Mike Pence Says His Role Model Vice President is Dick Cheney

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence discusses his VP role model and his debate prep on “This Week.”

Let’s stop pretending what he ( Pence) is talking about. Cheney was the “grownup” in the relationship and Bush was the “spoiled kid”.

We can see from where Mike Pence is coming from. He will have to run the country and become the commander-in-chief, because, like Bush, Trump isn’t up to it. He is not completely ignorant, but stupid.

Bush, in a stupor, had to have his Chief of Staff run the war in Iraq, because he, Bush, thought it was about another Crusades.

My guess is that Pence will continue the war against Islam, while ignoring Nixon’s connection to Globalization, while Trump moves America towards authoritarianism. #fail

Source: Mike Pence Says His Role Model Vice President is Dick Cheney

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Next 9/11 attack could come from Iraq and Syria – CBS News

“We need air power immediately to stop the advance toward Baghdad,” Graham said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ISIS – the jihadists who are an offshoot of al Qaeda – could control the entire northern half of the country and use it to march on Jordan and Lebanon while Iran moves in to control the south.

The South Carolina senator added that the director of national intelligence and the head of the FBI have both warned that ISIS, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, has promised to carry out the next 9/11 attacks.

“I think it’s inevitable. The seeds of 9/11 are being planted all over Iraq and Syria. You don’t have to believe me, this is what they’re telling you they’re gonna do. They’re not hiding their agenda. They want an Islamic caliphate,” Graham said. “They plan to drive us out of the Mideast by attacking us here at home.”

Lindsey Graham needs to stop fighting the wars his father most likely fought in. Vietnam wasn’t that war and neither is the wars we fought since, are fighting, and future wars he hopes Americans will have to fight and die in. While war may mean wealth for the corporations that support him and jobs for those in his state that vote for him, fighting the war of our fathers means fighting the war that we want, not the war that we need.

And he may be right. It may be inevitable that what comes out of this latest conflict in the Middle East means a strike on our homeland, but right now the forces able to do that are busy, and they will be busy for some time in the future. And, as he says, it is not like they are hiding their agenda from those young men and women of future generations who will have to fight in this next war. The future is being laid out for those generations of Americans who want to see, want to act, and for them to decide.

So for now senator just stop. Resign from your position of power and let others take over. It is going to take awhile for the next generations to get rid of the corrupting forces that are skewing the future for their generation and that are deep inside your decision-making process. The quicker you leave the more chance they have in making the right decisions.

And while you are at it, take those ignorant people with you who are still fighting WWII. Once they had the values America needed, but they have now become so corrupted by corporate greed that they need to leave, and to leave with you.

via Sen. Lindsey Graham: Next 9/11 attack could come from Iraq and Syria – CBS News.

Beyond 2013 Retrospective Day I

“What we have done in Afghanistan has made zero difference….our orientation was wrong…”

If our orientation was wrong then, because orientation has been called the most important letter in the OODA loop, it probably means we got everything else wrong in the loop as well.

But it also should be noted that the fact that our orientation was wrong was not caused by ignorance of Boyd–we got it wrong because our leaders found out they were not Boyd.

The one principle the followers of Boyd try to take advantage of, besides deception, is to accomplish two tasks to your enemy’s one.

So it is likely that our war in the Middle East was always supposed to have been the one-two punch of Afghanistan and Iraq together.

When discussing Orientation and getting the Orientation  wrong, in the context of Boyd, Orientation begins in the workspace and the workspace was not Afghanistan.

The area of orientation was Afghanistan/Iraq and the judgment of getting it right or wrong needs to be taken from a position observing both.

So it is likely we didn’t just get the position in our orientation wrong, but hell yes we got it wrong!

But we are now pivoting towards the Indo-pacific and our position as well as our orientation is changing.

Like our war with Russia, the position we took in our orientation with Afghanistan and Iraq is an old position. If this position is right or wrong should be judged by history. It is just too hard for the person going through something like this to keep a clear head.

In the context of Boyd, the position of this next pivot point is highly critical. As I imagine Boyd would have said explicitly, the point that we are pivoting on will represent our orientation into the future.

So, as we pivot in a different direction towards Afghanistan and Iraq, where in the world can you mark an x on a map that represents our values? It is our values that we will use as a pivot.

It will be interesting to learn from the zenpundit if there was any talk about our orientation going forward at #BoydandBeyond?

via zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Boyd & Beyond 2013 Retrospective Day I.

Obama confident Congress will vote to strike Syria

There will be no U.S. troops in Syria, Obama said: “This is not Iraq — this is not Afghanistan.”

I don’t want to call my President a liar, but it really is Iraq.

