despised the Americans who caused it to fall. But no one cared what Mr. Putin thought then. Russia's power was a sliver of its former size. Besides, Mr. Putin's hurt was salved with the limitless personal wealth that flowed from doing business with the West. Conventional wisdom clicked in easily: Capitalism's surplus was enough to sate any rational autocrat.

Enlarge Image

Global disorder's new face flies on a flag above Moscow. ZumaPress

In 2008, the American people elected a new president, and Vladimir Putin, a patient feline, would have noticed that President Obama in his speeches was saying that American power would be used "in concert" with other nations and institutions, such as the United Nations. What would have made Mr. Putin's eye jump was the decision by George Bush's successor not just to leave Iraq but without leaving a residual U.S. military presence to help the new government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Sometime in the first Obama term, opinion polls began to report that the American people were experiencing what media shorthand came to call "fatigue" with the affairs of the world. The U.S. should "mind its own business." The America-is-fatigued polling fit with Mr. Obama's stated goal to lead from behind. A close observer of American politics also could notice that Republican politicians, the presumptive heirs of Reagan, began to recalibrate their worldview inward to accommodate the "fatigue" in the opinion polls.

We are of course discussing Vladimir Putin's path to the forced annexation of Crimea. And possibly in time a move on the independence of Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Kazakhstan or Moldova. This narrative has one more point of Putin demarcation: Syria.

Last September, every foreign chancery in the world concluded that the United States would bomb Bashar Assad's airfields with Tomahawk missiles in reprisal for killing nearly 1,500 Syrians with chemical weapons, including sarin gas. Vladimir Putin placed a bet. He suggested to the American president that in lieu of the U.S. bombing Assad's airfields, their two nations, in concert, could remove all of Syria's chemical weapons. Mr. Obama accepted and stood down from bombing Assad. Six months later Vladimir Putin invaded and annexed Crimea.

Opinion Video

Wonder Land columnist Dan Henninger on why autocrats like Putin win when the U.S. "leads from behind." Photo credit: Getty Images.

This moment is not about Barack Obama. By now we know about him. This is about Vladimir Putin and the self-delusions of Western nations and their famous "fatigue." Vladimir Putin is teaching the West and especially the United States that fatigue is not an option.

Sometimes world affairs go off the grid. Diplomats may give reasons why it is not in the interests of Mr. Putin or Russia to take this course. Vice President Biden told the Poles in Warsaw Monday that Mr. Putin's seizure of Crimea was "flawed logic." It is difficult for men embedded in a world of rational affairs to come to grips with Mr. Putin's point of view: He doesn't care what they think.

The solitary but thrilling world of Vladimir Putin's mind is the one inhabited by the Assads, Saddams, bin Ladens, Kims, Gadhafis and Khomeinis of the world, and when it really runs out of control, or is allowed to, by a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Whether one man's grandiosity will burst across borders is not about normal logic. It is about personal power and forcing the obeisance of other nations.

Vladimir Putin re-proves that sometimes a bad person gains control of the instruments of national power. Their populations do nothing or can't, because they are disarmed by thugs with overwhelming firepower. Or, as on Russian TV now, they are marinated in anti-U.S. propaganda. Today even second-rate megalomaniacs gain access to high-tech weaponry, including missiles and nuclear bombs.

Running alongside these old realities is a new phenomenon, surely noticed by Mr. Putin: The nations of the civilized world have decided their most pressing concern is income inequality. Barack Obama says so, as does the International Monetary Fund. Western Europe amid the Ukraine crisis is a case study of nations redistributing themselves and perhaps NATO into impotence.

Because no modern Democrat can be credible on this, some Republican presidential candidate will have to explain the high price of America's fatigue. Fatigue will allow global disorder to displace 60 years of democratic order. If the U.S. doesn't lead, the strongmen win because for them it's easier. They don't lead people; they coerce them. Ask the millions free for now in the old countries of the Iron Curtain

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

Q&A: Dr. Bob Johnson on Health, Physical and Fiscal

By M. Blake Seitz, March 18, 2014

Dr. Bob Johnson. (Photo by Blake Seitz)

“People don’t want their clothes, their food, their houses distributed by the government, so why do they want it to distribute their health care?”

Dr. Bob Johnson is a candidate for the House of Representatives in Georgia’s first congressional district. “Dr. Bob,” as he likes to be called, spent most of his working life in the military, first as an Army Ranger and then as a doctor and disaster response specialist. Dr. Bob’s technical roles required him to travel the world. From his travels came stories, and he shares quite a few — he jokes that he is “like Ronald Reagan” in that respect. After he ended his career in the military, Dr. Bob began a private health practice in Savannah. The past decade of his private life, he devoted his time to his medical practice, medical missions and an international consultancy position in disaster relief for developing nations.

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE‘s Blake Seitz sat down with Dr. Bob to talk about his background and plans for Congress. As Dr. Bob insists, the race is not about glory. The role of the politician, in his view, is more modest than that. This is the first part of a two-part interview.

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE: While in the Army, you were in charge of medical disaster response for the Pacific. What did that entail?

