One of Trump’s foreign policy advisers is a 2009 college grad who lists Model UN as a credential

Listen to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump discuss some of his foreign policy positions with The Washington Post editorial board. “NATO is costing us a fortune,” Trump said. “We’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do.” (The Washington Post)

Perhaps, in regards to what we “do”,  NATO doesn’t reward bad behavior?

I like how Trump the candidate talks about borrowing from China. We are borrowing from China, but it is in US dollars, and as long as we buy China’s assembled products, I am sure we can continue to “borrow” from China.

Is Trump suggesting the US tells the computer industry where to manufacture and assemble their products, as he re-arms Europe and sends defence contracts overseas?

Source: One of Trump’s foreign policy advisers is a 2009 college grad who lists Model UN as a credential – The Washington Post

The Strategic Advantage in Fighting on Only One Front

“It is a concern to me, it’s a concern to any veteran, anybody in the military,” Hagel said during his first appearance on Capitol Hill since being confirmed as defense secretary.

I think it is significant that this is the only news I found coming out of Fox News, but maybe I just didn’t look hard enough. I guess Fox couldn’t find anything more important coming out of the House Armed Service’s committee than this one issue, who deserves a medal more, those with or without “skin” in battle.

Taking medals away from someone that actually might have earned them is not something I imagine Fox wants to be behind of. Fox better hope Hagel doesn’t come to the conclusion that someone fighting in a Nintendo environment needs to be reward with this medal, as someone in the Service that Hagel talks about in this quote did. If they do deserve it, then Fox should ask why.

As it is, anyone getting the “Nintendo Medal” with Hagel as the top administrator will deserve it. Fox should figure out why he/she would deserve such a medal, before they get on the wrong side of  the strategy behind the giving out of this medal.

But then Fox is owned by someone that wasn’t, if I understand correctly, born or raised  as a North America. Apparently their owner wants America to follow the Rightwing Conservative principles of another nation, in another hemisphere.

The nation he was or still is a citizen of has gone from calling China a totalitarian nation to aggressor nation, and now an assertive nation. It kinda makes me wonder what the Fox’s owner thinks of his own nation, as their Conservative principles change.

It doesn’t appear that China has changed all that much, at least in structure. The Right is a structure, not a culture, and China doesn’t appear to be changing its structure anytime soon.

It also appears that China’s culture is going to need more time for change. China is a very complex culture in which change doesn’t culturally seem to happen, unless there is a revolution. China’s structure is geared towards stopping revolutions.

But then, Fox’s owner is not a North American. He is Australia by culture, so what would he know about strategy anyway?

I think North American people’s advantage has always been that they think more strategic. After reading “Empire of the Summer Moon, I think strategy has always been the North’s advantage, as it presents itself to the world historically.

To that end, I never really understood the significance of Lincoln’s strategy, of using people from both sides of the aisle to fill some of the executive positions within his administration. That was until I watched this hearing on CSPAN yesterday.

The strategy that Lincoln used has the advantage of using an executive, such as Hagle, from the opposition  positioned as a handle to a lever that pushes against the force of the opposition and the POTUS forces as well. Kinda of a twofer.

In the House yesterday, Hagel not only tore into the Republican Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, who wanted Hagle to take something like a 100 billion more dollars, but Hagle also tore into the smug Democrat who thought Hagel was a force pushing Democratic issues as well. The Republicans and Democrats both got their asses kicked.

In politics, the enemy isn’t in front of the POTUS, but positions themselves behind the leader. The people infront represent an image of change, as the image of Hagel in front of the POTUS.

Lincoln’s strategy handles those behind the POTUS (today they are called Democrats) as well as those in front of the POTUS (today they are called Republicans). Hagel with Dempsey at his side, tore up the House yesterday and made mincemeat out of all who were in front of him.

I would like to see him do the same in the Senate.

Really? The Republicans want to come out on the side of spending more money at the expense of our civilian society, while at the same time the Democrats want to come out on the side that says spending cut aren’t hurting our military, as our civil society takes a pass on having to make any sacrifices?

All Hagel and Dempsey are asking for is time to reposition our forces. I mean everyone realizes that Iran is in Asia, right?

When falling back to a defencive position, as our resources go bye-bye, there is some advantage to be had in having to defend only one front, and that front should be “pivoting” across the Pacific.