It is not the Iraq we thought we were fighting when we went in, although Iraq  had similarities,  a country with a divided religion and outside actors that are a part of that religion. And Like Syria  before US forces went into Iraq, Iraq was a country controlled by a tyrant, whose power kept a civil war from happening.

Perhaps one difference he is talking about, is that in Syria there is another religion (Christianity) with a piece of the leadership.

The difference between Syria now and Iraq then is  that in Iraq,  the civil war happened after we broke the force that was holding them in friction, and, unlike Syria, we didn’t get ourselves into a civil war going in.

Also now, Iraq still hasn’t got that coercive friction that creates one country, and Syria has almost no friction that would be recognised, as all the parties in the civil war allow Syria  to move in one direction.

Once friction is allowed to take hold (when the war ends) then Syria will be exactly like Iraq, a country almost on the edge of civil war.

via Obama confident Congress will vote to strike Syria.

What are the concequences of military intervention in Syria? | A Wonderful World

the US has positioned itself very well.

Interesting. As a country (the U.S.A) whose economy is based on the consumer, the US has “positioned itself very well”.

But then, as we don’t get our oil from the Middle East, exactly what do we “consume” that comes from Iraq that would be the advantage in this positioning?

The answer is cheap manufactured produces from China.

Yeah, that’s right, Iraq was mainly about supplying China what it needs (oil) to keep our economy going.

In that context, I suppose Iraq has gone well, indeed!

The truth is, like Thomas PM Barnett said, the oil in Iraq (and now Syria) doesn’t belong to the US, but to the BRAC nations, Brazil, Russia, Africa, and China. They are the ones producing products that the U.S.A needs and wants.

Except for a little Civil War (that never hurt anyone) the US “has positioned itself well”.

As with the First Gulf War, we have the best military that China and the Petro-States could ever want to hire.

Is it any wonder why Obama wants to hit Syria now? I mean our suppliers not only need oil, but a stable area of the world to act in.

via What are the concequences of military intervention in Syria? | A Wonderful World.

Turkey eyes Iraq as it banks on exports

It comes despite tensions with Iraq, whose prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has declared Turkey a « hostile state », and with Iran, to which Ankara has this year sold billions of dollars worth of gold, but which is on the opposing side to Turkey in the Syria conflict.

Ah yes. Export to Iraq continue to happen despite tensions. I think most of the world (not sure Financial Times is the best place for world views) understands that Turkey’s exports to and imports from “Iraq” are the tensions between Turkey and Iraq, at least economically.

Much of my analysis of the world depends on my theory of war. I believe all war is about economic considerations, and fought by people with little economic considerations. For war to break-out between Turkey, Iraq, and eventually Iran someone has to get the guys with little economic considerations to start fighting. In the Middle East there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of those willing to fight, especially for “no” economic considerations.

I don’t think Financial Times wants to hear about that one, so they are bias away from truth, but are at least fact based when they analyze how an economy like Turkey’s distributes itself in the world.

In other words they fudge when they use Nouri al-Maliki’s name in their article, but use the data of imports and exports to make it seem like it is all tied together.

The reason this story has no ties to truth: Turkey isn’t really dealing with Iraq, only a small Kurdish part of it. This Kurdish part is both Sunni and Shia, and because of their ties, the Kurds become the “middleman” between Turkey and Iraq.

Financial Times should stick with the story that Iraq is still not one State, even after years of civil war, and name the people Turkey is actually dealing with, leaving out Nouri al Maliki’s.

Or the Financial Times should create another story that says Nouri al-Maliki is in control of his country, and mentioned his name in this article, in context as the person Turkey is dealing with.

I mean, the Financial Times’s article is the first story, but to me the way it is written makes the article seem like the second story.

The Financial Times’s article is truthful enough, but if a choke point develops in “Kurdistan” for the products Turkey imports into and exports from Iraq (and eventually into Iran, Syria), I wonder how much incentive Turkey will have in a few generation to “un-choke” it.

If a choke point develops  I think there would be enough people, with little economic consideration, to fight.

And fight they will, if they are not given economic considerations.

At the time of choke points, I doubt Europe will look anymore tempting to Turkey, generations from now, as exports from Iraq is mostly in the form of oil, and the “choke-point” will affect Europe, Asia, as well as Turkey.

via Turkey eyes Iraq as it banks on exports « ACTURCA.

Betrayal in Baghdad?

On Oct. 18, 2011, Exxon signed six exploration contracts in Kurdistan. The move represented a seismic shift in Iraq’s balance of power: Exxon was by far the largest company to align with the Kurds, and it openly betrayed Baghdad to do so.

via The Backfire in Baghdad – By Ben Van Heuvelen | Foreign Policy. Hmm:

A senior British oil executive has been shot dead in a suburb of the Belgian capital Brussels, it has emerged.

Maybe it really did backfire. Betrayal is pretty serious stuff.