 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Obama and Iran
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on June 25, 2008 For the Standard Today, June 26 issue The latest (June 24) public opinion survey by USA Today-Gallup Poll shows that Barack Obama is leading John McCain on domestic issues - health care (51 vs 25), the economy (48 vs 32), energy (47 vs 28), and taxes (44 vs 35). They are neck-and-neck on Iraq (43 vs 43), moral values (40 vs 39), and illegal immigration (34 vs 36).. But on the �war on terror,� McCain leads Obama, 52 vs 33. Presumably, �war on terror� includes not just Iraq, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah and the threats they pose to Israel, homeland surveillance, imported oil, and, of course, Iran. This suggests that though many Americans are fed up with George W�s Iraq war � because it was built on a pack of lies, because it has cost so much in lives and treasure for so little gain � a majority would likely support a wider �war on terror.� Including, perhaps, an attack on Iran �s nuclear facilities, in collusion with the Israelis. Such an attack would draw support even from the Democrats. Barack Obama�s speech to the AIPAC Jewish lobby group early in June gave unqualified assurances for the security of the state of Israel , as well as unequivocal warning to Iran that, as president, he would not allow Iran to become a nuclear-armed state. In this context, Saudi Arabia�s recent announcement that it would raise its oil production by 200,000 barrels a day, and by an additional 2.5 million barrels a day by end of 2009 can be read as an assurance to the Americans that should they (and the Israelis) attack Iran�s nuclear facilities, they (the Saudis) will make up for the resultant shortfall in global oil production by raising their own output significantly, no doubt without waiting for end of 2009 if the situation warrants. The Saudis are Sunnis (of the most conservative Wahhab subset), and they have no love for the Iranians, who are Shias and who are, additionally, Persians, not Arabs.. The Saudis fear the growing power of the Iranians as much as the Israelis do. The Saudis publicly stated last year that if the Americans were to withdraw from Iraq , they (the Saudis) would intervene in the Sunni-Shia civil war, on the side of the Sunnis. In my article Is Israel Doomed? (Jan. 04, 2007), I speculated that Vice President Dick Cheney�s repeated visits then to Riyadh had something to do with getting Saudi approval for Israeli bombers to fly through Saudi air space on their way to bomb targets in Iran and/or to refuel in midair in Saudi air space on their way back to Israel. Observers of the Middle East scene were convinced that the bombing of Iran was about to commence during the first two or three months 2007, especially after it was revealed that a) two squadrons of Israeli warplanes were practicing long-distance runs near Gibraltar in the western Mediterranean; and b) Adm. William Fallon, former commander of the Pacific Fleet in Honolulu, was transferred to the Persian Gulf to take command of two carrier battle groups already on station. But the bombing did not materialize, and the reason became evident last March, when Adm. Fallon resigned or was forced to resign, after only one uneventful year, apparently because he disagreed with the neo-con plan to bomb Iran in March 2007. Now that Adm. Fallon has been removed, speculation is again rife that the bombing will soon commence, fed by news leaks that more than 100 Israeli warplanes had taken part in another long-range exercise earlier this month, this time over the eastern Mediterranean , with some participation from the Greek Air Force. Bombing Iran �s nuclear facilities would be more complicated than bombing Iraq �s Osirak reactor in 1981, or Syria �s nascent reactor last September. Iran�s nuclear facilities are known to be scattered in more than a dozen different locations, some deep in mountain caverns or under 70 feet of concrete. Iran is also known to have a more sophisticated missile arsenal than Iraq did in 1981 or Syria in 2007. Iran would have a non-nuclear retaliatory capability, in addition to the thousands of short-range missiles held by its allies � Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon � that can terrorize Israeli cities. Attacking Iran now would be a gamble, but one that the Israelis seem willing and ready to take, on the reasoning that not taking the gamble now would just raise the stakes later.. Would a President Obama approve such an escalation of the �war on terror�? Based on his rhetoric before AIPAC, most assuredly yes. And even if he wouldn�t, what could he possibly do if the neo-cons presented him with a fait accompli months before he is elected or inaugurated? His expressed willingness to sit down and talk with Iran �s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not amount to much after bunker buster bombs and cruise missiles have leveled the nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and other sites. Based on the USA Today-Gallup Poll survey cited above, he might not even be elected president in November if he were to take a liberal-pacifist position regarding the �war on terror.