On War and Peace
Commentary by Orion Karl Daley
Balanced Party Candidate for Election 2008
|
Zeitgeist Part 3 - the move - 45 min's running time |
|
Foreign Policy Foreign Policy is fundamentally the state of relationship that we have with other nations. This can be in terms of trade and commerce, and in what state of peace and/or war that we are involved in. In both cases, Foreign Policy is a matter of ground. We can be on the high ground, the low ground or on contentious ground in a state of peace , war, or in between with others. Economic Solvency removes compromise when claiming ground. Given a road to Economic Solvency, there is a road to chosen ground. Trade and Commerce are addressed in the Balanced Trade proposal, and is tangentially related to the following that addresses War and Peace. In Diplomacy, given that we demonstrate mutual respect as a standard for how we respect ourselves, this is the standard to expect from others. This is the standard expected in our relationship with the UN and the countries it represents. For others, it is the respect that we back with our level of defense and/or strategic alternatives and capability for taking Pre-Emptive Action when considered necessary. Habeas Corpus and the Strategic Right to Chosen Ground Habeas Corpus is to apply to all, including non-citizens. The only time it does not apply is when under invasion, or insurrection. The Colonials could have been considered spys, or illegal combatants by the British if we wanted to use Rumsfeld's arguments. On the other hand, the Al Qaeda, Taliban, nor the Northern Alliance have uniforms, yet two of the three were/are considered enemies and one, an army of allies. This of course could change, as the others were allies once, and the third was previously the enemy. All prisoners of war are considered prisoners of war. If necessary, what I would have done different was to allow said prisoners to congregate, as opposed to separate , or isolate them. In this manner I could eventually identify the officers, and then separate them as a group. These are the ones I would want to focus on. The body with out a head has no purpose. Hence, a new head can be offered. The question is 'if necessary' as we fumbled in Tora Bora, so could we learn anything of value from the ones left behind to be killed or captured ? I am convinced that Bin Laden is in Sweden, ( see the write up on that ) , and question is he was really the only player. What though he also accomplished is in 'Bleeding a Giant' , which eventually weakens the giant. Through our greed and pride we have squandered our people which has weakened us, where the sitting President has lost his political capital. A- In Declaring War When in peace we seek certain objectives and when in war we seek other ones. When in Peace, options for war can be put on the table, and when in war, options for peace. In either case, the question is how strategically are we considering them ? History can resemble a full circle. When we think of war, do we think of stated missions, and exit strategies. Do we think of what affects a war will or can have at its completion compared to the intended purpose, or is it viewed in terms of the victor within the scope battles alone. Are we conservative or liberal in our latitude for thinking of its outcome?
The Right and the Wrong In other words, there was both right and wrong in the use of the Atomic Bomb when war was declared on America by Japan. In our defense, we must be capable of using power, which is the right in addition to saving many more American lives, but was wrong in having to use it in the first place on humanity. When confronting the possibly of declaring war and its avoidance, it is not a matter of thinking out of the box, but not letting ourselves get stuffed into one. It could be a matter of what we believe is right compared to what we see as very wrong. But does this in of itself place us in a box of the 'hear and now', where right and wrong can ultimately be measured as a future result of our actions. Present day Japan is a close friend, business parter, lender and ally. This was catalyzed by our strong defense. But in not seeing the future, what does 'for the greater good' mean ? If Defense is managed by reason, it is conservative in purpose, where its ripple affect can be like a Tsunami. In the absence of reason, it is an unmanaged resource in its untold ripple affect, is depleted. Power has its limitations. If Diplomacy were to have the same dynamic, in having teeth, could we then say that 'Let war not be an option on the table before all other options can be considered ?'. And if our diplomacy lacks teeth, can we conclude that it could not see options to consider ? We must be capable of using power correctly, or be subject to its limitations. Consider the American Civil War as an example. a: The American Civil War and Options What were the other options ? War was considered necessary in response to the succession of the South. This succession was based on both the North and South believing that they were in the right, and the other in the wrong. The American Civil War was a noble effort for both sides of the country regardless of who was right, and who was wrong. Although its apparent cause was the succession of the South, it set the precedent to abolish slavery; which is morally right, or can be considered 'for the greater good'. As a young country of less than 100 years old, for congress to be able declare war against its former colleagues required the division of the country where as a full Congress previously voted for rights against wrongs together. In American