++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why virtually most wars can no longer be won by The West. Relativism will remain the victor?

If you are China you probably can ignore demands you cease efforts to fight wars to their end because you are strong, are willing to disregard human right's and demands from otherwise feckless nations unless they are willing to go toe to toe. Collectively speaking, I seriously question whether NATO would do so.

Certainly, even a weakened Russia has proven NATO is unwilling and/or incapable of arming Ukraine both sufficiently and/or on a timely basis. Europe lacks the manufacturing capability to supply enough weaponry and a Biden led America is hesitant to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia by giving it necessary weapons in a timely manner.

As matters currently stand, Iran is able to be a serious world wide terrorist irritant because feckless America has broadcast it's unwillingness to take them on in a meaningful way. I fear Biden will back into what he wishes to avoid. Biden does not seem to comprehend you cannot feed a bully and hope to win. Iran now has a relationship with China and is being armed even by N Korea. Also no one seems ready to stop Iran's nuclear progress. The latter might fall in the lap of Israel which has few options because a nuclear Iran, with a developed delivery capability ,would be an existential threat which no Israeli leader, in their right mind, could ignore. Even BIBI, in my opinion, waited too long logically speaking because he has the wrath of America's hot breath breath constantly on his neck were he to act unilaterally.

I have no doubt Israel has been training and thus, has the capability of damaging Iran's nuclear ability or delay it's ability for a period of time if it so chooses.

Obviously, what I have written above relates more to why few wars are likely to be won in an historical manner. So where does that leave us? Once again, I believe only China can go to war and carry it through to an acknowledged victory if they are willing to endure the sustained damage they would suffer.

Russia is not strong enough to sustain a war but certainly, demoniacally speaking, could inflict serious devastation before being punished to the point of ceasing to exist as a functioning entity. Their only hope would be if China came to their aid.

N Korea is a lesser Russia and probably China would not consider helping them unless they feared such a war imperiled them. N Korea would also not be capable of the damage Russia could inflict and America would probably be its sole target before their nation was nihilated.

Iran's Ayatollah's are probably more rational than N Korea's leader and were they to undertake a war against Israel or America or, most unlikely, both simultaneously they too would become rubble and China would not come to their aid in most cases.

Other nuclear nations like India and Pakistan would have no reason to consider they have a dog in any fight and would only do so if the need to defend themselves became insurmountable.

Where does this leave us? For the foreseeable, only America and Israel appear to be the most vulnerable and exposed and America no longer seems capable of or positioned to win wars because we have chosen to allow lawyers to handcuff our military responses rather than hesitant generals prone to tell the president what he wants to hear, ie. Westmoreland. Furthermore, we also seem predisposed to bend to U.N constraints. Finally, America has been effectively penetrated by external sources who control the b a large number of paid/financed radicals who are vocal and disruptive enough to create extreme societal discord.

Hell, we no longer are capable of even holding elections we trust or arresting criminals for their unlawful behaviour. America has become a pitiful Gulliver. Soros' son and the billions of dollars at his disposal has more to say about what we can and cannot do than our meek politicians because America no longer speaks with political clarity.

Now we come to Israel. Like a dog on a leash of a conflicted, confused, cowardly owner. Israel has demonstrated it has the will and power even though it is obvious their intelligence capabilities have been severely degraded. What Israel lacks is the ability to "conclude" because of its dependency. Israel is nuclear capable but will it be supported if circumstances give it no other option? Their enemies are surrogates of Iran. Will Israel be supported if they must attack Iran? Will America put itself at risk for Israel's survival if circumstances dictate a dire call?

As I write, Blinken is haranguing Bibi to accept the fact that Hamas cannot be defeated and Biden , I am led tobelieve by his ambivalence and weakness. He has no desire to run the risk of a widening war much less even protect our dispersed military. To date, Bibi has resisted the pressure but I am led to believe Biden's patience is ebbing.

I have commended Biden for going the route but now that he too has begun to waver as the political heat rises. His own failed policies have become Israel's problem as much as they have afflicted Biden's chance of re-election. Israel's problem is that small nations are beholden to Siamese issues, ie. their own and their sponsors.

