Archive for the ‘War’ Category

Sometimes it seems like our Federal Government is stuck on “repeat”. It’s almost as if each new administration looks at the mistakes in foreign policy of past administrations and assumes that they can do the exact same thing only with different results.

We are witnessing the ramifications of the arrogance of the central planners right now in the Middle East and North Africa. How many times will our government pretend to be friends with “rebels” to provide them with weapons, etc., and assist in overthrowing their government, then act surprised when they inevitably turn against us?

This tactic of arming the opposition of our “enemies” and allowing them to wage a proxy war on our behalf has only netted a few of the results that it is intended to. It allows the US to project its power into a part of the world where we don’t care to wage a full war or are incapable of doing so effectively.

For the most part, the proxy wars keep the US public satiated and less motivated to protest. In a proxy war there are minimal casualties to US personnel, we mostly lose money and weapons, which is apparently much more acceptable. The proxy wars are mostly left out of media reporting and when they are mentioned they are described as “humanitarian aid missions” and posed to the public as operations intended to help oppressed people.

But there is always blow back from these “aid missions” and the gains that were made are erased ending up resulting in a worse situation.

Aside perhaps from WWII when we armed and assisted the French Resistance against the Nazi occupation the track record for rebel funding has been less than stellar. One example would be that the CIA funded Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, then we were “surprised” when they attacked us several years later.

Right now the rebel forces in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and 7 other countries are showing their appreciation for our “assistance” by attacking our embassies and even killing one of our ambassadors. This is the first time a US ambassador has been killed since 1979.

The media and administration are blaming some nut job back here in the states who made an anti-Muslim video for all of this going on. While the video may have been the catalyst it definitely isn’t the root cause. The people in that part of the world have to be sick of drone strikes, hummers in their streets, and foreign money pouring into their lands to fund continuously expanding violence and war among their people.

In conclusion, I’m not “blaming America” and I’m not blaming Obama or Bush. I am blaming this failed foreign policy that our Federal Government continues to attempt to implement over and over again, administration after administration, failure after failure.

Regardless of what party assumes power this election it appears there will be more of the same. Sadly, that means we will see more events like we have witnessed this week in Egypt, Yemen, and Libya.

Advertisements

I have no idea what day it will start, but it will be before the 2012 election.

As a matter of fact, it may have already started.

Many European nations are set to begin a war of attrition against Iran by blockading the country and imposing international trade restrictions against them.

Recently India agreed to a gold for oil transaction with Iran. Saddam Hussein had plans to switch to a gold backed Dinar and away from the US dollar in oil transactions prior to the US invasion in 2003. Not coincidentally, Muammar Gadhafi had 150 tons of gold in his possession and was forming a group of African oil producing nations to begin trading oil in a gold backed African currency. Both were summarily removed from the planet and their fortunes were pillaged as a result. Iran is going down the same path.

We have 3 aircraft carrier groups in the region with a 4th in short sailing distance, the French have 1 close by as well. Gulf War 1 was fought using 4-5 carriers

The Pentagon recently ordered the deployment of 50,000 troops to 2 islands near the Straits of Hormuz.
Joining 50,000 in Saudi Arabia who left Iraq. 90,000 are currently in Afghanistan. Approximately 150,00 were used to invade Iraq in 2003. The new troops are set to arrive by March.

Pakistan recently stated that they would retaliate against anyone who strikes Iran.

Russia and China have vowed to aid Iran against any attack. So how do we keep them out of it? Probably through the guise of retaliation for a strike by Iran on the US or one of her allies.

What is mentioned above is called a “false flag”. This tactic has been used in the past. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is an example, the sinking of the USS Liberty is another. Some even claim that September 11th and Pearl Harbor were as well (I’m not sold on the last 2 but they’re worth mentioning).

The Big Media propagandists are beating the war drum louder every day. New headline after new headline read of the “dangers” and “radical behavior” of the Iranian government.

Is Iran a threat to the United States? Is Iran a threat to Israel? A lot of people feel the answer to both questions is yes. But, I think war is imminent regardless of the answer. The Keynesians need another war to “spur” the economy from depression. The scary part is that the last time we had a depression like this, a World War broke out.

Here’s hoping we don’t start World War 3.

Im going to start a series of posts focused on our current governmental shortcomings. This post will cover the fallacy that war spurs economic growth. Subsequent posts will show that war leads to the rationing of goods, the decline of liberty, as well as growth of the centralized government. I will also touch on the concept that somehow bringing our troops home is bad for the economy, along with several smaller points. Hard hitting stuff I know, but I’m passionate about these topics and want to further the conversation however I can.

Fallacy: War ends recessions and spurs economic growth.

I can’t say this is completely false, because technically it can spur growth in certain economic statistics, and can push a country from an economic “recession”. BUT, this growth is not real economic growth. The recession doesn’t truly end, simply put, some of the numbers used to define a recession change.

The so called economic growth is in all actuality just a reallocation of labor and cash. Think with me. There are 100 unemployed people in city A. The government of City A declares war on City B. As a result a tank factory is needed in city A to produce tanks for the war. City A employs the 100 workers that do not currently have jobs, this is great right? The war has created 100 jobs!

But wait a minute, to pay the 100 workers salaries the government in City A has to raise taxes on the businesses and residents of City A. In turn the residents have more money removed from their wages to support the war. This means that the residents have less money to spend at area businesses.

Now, not only are businesses in City A being hit with higher taxes issued from the government they are also dealing with less demand for their products. The businesses of City A are left with no choice, they must lay off workers to compensate for lost revenues. (other cost cutting measures would likely preceed layoffs, but would likely cause the same effect) Logically if the 100 new government salaries need to be paid then the equivalent amount of cash needs to be removed from the private sector salaries of City A to cover it. That means 100 people who were previously employed are now without jobs. Thus creating a net gain of ZERO. 100 hired – 100 fired = 0

This doesn’t account for the money spent on tank materials, soldiers, ammunition, food for the front, clothing, boots, tents, blankets, etc., etc., etc. All of which are funded by taxes on the private sector in City A. The result of this war is a net loss.

So how does a country successfully wage war without creating negative economic effects? In short,they can’t. Short term bonuses inevitably lead to long term negative trends. Initially City A’s unemployed were all gainfully employed, but in the long term other people lost their jobs to sustain the war effort.

The other angle that I would like to take is a little more touchy and if I don’t phrase it correctly it will sound as though Im anti military. I am not. I support our military, I just don’t want those men and women put in harms way for anything less than the defense of our nation. Going to war to end a recession is not acceptable, it is in fact counterproductive.

By trade John is a carpenter. John earns his money doing handyman work in City A. His friends and neighbors gladly pay for his services because he is performing tasks that they either can’t do or don’t want to do. He is supplying a service to meet a demand. John is upset when he hears that City A has declared war on City B. He is a reservist and is called up to fight. John is no longer able to do repairs because he is fighting in City B. As a result of war City A has lost the productivity of John inside its community. The money that would have typically changed hands is instead sitting dormant in a cookie jar. John is no longer engaged in an activity that benefits the economy of the community he is now taking money out of the community and returning nothing. ( of course we are assuming that the war with City B is not for the defense of City A from City B’s armies; in that case John would be contributing to the defense and welfare of city A)