The following is my response to President-elect Obama’s comments regarding Iran on NBC’s Meet the Press less than a month ago.  Feel free to comment.  Peace, thanks.

A Response to Obama’s “Meet the Press” Comments on Iran

President-elect Obama and his newly formed Administration have made it clear that they’re serious about addressing issues concerning Iran. Issues concerning Iran include:

I. Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A nuclear Iran will stimulate an arms race in the Middle East. This will further destabilize the security and trust of the region. It will be able to unconditionally support who it wants and what it wants, including terrorists ranging from Lebanon to Paraguay and possibly most oil reserves throughout the whole Asian continent. It will strengthen its efforts and ideological agenda throughout the world. And last but not least, the U.N., E.U. and U.S. will have been further undermined, resulting in radical Islamists being encouraged to challenge us.

II. Iran’s military and financial support of militants who use terrorist tactics such as suicide bombing civilian centers and using their own citizens as human shields. These militants are financed, armed and sometimes trained in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and of course, Iran. Let me also remind us that many of the militant organizations that Iran supports have direct links to terror cells in North America and Europe.

III. Iran’s consistent defiance of international contracts and demands (I.A.E.A).

It I still questionable though whether Obama’s understanding of and strategy towards Iran is the right one. Last week, on NBC’s Meet the Press, he stated:

“Well, I’ve said before, I think we need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything that we believe in and what the international community should accept, and present a set of carrots and sticks in, in changing their calculus about how they want to operate. You know, in terms of carrots, I think that we can provide economic incentives that would be helpful to a country that, despite being a net oil producer, is under enormous strain, huge inflation, a lot of unemployment problems there. They could benefit from a more open economy and, and being part of the international economic system. But we also have to focus on the sticks, and one of the main things that diplomacy can accomplish is to help knit together the kind of coalition with China and India and Russia and other countries that now do business with Iran to agree that, in order for us to change Iran’s behavior, we may have to tighten up those sanctions. But we are willing to talk to them directly and give them a clear choice and, and ultimately let them make a determination in terms of whether they want to do this the hard way or, or the easy way.”

If the “easy way” is using the “sticks-and-carrots” approach, negotiating directly with Tehran, lobbying China and Russia to be more invested, and giving Iran a clear choice, then we are in real trouble. We’re in trouble because most of these – if not all – have been tried by the U.S., the E.U. and the U.N. in the last five years.

The carrots: (a) despite the I.A.E.A. condemning Iran’s reactions to its requests, it has offered to work with it. Iran has rejected doing so; (b) America has held direct dialogues with the Iranian government in Iraq. Iran refused to talk anymore though until America stopped accusing it of supporting militants in Iraq (we have proof); (c) Europe offered Iran an economic package pleading it to stop its nuclear developments and to speak frankly with us. Iran refused the package and said it didn’t need any economic help from the West (including America) and wouldn’t be swayed by that; (d) and a Russian incentive package offering to produce all of Iran’s uranium and nuclear energy if its stopped its nuclear developments to secure the world that it wasn’t seeking nuclear weapons. Iran refused it and said they didn’t care what the world thought and that they literally had the right to do whatever they wanted.

The sticks: (a) lobbying the U.N. to pressure and to pass sanctions against Iran; (b) the U.S. and E.U. passing divestment contracts against Iran; (c) the U.S., E.U., Russia and China passing resolutions of discontent against Iran; (d) the U.S. making it clear that it would not allow a nuclear Iran and that it would use force against Iran to prevent it, etc.

No more than 24 hours after President-elect Obama’s comments on Meet the Press, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said, Hasan Qashqavi stated, “The carrot-and-stick policy has no benefit. It is unacceptable and failed.” To make it more clear how the Iranian leadership felt, he stated: “When they stick to their past view regarding suspending uranium enrichment, our answer will be: Iran will never suspend uranium enrichment.

In terms of Obama’s chances of convincing Iran not to support Hezbollah and Hamas, he is dreaming. Iran doesn’t believe in Israel’s legitimacy and they’ve stated that nothing will ever stop them from supporting organizations that are dedicated to destroying Israel (just look up official government quotes and policies).

Is Obama right in thinking he can get more out of Russia and China? This would include economic sanctions, divestment contracts, military exchange sanctions, and isolation of Iran in the international community. (I just got back up to my chair after laughing on the floor for five minutes). Without the help of these two countries, no sanctions will succeed at doing what they are intended to do.

