To what value do we lend a shoe if it has no sole? To what value do we lend a door without hinges? To what value are principles if they are not valued? The U.S. Constitution is, as our children are taught, the supreme law of the land. It is the culmination of years of philosophical inquiry into the nature of man and the result of brutal oppression and the ache for freedom it produced. It is not a document drafted in vain. Its ancient words echo wisdom down the generational hallway; freedom, individualism, and self-governance.

However, those words appear to have faded. Saturday, November 07, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, a bill designed to construct a government health insurance option and an individual mandate for all citizens to purchase health coverage. When asked if this mandate was constitutional, there were those who scoffed, even laughed at the outrageousness of the question.

Have we forgotten that this country is not governed merely by the accumulated whims of Congress? Have we forgotten the role of the states? Have we forgotten our country is governed by a single document – the Constitution?

The very fabric of our nation’s character is at risk of being faded, forgotten, and foregone. With the sound of roaring applause we have taken a step towards depreciating our ability as free men to make our own decisions defining our own lives. Worse, we have ignored the very foundations that were meant to protect us from such depreciation.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Never forget that principles, while grand and important, are worth nothing when they are not followed. Never forget that liberty, while tried and true, is never too secure to be ignored. Never forget that politicians, while part of a necessary evil, are worth nothing when they are not voted for.

Some may have forgotten. But I will never forget.

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, a liberal for sure, and whose viewership declined 40% in September, speaks often of the current health care debate on her show. And in the nature of MSNBC as the rallying base for the Democrat Party, Maddow takes shots at Republicans often ranging from mocking their current minority status in a baby tone of voice, to flat-out lying regarding their position on health care reform. My comments today are to clear up that smoke and mirror parade of Maddow’s.

On September 29^th, Maddow, in her opening monologue, made the claim that congressional Republicans were being supplied information from conservative think tanks on “how health reform is a bad idea.”  Maddow, guilty of what those who study logic call a straw man argument, constructed an illegitimate representation of the Republican Party’s position on health care reform, and proceeded to attack the representation.  Straw man arguments, while fallacious, are also so very tempting.  What could possibly be easier than putting fish in a barrel and then shooting them?

Let’s be clear: the health insurance industry, as most other industries out there, is riddled with corruption and insurmountable degrees of greed.  Republicans believe that such irresponsibility is only made possible by government regulation of the free market.

And believe it or not, Republicans and Senator Chuck Schumer agree that the only real solution to the problem is to allow for real competition within the industry.  Some Democrats want to do this through the creation of a government-run option that would be (over-)funded by the taxpayer, thus creating an impossible opponent to compete within the private sector.  Republicans on the other hand want to remove the barriers that prevent health insurance companied from going at each other across the country.  Republicans want to:

• Remove state barriers that prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines,
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance must cover,
• Give the same tax benefits to employer-provided health insurance and individually-owned health insurance,
• And make costs transparent so Americans can choose from the most efficient plans.

Republicans are not “against health care reform.”  We’re against the increasing government involvement in yet another private industry.  We’re against bureaucrats deciding for us whether or not we even want health insurance.  We’re against another Medicare program that is not cost-effective and a vortex to taxpayer dollars.  We’re against the reform being proposed here and today.  So when Maddow mocks the Republican Party as being against health reform, and when the President calls those against this bill in Congress “defenders of the status quo,” they are attacking a Republican Party that does not exist, since no Republican believes those things.

Changes must be made, but not the ones Democrats are pushing.

Links:

Maddow’s rating down.

Audio of Maddow’s Sept. 29 show.

It is with much disappointment I write this monograph, but my sober observations of politics as of late and my unwavering convictions compel me to do so. Today I wish to somberly declare that Americanism – the tenets of which birthed and bind this nation – have become at risk to sequestration. Ideas of individual liberty and responsibility, the healthy cynicism of government control, and the reliance on free markets have been disavowed in favor of convenience, in the rush of euphoria, and in the false dilemma of the necessity of action.