Dr. Bob Johnson: It was an amplified position from what it had been before. It was given a lot more juice when President Clinton became terrified about the possibility of chemical and biological warfare or terrorist attacks. That was the result of the Aum Shinrikyo attacks in Tokyo in the 1990s and the knowledge that Saddam Hussein was sitting on thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons.

So we were concerned about those threats, but modern disaster science really looks at response in a holistic way. You need to have a plan in case there’s a hurricane or a downed airliner so that everyone’s playing from the same sheet of music and it doesn’t devolve into chaos. I then traveled around the world teaching emerging nations how to bring their public and private resources to bear so that they can respond to emergencies, which was a very gratifying experience.

I retired from the Army in 2001 and went back to school at the Medical College of Georgia, where I met my wife, an anesthesiologist. We then started a solo private practice, sort of an alien thing to me at that point, but for twelve years I was a sole practitioner with six employees. That was great because it was the first time I was a small businessman providing good jobs, salaries and benefits to half a dozen people. I’m as proud of that as other accomplishments in my life — it’s tough, like walking a tightrope, when you go into business for yourself.

Unfortunately, sole practitioners will go the way of the dodo bird pretty soon because of the hyper-regulatory environment in health care. Not incidentally, this made me more of a conservative as I started looking at the incredible overload of regulatory burden on the practice of medicine.

TAC: Even before 2010, with the passage of the health care bill?

Dr. Bob: Oh yes, way before. This has been going on for decades. The federal government has been an intrusive hegemony in the health care marketplace since the advent of Medicare in 1965. It is getting worse every year with more regulation, more intrusion and more distortion of the marketplace. That’s really why health care is so expensive.

I use this analogy when stumping: every regular person in American knows that if government was in charge of food distribution as opposed to health care distribution, there would be a shortage of everything but canned beets. For example, when I was stationed in Berlin thirty years ago, we would get a pass to go to East Berlin, and there would be signs in front of fast food restaurants that read, “Due to technical difficulties there is no meat today.” There was no drought or adverse conditions, it was just that government could not distribute food. That was an emblematic moment in my life. People don’t want their clothes, their food, their houses distributed by the government, so why do they want it to distribute their health care?

At this point, government involvement in the health market is way beyond a bad joke — it’s a tragedy. If you look at the statistics, before Obamacare came onboard 85 percent of Americans had health care insurance. 83 percent of that 85 percent said they were ‘Very Satisfied,’ ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Somewhat Satisfied’ with their plan. This seems unbelievable to people, but we must remember that even in cases where people do not have health plans, being uninsured does not mean they do not receive care: 50 percent of those who were uninsured said they were ‘Satisfied’ with their health care situation. So what were we fixing? Obamacare is a nightmare. It interferes with health care distribution because it is an intrusive federal program.

TAC: You practiced medicine both in the public and the private sectors, first in the military and then in private practice. Did you see differences in quality?

Dr. Bob: Well sure. I’ll give you a couple stories.

When I was a head and neck cancer surgeon in Hawaii we had a receptionist, this very grouchy lady who was incapable of smiling, and she was the first person you met upon entering the office. I heard her chewing out a patient who was ten minutes late — a lady whose husband was out at sea, who had three children under the age of five, and she was sick and feverish. She was almost weeping. I admitted the patient. In Savannah, if our receptionists don’t have a smile they will hear about it immediately. Patients are customers, and they come to buy a service. In a socialized system, work is imposed and employees are ridden with an inflated sense of self-importance. Civil service employees can’t really be fired for being bad employees unless they commit a criminal act. I tried to fire several civilian employees in the military, never successfully.

Now I’m going to tell the story of Abbey and Juan. In 1991, I had just traveled to Latvia to teach disaster response in the Baltic states. While in Europe, I stopped over in London. I was sitting in an outdoor café drinking a latte and this 20 year-old British art student was sitting across from me. She was home from Leeds for the summer. And she had a tumor the size of a grapefruit in her neck. This student saw I was a doctor and asked if I would examine her neck, so I asked, “Well, have you seen your doctor?” She said, “For the first time in three months, I saw my general practitioner. He got me an appointment with a specialist.” I said, “Well, that’s wonderful. When is it?” “Six months,” she said. She would be dead by then, or dying.

Fast-forward eight years to my office in Pooler, Georgia. A nun from an outreach clinic that takes care of predominately Guatemalan and Mexican illegal immigrants brings in a Guatemalan man named Juan who didn’t speak English or Spanish very well — he spoke a Mayan dialect. Juan also had a tumor as big as a grapefruit in his neck. Four months later he was cured of cancer and hepatitis at the cost of our health care system, which had set out to work with his onion picking crew. Juan was in remission before Abbey even had a chance to see her primary care doctor. So while she was “enfranchised” in Great Britain’s health care system, he wasn’t even here legally in the country. We have such incredible compassion in this nation and such skill that we rarely let anyone fall through the cracks. You have to go out of your way as a sick person not to receive treatment if you are uninsured. So progressives are telling a lie that there is a crisis in health care.

The good news about Obamacare is this: I hope from its failure Americans learn that big government solutions just don’t work. That may be the silver lining of that particular dark cloud.