lives, it cost 4 for every slave freed, where modest projections in war are 10 wounded for one lost. In total, there were 620,000 military deaths, with an estimated 6,200,000 wounded Americans. Further, there is no statistic found yet for non-military deaths or causalities. It was, and is still considered a worth while sacrifice when left with no other option. This then poses the questions: Were other options looked at by President Lincoln and Congress before the South's succession. Was it a black and white matter of right and wrong. Where all means used at disposal. Did this prevent the option of war from being removed from the table, or could the Civil War have been unnecessary by looking at alternatives for those who felt right and those who felt wronged? Previous to the war, the North was one of the major consumers of the South's cotton, where a succession could hurt the Souths economy. When in peace we can seek certain objectives. In war we cannot. War as a managed force must be missions based on a schedule completion. In peace, missions are not limited to schedules and can endure. In Diplomacy, its a matter of going the extra mile. For the Souths labor force of slaves, workers just like today are only needed and can be considered over head when not needed. For any independent contractor today, there is not always a Union for every kind of contracting. Independent contractors are not assured of year round work, and are expected to obtain their next job. But if the North could had helped to subsidize the cost of workers in the South, the need and cost of slaves could have been reconsidered by the South. This would have been an excellent debate in a Congress consisting of the North and the South. In using all means at one's disposal, with the aid of government, financing a work force, can be accomplished through bonds. These bonds could be bought by industrialists in the North. The payment on this bond is based on the South or other, to pay for only labor used. This financing would allow the emancipation of slaves to become wage earners paid by the government. Where the price of the bond compared to the actual cost of labor paid differ is the value of the bond. The Government pays a coupon if the cost of labor is less than the bond. The Bond provides the immediate sum of money needed by the government on an annual basis for paying labor. The Bond is being paid in a monthly basis by plantation owners for labor used, where the balance of the bond can be invested for paying an additional offset. In other words, the government does not need 12 month coverage at one time. 10 Months of the Bond funds could be invested. This adds to the value of the original funds raised by the Bond. Based on estimated cost of labor and base value of the bond for a period of 12 months, the return value could at a minimum pay for the coupons; or extend the base value for additional months of coverage, or a combination of both. Under such a structure, what was once a slave could become an independent contractor that seasonally could do work in the South and else where. Consequently, the identity of the African-American as in parity, like self esteem, is something that we could of helped foster early on in our history. b: Vietnam and For the Greater Good Our undeclared war in Vietnam was triggered by an incident in North Vietnam Waters called the Bay of Tonkin. It was believed announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson that North Vietnamese gun boats fired on one of our destroyers. President Nixon later had promoted the message that if we did not stop the communists there, that it would destabilized the region, and they would eventually invade our shores. After years of war, and a compulsory military draft, upwards of 60,000 brave Americans lost their lives with an additional estimated 600,000 severely wounded where some represent part of the Homeless in our nation today. During that time, we carpet bombed Hanoi on a nightly bases, and North Vietnam lost an estimated 5 for every one American lost. Their total losses could be estimated from 300,0000 to 500,000 deaths, and upwards of 3 to 5 million wounded. When leaving Vietnam, the US took on millions of South Vietnamese refugees, and Nixon wanted Peace with honor. When looking back today at our exit in Vietnam, many still feel that we had cut and run. But then we have to ask ourselves, if we had not exited from Vietnam, and given up what was considered our American interests in the region, could we have established initial trade relations with China in the early 80's. Consequently could China have become the financial super power it is today and who represents one of our major creditors for our National Debt? It would have been impossible to predict such an outcome but our defense demonstrated faculties of reason. The outcome of continued war can more likely be predicted as to continue with an average loss of life of American Military, a continued financial burden to fund the military effort, where there would be ultimately no progress in the region. What also could have happened is that since China and Russia were supporting the North Vietnam position, could the war have further destabilized the region, and to a point of mutually assured destruction. B- In Declaring Peace When in war, to work for peace leaves one on contentious ground. In being in war, it is far more difficult to achieve mutually acceptable peace between opponents; or there can be peace though compromise. Compromise is a matter of what ground that we are basing our pursuit for peace where in war, it can be defined by only the victor.