� This will be one Change that he probably can�t.. ***** JUNE 26 UPDATE: Sen. Rodolfo Biazon � former Marine commandant, former AFP chief-of-staff � is correct. �An aircraft carrier is not designed for salvage. The USS Ronald Reagan � which has reportedly been sent to the area where the Princess of the Stars capsized and sank � is a strategic and combat vessel whose main assets are aircraft, F-18s. What will the F-18s do for the recovery efforts�I don�t think it can do anything to really assist the Philippine government in having to do what has to be done�� (Inquirer, June 26) The Reagan and its escort ships were being sent from Hong Kong (not from Honolulu, as President Arroyo erroneously said in a CNN interview) to get out of the way of Typhoon Fengshen, which was making landfall at the Macao-Hong Kong area, instead of Taiwan, where it was earlier headed for. The departure from Hong Kong was so sudden, some 100 sailors had to be left behind. The Reagan and its escorts are assembling in Philippine waters, the safe anchorage nearest to Hong Kong , to wait for those 100 sailors to catch up by military air transport, after which the carrier battle group will most likely proceed to its real destination in � where else? � the Persian Gulf off Iran . US assistance in the rescue and recovery operations off Sibuyan Island is being ably provided by a smaller service vessel from Okinawa , together with a PC-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft which has been credited with spotting some 50 bodies floating in the waters off Quezon and Bicol. Since we cannot afford an Orion, the AFP should instead consider acquiring two or three unmanned aircraft or drones, equipped with GPS, infra-red sensors and high resolution cameras, .which can hover over a disaster area such as this, at a lower altitude and at a slower speed than a PC-3. It would also be useful in counter-insurgency and anti-smuggling operations. Several years ago, separatist guerillas in Irian Jaya hostaged some 30 employees of a mining company and hid them in the thick jungle. The Indonesian military, which had bought one or two drones from Israel , sent one drone over the jungle, equipped with infra-red sensors. The body heat of the guerillas and their hostages showed in the infra-red scanner, and paratroopers were dropped around the targeted area and rescued the hostages. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. More articles in www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogspot.com. . To subscribe, send as blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to "Obama and Iran" More Reactions to "Obama and Iraq" More Reactions to "Self-Promotion" Hi Tony, Former UN Ambassador Bolton says that Israel will strike Iran if Obama wins, that is before his inauguration because the Israelis cannot afford a liberal President like Obama. Or maybe, you are right, most Americans especially the independents will not vote for Obama, most especially if Hilary Clinton would not be taken in as his VP. Thanks and more power. Bert Celera, (by email), June 25, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, As always, terrific analysis on the Iran situation. Just a minor correction, the increase in oil production of Saudi Arabia is from 9,500,000 to 10 Million barrels of oil per day. Thus, it a 500,000 barrels per day increase and not 200,000 as you wrote. On the Iranians, while they are not Arabs like the Saudis and others in the Gulf states, I read in National Geographic that only about half of their population are actually Persians. The balance are other ethnic groups that include the Kurds and others. The drone from Israel used by the Indonesian government to rescue the hostages held by separatist guerillas can also be used against the Abu Sayyaf, MILF and NPA. Saludos. Rick Ramos, (by email), Santa Rosa, Laguna, June 27, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Pronouncements from this clown Biazon just shows what a dumb jerk he is with his military background and all. He called for an inquiry to the Sulpicio shipwreck. Doesn't he know that any major shipping disaster automatically calls for a marine inquiry. A more intelligent pronouncement would have been to call for experts in port and dispatch procedures in cases of storms or experts in weather navigation for vessels, i.e. something more concrete. This only goes to show that he's only looking for media mileage. On the USS Reagan, does he really thinks that a multi billion dollar vessel will be put into risky by venturing into reef crowded channels. Give me a break. This jerk of a senator betrays his intelligence quotient so blatantly. This country needs a break from politicians, specially those of his kind. Gus Cosio, (by email), June 27, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You wrote: Several years ago, separatist guerillas in Irian Jaya hostaged some 30 employees of a mining company and hid them in the thick jungle. The Indonesian military, which had bought one or two drones from Israel, sent one drone