Leaders in Washington have overseen and condoned the encroachment of government into the lives of every citizen and in a variety of private sectors. Consequently the size, scope, and price of the government bureaucracies have inflated above and beyond not only the status quo but more importantly their constitutional boundaries. We are told that inaction is above all the most dangerous path. We are lead to believe that in order to preserve America, government must coordinate America.

Friends, the most dangerous paths are not those that lead us to a nation under individualism, but those towards collective control. To preserve America is not to invest in the government but to invest in the citizen. All the same, the walls of our treasury are now echo chambers of future generations’ pennilessness. Our nation’s capital swells with new unnamed bureaucrats and czars of nebulous function and power. Politicians now have the liberty to consume entire enterprises and dictate their new function.

All this in the name of preservation.

Americanism is something unique. It is a way of life that has propelled this nation to greatness. Millions abroad dream of being met at the gates of America by Lady Liberty’s promise: equality of opportunity and the illustriousness of the American Dream. In the pages of history, however, we have seen how the violation of these values has lead to the darkest hours of the human story; how the squandering of the human spirit and the punishment of hard work, thrift, and risk-taking through higher taxes has destroyed potential.

We hear promises of no tax increases, but we see something completely different. The indignity of high taxes and increased government regulation upon business is merely a “gotch-ya politics” project which helps nothing but the consciences of bureaucrats and does nothing but transfer the burden onto the citizen. Monstrous increased in taxes on tobacco directly affect middle- and lower-income households. A cap-and-trade economy will do nothing but up the prices of energy nation-wide, lowering the purchasing power of the family, and destroying jobs for those businesses that cannot meet the new demands government has placed upon it. And now, politicians seek to place a $1 trillion burden on the citizen for a government-run health insurance program.

It’s a pattern we’ve seen far too often. It’s a pattern which government consults its needs before it consults its purse. A pattern which government is the solution, not the ingenuity of Americans. We are currently seeing by the devaluation of individual responsibility and the placed reliance on government, how the American Dream is being manipulated into an American Promise. There are those that wish this country and its countrymen to simply give success, and not allow it to be earned.

My fellow citizens, the greatest American innovations were the product of that very same hard work, thrift, and risk-taking some wish to punish. The welfare state rewards ho-hum citizenship, and pays no tribute to a society of initiative and inventiveness.

It is that Americanism that is at risk. It is with this pattern where we will see the depreciation of what it means to be an American. And so as always, we can choose our destiny. We can continue down a road that will allow government’s shadow to encompass even more, or we can choose to hold the torch of liberty higher. We can allow for politicians to decide how we live our lives, or we can decide for ourselves. We can continue to allow the unconstitutionality of government to expand, or we can contain it to its rightful scope.

The choice is ours.

Over the past thirty years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has perceived a mounting regional and global threat to its national security.  Its quest for hegemony, regional instability and unreliability, and the relative weakness of its conventional military force, coupled with perceived threats from Israel and the United States has molded Iran’s security doctrine into one which necessitates nuclear weaponry.

The Islamic Republic’s unique look on the world is shaped by ethnic prestige, Islamic revivalism, a turbulent neighborhood, and the gift of rich natural resources.  Due to these factors, Iran has sought to craft a foreign policy doctrine which gives it the capability to confront or respond to military and political threats, either existential or otherwise, that it perceives surround it.  Nuclear weapons, as will be explained in the pages to come, are an ideal solution to Iran’s strategic woes.  However, a nuclear Iran has serious consequences and can be deterred from occurring if the United States and Middle East allies take the theory of security cooperation seriously.

Iran perceives itself as a historic world power.  Looking back over thousands of years of history, Iran believes that “greatness is once more feasible given the combination of massive fossil fuel resources, a young population, a large and well-populated country and a geographical position that puts it at the heart of an immensely significant region.”[1]  Iran stands on the world’s largest petroleum hub.  It is one of the world’s largest crude oil exporters, and its geographical position makes it the gatekeeper of the transfer of goods from Asia to the Middle East.

