Tag Archives: Obama

U.S. Needs to Back U.K. to Head Off Falkland War II

22 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Falkland Islands, Foreign Policy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Without alteration to U.S. policy there is a very real possibility of a second invasion of the Falkland Islands in the next two years. The time is at hand for the U.S. to “dance with the one that brung you” and advise Argentina in case of a war, American forces will be offered to serve with or under command of Great Britain.

In 1982 the military junta governing Argentina ordered an invasion of the Falkland Islands as a means of diverting the gaze of Argentines from a bleak economic and political picture. This example of “mover al perro,” or wag the dog, generated a short-lived burst of nationalism for the junta. Argentina has long claimed the islands, which they refer to as the Malvinas.

Today, the Argentine economy is a shambles as yet another left-wing government tries to breath more life into Chavezanomics than Cuban doctors could breath into Chavez himself. Electricity blackouts, rampant inflation, a crushing debt load, consumer good and food shortages have public approval of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez below 30%. Another Falkland invasion would be a good way to get protesters to drop their sandwich boards and wave the flag in nationalistic adulation.

Buenos Aires continues to rattle the saber, recently adding a provision to its constitution on gaining control of the Falklands and announcing a large increase in defense spending, which would allow it to re-take the islands.

Prior to the 1982 Argentine invasion Britain had exercised control of the islands since 1833. The Royal Navy mounted an operation that re-established British control 74 days after Argentina invaded. Today, the Royal Navy is not its former Cold War self, lacking an operational aircraft carrier, without which its ability to defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic crown colony is minimal at best.

During the 1982 war the U.S. remained officially neutral, though it fed satellite intelligence to the Thatcher government, was rooting for a quick British victory and had a secret plan to loan an amphibious assault ship to the Royal Navy if either of its carriers were sunk. Since taking office President Obama has placed less importance on U.S.-British relations than on his NCAA tournament picks. A web search using the terms “Britain,” “Obama” and “snub” shows British sentiment on its relationship with Washington. After all, they are only the country that stood – even when it was apparent they didn’t want to — “shoulder to shoulder” with the U.S. after 9/11.

The Obama administration has even had the temerity to say London should hold talks with Buenos Aires over what the State Department called “competing claims” to the Falklands, this even after the islanders themselves in March 2013 voted 99.8% to remain British subjects.

Considering U.S. treatment of Britain over the past five years and the lack of any real response to Russian aggression in Central Europe, Argentina could be forgiven for assuming the Obama administration’s response to another Argentine invasion of the Falklands would be handled by the deputy to the assistant deputy undersecretary for who gives a damn. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has said American and British opposition to Russia’s annexation of Crimea is a double standard, comparing the situation in Crimea with that of the Falklands. This acutely faulty reasoning can only be interpreted as justification of if not necessarily a plan for a second Argentine invasion.

Argentina’s window for an invasion will narrow in January 2017, as a new U.S. president will make repairing the enormous damage to the U.K.-U.S. alliance his or her first international priority. That window will slam shut two years later as the Royal Navy will be getting at least one new aircraft carrier as soon as 2019, at which time the British fleet will completely outclass anything Argentina could muster.

The U.S. relationship with Argentina should not be thrown away lightly, and the U.S. should take pains to soften the diplomatic blow to Buenos Aires, but it is high time for the U.S. government to abandon its neutral policy on the Falkland Islands. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falklands. The nation that has legitimate claim also happens to be the closest, most loyal ally the U.S. could have.

Argentine planning for the 1982 invasion included a belief the U.S. would not interfere and possibly even pressure Britain to negotiate a peace. Quietly letting the Argentines know any use of force on their part will trigger an offer of U.S. assistance to Britain will remove any thoughts of an invasion, while showing Great Britain the special relationship is alive and well. God save the Queen.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html

Government Action is Source of, Not Solution to Income Inequality

12 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Domestic Policy, Personal Freedom

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

President Obama has made income inequality an issue in this midterm election issue, but his plan unfortunately ignores the source of inequality, a lack of good blue-collar jobs and hurdles for new small businesses that will only make the situation worse.