Obama would want to discuss these “sticks” and “carrots” using direct dialogue. I think that most people – including conservatives – believe that we’ve reached a point now where we need to talk directly to Iran. We need to be weary though. As Shmeul Rosner states, “The U.S. is not in a position of relative strength, but weakness…” The U.S. has never once succeeded in negotiating with an adversary when it is not in a position of strength. In addition, he states, “Diplomacy will give Tehran the time it needs to complete its nuclear program,” and “there is very little chance of success.”

Peter Welmer at Contentions, states:

“At that point, Obama – having stated that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable”– will have to decide if he is a man of his word. If he is, then a conflict might well arise, because it might be the only way to stop Iran. And if he’s not, then a nuclear Iran will make our life, and the lives of our allies in the region, tremendously more complicated. Egypt and Saudi Arabia may soon follow Iran’s lead, and the most volatile area the world will become magnitudes more dangerous.”

I don’t have the solution on how best to address Iran. Neither do I pretend for a moment that President-elect Obama faces many easy options. In fact, I commend his passion to address them. In such a complex world though, there is only a thin red line devising naivety and reality. In regards to the Iranian issue, the next President of the United States has very little time to waste. Let us hope that Obama makes the right decisions and if need be, practices his war powers to secure the world from a nuclear Iran.

“I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat.” - Barack Obama, July 23, 2008

“I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.” -June 4, 2008

In ancient times, we nurtured our warriors with special care when they returned from epic battles. We brought them to spas at outskirts of cities, and then cooled them down with compassionate concern for long spells, until we determined that it was safe for them to return into communities; unlike modern times when soldiers more often get dumped straight back onto the streets with little or no benefits. Nowadays, many of our country’s valiant veterans are unsupported and homeless or incarcerated at record levels, while perpetually mired in post-traumatic crises. 

As Dennis Kucinich said, “Homelessness and poverty are weapons of mass destruction.”

Men develop with different levels of mettle, but sanity has limitation points for even the bravest of soldiers. Soldiers Heart affected many Civil War Veterans (and their families). In later wars, this became Shell Shock then Battle Fatigue. Now Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the expression.

During World War II, Gen. George S. Patton was nearly court-martialed after slapping a hospital patient whose conscience was suffering from Soldiers Heart, thinking that he was just a coward. A historically safe place, which soldiers used to convalesce, both physically and psychologically was the Sun Valley Lodge. Many World War II soldiers, who rehabilitated there in its crisp mountain air, became permanently attached to our area -and for good reasons. To this day, some remain as helpful contributors within our community.

What safer place and farther away from war (Mountain Home Air Force Base notwithstanding) could there be for a state-of-the-art rehabilitation center, then the good earth on where Friedman airport currently sits? It’s been reported that if the Friedman family recognizes a significantly suitable cause, then they will consider donating this prime Hailey Real Estate for that concern -if the airport relocates, whereby the site reverts to the family.

Our community leaders should start contemplating constructive ideas about what we might create from this once-in-a-lifetime possibility.

We could transform this airport acreage into something for truly banking on. Besides generous monetary donations from valley benefactors to help establish a healing foundation, this also could be a prime opportunity for us to show how rich we are in spirit, by personally welcoming these recuperating warriors back into our community. To contribute to their continued recovery, we should thank our dedicated veterans for their Herculean efforts by offering them desirable jobs; some perhaps related with support services for the healing center itself.

Moreover, we could construct hundreds of affordable-housing units on the land, along with potential worker-retraining facilities for displaced soldiers to reattach to our community, whereby becoming useful contributors. Some will probably rejuvenate with a broader sense of understanding, developing a desire to become healing practitioners themselves. A ‘Walter Reed West’ center would create bountiful meaningful jobs here, not only for our respected veterans, but also for many of the rest of us suffering from this economic slump. Already established mentoring organizations such as Sun Valley Adaptive Sports and The Advocates could tie in well with such a permanent wellness festival. The College of Southern Idaho could even branch a wing of its burgeoning Twin Falls nursing center up here. 

Perhaps an understanding owner of one of the locally underutilized hot springs could pipe some healing waters into such a splendiferous spa, with government stepping in to help fund construction logistics of the supportive donation. 

The relocated airport itself could even benefit, by becoming a busy transport center for the steady streams of patients, visitors, hospital personnel and supplies.

The hospital could feature Posttraumatic stress disorder therapies like recently advanced Somatic Experiencing, MDMA and Propranolol treatments, as well as other well-proven curative methods, both ancient and newly developed. 