over the jungle, equipped with infra-red sensors. The body heat of the guerillas and their hostages showed in the infra-red scanner, and paratroopers were dropped around the targeted area and rescued the hostages. ***** - That was a 1994 incident when 200 Free Papua Movement (OPM) guerrillas hostaged 26 people in Irian Jaya Province who were . on a research expedition for the Worldwide Fund for Nature. Among the hostages were 7 British, Dutch and Germans. The OPM demanded troop withdrawals troops from Irian Jaya, environmental compensation, payment for the death of civilian victims by the military, and to cease Freeport Indonesia mining operations. On 15 May Indonesian SF rescued the remaining nine hostages after locating them with a drone. Note: The rescue is also attributed to the use of the Indonesian SF group called Kopassus. The significant part of this operation was that there were no casualties among the KOPASSUS, and none of the other hostages were seriously hurt or injured. See: http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Indonesia/kopassus.html This item has different figures on the hostages and also contradicts Tony Abaya's statement that the UAVs were purchased from Israel and instead borrowed from Singapore (which bought them from Israel). I am not sure which is correct but many other web items seem to confirm the Singapore source. I still believe that ultra-lights are still relevant, in addition to UAVs and standard light planes and helicopters. Carlos L. Agustin, (by email), June 27, 2008 President, National Defense College of the Philippines wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi ACA. Expect Sen. Rodolfo Biazon to demand another senate investigation and lambaste the administration for allowing a nuclear ship to enter Philippine waters in violation of the Constitution. Sen. Biazon's myopic sense questions why US Pres. Bush sent over a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan to help the disaster victims of typhoon Frank when an ordinary ship would have sufficed. As a military man, Biazon failed to understand that only an aircraft carrier can carry dozens of helicopters that can deliver and distribute relief goods and provide assistance to the various flooded communities in different areas in the Visayas devastated by the typhoon. Biazon is typical of the opposition so quick to criticize. He could not see beyond the tip of his nose and saw only what he can criticize. Cesar M. de los Reyes, (by email), June 27, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Iran was able to withstand sanction because the Islamic society has a restrictive political and religious system where the government can force their people to live economical and pragmatic. Anyone who resist the Islamic rules will be branded anti-Allah then bestowed a severe punishment from stoning to execution. Their oil , gas and petrochemical revenue can feed them for a long period of time. It does not mean that Iranians are happy with their government but the mullahs with its revolutionary guards are powerful on social control. Inflation is high, home prices are hard to afford, employment level is elevated causing a rise in student activism . Iran leaders knew that their aces are in uranium enrichment so why will they give up. Israel has no choice other than to bomb Iran nuclear facility. US will not start the initiative. White House and Capitols Hills knew it will be unilateral. No other country will support. The EU nations will merely engage in rhetoric and diplomatic solution but Iran will not come to the table unless its demands are considered. The Jews will not allow Iran to have nuclear bomb so they have to push harder the pressure to the extent of military conflict. Hezbollah and Hamas knew the wrath of the Jews not to irritate them seriously. Paletinian rockets are merely propaganda and media materials to gain more donations from Saudi donors and the Irans revolutionary guards in the case of Hezbollah. Arafat PLO made a lot of money by maintaining the conflict. No solutions mean more donations for the leaders. Hamas and Hesbollah knew that Israel can destroy them if the Jews will push harder. The Jews are wealthy so I hate the US government providing huge amount of aids to Israel coming from American taxes however can only provide loose change to my poor motherland Philippines. The Jewish wealth is so vast and scattered all over the world from New York to London to all the continents , from financing, banking to political influence. They almost own Manhattan NY. Barack is leading in the poll but the more he talks the more he will expose his lack of experience. He talks good but does he have substance? He is a brilliant lawyer and a political salesman who can sweet talk you to what you want to hear to appease your wishes. Full of promises but I am sckeptical of his resolve and approach. I now question his integrity when it comes to money. Barack cannot lead America to manage the Middle East issue as he is weak in foreign policy. Diplomacy without pre-condition is a sign of inexperience especially if the other party is an Islamic