a: China the Mediator, and Partner Diplomacy has been in place between the US and China since the early 80's. They are one of our largest lenders which is funding the Iraq war. Our relationship with China is Commerce driven, where our dollar becomes weaker with debt while they flood the US consumer with goods. The teeth of our Diplomacy are not as strong when economically insolvent, but which does not matter if only chewing soft foods. Corporate America might think they are doing well, but if their dollars are not strong then they could be doing better. b: China's little Brother Like in Defense, the Power of Diplomacy must be able to shift in its direction. At a minimum, this gives us the ability to talk with China about other matters where China could benefit and profit. The stronger China becomes economically, the closer its currency can be like a Euro. They are currently even building a Trillion Dollar hedge fund. North Korea in a way could be viewed like a little brother to China that has not yet grown up. China has to deflect complaints and in some cases admonish North Korea, such as in testing a Nuclear bomb. In a way, North Korea could be viewed by China as a cost which does not serve as a strategic investment. South Korea is a market based economy and has a stock exchange. As our Ally, China could make investments into South Korea. In seeing costs in North Korea, over a period of time, China could help Shepard an investment. With encouragement from their big brother, North Korea can save face, retain its autonomy, feed its hungry, eventually offer its people their dignity, and then join the world a few years later. Thats without having to have a McDonald's there the way they do in China. In other words, North Korea can certainly follow China's economic model that started in 1980 which has made it into the economic super power that it is today. The alternative is to shoot down their test missiles when they decide to lob them towards japan, so as to remind them of cost. c: Syria and the Middle East Syria is a key component in achieving peace for Israel and its neighbors. As much as they are a weak point in the achieving stability, they can be forged as a strength. Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist, and Syria can influence this. Our current State Department also has many issues about Syria with respect to Hezbollah that would need to be reconciled to forge this strength. In other words, what could make them come to the table and oblige on working with US as a partner in Foreign Policy ? If we are caught up in being a jack in the box, then we stay wired to the conditions that Syria offers which is passive obstinance and US subtle threats. To approach this problem, there is a need to understand the potential objectives. If it is limited, then the partnership is limited if any. To not set a maximum objective, why not offer something very valuable. In other words what is more valuable to Syria than Hamas, and Hezbollah, but 'fresh water'. With fresh water, irrigation allows agricultural economies to flourish. To provide fresh water, then salt water must go through desalination. This technology is new, but quite real, and GE even advertises the business. But then the financing issue must be addressed. Israel on the other hand has a potential of sustaining itself as a financial economy. If it provides banking services and banking centers, then it can offer Middle East for funding partnerships for the construction of desalination plants in surrounding nations such as Syria and Palestine. Here, neighbors are given a good reason to get over their differences, and be good neighbors based on their dependency with each other. People also get employed and eat better, and both the Banking and Agricultural economies can flourish together. The relationship also offers parity, as the loans must be reasonable enough to produce crops which Israel also needs. Israel can adjust the price of the loans based on fair crop pricing. Israel has a right to exist, and Palestine too as serving each others needs. d: Iraq Exit Strategy: Time lines are critically important when it comes to milestones. For Iraq, besides telling the so-called insurgents, and Prime Minister Nnuri Kamel Al-maliki's Iraqi government that it's time to act, it also affords the opportunity to start putting political solutions on the table which the Iraqi people, including the Sunnis and Shiites, in all fairness can and are compelled to consider. This is regardless of their leanings toward Iran and Saudi Arabia. It's a matter of what political solutions are put on the table. 'Peace with Dignity' is a plan written in 2004. It proposes 3 sovereign nations of Iraq that have fairly shared their resources such as Oil; and that as sovereign nations, have full UN representation and protection from their neighbors, and are able to become part of OPEC; and that Iraq decides the government model for each new nation. Having sovereign nations, there is also less potential of an Iranian, or Saudi dynamic compared to when in civil war; and the momentum of Jihad from outside interests will dissolve. Any presence of Al Qaeda would be come resented by the 3 nations of Iraq. Each of the 3 nations being sovereign, are able to invite foreign interest as they see fit. The United States he believes would be a welcomed guest, and one of the more attractive investment sources and strategic partner in any one of their economies. This is due to having demonstrated an honorable interest in them as a people in the first place. e: Iran and the West Consider what was achieved by what we are now offered as leadership just yesterday. On 2006/09/19 at the UN, two presidents were condemning each other. This likes wise hosed New York for 3 days; but thats a minor issue. Consider instead if we and Iran could have brokered a settlement for friendship. Imagine how this could put out the fires that burn the unfortunate now. Imagine what it could do for world benefit. Any dope can pull a trigger that can serve the 'hear and now' but life goes full circle. Provoked we could take out their only gas station as Newt Gingrich suggests, but then we must account for newly purchased Russia missiles being shot at Israel, and at our Navy which spends a lot of time in the Persian Gulf. Due to the Russians and the Chinese see Iran as a valuable Oil supplier, the potential would be WWIII. e.1- Consider just a gesture of business friendship as one answer - To use any means at our disposal, consider that in the outskirts of a neighboring country, say just north of Iran we were to invest in building one to two more refineries. Then we could go to Iran and make the offer of refining their oil so they do not have such a cost in producing their own gasoline. Meantime the deal is that we get a discount on their oil - Besides the deal itself, its ripple affect on the region, OPEC pricing, and in addition to the relationships that Iran has with China and Russia; and in addition to the many Iranian Jews that had to exit Iran once to save their lives, and Iran's animosity toward the west change disposition. e.2- Consider even a more dynamic gesture of business friendship as another answer which was sent to Iran's Government News Station the day before the hostages were released. Guided through UN leadership, Iran can be allowed to have their national esteem and a level playing field for doing business with the world as a model Islamic Nation. All we have to do is help them , as oppose to condemning them. As the earth itself shifts its magnetic poles, accomplishing peace in the Middle East is possible if we are not a jack in the box tied to artificial constraints. 
Orion Karl Daley Presidential Candidate for 2008 for the Strategic Future of our country Balanced Party http://unity2008.org |