Even if we are somehow fortunate enough to be without war at the future date when our airport shift occurs, Doctors are now seeing that PTSD is a condition that is a normal part of life, which often actually strengthens us. How many times for instance, have you heard someone say about an adverse situation, “I wish it hadn’t happened, but I’m a stronger person for it?” A trauma-stren transformation clinic could assist and focus on numerous variables of this. We should set up feasibility studies in advance, to see what else might be achievable for improving our community in positive ways, if the Friedman family continues to stand by this intention. Let us extend our common senses with high-tech hospital wings, blooming with curative physicians.

You priests and holy leaders who’ve kept so mum and cloistered about our tragic wars, now is the transformative time to harp for fresh miracles. Let us forcefully implore that our newly incoming leaders at the Pentagon redirect its forces into tools that enable the blind to again see, the deaf to hear and the lame to walk. Let us ask for a peaceful turnover of these suppressed cutting-edge technologies, so we may transform our energies to relieve this terrifying violence, which only begets further violence. Let our common senses soften no more. May those in wheelchair pews ascend over foxy TV skies. Demand that your tax barrels of cash handed to war profiteers be flip-flopped to trickle up fair amounts of funds to help our globe spin a little truer, for battle amputees, brain-injured and psychologically traumatized.

Let us hope that our soldiers’ hearts heal well enough in this Idaho land, so they may again walk peacefully on this world we worship, and that through another miracle, diplomacy prevails rather than our wrongly “war shipping” of the good mother earth, with land mines, undepleted uranium and a general malaise to eliminate those who we do not understand.

Movers and shakers heed this clarion call. Please come together with equally powerful ideas for the potentially soon to be changed vast ground where Friedman airport now abounds.

With the sunny climate, fresh air and clean water natural to this valley, enhanced by the numerous enlightened compassionate people who flourish here, our community could set a new standard for positive rehabilitation by improving on some of the shortcomings now plaguing Walter Reed Veteran’s hospital and hand our modern troopers the deserved special treatment, most have earned.

I ask that our community leaders strongly consider holding a feasibility study, in the near future, to see if this idea or similar ones, such as Tom Iselin’s grand idea for a Paralympics Center hold enough water to transform soldier’s widow tears into flowing fountains fronting a first class “Friedman Memorial Trauma-Stren Conversion Center.”

After all, what should be more important than proper treatment for our wounded warriors who have patriotically served, even if some of these battles were fought for misguided reasons?

A lot of things are happening in Gaza right now.  Some thoughts below.

Basic Clarification

Israel has made it clear what their objective in the Gaza counterattack is. Their objective is to stop the daily rocket attacks that has victimized hundreds of thousands of Israeli lives for the last three years. Their objective right now isn’t to take Hamas out of power. Hamas has become a grassroots political organization and displacing them would be impossible to do in the short-term. To achieve their objective, they are trying to destroy Hamas’ military power. This includes their military and diplomatic offices, bomb factories (which they unfortunately and purposefully build in mosques, hospitals, churches and homes). It also includes killing Hamas’ military leaders who are educated, the most radical and who are calling for the rockets to be fired into Israel.

Unfortunately, this is short-term strategy isn’t going to solve or make anything better in the long run. For 3 years though rockets have been hitting southern Israel (an average of 80 rockets per day). The rockets have killed over 500 innocent Israeli civilians. Over 500 rockets have been fired in the last two months. Would any country in the world allow for this to happen to them? Heck no.  Hamas and Israel were supposedly in a ceasefire during this whole time as well. Israel never responded and their late response now is a counterattack. I, like you, hope that no more civilians are killed, on both sides. Hamas unfortunately is known for using women and children as human shields. They build their bomb factories under their houses knowing that the IDF will bomb them. Is it the IDF’s fault of Hamas’ fault that innocent people are dying?

The media is so bias and the populace so naïve to believe it. When reporters say that 500 “civilians” have been killed in Gaza, I expect them to also say two things. First, by “civilians,” they include Hamas militants or people who are linked to Hamas terror attacks or military operations. I expect them to say that Israel has targeted over 250 Hamas tunnels, camps, houses, etc. There is no doubt that in all of those locations was civilians who were all probably working for Hamas. For Israel, these people don’t count as civilians.  I also expect the news to say that the UN recently said that Israel is killing up to 80% of the people their aiming at.  War is war. 80% out of 100% is beautiful. Second, I expect the media to say that Hamas and Hezbollah are known for launching rockets from schools, hospitals and mosques where civilians reside.