states who do not trust anything western and view anyone outside their faith as an infidel that deserve a room in hell. Israel must act sooner to stop Irans influence and its nations nuclear advancement. At the same time protect the American interest ... the petro dollar, the reason why Americans are continously meddling in the Middle East affair. Nonoy Ramps, (by email), Pennsylvania, June 27, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony Well we can safely assume that oil will hit USD 200/barrel sooner than later. But what is our government doing?? We should see the Energy department moving heaven and earth to get alternative power sources in place FAST! But it seems business as usual. We have enough wind and wave energy untapped. Our Filipino inventors have sold the idea to foreigners already long ago. Please see (THE ANSWER IS IN THE WIND ,website: http://members.aol.com/gasendo/index.html) At USD 50/ barrel did not make it viable but today the payback should be interesting and bankable. But what and where is our Energy Department focused on?? Baka naman secret!! Mabuhay ka Tony!! Eric Manalang, (by email), June 27, 2008 Ang Kapatiran Party wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww There is the very real possibility that Israel would decide to take out those Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and elsewhere preemptively and unilaterally before George W. Bush goes into the twilight, into retirement to his Crawford, Texas ranch, and into oblivion. The Israelis know that George W. is unconditionally behind whatever Israel does, including attacking those Iranian nuclear facilities. As a matter of fact, George W. would have preferred to do it himself; but for one reason or another, he has limited himself to saber-rattling. But he would have no qualms allowing Israel to do the job and thus escape the world's opprobrium. For him his "Iraq Folly" must have chastened him somewhat. But it happens that Iran is not the wimpy nation that Iraq was when George W. invaded and occupied it. If Israel goes ahead and tries to take out those Iranian nuclear facilities in "surgical strikes," secure in the knowledge that George W. will give all the support that it needs, there is the very real possibility that the consequences not only to Israel but to the whole Middle East will be dire if not catastrophic. There are bound to be very dire unintended consequences, in the same manner that George W., Dick Cheney and their coterie of trigger-happy neo-cons were confronted with serious unintended consequences following on the heels of their preemptive and unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq. I have a feeling that the whole Middle East will be a "ball of fire"--which was the threat Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posed in the event that Israel attacked its nuclear facilities. Israel and George W. had better not take that threat lightly because precisely Iran has the means to make good on its threat. Are Israel and George W. ready to take the risk? Who knows? As Omar Khayyam put it so elegantly, "Only the event will tell us in its hour." Mariano Patalinjug, (by email), Yonkers, NY, June 27, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You wrote, "..The Reagan and its escorts are assembling in Philippine waters, the safe anchorage nearest to Hong Kong , to wait for those 100 sailors to catch up by military air transport, after which the carrier battle group will most likely proceed to its real destination in � where else? � the Persian Gulf off Iran ..." The USS Reagan is attached to the 7th fleet, together with USS Nimitz, and USS Kitty Hawk, whose area of operations is primarily in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. The carrier deployment rotate such that there's always one carrier group at sea, one on the way home to its port, and another one on the home port doing R&R. The Fifth Fleet, handles the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Somalia, and some coastal parts of Africa. USS Abraham Lincoln is currently on patrol in the Arabian Gulf. Chester Montenegro, (by email), Malabo Island, Equatorial Guinea, West Africa, June 27, 2008. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, My sense is that an attack on Iran using Israel as US surrogate will lead to condemnation of the US and Israel. It might even escalate this conflict to a third world war. In the event of that war, China and Russia (and joined by small Arab states hostile to Israel) may join forces to wipe out Israel. With two wars going on (in Iraq and in Afghanistan) and a weakened economy, the United States can't fight a third front. It is suicidal and the American people will never support this war and rescue the Jews. Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City, June 29, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mang Tony, Reading articles about Israel and Middle East, keeps reminding me about one of my favorite PC games when I was in college. The 1990 abandonware game Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator, by David Eastman. A brilliant 1990 abandonware game that's likely to stay relevant for a long time, Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator gives you the job of Israeli Premier. It's set in a hypothetical 1997 that isn't so far from reality. After the last Israeli leader is murdered (a prediction only two years off from the 1995 Rabin assassination), you step into the shoes of the hardest-working man in the Holy Land. Playing Conflict puts you into the Israeli mindset like no newspaper article can. You're surrounded by the potentially hostile Arab states of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, each of which could invade Israel and end your game in a second if you lower your guard. You can stay in power through diplomacy or military posturing. Sometimes your neighbors will be willing to befriend you, and even become allies, while countries like Libya and Iraq descend into war. But usually one of the neighboring states will threaten you. Purchasing tanks, jets, bombers, spy planes and SAM launchers from arms brokers, you decide when it's wise to arm the border. You can also choose to pre-emptively strike nuclear reactors in countries like Egypt to prevent nuclear blackmail. Other factors include how you choose to deal with the Palestinian problem, which the U.N. will sometimes ask you to address. (from: Wikipedia) Your relationship with neighbors will depend on your diplomatic or military strategy, whether in Military Pact, Beneficial, Lamentable to Deplorable, when war is imminent and inevitable. The interface was a map of the region where you can see the narrow Israel strip bordering big Egypt, Syria and Jordan so most often, the target at the start of the game is the smaller Lebanon. A very interesting game which I would like to play again today but in an updated version, that will include expanded role of US and Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc. I read from an article in June 2008 Time magazine that the Arabs will not stop its offensive against the Israelites or the Jews until they are "push to the sea". So, allowing independence of Palestinian in the Gaza and West Bank will not stop the conflict . Besides, supporting internal rebellion in Israel is another tactic of the Arabs to destabilize Israel so that it can easily be defeated. Israel could only trust US not just because of a friendly relationship but of Israel's strategic location for whatever US plan in middle east. Israel needs US military presence to depend its borders. Anyhow, US is the only superpower that has the capability to neutralize the Arab's oil power. Relating the game with reality, it can be surmised that US is probably the arms broker to Israel. From time to time I continue to read articles about the region, the development there, the political situation, etc. I believe that whatever is happening in the region affects the global economy more than the other regions in the world. I think the American's presence in the region is necessary, even beyond 100 years, as long as the Arab threat is there. The Arabs can easily become a collective superpower just because of oil-power. Right now, the world is at the mercy of OPEC, which member countries are mostly from the region. If US left Iraq, Iran will take over. If US abandon Israel, Saudi Arabia is left in a precarious condition very vulnerable to Arab invasion led by Iran through anyone border with Israel. If the Arabs got control of the region, they will hold the world economy on their hand. They can continue to control oil prices while they try to air-condition the whole of Middle East. The massive development in Middle East, which is at least keeping OFW's happy, will keep oil prices rising until they are able to build snow generators in the desert. If Obama or McCain will play Conflict, I'd like to know who will perform better. I think Obama will opt for a more sublime diplomacy tactics trying to build beneficial and favorable relationship with the neighboring Arab countries, like Iran, only to be surprised that the relationship suddenly turned deplorable for no reason at all. This is because the Arabs has no real intention of befriending Israel as they want her pushed to the sea. And this could be one reason why Obama will not win in November. Like in Conflict, diplomatic relations building only serves as a leeway while the player is still strengthening military power, this is in Middle East Conflict scenario. At any case, whatever the diplomatic situation is, the player, the Israel premier, has to fortify its border defenses. Diplomacy is a short term condition, the ultimate goal of the game is to control the whole region. There are only two options, to get or to give up the oil. Oil is Power. Playing Conflict puts you into the Israeli mindset like no newspaper article can. Edel Anit, (by email), June 30, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to "Obama and Iraq" (June 17, 2008) Mr Abaya: American system of primaries is good. The major parties select the best nominee by elimination process. Either Obama or McCain will make a good president. The voters will vote on their platforms and ideology. They will