What's the war plan, Mr. President?

“And it’s one, two, three,

What are we fighting for?”

                                                                        ~ Country Joe McDonald

So now the Obama Administration, which came into office promising

to “reset” relations with Russia and persuade Middle Eastern terrorists

to convert their weapons into plowshares, is taking the United States

into war.

Teed up is Syria, which is being overrun by numerous anti-state

fighters, and whose condition – that of a failed country – poses

a threat to U.S. and global security unseen since Afghanistan

was under Taliban rule.

Also inside American crosshairs is ISIS, the terrorist group

dominating headlines since it brutally killed American freelance

reporter James Foley and made, until U. S. Navy fighter planes

started bombing them, significant gains in Iraq. 

Not only is ISIS so extreme it makes Al Qaeda look rational,

it’s also highly ambitious, with one member of its ranks saying his

organization won’t rest until its flag flies above the White House.[i]

Seriously, what’s a peace-leaving, smarter-than-you Democrat,

like Barack Obama, to do?

Easy – borrow from the playbook of every president since 1980,

maybe even earlier.

Sure, the White House diatribe sounds good.  We’re going to bomb

ISIS wherever we find it.  Our drones will fly over Syrian cities and

long stretches of Iraqi desert.  If they lack sufficient capabilities to kill

terrorists and destroy weapons, no worry.  Navy and Air Force jets

will be on call.

Parts of our Navy’s surface fleet might even get in on the action

by launching cruise missiles.  Let’s also hope for numerous

opportunities to keep our elite, special forces on top of their

game with plenty of dangerous combat missions.

If only this war were the real thing and not a live-fire exercise.

It’s a few bombs here, a few bombs there, spiced with some

intoxicating, edge-of-the-seat, missions from Delta Force, the

 Seals, maybe even the Green Berets.

But that’s where it stops.

A plausible case can be made that U. S. military operations in

World War II’s Pacific Theater could have come to halt once

Japan’s progress was stopped with two critical battles, Coral

Sea and Midway.

In Europe – for a few years at least – the fighting could have

been left to the Army Air Corps as it bombed factories, towns

and military installations in Nazi-occupied Europe and Germany.

That is, until their advance stopped and we figured out a time and

a place to work out a peace treaty with Berlin and, eventually,

Tokyo.

And what would we be dealing with these many years later?  The

fifth generation of Nazi leadership and the 21^st century version

of Japan’s militarists!

And there’s the problem.  President Obama has no more of

strategy to beat the terrorists, whether they’re ISIS, Al Qaeda or

anyone else – in other words, to solve the problem – than

President Johnson did for winning the Vietnam War.

Or than Jimmy Carter did for releasing our hostages in

Tehran.  Or than President Reagan did for winning in Lebanon,

or than President George H. W. Bush did for eliminating

Saddam Hussein or than President Clinton did for outright

defeating Osama bin Laden.

And, frankly, blame can also be left with President George W.

Bush, whose two wars were left unfinished.

Come to think of it, had Presidents Truman and Eisenhower

fought for a victory in Korea, today we wouldn’t be contending

with the third generation of the family running North Korea.

So the question we need to ask – as posed by 1960s music star

Country Joe McDonald – is what are we fighting for?  A total

elimination of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq or is Obama

creating a quagmire the next five to 10 generations of Americans

will deal with?

This same kind of thinking came from Martin Dempsey, the

U.S. military’s top officer.

“They can be contained (but) not into perpetuity,” he said,

referring to ISIS, during last week’s news conference.[ii]

Airstrikes can do so much, Dempsey said.  They alone

cannot stop a determined force, like ISIS.  What we need, the

general inferred, is a plan, something that includes all out

American force, both a military and diplomatic.

The President and his advisors need to craft a strategy similar

to what U. S. Army General Winfield Scott proposed at the

outbreak of the Civil War.  Call it Operation Anaconda, just 

like the general called his plan.

It would surround Syria and Iraq and, through airstrikes, special

operations and conventional infantry forces, destroy ISIS and

every other terrorist movement in those two countries, maybe

even Bashar al-Assad’s government. 

In other words, we need to fight a real war with one objective

– total victory.

