Month: July 2014

New Surge In I’m

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

Several U.S. presidents in recent decades have eagerly entangled America in conflicts around the world with limited success. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama were unable to control the urge to get into the fray when they saw tyranny, violence and human rights violations.

There’s no doubt that the U.S.’s unofficial role of world peacemaker has been an expensive habit that is generally unappreciated by the global community of nations. Our government is quick to spend money for armaments and troops to support the exploits of struggling governments. This altruistic spirit is once again on display as President Obama has authorized a “redeployment” of troops into Iraq.

Obama spent his entire 2008 presidential campaign bashing George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the existence of Gitmo and the war on terror. Yet, the new president didn’t keep his promises to end the Iraq conflict honorably (whatever that means), close Gitmo or control the spread of terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.

Ironically, after ordering combat troop withdrawals from Iraq, the president decided to send  advisers to the war-torn country to evaluate security issues, estimate the strength of the government’s opposition and a develop a plan to temper sectarian violence. Re-infusing new troops into the country, according to the Obama administration, is not a new surge. It must then be a dribble.

The war between Shiites and Sunnis has been under way for centuries. Just like the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, there is no quick fix. Insurgents from Shiite-dominated countries (principally Iran) and Sunni-dominated countries (principally Saudi Arabia) seek ways to disrupt their opponents. Every country in the region is at risk of provocative attacks.

Iraq is the perfect battlefield because it is dominated by Shiites, but is has a large Sunni and Kurdish population as well. The dispersion of ethnic groups is regional. The Sunnis and Saddam Hussein loyalists are in the northern part of the country. Recently, Al-Qaeda fighters from Syria  invaded Iraq and were welcomed by resentful native Sunnis. The capture of several cities has been a cakewalk because most of inhabitants of areas overrun by Al-Qaeda are of the same religious sect.

What does the U.S. government think it’s going to accomplish in Iraq at this point? Will this dribble of soldiers end the sectarian conflict that is a continuation of a very old feud? No. Will it encourage real democracy in Iraq? No way. Will it result in the ouster of the Iraqi president? Probably not. Will it end the fighting and violence that the insurgents are precipitating? No. Will Iraq’s Shiite government embrace Sunni participation? No. So what’s the game plan?

Maybe it’s politics. Even this cynical perspective by Obama haters makes no sense. The vast majority of Americans don’t want U.S. troops in Iraq. Is it national security? It depends upon your definition of the term. Will U.S. involvement with a mere 300 troops, a hundred or so drones and fighter jets ameliorate the threat to Iraq’s oil assets? It’s doubtful.

The only conclusion that can one can draw is that Obama wants to dazzle the Sunni insurgents with some firepower and convince the American people that he isn’t a wimp. Both of these objectives are inane, wasteful and representative of poor leadership. It’s time we ended the loss of any more American lives and treasure in Iraq’s new civil war. We should allow the two religious sides to fight it out by themselves.

 

Feed Americans Now

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

DECREASE FOREIGN AID AND FEED ALL AMERICANS
JULY 2014

Poverty in the U.S. continues to plague our country. In the meantime, the federal government devises new ways to transfer our tax dollars overseas. Why are we more intent on sending cash to other countries while so many of our citizens live in squalor and go to bed hungry?

In the past, the beneficiaries of American altruism appreciated our generosity. The U.S. reaped the rewards of its goodwill in many ways and created great alliances. Today, the global community of nations periodically comes to the United Nations in New York City and bashes America. In spite of this disrespectful behavior, the U.S. continues to pay 22% of the U.N. regular budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget. In 2011, we donated about $2.7 billion to the U.N. Why are we so generous to this organization, when so many of our citizens are starving? In fact, why do we continue to be host to a hostile U.N.? The cost of doing so is immense.

Every day 17 million American children go to bed hungry and 50 million are in hunger risk. 17.9 million American households are food insecure. One out of five children are at risk of hunger; one third of African American and Latino children are at risk. Yet, 40% of the food served to Americans is discarded each day. This equates to about $165 billion, which could feed 25 million people annually. This is a colossal waste that also needs to be addressed.

14.7% of Americans are food insecure. The greatest problems across the U.S. are Mississippi (20.9%, Arkansas (19.7%), Texas (18.4%), Alabama (17.9%) and North Carolina (17.0%). While politicians continue to endorse increased global assistance for indefensible reasons, their constituencies are hungry.

The following countries lead assistance to foreign countries:

U.S. $30.46 billion
U.K. 13.66 billion
Ger. 13.11 billion
Fra. 12.00 billion
Jap. 10.49 billion

Twenty-one government agencies funded economic assistance activities in 2012, including the State Department, USAID, the Treasury, USDA and HHS. I wonder what the administrative costs of these operations total each year. In any case, 2012 donations totaled $48.4 billion for economic ($31.2 billion) and military ($17.2 billion) purposes and were delivered to 182 countries.

The primary recipients were Afghanistan $12.9 billion ($3.5 billion economic), Israel $3.1 billion (all military), Iraq $1.9 billion (only $.5 billion economic), Egypt $1.4 billion (all military), and Pakistan $1.2 billion (all military). Of course, expenditures for the Department of Defense are not included in these numbers. The DoD represents a huge source of funds that can be redeployed.

I believe the point is clear. The U.S. is paying billions annually to fictitious allies. Is Iraq an ally? Is Egypt and ally? Is Afghanistan and ally? U.S. altruism is a farce. We no longer gain significant benefits from a national security perspective, or any other perspective, for these outlays. Expenditures should be radically decreased and redeployed to feeding Americans.

The current welfare system, in my opinion, is a disaster. It regenerates itself and discourages its prisoners from becoming self-sufficient. Many would quibble with this characterization, but few (liberal or conservative) would be averse to feeding hungry citizens. There is common ground. And, cutting back the expenditures to the ungrateful nations delineated previously could easily offset the cost of a national feeding initiative.

A feeding initiative could create new jobs as hungry people feed other hungry people for a living wage. Current food banks and other eleemosynary organizations are plentiful and could be the basis of the new effort.

As an American, I am appalled that somehow our government sends assistance overseas while our neighbors are hungry. Altruism beyond our borders should happen only after every man, woman and child in America goes to bed with a full stomach.