Yes, Israel is winning against Hamas, whatever that means. Yes, they have threatened Hezbollah sufficiently so momentarily Hezbollah has chosen to selectively stand down but Iran remains the one pulling their surrogate's strings and thus, Israel is handcuffed. The call for unrestrained military engagements and tactics constantly rings in Israel's ears. All the while, Israel's military is known to be the most judicious and caring of all nations. Furthermore, tiny Israel must run an economy while at war against overwhelming numbers. Not an easy feat even with so-called hesitant friend's support.

So what is the bottom line conclusion? I submit politics, the intrusion of human rights in the world of diplomacy has restrained so called democracies and the world's lone republic while leaving the fascistic nations untouched and unconflicted. Certainly, I am not opposed to human rights. In fact, in my last private meeting with Sam Nunn, I asked what Carter would most be known for and he responded the introduction of human rights in America's foreign policy. The problem is, the introduction of human rights is one sided and handcuffs our and the West's abilities while leaving our adversaries freer. Therefore, "The West," so to speak, appears permanently disadvantaged and has been conflicted and unable to end/win wars. We were forced to walk away from Viet Nam and Democrats have historically had a distaste for funding our military unless they were allowed to have comparable funds for welfare etc.

Another disturbing fact is critical segments of our economy, and most depressing of all, our military, are hostage to adversarial raw materials. Lithium, for example, is critical to modern weapons and China , until recently, dominated this essential mineral. Pan American Energy (PAANF) in Tonopah, NV appears to have could become a major source that could reduce our dependence on China.

Has our option come to, "can we only walk away, say we won while leaving matters unfinished at best." Does the word "Victory," in the historical sense, no longer lies within our grasp? This is an untenable circumstance for Americans who, prior to now, prided ourselves as a "can do nation."

If my thesis is correct, the question is can American's accept "relativism" if that becomes our future?

If America's power ebbs, if America is no longer a dependable leader what will be the impact on our psyche? Will insecurity spread and what impact will that have on every facet of our culture and our economy? It appears, our current generation of youth no longer believe their future is robust and capitalism is no longer preferable to socialism.

Can America pull itself up by its bootstraps? Stay tuned.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Them-vs.-Us Election

Not all rich people are ‘elite’—and that helps explain America’s cultural divide.

By Kimberley Strassel

Most Americans wouldn’t consider a banking titan a spokesman for the common man. But give JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon credit for putting his pinkie finger on the phenomenon—the divide—that best explains today’s unsettled political environment.

In an interview Wednesday with CNBC, Mr. Dimon took issue with a disconnected liberal elite that scorns “MAGA” voters. “The Democrats have done a pretty good job with the ‘deplorables’ hugging on to their bibles, and their beer and their guns. I mean, really? Could we just stop that stuff, and actually grow up, and treat other people with respect and listen to them a little bit?”

The powerful, the intellectual and the lazy have long said that the “divide” in this country is between rich and poor. They divvy up Americans along traditional lines related to wealth—college, no college, white-collar, blue-collar, income—then layer on other demographics. This framing has given us the “diploma divide” and the “new suburban voter” and “Hillbilly Elegy.” It’s sent the political class scrambling to understand Donald Trump’s “forgotten man”—again, defined economically.

That framing fails to account for the country’s unsettled electorate. There’s a better description of the shifts both between and within the parties, a split that better explains changing voter demographics and growing populist sentiments. It’s the chasm between a disconnected elite and average Americans. This is becoming a them-vs.-us electorate and election. Political candidates, take heed.

This gulf is described by unique new polling from Scott Rasmussen’s RMG Research, conducted for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Mr. Rasmussen says that for more than a year he’d been intrigued by consistent outlier data from a subset of Americans, which he later defined as those with a postgraduate degree, earning more than $150,000 a year, and living in a high-density area. Mr. Rasmussen in the fall conducted two surveys of these “elites” and compared their views to everyone else.