TAC: We have to hope so. Avik Roy, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, predicts that Obamacare’s enrollment numbers are good enough that it will survive for the foreseeable future, which unfortunately means it will be a terrible health care bill indefinitely unless something is done about it. If you are elected to Congress, what will you do about Obamacare?

Dr. Bob: That’s a great question, and I’ve put a lot of thought into it. I’ll preface this by saying I’ve worked in every health care system imaginable, in both the public and private sectors. So that’s my background, and I can’t think of anyone better fit to sit down and write legislation to fix this mess. I’ll be the smart kid in the room.

So what would I do? I would absolutely repeal Obamacare at the first chance, given a new president and a takeover of the Senate by Republicans. You simply have to start over, which is a daunting task because Obamacare has already intruded into the private marketplace.

Rep. Tom Price [R-GA], who is an orthopedic surgeon out of Atlanta, has written an elegant bill, H.R. 2300, that I have studied closely and love. There are many Republican alternatives that have come out since 2009, so when Democrats and the president claim that Republicans don’t have an answer, they’re just lying. That’s a strong word, but in this case Rep. Joe Wilson [R-SC] is right.

I’ve talked about this some with [incumbent representative] Jack Kingston [R-GA], my good friend.

TAC: When’s he going to endorse you?

Dr. Bob: Oh, he’s never doing to do that. Generally when you’re running for another seat you don’t do that sort of thing. Politicians tend to be risk-averse in that way. But listen, as a doctor and Army Ranger I have taken many risks to get where I am. We need people in Congress who are willing to take political risks and do things that will surely get them voted out of office in two years. If we don’t have honest, stark and bold solutions soon, we will lose the Republic.

TAC: Certainly looks like it. I’ve seen the spreadsheets.

Dr. Bob: Yes. It’s not accurate to say we’re borrowing $4 billion a day from our children’s children because they haven’t been born yet. They can’t sign a contract saying, “Grandpa, I’m going to lend you this money to put on a Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit at the Metropolitan, or a Buffalo Bill museum in Wyoming or a Gullah museum on Sapelo Island.” If I were king, we wouldn’t be borrowing money for frivolous things. It amounts to intergenerational theft, that $4 billion a day. Future generations will never have the opportunities we have unless we decide to tackle our debt now.

TAC: How do you go about that in the short term?

Dr. Bob: We need to start with a Balanced Budget Amendment, which exist in some form in nearly every state. In the amendment, I would stipulate that for dire emergencies — war or three Hurricane Katrinas at the same time — super-majorities in the House and Senate could borrow money temporarily, but it would need to be paid back within a finite period, three to five years.  And that number is not random. It represents the average length of time it took the government to pay back debts it incurred prior to FDR, when the spending curve really took off. The curve hyper-accelerated, sad to say, during Ronald Reagan’s terms, when taxes were lowered and social spending increased. Since then, the chart looks more and more like the vertical curve in an asymptotic function, which is frightening because that kind of trend has to collapse. And that’s why a Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary. Will it cause short-term pain? Yes. But better to absorb the pain in my generation than to pass it on to subsequent generations, hoping against hope that there will be a magical solution.

2a)

Dear Dick and Lynn, As an Army Ranger and 26 year Army Veteran, I am pleased to tell you that today I was endorsed by one of the leading organizations devoted to getting veterans elected to Congress, National Defense PAC. I am honored to receive their endorsement. Georgia's First Congressional district is home to four major military installations and thousands of active duty personnel, veterans, and their families. There are not enough veterans in Congress and thus not enough appreciation for and understanding of the armed services and its members. I have pledged that, if elected, I will seek to serve on both the Veterans Affairs and Armed Services Committees so I can continue my military service and to fight for my fellow veterans. You can read their endorsement by clicking here. Help elect a former Army Ranger and Army surgeon to congress by making a contribution to my campaign right now. Your generous support will ensure we are able continue to build momentum against professional politicians and to put an end to politics as usual in Washington DC.  Thank you, Dr. Bob Johnson Candidate for Congress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)

Op-Ed: Abbas is 'Stayin' Alive' by Dancin' Away

The only way Abbas can stay alive is by killing the peace process.

In the 1970’s, when Mahmoud Abbas wasn’t murdering Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich, or US diplomats in Khartoum, he must have been watching John Travolta disco-dancing to the hit song “Stayin’ Alive” in the cult movie “Saturday Night Fever.” Because one can see that Abbas knows that the only way to remain alive, and not become another Sadat, is to dance as far from Israel as quickly as possible.

In order to “live to see another day,” Abbas is a “dancin’ man” who discos away from Israel. Abbas knows that to listen to Obama and “take risks” to tango with Israel means a bullet in his head. His latest disco move is his demand to inject 5 million Palestinian “refugees” into pre-1967 Israel.  With enemies like Abbas, who needs friends?
First, one must appreciate the lyrics to the Bee Gees’ fantastic song, “Stayin’ Alive”:

“I'm a dancin’ man and I just can't lose. You know it's all right. It’s ok. I'll live to see another day.”