support the winner. But there is always that minority who will not accept the verdict of the electorate. Whoever wins will have to be closely secured from crackpot assassins. It is best that there are no serious third party candidate. Sometimes they frustrate the will of the majority by giving the majority of the electoral votes to a minority president, like Birney of the Liberty Party in 1844 and Nader of the Green Party in 2000. Jose Dado, (by email), June 30, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Don't know how my name was included in your net, anyway, my only concern to our country. Politics is too much issue rather than to pay attention to our present situation. Our government officials discuss too much on the problem instead of doing solutions into it. Energy crisis has long been a dicussion for the alternative solution but until now our government have not done anything. There are so many proposals to these days it's only on top of the table under study. How long will it take our country is suffering. Carlito Gabawa, (by email), Kuwait, June 30, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, You know I have a strange feeling that the US might just have, not one but two, 'Historical Firsts' IN SUCCESSION coming. For one, a First Afro-American (Black) President and, the other, a First Woman President, if Hillary is chosen by Obama and gets elected as his running-mate! You of course know the implication of this and I'm worried about its possible dire consequences not only for America but for the rest of the world. I pray God will continue to bless America with an enlightened citizenry (and for that matter, most critically, for the Philippines too!). Ed Tirona, (by email), Paranaque City, June 30, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww It's time American pulls out. They've done in Saddam and installed a democratic government. Iraq should have learned to run it themselves by this time . If there's still a war going on, maybe it's because they want their own system and inwardly refuse to adapt to an imported way of government. And even if they do retain the American-backed government their culture and their nature would not fit or aline with what the US has helped install. It was 9/11 that triggered what the US did in Iraq. The terrorists who bombed Twin Towers were not there, and so the reports say (that they are somewhere in Pakistan). America is not the World ! They can't tromp all over other countries in search of their enemies ! The next US president should be someone who would see the situation not through a general's eyes but by a peace-loving change oriented mindset leader. Obama speaks with such consistency towards that direction. But rhetoric has more often turned into disappointment. McCain WILL plan in detail and act ! And so would have Hilary. I think that is where the gap is : Obama's rhetoric . Victor Manalac, (by email), June 30, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww "Our best hope for a bipartisan resolution of the Iraq disaster may be for a President Obama to appoint Mr. McCain as a special envoy to Baghdad, where he can stay for as long as he needs to administer our withdrawal or 100 years, whichever comes first." Frank Rich, New York Times, Op Ed [email protected], (by email), June 25, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww During Obama's debates with Hillary he kept saying that Hillary shouldn't have voted for Iraq War II because Congress hadn't been presented any "exit plan" that Congress had approved. Since Obama kept repeating this charge, I believe that thereby he had revealed vastly deficient intelligence (intelligence not of the IQ type). Points: 1. At the beginning of a real war, there are so many, many contingencies and even unknowns, all with different probabilities, that to present realistic scenarios for exit strategies is practically impossible. One would have to present such a tremendous "tree" of conjectured events, each branch of which has its own probability, that any Congressman or Senator studying it would be overwhelmed in following all the possibilities and probabilities, such in the end no rational decision could be made as to "the best exit strategy." Besides, any such "tree" is rendered useless by the so many unknowns, whose probabilities couldn't even be estimated; making such a tree would be a futile, unscientific exercise, without any practical use, at the beginning of things, for any kind of guidance re a "proper ending." 