Then, of course, we’ll need something along the lines of a

Marshall Plan to win the peace.

If there’s anything President Obama should know, it’s

this:  Failure to eliminate ISIS and restructure Syria and

Iraq will create more costly problems in the future, possibly 

in American and allied lives.

Did you really think Obama was brighter than the rest?

 “Don’t ask me why,

Don’t give a damn,

My next stop is Islam!”

~ with apologies to Country Joe

---

[i] http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/08/new-isis-video-‘we-will-raise-black-flag-over-white-house’

[ii] http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/dempsey-isis-has-an-end-of-days-strategic-vision/s 

Feeling Rich?

If you invest in the stock market, you might be feeling a tad richer today. That's because, as you likely know, the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped nearly 57 points yesterday to a high it hasn't seen in more than six years.

It was brought about by falling oil prices. A barrel of crude oil is running just under $60 a barrel, which means it's not as costly as it was two months ago to run a business.

Oil prices are directing our economy. The Federal Reserve, which overseas the money supply and our banking system, experts say, will likely not increase interest rates any time soon because oil prices have fallen so low, reports today's Wall Street Journal.

Stockholders at ExxonMobil and other U.S. energy companies, however, aren't so happy. Falling oil prices make their stock prices drop.

So perhaps you're feeling richer. Let's face it, it's not as costly to fill that gas tank; and your company or business may find it easier to increase the bottom line because energy costs are easier on the budget.

The problem with this feeling of elation is that it's short lived.

Oil prices will increase; and American consumption isn't about to change. The United States will remain the world's leading oil market.

So if President Bush is serious about ending the country's "addiction" to oil, as he puts it, he better set about creating a plan to bring this about. The Democrats, for that matter, might stop harping on the Page scandal in the House of Representatives and show themselves to be a party of ideas by coming up with their own plan to reduce America's oil consumption.

Be on the lookout for what our two political parties do -- not for what they say.

How the Democrats win the 2006 and 2008 elections

Drip, drip, drip. Do you feel any pain? You shouldn’t. This slow drip gives you freedom, speed and warmth.

What is it?

It’s oil.

It doesn’t really drip into our economy – it floods it. And it’s difficult, if not downright impossible, to get through a day without touching something that was made from oil. It underlies our economy and is powerful enough to undermine it.

Crude oil prices influence our stock markets and play a role determining whether our economy is headed for good times or bad. In addition, because, as President Bush says, we’re addicts, oil influences our foreign policy.

If the United States hasn’t made the world safe for democracy, it’s at least made the world safe for oil, thanks to its military.

The Department of Energy provides these statistics on U.S. oil consumption:

• The United States is the world’s leading consumer of crude oil at 20 million barrels a day. Worldwide, nearly 84 million barrels of crude oil are consumed daily.
• We import 10 to 14 million barrels of crude oil every day.
• We produce about 5 million barrels of crude oil each day.
• Canada and Mexico are our top two importers of crude oil, followed, in order, by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Iraq, Angola, Russia and the United Kingdom.
• Our crude oil consumption is expected to increase, by 2030, to nearly 28 million barrels a day. Global consumption is predicted to increase to 118 million barrels a day by 2030.
• The United States started importing oil to meet its domestic energy needs in 1949.
• The U.S. consumes nearly 600 million gallons of gasoline and diesel a day.

Each barrel of crude oil produces gasoline, heats homes, fuels jets and ships, and produces electrical power, lubricants, asphalt, road oil and kerosene. Just about anything touched in our daily lives is either composed of oil or is made from a product that uses a derivative of oil.

And, so far, other than the hybrid car and limited uses of nuclear, hydrogen, wind and solar power, there doesn’t appear to be a plan for the United States to wean itself from oil.

The only good news is that we’re not as dependent as our allies for oil from the Middle East. Starting in the 1970s, on the heels of the Yom Kippur War, the United States started diversifying its suppliers. Instead of being solely dependent on the Arabs for oil, we started buying oil from countries in Europe, Latin America and Africa.

The cost of this commodity is staggering. At today’s prices, roughly $60 a barrel, our daily supply of crude oil costs $1.2 billion or about $440 billion a year.