The Pacific is the position our debt is centered in. This center can be called a pivot point. While Boehner has come out in favor of paying our debt, I am not sure the Red States agree with him.

I mean, if they really want to secede from the US, aren’t they independent of the debt? If the Red States what to take advantage of our nukes and not pay back our debt, who’s to stop them, Obama?

Oh, right! If they did secede it wouldn’t be their decision, but that ain’t going to happen now, is it.

via Hagel Decision on ‘Nintendo Medal’ Expected Next Week – Fox News.

Enduring Values

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  “pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.

.

K.I.S.S. (K.O.S.S.)

…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.

via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.

Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.

The strategy is two prong.

The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we have to  “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.

The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” of rule-sets, which brought about an end to the Crusades. It was an Orientation of accommodation.

These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.

As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is what happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the nation-states most affected by the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was a civil war, but the outcome has been mostly to the advantage of the Islamist.

So, if there needs to be a debate in America, I suggest we debate the thought that we are  “turning” the US military power in the South Pacific. I don’t think it is happening, we are simply creating a line in the sand.

My thought is that there hasn’t been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The real strategy has been that the USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other front that crosses Jerusalem.

Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.

To bring the war in the Middle East, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment, to a conclusion, we need to keep our strategy simple folks.

The Coming National Defense Crack-Up

…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.

via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.

Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.

The strategy is two prong.

The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we  “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.

The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” like that created to take advantage of the conditions, which enabled the Crusades to end, an Orientation of accommodation.

These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.

As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is happening.

So, if there needs to be a debate, I suggest we debate the thought that we are  “turning” of the US military power in the South Pacific.

There hasn’t really been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other that crosses Jerusalem.

Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.

To bring this war, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment to a conclusion, we need to keep this simple folks.

Winning

I think the verdict

is out that winning

is more important than any calculation that can be made.

Unfortunately, winning requires a calculation of any kind. So I guess this is one bridge too far.

Just for you interested, my posting for my busiest day was called The Human Condition.

 Not sure what the Human Condition was about, , probably something about Jesus of Nazareth, because I am speaking from a Christian nation, but just giving some context.

The New Rules: A Foreign Policy Wish List for 2012

The West’s embargo of Iranian oil succeeds . . . in making Iran China’s problem. Obama is working an ambitious angle: stopping all Iranian oil exports to the West. That won’t stop Beijing from stepping in further and securing long-term access to Iran’s vast oil and gas reserves — to the contrary, it will reinforce China’s position in Iran. But this way Obama can claim he did everything reasonable to stop Iran’s successful acquisition of the Bomb. So when Iran weaponizes — sooner or later — in response, at least we’ll have placed China in the same hot seat it currently occupies with regard to North Korea.

via WPR Article | The New Rules: A Foreign Policy Wish List for 2012.

via Thomas P.M. Barnett’s link which I didn’t have to subscribe to WPR to use.

A good read. I especially like the above rule-set. I think the embargo could very well succeed in making Iran China’s problem, although I think Iran has always been China’s problem. I believe that China loves North Korea, but, it would like to ignore Iran. I think Iran represents everything that China hates and possibly fear, God, while North Korea represents everything China loves, a benevolent leader.

Obviously China can’t ignore Iran, because of the oil. This means China’s problem of God over a benevolent leader is unsettled until the revolution in Iran is over. Change takes force, and I believe China is waiting for that force to appear, but can’t afford to wait too long, because of economics at home. To save face, China can’t afford to be the one in front of that force, but it can, in its economic interest, be the one behind that force.

Israel finally attacks Iran. The more it looks like Obama will win in 2012, the more Israel will be incentivized to proceed with its plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before November. Convinced that Obama will never go all the way on this issue, Israel will prefer to take its lumps from Washington during an election season, when the GOP will clearly rally to its side. The combination of this strike and the West’s oil embargo will kick the can down the road a bit, and the time gained will be worth something as the Arab Spring continues to unfold.

Israel will be incentivized depending on if the US elects another Nixon, and not another Bush. If Israel finally does attacks Iran I would look for China to be in implicit agreement, through a Nixon like POTUS. An Israeli attack could be as good of way “in” as any,  for China, without losing face.

If not through Israel, then look towards Iraq, as China works at making Iraq and Afghanistan its problem also. Iraq and Afghanistan are two strategic areas for China, thanks to the US military, political elites, and the Carter doctrine. It would help if they had another US politician as corrupt and anti-elite as Nixon.