Talk about out of touch. Among the elite, 74% say their finances are getting better, compared with 20% of the rest of voters. (The share is 88% among elites who are Ivy League graduates.) The elite give President Biden an 84% approval rating, compared with 40% from non-elites. And their complete faith in fellow elites extends beyond Mr. Biden. Large majorities of them have a favorable view of university professors (89%), journalists (79%), lawyers and union leaders (78%) and even members of Congress (67%). Two-thirds say they’d prefer a candidate who said teachers and educational professionals, not parents, should decide what children are taught.

More striking is the elite view on bedrock American principles, central to the biggest political fights of today. Nearly 50% of elites believe the U.S. provides “too much individual freedom”—compared with nearly 60% of voters who believe there is too much “government control.” Seventy-seven percent of elites support “strict rationing of gas, meat, and electricity” to fight climate change, vs. 28% of everyone else. More than two-thirds of elite Ivy graduates favor banning things like gasoline-powered cars and stoves and inessential air travel in the name of the environment. More than 70% of average voters say they’d be unwilling to pay more than $100 a year in taxes or costs for climate—compared with 70% of elites who said they’d pay from $250 up to “whatever it takes.”

This framing explains today’s politics better. While this elite is small, its members are prominent in every major institution of American power, from media to universities to government to Wall Street, and have become more intent on imposing their agenda from above. Many American voters feel helplessly under assault from policies that ignore their situation or values.

What unites “rich” and “poor” parents in the revolt against educational failings? A common rejection of disconnected teachers unions and ivory-tower academics. Why are growing numbers of minorities—across all incomes and education levels—rejecting Democrats? They no longer recognize a progressive movement that reflexively espouses that elite view. Why are voters on both sides—including “free market” conservatives—gravitating to politicians who bash “big business” and trade and are increasingly isolationist? They feel the system is rigged by elites that care more about the globe than them. And why the continued appeal of Mr. Trump? The man is a walking promise to stick it to the “establishment” (never mind that most of his party’s establishment has endorsed him).

This lack of trust and cultural divide are no healthier than the simpler rich-poor split, but they’re there. The challenge for Mr. Trump’s GOP opponents as they move past Iowa is to recognize the sense of alienation. That doesn’t mean calling to burn everything down (Vivek Ramaswamy tried that and freaked people out), but it does require a campaign that offers more than vague promises to “strengthen the cause of freedom” or run on “your issues.” The polling suggests that most Americans are looking for a leader who promises to return power to the people. They are looking for a freedom agenda. Anyone?

And:

This Isn’t Only a Trump Election

The non-elite feel more alienated than ever, even invaded, and they’ll be looking for better options.

By Peggy Noonan

He got 51% of a modest turnout in a small state, but a win’s a win and a 30-point win is a landslide. Still, part of what we saw in Iowa was Donald Trump’s continual losing battle with himself. His Des Moines victory speech was unusually gracious and statesmanlike. The strategy was to reassure moderates and centrists and to undermine the coming argument against him in New Hampshire: that he’s a bad man who’s violent in his rhetoric because he’s violent in his heart.

“I really think this is time now for everybody, our country, to come together . . . whether it’s Republican or Democrat or liberal or conservative, it would be so nice if we could come together and straighten out the world,” he said. “I wanna congratulate Ron and Nikki. . . . They’re very smart people, very capable people.” “We’re going to rebuild the capital of our country, Washington D.C. We’re going to scrub those beautiful marble columns . . . and get the graffiti off them.” “We’re going to rebuild our cities, and we’ll work with the Democrats to do it. I’d be glad to work with the people in New York. We’re going to work with the people in Chicago and L.A. We’re going to rebuild our cities and we’re going to make them safe.”

He was trying to turn a page, but what followed the next day—late-night rants on social media, putdowns of Nikki Haley—marked a return to verbal incontinence. He can’t sustain normality. It makes him nervous. Something he said about Doug Burgum showed his assumption. The North Dakota governor, Mr. Trump said, didn’t succeed in his presidential bid because he didn’t gain “traction,” he wasn’t controversial. “Sometimes being a little controversial is good.” It is, but Mr. Trump is a poor judge of the line between controversial and destructive.