During the Great Recession college-educated workers had an unemployment rate less than half that of persons with only a high school diploma. College graduates earn considerably more than high school graduates, are far less likely to live in poverty, and these figures ignore the roughly 20 percent increase in persons receiving Social Security disability payments in the four years between 2008 and 2011. Since blue-collar workers are more likely to do physical labor they are a greater share of people on disability programs.

President Obama’s administration has been quite unfriendly to blue-collar labor. Blue-collar jobs are much more susceptible to loss from government regulation and policy. An example is the Environmental Protection Agency regulations squeezing out coal mining jobs. The granddaddy of them all is the Affordable Care Act, which places considerable new burdens on employers to provide healthcare to employees.

Blue-collar jobs on average pay less than white collar work, so the cost of healthcare is a much greater percentage of the value of the output of blue-collar workers, meaning the ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare, is much more likely to negatively impact either creation of new or maintaining current blue-collar jobs.

New and larger taxes, banking legislation and tax code changes all cost businesses money to comply. Since the value of white-collar work is higher, the marginal cost of complying is lower for businesses that employ white-collar workers. This heavier burden on unskilled labor is a cause of outsourcing, wage stagnation, and underemployment.

This causes employment to be more scarce, meaning workers must accept employment at lower wages just to have a job. And those who can’t get a job have to exist on unemployment, work under the table, or try to get on disability. These options pay less than even a lower-end full-time job.

The best way to help lower income workers is to lessen the burden of taxes and regulations that create needless hassles for new or smaller businesses, usually due to lobbying by larger, established businesses and industries to remove the chance for competition. Even well-intentioned laws, rules and regulations cost money to comply with, a burden considerably greater on newer and smaller businesses.

In the first four years of the Obama administration the Federal Register, a list of proposed rules, final rules, public notices, and Presidential actions increased by 310,211 pages, and this doesn’t include state laws and regulations. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Every new law and regulation makes it harder for small businesses, which according to the Small Business Administration create 64% of new private-sector jobs, to succeed.

It is little wonder why the pace of new laws and regulations churned out by government in this country is choking the life out of blue-collar jobs and small businesses. President Obama’s plan so far is for more rules and laws. That ought to help.

The name of this blog is another way of saying with government, the cure is normally worse than the disease. President Obama’s prescription will only make the patient more ill.   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/05/FR-Pages-published.pdf

U.S. Better Have a Strong Plan B in Central Europe

04 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

“Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.” Barack Obama, July 15, 2008.

President Obama ran for office on a partial platform of improving U.S. relations with foreign countries but his administration has shown a lack of mastery of international affairs. Over a year into his second term foreign policy is ill-defined, buffeted by events and hamstrung by the secretary of state’s pre-occupation with a diplomat’s equivalent of cold fusion.

John Kerry has spent much of the past year trying to forge a framework for a final settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. In itself that would be fine, but the world is not on hold and there is no indication either government is ready to make the major concessions needed to end possibly the most bitter international dispute in modern history. Lately talk is Kerry has made progress, but it will be easy to tell if a real agreement is within reach: Iran’s proxies will rain missiles on Israel as never before.

The Obama administration may not be at fault for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but President Obama’s responses in Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea as well as America’s recent diplomatic posture probably gave Vladimir Putin the impression the U.S. would respond to its invasion of Ukraine only with threats of a diplomatic nature.

The president and secretary of state are absolutely at fault for having three months’ notice there was a major problem brewing in one of Central Europe’s fledgling democracies and doing absolutely nothing about it. Given the likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO if Kiev lurched back toward the West, Russia’s reaction to events was quite obvious. Yet the administration had either no plan at all, or worse it had a plan and that’s what we’re seeing play out.