Now how is Abbas acting out “Stayin' Alive”?  The heart of Abbas’ latest incendiary demand about Palestinian “refugees” is as follows:

1. “He [the Palestinian “refugee”] can also decide to return to the State of Israel. In such a case, he will receive compensation and return.”

And;

2. “All the refugees, who number 5 million today, along with their offspring, are considered 1948 refugees. There are no refugees who came from Nablus or Ramallah. They are all from Tiberias, Safed, Acre, Nazareth, Jaffa, Beersheba, and so on.”

I don’t want anyone to think I took Abbas’ quotes out of context.  So, just watch and read Abbas' recently publicly stated positions, reported by MEMRI:

“Mahmoud Abbas: “Our position is that the settlements – from start to finish – are illegal. They talk about settlement blocs, or about settlements here and there, but we say that every house and every stone that were placed in the West Bank since 1967 and to this day are illegal and we do not recognize them.” […]

“No resolution that we agree upon with the others will be passed unless it is confirmed by popular referendum of all the Palestinians worldwide.”

Applause […]

“Every Palestinian, from Canada to Japan – that includes the Palestinians living abroad as well – will have to agree on the proposal. They will vote in favor or against. If they say “no,” the proposal will not pass.” […]

“The Right of Return is a personal right. If you are a refugee, your son is a refugee as well. Perhaps you will decide to relinquish this right while your son decides not to, or vice versa. Your son is free to do so. When we say that this is a personal choice, it means that he can decide for himself. We will all be making a choice: One option is to remain where we are – in Jordan, in Syria, in Lebanon, and so on – and receive compensation…Of course…

“The second option is to go to another country, as part of an agreement. If someone wants to immigrate to Canada, he is free to do so. Wherever one goes, one remains a Palestinian. In this case, he will receive compensation as well.
“The third option is to decide to return to the Palestinian state, and to receive compensation.

“He can also decide to return to the State of Israel. In such a case, he will receive compensation and return.
“These are the options that we place before the Palestinians. They will choose. If you want to stay where you are – fine. If you want to go abroad– fine. If you want to come to Palestine– fine. If you choose to return [to Israel] and hold Israeli citizenship… This is what it means. Someone asked me how he could become an Israeli citizen. I asked him if he wanted to continue to be stateless after he is back. He will be returning to the State of Israel.

“All the refugees who number 5 million today, along with their offspring, are considered 1948 refugees. There are no refugees who came from Nablus or Ramallah. They are all from Tiberius, Safed, Acre, Nazareth, Jaffa, Beersheba, and so on.” […]

“What we do not want to accept is the 'Jewish state.' We shall never agree to recognize the Jewish state.”
Applause […]

Abbas’ red-line vision of the two-state solution is one that doesn’t solve the Left-wing’s “demographic” problem, it makes the Left’s “demographic time-bomb” explode in their faces today.  Imagine, 5 million Palestinians moving into the pre-1967 Israel of Tel Aviv and Haifa in 2014.  Talk about national suicide!

Whatever Israel’s offer, Abbas will disco dance away, and demand more.  In fact, the more the Israelis concede, the more Abbas thinks they want to get him murdered. Why shouldn’t he escalate his demands?  For Abbas, making a deal with Israel – even a great deal – means he gets murdered, and not making a deal means he stays alive.  

So, when Abbas makes more demands after Israel makes more concessions, Abbas is simply saying he prefers fancy hotel rooms and media attention to a pine box six feet under the ground. Who could blame him?

And the Israelis should stop making concessions at all as all of their new concessions become the starting point for future negotiation. Israel’s “peace” strategy is suicide by concession.

What should be placed in a pine box 6 feet under is the “Peace Process” itself.  It is a pure fraud being played out on Israel, World Jewry, and the United States taxpayers.  It’s time to give the “Peace Process” the final burial that it has deserved for 21 years.  For the number of Israelis the “Peace Process” has murdered, the “Peace Process” should rest in Hell, not in peace.

The writer, who specializes in security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)-The Democratic Civil War Over Energy

Green demands to stop drilling for natural gas come at an awkward time for Obama and his party.

By Kim Strassel

The environmental left is seeing Democrats the Keystone XL pipeline, and raising them natural-gas exports. The question of who folds on this issue will play big in this midterm election year.

A split is growing in the Democratic Party, one that ought to rival the divisions on the right that the headlines trumpet. Greens are increasingly bitter about President Obama —annoyed that he's dropped climate legislation, scaled back green subsidies, ignored fracking. They've channeled their frustration into the fight against Keystone, warning that they'll turn their significant money and resources against Mr. Obama's party if the president approves more "dirty oil." Since this president cares about nothing so much as winning elections, he's sat on the pipeline for five years.

Emboldened, the eco-warriors are now dramatically upping the stakes, demanding that Democrats turn against the natural-gas revolution that has propped up the Obama economy. More than a thousand activists flooded last month to a Keystone-like rally protesting Cove Point, a Maryland facility that is due to be the first to export liquefied natural gas. The Ukraine crisis and calls for greater gas exports have given the issue a big new lift. On Wednesday 16 prominent green groups sent an open letter to Mr. Obama demanding he essentially shut down Cove Point.