In New Hampshire, Ms. Haley may gain traction, may even triumph. Something good may happen for Ron DeSantis. Life is surprise. But it’s time: Ms. Haley should take Mr. Trump on directly and make the serious case against him. Not “I don’t like all the things he says,” but something deeper, truer, more substantive. She could ruminate on the Trump tragedy. He was a breakthrough figure, he did defeat a weak and detached establishment. But he can’t be president again because there’s something wrong with him. We all know this, we all use different words to describe the “something,” but we know what it produces: impeachments, embarrassments, scandal, 1/6.

Meanwhile three things cause unique disquiet among the non-Trump-supporting majority in America, especially after Iowa. One is that in 2016 Trump supporters didn’t know precisely what they were getting. Now they do. Eight years ago it was a very American thing to do, giving the outsider a chance. You never know in life, people grow in office, the presidency softens rough edges. That didn’t happen. They know what they’re electing now.

Second, when Mr. Trump first came in, in 2017, he didn’t know a president’s true and legitimate powers, he wasn’t interested in history, wasn’t up nights reading Robert Caro. He got rolled by a Republican Congress, was too incompetent to get a wall, was surrounded by political aides who were inexperienced and unaccomplished—the famous “island of broken toys.” This time he’ll go in with experience and can be more effectively bad. How long will it take before he starts saying the Constitution mandates a limit of two presidential terms, but his second term was stolen so that means he gets another term after this one?

Third, Mr. Trump shouldn’t be president, and neither should Joe Biden, because they aren’t what we need for the future. What do we need? Someone who feels in her or his gut the wound of the open border and will stop illegal immigration; someone who can cut through the knot of “globalism” vs. “isolationism,” a serious argument that is becoming a cartoon one (internationalists don’t really want to start wars all over; isolationists know we are part of the world and can’t just pull up the bridge). If we can cut through all that we’ll go some distance to forging a true national stance toward the world, and only then can we answer the proper strategy toward China, the responsibility of America in Asia and the Mideast. Someone who can take on identity politics, who knows we all must stand equal. Someone who can reiterate the idea that we do have national values.

Those few (but huge) things, if a leader got them right, would mark a national comeback, and not a further sinking into the mire of the dramas of the past decade.

G.K. Chesterton wrote: “What we all dread most is a maze with no center.” That’s what our national politics feel like now.

Eight years ago I wrote of the driving force behind support for political newcomer Donald Trump. America had devolved into a protected class of the socially and politically influential vs. regular people at the mercy of the protected class’s favored doctrines and political decisions. I think it still pertains, but eight years later I see new shadings. The distance between the elites and the non-elite has widened, the estrangement deepened. When the university presidents testified before Congress in December it became a catastrophe for the elites in part because viewers could fairly come away thinking: They don’t just live far away and have their own ideology, they have their own private language. Their minds seemed to work in a kind of self-satisfied robot loop: “It depends on the context. It depends on the context.” All this delivered with an honestly unconscious condescension.

Something else that I think has changed is—well, something I haven’t fully thought through, but I think the unprotected at this point do not only feel ignored and betrayed, they feel invaded. Twenty twenty, that epic, nation-changing year, tripped something off, began something new, a sense among regular people that some new ideology that doesn’t even have a name had entered their lives on all levels, in their intimate family and work space. The pandemic, with its protocols and regulations and vaccine mandates; the strange things taught in the schools, which were suddenly brought into your home by Zoom; the obsessions with gender and race, the redefinitions of the founding and meaning of America. At the office, the stupid and insulting race and gender instructions, and the index you have to meet when hiring to achieve what someone has decided is the right “diversity” balance.

I think people feel invaded by the ideology with no name. They know it is unhealthy for society, is in fact guaranteed to make us, as a people who must live together, weaker and more divided.

We are not sufficiently noting that this isn’t only a Trump election, it is also the first national election since the full impact of 2020 and its epochal changes sank in.

Voters are going to want more options. Talk will turn seriously to a third-party bid. The great unanswered question will be whether those mounting that party have enough imagination to understand what they could be this year.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++