After 9/11 U.S. policy was too predicated on full military responses. But this president has swung even further to the other side of an effective mix of hard and soft power. Worse yet, over five years in and he doesn’t seem to have learned how to deal with trouble spots. Not every other world leader views realpolitik as a bad thing. It’s like we’re playing tennis, but Putin is playing football. The time to make adjustments is before we’re flat on our diplomatic back with a concussion.

Given Europe’s dependence on Russian petroleum exports, America’s initial response of threatening Russia with sanctions and isolation are doomed to fail and America’s partners – as well as their enemies — around the world will see to the extent they can count on us in a pinch. Simply not alienating ourselves from others is not the same as leading.   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com

American Failure to Act in Ukraine Likely to Have Global Consequences

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, Soft Power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

The Russian incursion into Ukraine is a good time for the U.S. to better explore the use of a softer power – strategy – to shape world events for the better. Washington needs to get this right quickly or it may soon have greater problems with China, Iran and North Korea – and even Saudi Arabia.

The time line of events indicates this was probably not a snap decision by Vladimir Putin. November 30, 2013 saw pro-Western demonstrations in Kiev met with violence by riot police, which has not abated in three months. Two days later Kiev’s city hall was overrun by protesters, and on Feb. 20 government forces began to murder protesters. Russia responded with only words through these events. Putin is well aware that President Carter cancelled American athletes participation in the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow; the last time Russia hosted the games.

Suddenly, Ukraine’s pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych flees to Russia a day and a half before the Olympics end, at which time Putin has a free hand to act without tarnishing his pet project, the Sochi games. The day after the games end Putin’s pool boy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev begins the drumbeat of war by questioning the new government in Kiev. The rest is recent history. It may be coincidence, but who would question whether Putin is willing to orchestrate events to suit his purposes?

President Obama’s response to watching Russian troops rolling into a Central European country is being heavily scrutinized in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran. But the most peril lies in the impression it leaves in Riyadh, Tokyo, Manila, Taipai, Canberra, Paris and London — indeed inside every government that relies on the U.S. — and on whom the U.S. rely — for some level of security cooperation.

As you read there must be arguments in Beijing that there will be no better time to cross the Taiwan Straight, which would back Washington into a choice between a major war or irrelevance.

The best example is the Saudi Arabians, who according to BBC News may have nuclear weapons on order from Pakistan. The Saudis were disappointed to say the least at the Obama administration’s response to and handling of the civil war in Syria and openly questioned whether they could count on the U.S. having the willingness to prevent Iran, the Kingdom’s arch enemy, from acquiring nuclear weapons.

If Saudi leaders had been on the fence, what must they be thinking now, and if they acquire nuclear weapons, will they think twice about using them because they have faith in the U.S.?  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political strategist who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Naval Blockade Is NATO’s Best Response to Russia’s Crimean Incursion

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, geostrategic

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

If the Obama administration wants a serious, effective response to the Russian intervention in the Crimea, it need only consult a map and a history book.

In 1948 Soviet forces denied the Western Allies access to Berlin in an attempt to force the West into abandoning this thorn in Stalin’s side. The West responded with an airlift, moving massive amounts of supplies essentially over the Iron Curtain. The wisdom of the Berlin Airlift was it allowed the West to maintain West Berlin as an outpost of freedom while forcing the Soviets to make the first move in a war. The Soviets wisely backed down.

Considering the geography and politics of the region, an effective response would be for NATO to announce a naval blockade of the entrance to the Sea of Marmara. Denying Russian access to the Turkish Straights would make the Black Sea a lake and strategically much less important, greatly diminishing the value of Russia’s naval base in the Crimea. This would warn Russia of Western resolve to defend the territorial integrity of Central Europe while forcing the Russians to fire the first shot. They would not dare.

The blockade would need to be held until Russian forces depart Ukrainian occupied territory outside of the base leased to them by Ukraine and publicly agree to respect Ukraine’s independence.

By indirectly intervening the international community would generally look upon this as justifiable and wise use of force, show Washington as a reliable partner, force Russia to think twice before its next incursion and achieve the goal without bloodshed. There is no downside. The world awaits an intelligent response.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.