Enlarge Image

A February protest against a liquified natural gas export facility in Maryland. Susan Yin/Chesapeake Climate Action Network

The letter was revealing for its honesty. Not so long ago enviros endorsed natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal or oil. Most limited themselves to calling for "better" industry practices, or to solely opposing exports. But as the gas rush has grown, threatening their solar-and-windmill nirvana, greens now openly decry drilling, chiding Mr. Obama for his "support for hydraulic fracturing" and calling on him to keep "our nation's fossil fuel reserves in the ground." The letter was signed by Bill McKibben, the director of the anti-Keystone outfit 350.org, as well as directors of nearly every major green shop in the country—the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, CREDO and Earthjustice.

This new demand could not come at a more awkward time for the party. Under fire forObamaCare and the economy, scores of vulnerable Democrats are rushing to natural gas and drilling as political safe harbors. Supporting fracking allows them to claim they are in favor of more jobs, cheaper energy and rising incomes. Supporting natural-gas exports allows them to look responsive to the Ukraine crisis, or at least more responsive than their unpopular president. It helps, too, that this puts them on the same page as the significant majority of Americans who support more drilling (and pipelines).

Red-state senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) are these days fighting for pro-energy airtime with colleagues like Colorado's Mark Udall. Mr. Udall, who can usually be found pushing a federal renewable energy mandate, now finds himself facing a likely challenge from Rep. Cory Gardner —as pro-energy a Republican as they come. When the Ukraine crisis began, Mr. Udall suddenly couldn't move quickly enough to introduce a bill to expand the number of countries to which the U.S. can export natural gas. A Udall spokesman publicly bragged that they'd got their own bill introduced before Mr. Gardner introduced his own.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, who just loves solar, wind and biofuels, but who is also facing an electoral threat from Republican Ed Gillespie, materialized on Wednesday to demand that the Obama Energy Department greenlight more gas export terminals. New Mexico's Tom Udall has embraced more exports, tying it directly to his state's drilling jobs. With all this Democratic love for natural gas, Ms. Landrieu was hard pressed to get attention for her own announcement that she is devoting her first hearing as new chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to the benefits of more oil and gas exports.

All this comes on top of the 11 Senate Democrats and 69 House Democrats who have previously voted for Keystone, and the 26 House Democrats who late last year voted to speed approvals of natural gas pipelines. House Republicans intend to hold a vote on Mr. Gardner's bill to expedite approval of export terminals. Expect a significant Democratic turnout.

Green groups have mostly avoided targeting vulnerable Democrats; even billionaire Tom Steyer backed away from suggestions he might go after Ms. Landrieu on climate change. But this restraint is partly due to the fact that the White House hasn't openly defied him on Keystone.

The left's new fracking demand is not so easily avoidable. The White House is technically in favor of natural gas, has reaped its environmental and economic upside, and its candidates are coalescing around drilling and export expansion. The president's green troops now demand an end to this. To crack down on fracking would be economically and politically dumb. Not cracking down risks tipping his green base over the edge.

Mr. Obama has for years politically danced around the U.S. natural gas boom, but Mr. McKibben & Co. are now forcing the issue. The president may not be able to punt on this one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Saudis Bar JPost Reporter From Covering Obama's Trip There

By Sharon Churcher

The Saudi government is refusing to allow the Jerusalem Post’s Washington bureau chief to cover President Barack Obama's trip to the Arab kingdom. 

In a move that the White House Correspondents Association called "outrageous," Michael Wilner is purportedly the only member of the Washington press corps who has been denied a visa for the trip.

The Post reported that the Saudis ignored "firmly worded requests" to grant the application, which were made by U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and presidential assistant Tony Blinken to Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir.

The newspaper added: “Rice and Blinken separately expressed extreme displeasure at the delay and the prospect of a denial.’’

The White House said it has complained about the denial.

"We are deeply disappointed that this credible journalist was denied a visa,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. “We will continue to register our serious concerns about this unfortunate decision."

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters traveling with Obama en route to Belgium on Tuesday, however, that the Saudi Arabian trip would not be reconsidered.

"No," he said. "Look, we have disagreements with Saudi Arabia on a number of issues. We obviously have had disagreements in the past as it relates to some issues associated with Israel, some issues associated with human rights. 

"But we also share a significant set of interests with Saudi Arabia. They’re a very important partner of ours in the Gulf, and we believe it's better to have the type of relationship where we can cooperate but also be clear and honest with one another where we have differences," Rhodes said.

The correspondents association said: 

"It is outrageous that the Saudi government has refused to allow a White House reporter entry to the country to cover this week’s visit of President Barack Obama.

"The denial is an affront not only to this journalist but to the entire White House press corps and to the principle of freedom of the press that we hold so dear.’’ 

In an editorial, the Jewish Press accused the Saudis of  "plain old anti-Semitism."

"Wilner, a Jewish American, works for the Israeli English-language newspaper but does not hold Israeli citizenship and has never lived in the Jewish state. Saudi Arabia has no official relationship with the government of Israel,’’ the editorial said.