Let’s keep something in mind – that $440 billion is just the cost of the raw material. It doesn’t reflect all of the other costs, including marketing, refining, transportation, employees, which U.S. consumers pay to buy crude oil’s by-products.

So if you’re upset about the price you’re paying to fill ‘er up, then you need to think deeper about this issue. The $2.70 or so a gallon we’re paying for gas, while unsettling, is nothing compared to astounding costs we incur to keep ourselves – and the world – safe for oil.

Prior to the outbreak of the Iraq War, $60 billion was spent annually to keep our Navy in the Persian Gulf, estimates the Brookings Institution. The Navy was keeping the sea lanes safe for shipping oil and keeping Saddam Hussein in check.

Today’s war in Iraq, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is costing U.S. taxpayers, more than $100 billion a year. And while the war isn’t directly attributable to keeping the world safe for oil, it plays a role. Iraq, the Department of Energy reports, is estimated to have oil reserves that are in excess of 100 billion barrels. That’s the third largest supply, after Saudi Arabia and Canada.

Keep in mind that crude oil prices started 2005 at around $40 a barrel and then started to double. The U.S. economy went into shock last year when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita halted drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, one of our primary domestic sources of oil. Crude oil prices shot up to about $70 a barrel; suddenly, in some places, people were paying $4 a gallon for gas.

Two months ago, because of the war between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah, crude oil prices touched $80 a barrel, and there was speculation that we’d soon be paying $100 or more. Today, crude oil prices are hovering at $60 a barrel, resulting in lower gasoline prices. The prices dropped because there haven’t been any interruptions in supply and demand is down for petroleum-based products.

And while that might provide everyone with a sense of relief, it shouldn’t. Lower prices usually mean an increase in consumption, which usually results in higher prices; the only thing that might stem this intake is that it’s September – not July or August, when Americans take to the road for vacation.

But even if crude oil prices continue to drop, the United States will remain the world’s largest oil-consuming market; in addition, we’ll continue to have troops overseas so the world remains safe for oil.

President Bush announced this year that the United States needs to bring its addiction to oil to a halt. It’s hard to say how serious he is because the White House has yet to release a plan to cut our oil habit.

I understand why the Republicans, the party of big business, never show up for debates about oil prices.

But where are the Democrats?

Why are they missing in action over an issue that could likely help them seal a victory for The White House and Congress in the next two years?

Environmentalism, until recently, was perceived as a fringe cause. But no more. Americans are recycling left and right. SUV sales are down and people are becoming more familiar with conservation.

President Bush is right: It’s high time we cut our addiction to oil. And the Democrats could play this up by making our oil addiction not an environmental cause – but one that’s about national security.

They could tell the nation, for example, that we need to cut our dependence on oil – big time! – so we can deal with the Middle East from a position of strength, not dependence. Think how the dynamic of our relationship with Saudi Arabia or any other oil-producing nation would be if they knew we didn’t need them.

It would increase our options. We could tell Japan, which buys nearly all of its oil from the Middle East, to start sending its own navy to patrol the Persian Gulf. We would be in a position to significantly reduce our military presence in the Middle East, if not just outright end it. It would also force our friends, whether they’re in Europe or Asia, to start maintaining their own oil security, just as we’ve been doing for them for the last 30 years.

To get everyone on board, the Democrats might start getting closer to big oil companies, like ExxonMobil. Instead of bashing them, they should start proposing legislation that would provide these companies with incentives to find alternative sources that would fuel all of our energy needs. They might also start talking to Detroit, encouraging the Big Three auto companies to produce more and better hybrid cars.

Such a plan could also have some residual benefits. An initiative that begins to reduce the country’s dependence on oil could also affect countries run by dictators. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s strongman, for example, might not look like the hero he is to some if, suddenly, we weren’t knocking on their door to buy oil. Russia’s Vladimir Putin’s desire to regain some of his country’s old-time influence around the globe, when the country was known as the Soviet Union, might be clipped.

If we do nothing, then this addiction of ours will just continue to grow. If the Democrats fail to take up this cause, then they look no different than the Republicans – a political party, under a different name, that loves the status quo.