2. In short, and in blunt terms, if there's good reason to go to war and a reasonable chance to win it, then one may go to war, even without an "exit strategy," because one must depend on the ensuing events in the war to make decisions on "next" steps, and it is only at a certain point, well into the war, that indications of "how to exit" will emerge. Any person of average intelligence should know this. 3. Has there ever been a war - excluding war games on a board like "The Game of the Generals" (and maybe such board games cannot be excluded) where at the beginning the aggressor already has an exit strategy, fine-tuned enough to be presented to a large consultative body (such as the US Congress) as the basis for the "go ahead" of that body? Remember that we're talking here of an "exit strategy," not a strategy about going forward. One might have the best of "exit strategies," but if the other party is the victor, what's the use of that "exit strategy?" And if one is the victor, will not that victor be stupid to the utmost, should it outline an exit strategy, not to base it on existing circumstances, rather than on the assumptions, probabilities and contingencies in an academic "exit strategy" made perhaps years ago? Making the early "best wouldd be a total waste of time, research and valuable mental resources. 3. If an "exit strategy" is planned - necessarily by a big staff - and then presented to a large body like the US Congress, or even just a committee of members from both houses, isn't the possibility of "leakage" quite great, even if we assume that the strictest precautions are taken? 4. The enemy's knowledge that the aggressor is committed to an exit strategy imposed by its government would give the enemy a great advantage, for they'd know that by just "holding on," or dispersing at a certain point to resort to "endless" guerilla warfare, eventually the aggressor would give up, and the enemy recoups the power it had lost, and perhaps gain more. 5. Obama's lead among blacks: Granted, he has a big, big, lead among the blacks - close to 90% according to some reports. But Obama is a child of immigrant African parents who came to the US just like immigrants from the Philippines., Guatemala, India, or Egypt. There is this support from blacks, but it would not be as deep and unrootable as the support for a black candidate descended from the slaves who were sent to the US and freed by Abe Lincoln in the greatest, bloodiest, civil war in the American continent, and for whom not only Lincoln, but Martin Luther King, shed his blood. The support today for such a black candidate today be so emotionally, deep-down grounded, that McCain could only hope to "steal" a miniscule percentage of it. The black support for Obama, I think, is not that deep, not that bound to the soul as the black support would be for a descendant of a former US slave. In other words, the large black support for Obama is there, but it is shallow enough for McCain to take away a big chunk of it. In fact, I think that deep down, many blacks in the U.S. wish that the first black President of the U.S. should be a descendant of the cotton pickers kidnapped by traders in Africa, sold at auction, sent to the US in the subhuman conditions of slave ships, and on arrival sold again as horses were sold. #### Ignaz, [email protected], July 12, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to "Self-Promotion" (June 19, 2008) Hi Tony In Ang Kapatirans political platform statement #14 "Prohibit public officials appearance in media for commercial purposes" We are the only national political party that believes in the authentic platform politics as opposed to personality politics. Millions are wasted just to be like "kings and queens" reminding their peasants who is in charge. Even in disaster areas like what I just witnessed in Iloilo yesterday, "Bangon Iloilo" tarpaulins from the mayor from all his cohorts. Trapo politics at work. But the disaster was not God made!! It was man made!! The rivers around the city were silted, clogged with voting squatters, land grabbers, filth from the commercial establishments, etc etc. Time for calamity fund and more photo ops!! There is hope. God is just. But people must not act like peasants. We are free!! Eric Manalang, (by email), July 06, 2008 Ang Kapatiran Party wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, I love the responses of your many readers on Self Promotion. I admire the creativity of many, if not all, politicians to reinvent themselves. I would not be surprised if politicians appear in movies or tele seria just to enhance name recognition. Marcos started everything using fancy acronyms in projects paid for by taxpayers. He was way ahead of his time! Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City, July 07, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mang Tony, Galit na galit ang mga motorista sa Commonwealth kay Bayani Fernando kasi inuubos niya ang pondo ng gobyerno sa sari-saring construction especially u-turn slots and bus loading-unloading bays, eating on 2 to 4 lanes (i.e., Batasan and Ever Gotesco u-turn slots) that become bottlenecks resulting to slower traffic.. It should be noted that these constructions seem to lack the proper transport studies resulting to wastage of taxpayers money.. Marami diyan ang ginawa then ginigiba kasi inappropriate.. Mabilis daw mad-decide basta sa construction ang MMDA kasi ang supplier ng mga materyales ay ang kompanya ni Bayani Fernando. Dapat singilin na iyang si Bayani Fernando sa mga kapalpakan at kaduhapangan niya.. Rodrigo Galang, (by email), July 09, 2008 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO All reactions to [email protected]. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe' |