Its foreign policy has kept these realities in mind and additionally been affected by two significant events; the Iranian hostage crisis beginning in 1979, and the Iranian Revolution of the same year.  Relations with the United States were severed during the hostage crisis, and with the new Islamic Republic came new regional foreign policy goals, that of exporting the Islamic Revolution.  Iran’s current security dilemma is a manifestation of these historical events and unavoidable realities.  “The Iranians have a strong sense of their identity and past and see themselves as the natural heirs of a leadership role in the region,” remarks Abbas Maleki, the former Iranian foreign minister from 1988-1997.

In order to understand Iran’s current actions, we must first establish context.  Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has tended to see more enemies than allies as it surveys the international and regional scene.  This isolated position became all too apparent during the Iraq-Iran war.  When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, there was a mixture of silence and uneasy tolerance over Iraq’s actions.  George Irani righty points out that “most Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, helped Saddam Hussein financially in his war effort against Iran.”[2]  Howerver, when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was a huge rally to the aid of the Kuwaitis by the same international community that was silent throughout the 1980s.

Since the war, Iran’s relations with its neighbors have improved meagerly.  “Major sources of tension include the ongoing occupation of the islands of Abu Musa and the Great and Little Tunb islands” in which both the UAE and Iran have claimed territorial control over.  In early September 2008, all six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) condemned Iran and called on it to “respect the UAE’s territorial sovereignty.”[3]  Iran has also been critical of its own deputies and neighbors who are allied or subservient to Western influence.  Ayatollah Khomeini, in criticizing those Iranians who favor U.S. ties asked ”why should we be so Western-oriented or Satan-oriented?”[4]

Iran’s reality is that it has had no substantial military allies in the past in which it could call upon for assistance if it faced an imminent threat, and it has no reason to believe it will anytime soon without (unlikely) major shifts in attitudes in both within and outside its borders.  Iran’s defense, therefore, must come from its own military strength which has remained primarily conventional.  An analysis of Iran’s military status and a look at some of the instances where it has been used can give us a better picture of why Iran seeks to expand its military into the realm of unconventional weapons.

Compared to other Middle Eastern nations, Iran has a moderate sized military.  However, it has serious limitations.  Anthony Cordesman and Arleigh Burke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies make some enlightening observations in a February 2007 report.  They conclude that Iran, while having “some 1,600-1,750 main battle tanks, some 720 other armored fighting vehicles, 650 armored personnel carriers, over 300 self-propelled artillery weapons, over 2,000 major towed artillery weapons, and roughly 900 multiple rocket launchers,” much of the equipment is “worn” “obsolete” or “obsolescent.”[5]  Iran’s air force, while having over 260 combat aircraft, “operational availability is about 50-60%.”[6]  Iran’s navy is equally as unimpressive, with its five aging larger surface ships and only three operational Kilo-class submarines.  Two hundred twenty-two thousand of its 545,000 active armed forces receive minimal training and have “marginal military effectiveness.”[7]

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian military performance was poor.  Both Iran and Iraq had ineffective anti-air defense systems and air support performance was “hampered by poor maintenance and lack of trained pilots.”[8]  Iranian troops on the ground were often disorganized, notes Major Robert E. Sonnenberg.  “Units could not be mixed because troops would not follow orders if the commander was not one of their own.  That the Iranians were able to defend at all was probably due to nationalism and revolutionary fervor.”[9]

The years following the war with Iraq were no better.  “U.S. analysts estimate that Iraq destroyed or captured 40 to 60 percent of Iran’s military assets in both personnel and equipment, losses which Iran has not yet replaced.”[10]  On top of these heavy losses, starting in 1995, the United States began instituting economic sanctions on Iran for its support for international terrorism, sanctions which have only grown since Iran’s nuclear program was discovered in 2003.  Spiraling inflation and trade restrictions have obligated the Iranians to divert fewer funds to its military budget.  As of 2005, the Iranian defense budget was $6.2 billion, compared to Saudi Arabia’s $25.4 billion (2005 dollars),[11] and Israel’s $51.6 billion (2008 dollars).[12]

Because Iran has no dependable military allies and has an outdated, underfunded, and undertrained conventional military force, Tehran needs another means to provide for its common defense and nuclear weapons seems to be the optimal option.

In order to make such a connection seem logical, consider the history of rouge nations in the development of nuclear weaponry.  In 1993, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty after denying IAEA inspectors access to suspected nuclear sites and the world did nothing.  A year later, Korea plays diplomatic cat-and-mouse and signs an agreement halting all nuclear research in exchange for oil and construction of two nuclear power plants only in 2002 to declared that it had never lived up to the treaty and had been funding a nuclear weapons program covertly for years.  The world responded with resounding condemnations and economic sanctions, but did not militarily strike the Korean nation.

When the six-party talks failed in September 2005 the international community played nothing but lip service to the idea and the priority of nuclear nonproliferation, but still no military action.  The following year, North Korea test fired its first nuclear weapon underground.  Did it cause a call for military mobilization?  No.  More sanctions, more condemnation, but nothing more.

A similar timeline could be painted for multiple other nations.  Pakistan openly declared it would develop nuclear weapons in 1974 and was able to do so for 24 years with varying degrees of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation.  After Iraq had used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and on its own people in 1988, the world’s response was mild and non-violent until a whole decade later only after Saddam had violated a cease fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions calling for his cooperation.

A precedent has been set and the bar, as Iran sees it, is extremely low.  If you desire nuclear weapons, have the technological means to develop them, and can survive diplomatic and economic isolation, then you have a green light.  But the nuclear equation is more than just desire, technological ability, and economic resilience.  In order to have any hope of credibility, Tehran had to be sure there was a case to be made that Iran must have a nuclear deterrent capability out of necessity not simply hegemonic desire (although hegemony is an important factor and will be discussed later).

Iran fervently argues that it remains a threatened nation by two significant forces which have only gotten larger throughout the past decade; that of the growing military presence of the United States and Israel, the latter being the preverbal thorn in the side of the broader Middle East, including Iran’s.  Iran has a solid argument in this respect.  Below is a map of some major U.S. military bases that clearly indicates that Iran is indeed surrounded by an American military presence.  Making matters worse are the ever-growing tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic.  Paradoxically, the reason behind the United States’ concern regarding Iran is the very thing Iran is seeking to deter the United States.  If relations eased between the two nations, U.S. military bases would not seem so threatening.  However, U.S. military presence seems to be a non-negotiable commitment.

American interests in the Middle East are many and of high importance.  The Strait of Hormuz sees some 15 million barrels of oil – more than 18% of daily worldwide consumption – travel through it each day.[13]  Any kind of blockage of the strait would have serious consequences for the world economy.  Moreover, Middle East stability has always been a strategic goal for the United States and its allies.  Pakistan in particular has been a constant focus due to its nuclear stance and its strenuous relationship with India which also has nuclear weapons.  The United States has also used its military presence to respond quickly and efficiently to natural disasters in the region.  In October of 2005, U.S. aircraft carrying supplies were the first on the scene in Pakistan to provide assistance to the effected cities of Muzaffarabad and Mansehra.  The U.S. flew a total of 5,912 relief operations, treated 35,000 injured Pakistanis, and transported 1,000 tons of relief supplies.[14]

Furthermore, the United States has invested heavily in the security of the state of Israel in the hopes that its robust democracy will act as an example for emulation throughout the Middle East.  Support for Israel, Iran cites, is one of the primary reasons for Iran’s refusal to work with the United States.  Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, in response to U.S. President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo, said “Whatever the U.S. president says about forgetting the past and starting a new phase of relations with Iran the first condition should be a policy change toward Israel.”[15]  The tone was much more harsh in 2006 when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said “the American regime must expect a hard slap and a destructive punch by the Islamic nations for its support of Zionist criminals.”[16]

Arguably Iran’s largest perceived threat is the state of Israel.  Iran has built onto broader Muslim frustration with Israel to bolster its political position regionally.  Israel has taken an equally as aggressive approach to Iran due to its financial and military support for Hezbollah, the Shiite political group based in Lebanon with a military wing widely labeled as a terrorist organization.  Armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has been taking place for many years now.  In 1992, Hezbollah detonated a bomb in the Israeli embassy in Argentina killing 29 people, and bombed a Jewish community center in 1994 killing ninety-five.  Since Israel withdrew its forces from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has not ceased its assault on Israeli targets.  In the summer of 2006 after an abduction of an Israeli soldier, the situation escalated into full-scale war lasting 35 days and ending in cease-fire.[17]

For all Iran’s tough talk over Israel’s bleak future, Israel vastly outspends Iran militarily and receives significant military assistance from the United States.  It is also believed that Israel has a clandestine nuclear weapons program which it has successfully developed into a usable weapon.  Iran thus has six nuclear powers that surround it: Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Israel, and the United States.  Granted that Pakistan, India, China, and Russia are not on Iran’s list of troubling countries, Iran’s perceived strategic threats remain primarily the United States and Israel, both of which have a clear military buildup which worries Tehran.

This provides the legitimacy that Tehran needs in order to defend a nuclear weapons program, a program many of its neighbors have developed and gained international significance – which Iran believes it lacks – soon thereafter.  “[T]here is a general belief [within Iran] in the value of advanced technology, and a perception of nuclear power as a symbol of modernity,” argues Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group.[18]  Iran knows that if it seeks regional hegemony, it must first prove itself a worthy nation to do so.  Advanced technology and weaponry could easily place Iran as the regional hegemon.

Hegemony is an important facet of Iran’s regional grand strategy.  Considered a country in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and the Caspian region, Iranian foreign policy has thus operated under the assumption Iran can be a part of all four.  Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran’s urgent need for reconstruction and development called on it to increase investment and expand trade with its neighbors.  To reduce concerns of military threats from Southern Asia, Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an intergovernmental mutual-security organization.  Iran also invests extensively in Shi’a Lebanon, cooperates economically with Syria, China, and Russia, and has little difficulty finding trade partners for unsanctioned activities such as certain civilian infrastructure projects.

There have been multiple proposed solutions to Iran’s military and political resurgence ranging from nuclear military confrontation to appeasement and pacifism.  However, I suggest a long-term approach that could eliminate the propensity for conflict, and increase the likelihood of an Iranian shift from a rouge state to a cooperative partner in the Middle East.

After World War II, Europe saw itself for what it had become: a continent whose wars had twice in a century’s time spilled over into the world.  World War I, supposedly the war to end all wars, left the continent bloodied and in shock of the human capacity for mass destruction.  But it soon enough seemed necessary to once again wage war in order to make the world safe for democracy after Nazi Germany invaded Poland.  Since then, Europe has trotted down the path of economic and political integration in order to incubate an environment where military conflict could never be a viable option, and has done so with great success.

The same approach could be used for the Middle East, albeit much more difficult.  Currently, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), made up of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.  The GCC is the closest institution the Middle East has to a fledgling European Union.  The GCC’s stated objectives include integrating each member-state in various fields such as finance, trade, customs, tourism, legislation, administration, “as well as fostering scientific and technical progress in industry, mining, agriculture, water and animal resources, establishing scientific research centers, setting up joint ventures, and encouraging cooperation of the private sector.”[19]

While the GCC does begin to establish a non-violent environment as the European Union did, it is still missing a vital component: real security cooperation.  Transforming the GCC into a security cooperation agreement would create the first Middle Eastern military bloc which Iran must become a part of.  The GCC’s wide recognition from the West already gives the GCC a non-threatening position.  Involving Iran in the GCC, perhaps only militarily and not economically, would effectively create a situation in which violent responses to political problems would no longer be viable.

Iran perceives a threat to its own security by the United States and Israel.  By incorporating itself into a security cooperation organization, striking Iran becomes an attack on other, larger, more influential countries that already have significant economic leverage.  This would eliminate Iran’s necessity to develop nuclear weapons for deterrent reasons, leaving Tehran with no credible rational for nuclear weapons other than prestige and war-mongering which Iranians would not support.  A study by Michael Herzog at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies corroborates such findings:

Although the Iranian regime has emerged as a very tough international political player on the nuclear issue, its concerted efforts to rally its people behind the nuclear program demonstrate the leaders’ sensitivity to public opinion in this area. As far as this regime is concerned, public support for the nuclear program is a highly important aspect of its strategy to fend off both domestic and external pressures.[20]

If Iran does not maintain its legitimacy, domestic pressure could result in a regime change, which the United States has expressed is a desirable option.  Iran knows this, and has rarely miscalculated in such a fashion to believe that it would continue its program once necessity was no longer feasible.

This is bound to be a difficult process.  The GCC already has mounting tension between it and Iran over territorial claims in the Strait of Hormuz and Saudi Arabia’s expressed concern over Iran’s ascendance to regional power.[21]  However, these obstacles seem traversable, while obstacles of other solutions do not.  If Iran would agree to join the GCC on condition it would allow UN inspectors full access to all nuclear sites, it could ease Saudi Arabia’s worry over Iran.

Security cooperation has worked in the past in Europe, and can work in the Middle East today with creative ideas and increased interest.  The United States and its European allies have the ability to influences these changes to alleviate Iran’s worry of a foreign invader and therefore eliminate the need for a weaponized nuclear program.  The GCC needs to get serious about its own security for this cooperation to be effective.

Washington Post.

SALT LAKE CITY — In his second reversal of a Bush administration decision, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Wednesday that he is scrapping leases for oil-shale development on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

Salazar rescinded a lease offer made last month for research, development and demonstration projects that could have led to oil-shale exploration on 1.9 million acres in the three states.

It was the second time Salazar has reversed the Bush administration. He also halted the leasing of oil and gas drilling parcels near national parks in Utah this month.

I disagree with the President’s approach in terms of domestic energy production. He places more emphasis on more “green” energies, while I place more emphasis on energies that dominate (and will continue to dominate) the world consumption.

I have always advocated increasing domestic energy production with serious research efforts towards green energy. I’m not an arrogant partisan; I know that oil and natural gas will eventually not be feasible, and I want my country to be able to make a relatively painless transition when the time is right.

However, the time is not right. There is a place and time for green technology and fossil fuels. I believe Obama has prematurely abandoned the latter, when the former is not ready for full-scale implementation.

Jess Bachman creates these amazing federal discretionary budget graphs each year. They are incredibly illuminating and certainly exposes our government’s priorities. Take a look at FY 2009.

Recently a college professor of mine, discussing breifly global warming and its relationship to human activities, shot down an argument by a fellow classmate that volcanos introduce more carbon into the atmosphere than humans.  The professor, speaking as kindly as his politics would allow him, explained the difference between the carbon introduced into the atmopshere by volcanos, and that introduced by humans, and how human-released carbon is much more deadly.  Interested in the global warming debate, I began to research my fellow classmate’s and the professor’s argument.  Both seemed to fall through the floor.

Firstly, my classmate was mistaken.  Humans certainly introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanos.  A quote from a U.S. Geographical Survey:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerialand submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ (Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

 Yet my professor was also mistaken.  While Volcano and human emissions are different isotops of carbon, human-emitted carbon does not account for the current warming trends.  Take a look at thisimage produced by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  Notice the warming trend began before 1940; before there was large industry.  Yet in the 70s, when huge development of industry was present, temperatures dropped.  Any person of logic might then claim that perhaps the emission of carbon has a delayed effect on the temperature.

So I dug deeper.  Turns out, according to ice core samples, after every single prior warming period in Earth’s history, high levels of carbon come years after.  Here’s how that can be explained: our oceans hold the majority of the Earth’s carbon.  Physics dictates that colder oceans can hold more carbon than warmer oceans.  Now, make the assumption that global temperature rises without carbon levels rising.  Oceans get warmer and they are unable to hold as much carbon.  Carbon is then released into the atmosphere.

Human-introduced carbon, due to its insurmountably small make-up of the Earth’s atmosphere, couldn’t possibly be the cause of global warming.  Historical patterns of globaltemperature changes and the amount of natural carbon in the atmosphere march to the beat of a different drum than that of humanity.

This is but only one avenue to the global warming debate.  Many others, most far beyond my current knowledge, are out there.  Most scientists come to the same perilous conclusion, but consensus is not science.  Most of the industrialized world at one time had a consensus on the status of those with black skin.  The United States, for years, was in consensus that women were too home-bound and uneducated to have a right to vote.  Germans in the late 1930s were in a consensusthat their empire would spread and thrive for a thousand years.  Radical Islamists operate under a consensus that freedom of thought is an obstruction of God’s will.

The world was once flat.  The universe once revolved around the earth.  Lightning was a divine weapon. Scientific truths have no room for assumptions, guesses, or leaps of faith.  Those who believe the world is changing via the actions of Man have a huge argument, nearly all of which is under dispute by the few who have chosen to reserve judgement.

Should we be forced to change the way we live to help preserve the health of our planet simply because scientists says so?  Absolutely not.  Should we have the liberty to?  Absolutely yes.  Conservation is not a sin.  Reducing pollution is not a fruitless goal.  Breathing clean air is not a hopeless cause.  But free people do not take kindly to being told what to do, especially if the jury is still out on the reasons why.

Don’t buy into the conventional wisdom simply because it’s the conventional wisdom.  We humans have an amazing capacity to think for ourselves, and not let others think for us. Do yourself a favor: think for yourself.

The world is often forced into prisms of black and white or good and evil.  Long before history can provide its final analysis, bystanders of international affairs group world events into these simplistic categories.  We anatomize and examine every word and bullet flung to arbitrary standards, lay judgment of right and wrong, and press on like busy ants building a colony.

But before I begin to sound too nihilistic here, let me make this one truism clear: there is an unambiguous moral distinction between radical Islamists, and “the West,” and the debate that this distinction spurs is critical to our national security.  It is without question that a small segment of the largely peaceful Muslim population has strategically and purposefully instigated an all-out war deeply rooted in religious grievances.  Yet I don’t wish to argue that this movement – this sect of militaristic Jihadists – acts and speaks as a unified, coherent entity; that it indeed is a nebulous group of people who think globally and act locally.  This reality is the hallmark of the enemy we face today.  It needs not a leader, or bureaucracy, nor state, rather only a goal; and a goal it certainly has.

The anatomization of this new enemy is not an effort in vain.  Understanding why radical fundamentalists hate us is crucial in designing a counter-strategy to defeat them.  According to Osama bin Laden’s own accounts in his book Messages to the World, the Islamic historical argument goes something like this: In medieval times, Islam was great, but since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, it has suffered greatly.  Nationalism and secular thought have poisoned the ummah (the Muslim world).  To return to the good-ol’-days, there must be a return of “true” Islam, not disillusioned by modernity’s notions of the individual, feminism, or the rule of man-made laws.  Because of this, radical Islamism is vehemently opposed to liberal forms of government.  They believe globalization is an aggressive western push to keep the ummah divided and impure.  Elections, representative government, popular sovereignty are the “essence of infidelity and deviation from the true path,” as the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abbu Masab al-Zarqawi, once put it.

As John Stuart Mill once said, “a man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature.”  I would hope and pray that the leaders of the free world and of “the West” realize that this is a clash of more than just ideologies, like the clashes before it (i.e. Nazism, communism, and totalitarianism).  It is a bitter struggle that needs to be fought.  There are notions worth dying for, and they’re the same notions that radical Islamists, if left to their own devices, would toss aside with satisfaction and glee.

