Limited Options in Afghanistan

If someone attacks you there are limited options as to response.  1) You can beat the "crud" out of them and go home.  2) You can turn the other cheek. 3) You can try to make them your friend.

I think that Option 1) is a deterrent but likely won't make any lasting friends.  Option 2) is what Jesus would have done -- but, He works on a much higher plane of existence than we do.  Option 3) holds some possibility but probably will only work with an application of Option 1).

So, what are our options in Afghanistan?  1) Beat the "crud" out of them and go home.  2) Whimper and tell them we understand how we've mistreated them for all these years and how we deserved it.  And by-the-way, if you feel that you need to attack us again, that's OK.  3) Seek a treaty of friendship and cooperation (which loosely translated means that we will give them money to keep them from attacking again while they continue to hate us).

I think Option 1) is appropriate.  Option 2) is a sure path to destruction -- our own.  Option 3) is a money pit that allows the problem to fester until it breaks out again.

We've tried a combination of Options 1) and 3).  Perhaps it is time to revisit 1) and forget 3).

Clinton Heads to Afghanistan as Fears Mount Over War

I guess there's a reason that I wasn't considered for the Diplomatic Corp.

Opium Wars in Afghanistan

When the economy of a country is in shambles, the people will turn to whatever means necessary to survive. This often includes raising crops destined for production of illicit drugs. Those illicit crops typically finance criminal and rebellious organizations that add to the political turmoil in a region. That turmoil keeps the economy in shambles and makes it more difficult for a conversion to legitimate crops. This is the problem in Afghanistan. Although progress has been made, the lawless areas of the Southwest part of the country are still the world's largest producer of opium. Drug users in the U.S. and EU are financing terrorists that are keeping the multi-national forces busy in Afghanistan. Are we our own worst enemy?

It is in some ways the old problem of the chicken or the egg. Can you fix the illicit drug manufacturer without first removing the rebel elements and restoring law and order -- or must you restore law and order first so that the drug trade can be eliminated. In reality, both must happen almost simultaneously to be effective. If we could rid the world of the drug users it would cut off the funding for the rebels.

Somalia's Crisis Grows

Somalia is a Sunni Muslim country located in the Horn of Africa. It has experienced almost continual civil and political strife since its independence from Italy in 1960. The 2006 invasion from neighboring Ethiopia was only the most recent instance of conflict with its neighbor. The capitol city is Mogadishu of "Blackhawk Down" fame. Its people are dying of hunger.

In a story released today, the BBC indicated that the number of people in the country in dire need of food assistance will reach approximately 3.5 million in this year. That is about 1/3 of the population of the country.

The political and religious climate as well as the lack of a controlling governmental force makes it extremely difficult to provide aid to these starving people. Humanitarian groups are threatened and often attacked by various militant forces when they attempt to deliver aid. Such delivery is further complicated by the constant movement of people seeking refuge from those same militant forces and from the harsh, drought-prone climate. Many of them will die.

Humanitarian aid isn't the answer for the country. It only treats a symptom. Political stability is what is needed. The collapse of the government has led to widespread capitalism instead of the socialism that was present previously. It is the capitalism of survival through opportunism. It is also dominated by warlords whose protection is necessary for survival.

My question to you is this: Would it be a just war to invade Somalia for the purpose of bringing stability to the nation?

Pragmatically, we would have little to gain. The country contains no known deposits of oil or natural gas. There are no major natural resources for exploitation. The history of warfare between the various tribes is unlikely to ever result in a stable self-government. Stability might reduce the amount of humanitarian aid that is sent there every year. Yet, people there continue to die of starvation.

Playing Games With Service Funding

Whether for or against the war in Iraq, every one of our elected representatives should be working diligently to provide funding for our military. Playing games with the paychecks of our servicemen and women is unconscionable. Just fund it. No pork. No games.

What is the Top Issue of the Campaign?

I've said it before, it's the economy. Not everyone agrees though that the economy will be the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential race. Some believe it is the candidate's positions on Iraq that will be the deciding factor. What is going on in Iraq has profound consequences for our economy. They are deeply interconnected.

I don't believe in wars for purely economic reasons unless they are a matter of survival. But, think of what happens if we pull all of our troops home. Does it have an impact on unemployment? Does it have an impact on jobs in the defense related industries? What about oil prices? Will a politically unstable Iraq be good for oil prices? The situation isn't great now but it is improving. What happens if we pull out before they can stand on their own? Will we be handing them over to Iran? It is very difficult to separate the issues.

The people in the U.S. want to see something done about the price of gasoline. They want their heating and cooling costs to come down. This fall, they will ultimately decide based on their perception of which candidate is best for their pocketbook. Every other issue will be secondary.

Water Wars in the Future?

Back in the early days of the opening of the Great Plains and Western U.S. water was a critical component of where settlements were established. Before the settlements it determined the location of homesteads and ranches. There were many range wars fought over water. He who controlled the water controlled the range.

The people living in areas with abundant fresh water have a hard time understanding how critical water supplies can be. Out here on the southern end of the Great Plains we know about water. With it you can thrive. Without it you die.

Fresh water is distributed unevenly across the globe. The Eastern U.S. has it in abundance; the Middle East and much of Africa is constantly concerned with it. As populations grow, pressure on the supply of fresh water for drinking, bathing and agricultural uses increases. Are we looking at Water Wars in the near future?