It is certainly unfortunate that Palestinian women, children and innocent men are dying. Compared to Israeli deaths, Palestinian deaths don’t come close. This is true. But is it really fair to account these attacks as an eye for an eye? I don’t think it does because while the IDF uses its military professionalism and operates as an army run by civilians like in America, it tries its best to only target militants, bad guys and military related infrastructure.  Hamas on the other hand never tries to attack Israeli military bases with its rockets. Each of their rockets has been aimed at civilians. Over the last few years, 500 Israeli civilians have died from these rockets. For three years now (really almost 15+ years), mothers throughout Israel have had to put their kids on school buses every morning and hoped that a rocket doesn’t hit their kid’s school that day. Israeli’s have had to deal with this for years now.  They haven’t been able to relax about it one day because as they’ve learned in the past, when they relax the enemy strikes them even harder.

What Can Israel accomplish?

I think that Israel can, if given the time, crush Hamas. They have already in one week leveled many of Hamas’ police stations, military camps, bomb stations, underground tunnels, etc. In one week they have killed a large portion of Hamas’ leadership. In a month Israel could perhaps destroy most of Hamas. This of course is dangerous for Israel to try.  Firstly because who knows if they’ll succeed.  Secondly is because the world is only going to continue criticizing Israel more and more. One thing is for sure: a UN peace keeping force like the one in Lebanon cannot be trusted to fight Hamas, control the border, and to help civilians and promote peace, stability and understanding. One only needs to look at their example in Lebanon the last 20 years to know that deploying them is not a good idea. Israel’s problem is that the longer they stay, the more defined their target needs to be.

Israel has crushed Hamas’ militant leaders and their camps in all of southern Gaza, where a lot of Hamas’ stuff and people are. Israel, in the next few weeks - or however long it takes - is going to go door to door throughout all of northern Gaza and find every single missile launcher, bomb factory and militant leader that is hiding. This is their strategy right now. As I said, Israel is only thinking short term right now but all they care about right now is sending Hamas a strong message that they must stop with the rockets attack. And just in case they don’t stop, which Israel doesn’t think they’ll be able to trust them to do, Israel is going to destroy all of their weapons so that they can’t do so.

What does Israel want?

I suggest looking up news about the West Bank in the last 2 years. That is what Israel wants. That is what Palestinian leadership and Palestinians want in the West Bank. That is essentially what the world has always wanted for Palestine. If you look up the news, you’ll notice that economic growth and development are rising more than ever in the West Bank. The Israeli government is training PA police and soldiers who are capable of maintaining stability and assisting civilians. The PA and Israel are starting to trust each other more and this is bettering cooperation, allowing for Israel to ease up on international investment and bank loans made into the WB, lift travel restrictions for Palestinians, to allow more Palestinian villages to be built, etc. Sooner or later, Israel will leave the West Bank and the Palestinians in the WB will have the chance to become prosperous.  They will truly be free and happy.  The opposite is true and will continue to be in Gaza until Palestinians in Gaza are not being run radicals like Hamas.

Violent conflict and war are appealing options for politicians, particularly in democracies and particularly before elections. The conflict tends to rally citizens against a common enemy. This effect can be seen in the high popularity ratings of George W. Bush following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Party leader, has been rescued from a political death by the attacks on Gaza.
These politicians, however, frequently ignore the longer term issues in favor of short term political gain. (This leaves out a discussion of the morality of the Bush Doctrine of preventative war.) These issues include: who is the enemy, where is the enemy, what are the objectives, can the resources be mobilized to achieve the objectives or do the objectives need to be modified to meet the resources.
In Gaza it is not clear that any of this has been considered. Besides electoral considerations, the stated Israeli objective is to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel. How this attack will achieve this objective given the resources that can realistically be brought to bear is unclear to me.
There are a number of possible outcomes to the Israeli military attack on Gaza. Among them are:
One: Hamas accedes to Israel’s demands and meekly accepts the occupation. (Not likely)
Two: Israel ceases military operations and withdraws, threatening to return and bomb, and the cycle of violence continues.
Three: Israel succeeds in killing the Palestinian leadership and destroying the security infrastructure and Gaza deteriorates into a Somalia like failed state dominated by criminal gangs and tribal rivalries and is a fertile ground for al Qaeda.
Four: Israel invades and physically reoccupies Gaza. (Not likely as Israel would then be responsible for 1.5 mm Palestinians.)
Five: Israel invades, and, as in Lebanon in 2006, gets its nose bloodied (Like Americans, Israelis have a high tolerance for enemy deaths and a low tolerance for their own.) and agrees to a ceasefire that stops the rocket fire and opens the border crossings. (In my opinion this could have happened without the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people.)
In my recent conversation with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal he talked about Hamas’ commitment to the resistance, resistance only within Palestine (no cross border operations) and stopping the resistance when the occupation ends. (An excerpt from his comments is here)

It is likely that his view today would be different. (An interesting article on the internal politics is here)

Was the phrase “Compassionate Conservatism” just a clever sound-byte coined by George Herbert Walker Bush in order to get re-elected?