For those reasons I cannot join those who cry peace.  This war must be fought in responsible means which maximizes liberty, and minimizes totalitarianism.  It must be fought economically, ideologically, and with much restraint and regret, militarily.  There must be an informational outreach to moderate segments of the Muslim population.  They must be rewarded, and extremism punished.  Negotiation and concession are not options to those who wish to do away with value pluralism.  Their goal is to reestablish the ummah and institute strict sharia law over its land.  If successful, the social and political struggle for equality that has eclipsed most of human history will be eradicated by the discharge of a weapon.  Those who counsel for peace at all costs do not understand the dynamics of radical Islamists and the belief system upon which they are based.

A bit of refreshing news for those lost in a sea of pessimism.  A recent poll in Saudi Arabia found that only 10% supported al-Qaeda, while 40% viewed America favorably.  Moreover, 69% support close ties between Riyadh and Washington.  I don’t know why some choose to rely on the notion that the world hates us to further their political agenda.  Shouldn’t we rather do what is right, not necessarily what is popular?

In recent months, members of the Democrat Party have attacked President Bush and Republicans alike for eagerly awaiting and in fact actively seeking a military confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In April of 2007, Dennis Kucinich claimed Vice President Dick Cheney was, “already ginning up a cause for war against Iran.”  Senator Joe Biden in October, explaining why he voted against a Congressional bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, said, “I voted against the amendment […] because I don’t trust this administration not to twist its words into a justification for war.”  Earlier that same month, Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, in a Democrat Presidential Debate stated, “[t]he Republicans are waving their sabers and talking about going after Iran.  I want to prevent a rush to war.”

As it always seems to be in politics, politicians spend more time demonizing their opponents than they do promoting themselves.  The Democrat’s attempt to paint Republicans as blood-thirsty war-mongers is not only dishonest and untrue, but insulting to voters of all political persuasions.

First of all, let it be known that the Bush Administration and any sensible elected Republican believes that the primary goal of American foreign policy towards Iran is to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Currently, the United States and its global allies are working both diplomatically and economically to achieve their common goal.  The President and his administration have been consistent on this issue from day one.  In February of 2004, President Bush made a speech to the National Defense University and made it clear that the United States would not accept a nuclear Iran and that the United States was working with the IAEA to insure this.[1]   More recently, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice[2]  and Vice President Dick Cheney[3]  stated that the U.S. is committed to working with the international community to find a peaceful solution.

It would, however, be politically and tactically moronic to refuse to leave military options on the table.  If indeed Iran procured military-grade nuclear technology, despite the most honest of diplomatic negotiations and most stringent economic sanctions, military action may need to be considered.  Senator Barak Obama recognized this in one of the Democrat Presidential debates.

So it appears, in order for the Democrats to gain any kind of political traction on this issue, they must first portray their Republican opponents as those who hope and dream for a military confrontation.  This, as I have pointed out clearly, is dishonest and untrue.  This ploy by the Democrats is also an insult to voters, as it plays off of the preconceived ignorance of the American public.  Democrat Presidential hopefuls are seeking to gain votes by claiming a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for war with Iran.  Once again, politicians are demonizing their opponents and refusing to promote their own ideas and solutions to real problems.

This strategy by the Democrats also plays into the hands of Iran’s populist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Ahmadinejad is seeking to gain more support in Iran by playing off of Iranian nationalism.  Nothing creates more nationalism than the prospects of war, and by making grandiose claims that the United States government is actively seeking military confrontation with Iran, Democrats are bolstering Ahmadinejad’s position and diminishing the moderate audience within Iran that will play a crucial role in any peaceful revolution down the road.

In their clumsy quest for political dominance, the Democrats are threatening the already delicate security dilemma in Iran.  They are insulting the American public by assuming we believe and hang on every word they speak, regardless if it is right or wrong, and they are insulting the American political system once again by spending more time and campaign funds on demonizing their opponents than they are promoting their own ideas and solutions.

In January, 2008, Americans are asked to vote their conscience at the polls.  Whether that is a vote for a Democrat or Republican matters not.  What does matter is that your vote is based on fact and reason.

  1. http://www.ndu.edu/info/whatsnew/PresBush-NDU.cfm
  2. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/10/94207.htm
  3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071102-13.html