5a)  The following appeared in the 3/21/14 issue of "The WeeK" 
magazine. Consider it  "food for thought": B----

" Young liberals own the future of American politics", wrote Johnathan 
Chait in The New York Magazine. The Millennial generation will make up a 
sizable 24 percent of voters by 2016, and a new Pew Research survey 
shows that they are "more liberal than their elders" on almost every 
issue. The findings point to an essential dilemma for Republicans. 
Millenials are "much less white than older voters." meaning that 
conservatives will have to win even higher margins among whites "merely 
to stay even" with Democrats. And Millenials are much more liberal than 
previous generations, and a majority of them say they favor bigger 
government and universal health care coverage, which the GOP at its core 
opposes. Only 26 % of Millenials call themselves conservative, compared 
with 41% of Baby Boomers and 45% of the World War II generation. In the 
short term, the GOP can still win House and Senate races by tapping the 
anger of older, white Americans. But the electorate is "growing steadily 
more liberal". If the GOP doesn't evolve on such issues as health care, 
immigration, and gay marriage, it will have to forget about winning 
national elections. "

In my opinion, we, the "older generation", dropped the ball in  
educating our children and grandchildren in terms of the legacy of our 
founding fathers, the need for self-reliance and independence, and 
emphasizing the work ethic that made our country great. Now, with the 
collection of career politicians and a socialist President, we are 
paying the price, and watching the demise of what once was a great 
nation. It's interesting that, looking back through the annals of 
history, virtually all great nations (e.g., The Romans, The Egyptians, 
The Greeks, and the Incas, to name a few)  collapsed "from within", and 
not from being overcome by outside forces.

I continue to pray for my children, my grandchildren and our country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)  Big Obamacare Insurer Sees Double-Digit Rate Rise in 2015


Two months before health insurers must submit rate proposals for 2015 to government regulators, WellPoint Inc. fired a surprising shot across their bow by predicting it may ask for “double-digit plus” increases.

Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, said March 13 that while premiums for health plans sold on the Obamacare insurance exchanges would rise next year, the increases would be “far less significant than they were before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.”

Individuals who bought their own insurance in 2010 paid 13 percent more than in 2009, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found. The exchanges, which opened in October, serve those who buy their own individual or family insurance and aren’t covered by employer or government health plans. WellPoint’s statement on next year’s rates, the first by an insurer, startled some analysts while others said the company may be hedging bets as the Obama administration continually changes the rules on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“The double-digit increase surprised me,” said Stephen Zaharuk, a New York-based analyst at Moody’s Investors Service, in a telephone interview. “If everything’s working according to plan, then the increases should be where the medical trend is, which should not be double-digit.”

The medical trend refers to the total cost of health care, including price inflation and patient utilization of services. It has grown about 5 percent to 6 percent in the last two years, and may increase to 8 percent or 9 percent this year, Zaharuk said.

‘Costs Down’

Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to say if WellPoint’s prediction was in line with government expectations. “Since the Affordable Care Act became law, health-care costs have been slowing and premiums are increasing by the lowest rates in years,” Peters wrote in an e-mail.

WellPoint is the biggest commercial insurer in the Obamacare exchanges, with 500,000 members through January. The company's shares  fell 1.3 percent to close at $99.69 in New York Tuesday and has increased 55 percent over the past 12 months.

On March 21, the Indianapolis-based insurer raised its 2014 earnings forecast after saying it had expanded its customer base through Obamacare.

“We’re very optimistic as to where we are” on the exchanges, Ken Goulet, executive vice president for WellPoint’s commercial and specialty business, said at the company’s investor day meeting after the forecast was announced. The average age of those enrolled “came in right where we expected it to be.”

‘Double-Digit Plus’

Still, the 2015 rates will rise because of an expected reduction in government payments to insurers, he said. The payments, known as reinsurance, are intended to help ease insurance companies’ transition into the public exchanges.

“On a year-over-year basis on our exchanges, and it will vary by carrier, but all of them will probably be in double- digit plus,” Goulet said.

WellPoint’s prediction is “on the higher side” but the insurer is “playing it safe,” Ana Gupte, a New York-based analyst at Leerink Swann & Co., said in a phone interview. “They don’t know what the risk pool looks like yet, and until they get some experience, they’re going to be more cautious.”

Insurers may also be responding to the administration’s recent extension of the deadline to renew old health plans that don’t comply with Obamacare requirements, and a new requirement that insurers broaden their provider networks.

Rules ‘Changing’

“The rules of the road keep changing,” said Dan Mendelson, chief executive officer of Washington-based consulting firm Avalere Health. “These companies have to hedge their bets.”

Aetna Inc. spokeswoman Cynthia Michener declined to comment on her company’s 2015 rates.

“It’s too early to say,” she said today in an e-mail. The Hartford, Connecticut-based insurer is selling plans in 17 states.

Cathryn Donaldson, spokeswoman for Louisville, Kentucky- based Humana Inc., which is participating in 14 states, also declined to comment. The insurers will submit preliminary rate proposals to regulators at the end of May.

The Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, requires insurers to justify any rate increases of more than 10 percent, but federal regulators can’t restrict the amount that premiums rise.

Enrollment Guess

So far, insurers can only guess at the health of the people enrolled in their plans through the ages of those signing up. If enrollees are older and sicker than expected this year, that will help drive up premiums, according to Clare Krusing, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington 

lobby group.

“There’s broad recognition that you need to have participation from the young and healthy to balance out the old and less healthy, otherwise premiums will rise for everyone,” Krusing said in a telephone interview.

The group is concerned that the low tax penalty for people who don’t sign up — which starts at $95, less than most individuals would pay for a monthly premium — decreases the incentive for young, healthy people to enroll, she said.

“Our experience is similar to Massachusetts, which had a successful risk pool,” Peters, of HHS, said about the mix of people who signed up for exchange plans.

Increasing premiums next year may further worsen the mix of those enrolling up on the exchanges next year, said Moody’s Zaharuk.

Staying Away

“Already you hear that people aren’t signing up because it’s too expensive,” he said. “If, next year, there’s a double-digit increase, there’s going to be more people who say they can’t afford it anymore, who are the ones who need it least. The sicker population tends to stay with you.”

Even so, the system is not likely to go into a “death spiral” as critics of Obamacare have suggested, Mendelson said.

“There’s a subsidy, which will take the sting off for the lower-income population,” he said. “And even if your monthly premium goes from $400 to $450, if you need the product and want the product, you’re likely to keep buying the product.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7)  Iran's 2 Navies Bring Mixture of Threats

DUBAI — Despite limited capabilities and lacking in modernization, Iran has always been seen as the major naval threat in the Arabian Gulf region.

Experts agree this is due to its ability for irregular warfare and to threaten, intimidate and conduct asymmetrical operations and wars of attrition.

According to the January “Gulf Military Balance” report by Anthony Cordesman, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iran is sometimes described as the “Hegemon of the Gulf.” But it is a comparatively weak conventional military power with limited modernization since the Iran-Iraq War.

“It depends heavily on weapons acquired by the shah. Most key equipment in its Army, Navy and Air Force are obsolete or relatively low-quality imports,” he wrote.

Cordesman, however, highlighted that Iran is proficient at irregular warfare.

“It has built up a powerful mix of capabilities for both regular and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] forces to defend territory, intimidate neighbors, threaten the flow of oil and shipping through the gulf, and attack gulf targets,” he wrote.

“It has a dedicated force to train and equip non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas and Shiite extremists in Iraq — potential proxies that give Iran leverage over other states.”

Matthew Hedges, a military analyst based here with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, added that the Iranian support of non-state actors such as Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen are some of the leading threats in the region.

“The Iranian Revolutionary Guards [Corps] threaten every state in the region,” he said. “The IRGC possess mini-subs and are a constant menace to not only the UAE Navy, but to all naval trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz as they are particularly hard to trace. There have been numerous unconfirmed reports that Iranian midget subs have been spotted within a number of the regional ports, something which is particularly worrying for the entire [Gulf Cooperation Council] region.”

In November, gulf naval commanders stated that the IRGC mini-subs are a major danger in the gulf’s littorals.

“Anti-submarine operations are causing a real challenge to our units in the Arabian Gulf waters due to the small subs that are being used in shallow waters, which creates a challenge for sonar systems to detect them,” UAE Navy Chief Rear Adm. Ibrahim Musharrakh told the Gulf Naval Commanders Conference on Nov. 6.

“Furthermore, the merchant traffic creates clutter and noise that diminishes the capability of submersible devices to spot and helps the mini-subs to operate without being spotted,” he said.

The Iranian Navy and Revolutionary Guard Corps have launched three classes of submarines, two of which are small subs, since 2007. The programs, however, have been secretive, and limited information has been released by the Iranian naval command.

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, three Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines were commissioned from 1992 to 1996. They are called Tareq-class subs in Iran.

Iran reportedly paid US $600 million for each boat, and they are based at Bandar Abbas in the Strait of Hormuz. Two of the Kilo-class submarines are operational at any one time and are occasionally deployed in the eastern mouth of the strait, the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea.

However, the real threat is from the smaller submarines deployed in 2007. According to the NTI, that’s when a wave of deployments began of small Ghadir-class and Nahang-class midget submarines for use in shallow coastal waters.

NTI reports that the number of operating Ghadir-class submarines ranges from 10 to 19.

The Ghadir class also is referred to as a subclass of the Yono class, suggesting that the submarines may be based on North Korean technology, although the level of North Korean involvement is unknown, the organization said.

The midget subs are operated by both the Iranian Navy and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN). Their operational capabilities include firing torpedoes (both the Ghadir and the Nahang class have two, 533mm tubes), laying mines for anti-shipping operations, as well as insertion of special forces into enemy territory.

Iran also is experimenting with wet submersibles. The Sabehat-15 GPS-equipped two-seat submersible swimmer delivery vehicle (SDV), designed by the Esfahan Underwater Research Center, has undergone testing with both the Iranian Navy and the IRGCN.

NTI’s report on “Iranian Submarine Capabilities,” released in July, states the SDVs, due to their limited endurance and payload, are primarily used for mining, reconnaissance and special operations, and are restricted to operating in coastal waters.

Col. Yousif al-Mannaei, deputy commander of the Bahrain Naval Operations Center, explained the need for more intelligence collection.

“As we all know that the sea is very vital for our well-being and the world economy, the air supremacy and surface supremacy has been achieved,” he said. “However, we have no subsurface superiority in the Arabian Gulf waters.

“It is a real threat, and the [Gulf Cooperation Council] really understands that and are pursuing ways to counter that,” he said. “At this point, the exchange of information and intelligence sharing, as well as the formation of a database, is vital.”

According to Michael Connell, director of Iranian Studies at the Center for Naval Analyses, Iran has two independent naval forces with parallel chains of command.

“The two navies have overlapping functions and areas of responsibility, but they are distinct in terms of how they are trained and equipped — and more importantly, also in how they fight,” he wrote in an article for the United States Institute of Peace. “The backbone of the regular Navy’s inventory consists of larger surface ships, including frigates and corvettes and submarines.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran Navy is generally considered to be a conventional “green water” Navy, he wrote, operating at a regional level, mainly in the Gulf of Oman but also as far out as the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

“The Revolutionary Guard’s naval force has a large inventory of small fast-attack craft, and specializes in asymmetrical, hit-and-run tactics; it is more akin to a guerrilla force at sea,” Connell wrote. “Both navies maintain large arsenals of coastal defense and anti-ship cruise missiles and mines.”

7a)  Only a ground offensive will defeat the enemy, says senior IDF source

A tank from the 52nd Armored Battalion in the Jordan Valley.
(Photo: IDF Spokesman’s Office)

In the event of another war, only a full-scale ground offensive will achieve a convincing defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a high-ranking IDF source said on Tuesday.

“It’s clear to the general staff that a ground maneuver is what’s needed” to extinguish the threat of mass rocket attacks, the source said. This view holds true despite the highly advanced capabilities developed in recent years by the air force, which enable it to strike a myriad of targets in a short space of time, he said.

The Ground Forces Command embarked on a series of upgrades designed to better prepare it for the day forces are ordered to storm hostile ground.

“The enemy is growing powerful” in its ability to rain down rockets and missiles on the Israeli home front, the source said, but it remains challenged by the IDF’s ability to launch ground offensive, which Hezbollah sees as an Israeli advantage.

One change under way involves an upgrade to weapons systems. Some 40 percent of artillery shells are being converted into precision shells that accurately strike targets as far as 40 km. away.

The shells come equipped with fins and other adaptations to make them accurate.

“It’ll prevent the need to place artillery forces deep into enemy territory. The new shells have 150% more range. This gives us more operational flexibility,” the source said.

This enables a battalion commander to request whatever firepower he needs and receive it within a few minutes.

“We don’t have to get the air force to drop 250kg. bombs on every target. Sometimes a shell going through a structure is enough,” the source said.

The remainder of the Artillery Corps’s shells – which are classed as statistical firepower – will be made more efficient, the source said. The IDF is in advanced stages of purchasing a new artillery gun to replace its aging M109 155mm. self-propelled Howitzers.

Ground Forces planners are taking into account an enemy that knows how to strike and “disappear,” while operating in closed spaces where much of the IDF’s firepower is more limited, the source said.

“They [Hezbollah] have many missiles and explosive devices [to target advancing IDF armored vehicles],” he said, adding that Hezbollah’s armament efforts are “unceasing.”

As a result, Ground Forces planners are aiming to inject units into the depth of Hezbollah’s territory.

“For us, that means we must restructure and prepare, and to stay ready for a clash that can occur tomorrow, in a few months, or a few years,” he said.

“A ground offensive has to be deadly, defensible, network- based and agile, with advanced firepower adapted to… a changing battlefield,” the source said. “It’s clear to us that we have to shorten a conflict. A ground maneuver will accomplish that.”

Other areas of improvement include working in conjunction with the air force and receiving and applying intelligence in real time.

Command and control tools, such as the Digital Ground Army, link up various forces to a computer-generated map showing target locations, the source said, describing such developments as the most advanced in the world.

“A tank gunner will see a target as it is seen by fighter jet pilot. Companies on the ground will be able to detect targets and place them on a [digital] map,” he said.

“We are developing a battle doctrine based on the need to operate in enemy’s depth. It is focused on how to get forces there, how to fight in closed spaces, destroy tunnels, and take on fortified targets.

It looks at how an [infantry] company enters a home to destroy a rocket launcher,” he said.

Structural changes to the Ground Forces are under way.

These include giving territorial army divisions greater autonomy.

If war breaks out with Hezbollah in the North, the Gaza Division in the South will be able to “solve its own problems” and formulate independent responses to rocket attacks from Gaza, freeing up the General Staff to deal with the Lebanese arena.

All-purpose divisions that can fight on multiple fronts (there are a few such divisions) have been enlarged with extra battalions, such as Engineering Corps units, the source said.

“We have to get to the enemy and strike its ability to fire on us. In the end, this creates pressure on it and on Lebanon, and this is an enemy that understands when it’s starting to lose,” he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------