Or is the reality more like what Representative Raul R. Labrador, a Republican legislator from Eagle, says:

“Many Idaho families are struggling … Our economy is a mess, our government is in debt and rising prices make it hard for hard working people to buy the basic things they need- housing, fuel and even food,” writes “We also know that the strong, conservative values and work ethic that have allowed Idahoans to survive past downturns will carry us through.”

Writing on the Idaho Republican Legislators at Work blog
of the Idaho Press Tribune, Labrador said:

“We can trust Idahoans to work together to help their neighbors- we do not need big government to force us to be charitable.”

“Some argue that the only way to help struggling families is to increase taxes to fund government programs,” Labrador continued. “However, if those same people were to look at the last session of the Idaho Legislature, they would see that conservative Legislators have a better way to help Idaho families.”

Labrador offers a very interesting perspective, considering Barack Hussein Obama’s emphasis on funding large government programs such as universal healthcare and industry bailouts.

“In 2008, along with many of my colleagues, I voted for House Bill 439, which lowered Idaho taxes by providing a grocery tax credit to help all families and individuals cope with the rising cost of food,” Labrador said. “The ‘Tax Credit’ legislation provides a tax break for everyone. It also allows those Idahoans who are not in need to donate their tax benefit to a fund that helps provide low-income families with assistance in paying for home energy costs.”

Further, a recent study shows that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to personal giving. Yet liberals are much more generous when it comes to giving away the government’s — i.e. the taxpayer’s — money.

Due to the rugged individualism espoused by many on the right, critics contend that the words “compasionate” and “conservative” are a contradiction in terms.

What do you think?

On the day after Christmas, the imprisoned residents of Gaza were greeted with the sounds of bombs and rockets falling on Gaza City as Israel began a major attack on this small, heavily populated area which, thus far, has killed close to 300 people. The attack had been widely expected since the end of a six month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas controlled territory.
It was almost inevitable that the Israelis were going to feel the need to attack Gaza. Sooner or later one of the widely inaccurate rockets fired from Gaza was going to hit a school or synagogue causing significant casualties which would require the Israelis to respond. This attack, however, was more the result of the upcoming Israeli elections and Israeli politics than anything else. As the Israeli political spectrum has moved further to the right, the Labor party of Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Kadima party of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni have found themselves outflanked by the growing strength of the rightist Likud party. They have felt the need to show how tough they are, first with rhetoric and then with action.
The devastating attack is a disaster not only for Gaza, but also for the region and the peace process which was already on life support. Everybody’s finger is on the trigger and slightest miscalculation could result in a regional conflict. The authoritarian governments of US allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are under pressure from Islamist opposition groups to respond more aggressively. The large anti US/Israel demonstrations, currently peaceful, could turn violent, destabilizing these regimes. Once again the Christmas message of “peace on earth, good will toward men” will be put away with the Christmas decorations.
The only one to benefit from this mess may be President Elect Obama. He has been burdened with high expectations that he would take the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and help move them forward toward some sort of agreement. Hamas and other Islamist groups will be strengthened by the conflict and in no mood to negotiate. The high expectations for peace and stability are now gone. Obama will now have plenty of time to deal with the other messes that he has inherited. In the Middle East he will become a fire fighter.

After John Kerry returned from Vietnam, where his friend Don Droz was killed, Kerry began speaking out against the war. In April 1971, 27-year-old Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, posing the powerful question, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” 

I found this question especially intriguing, since my name derives from the last man asked to die for a mistake, forty years before I was born:

http://ameddregiment.amedd.army.mil/acv/service3.html

This potent synchronicity, made me curious to know more about World War 1, where I found the below story about The Christmas Truce. 

The last known survivor of this Christmas Truce died in November 2005, Read here what Alfred Anderson told a year before he died. 

As I write this, there are only eight WWI Veterans still alive, including 108-year-old Canadian Veteran, John Babcock who lives in Spokane. When they are gone, any living memories of World War 1 will have passed from the Sasha into the Zamani. However, for posterity and perhaps a chance for us to learn from past mistakes, here is from Rense.com: