Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, War Commentary

Middle-East Strategery

1 Comment

Apparently, Obama’s brilliant, “smart diplomacy” plan for dealing with Egypt was to leave it up to John “Global Test” Kerry and Mohamed “Look The Other Way With Iran’s Nukes” El Baradei:

James Poulos, writing in Forbes, stated as early as July 6: “It’s very hard to see how much traction he could get as the voice of a new era in Egyptian politics. He’s running plays from a liberalization playbook that’s decades old — not just pre-Arab Spring, but pre-9/11, pre-Internet.”

Yet Obama trusted the long-time friendship of Kerry and ElBaradei. Then-Sen. Kerry and ElBaradei spent years discussing how best to block the George W. Bush administration’s policies on Iraq, Iran and North Korea during ElBaradei’s tenure at the IAEA. ElBaradei even helped former Sen. Kerry during his failed 2004 presidential campaign against then-President Bush by publicly confronting the U.S. president on several foreign policy fronts from his UN seat. Shockingly, on Oct. 25, 2004, just days before the U.S. presidential election between Kerry and Bush, ElBaradei was accused of trying to influence the U.S. elections in favor of his friend John Kerry by releasing a UN report on missing weapons in Iraq, a report ElBaradei held for weeks.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, War Commentary

The Middle East

12 Comments

Bambi meets Godzilla:

President Obama has had a rude awakening in the Middle East. The region he thought existed was an illusion built on American progressive assumptions about the way the world works. In the dream Middle East, democracy at least of a sort was just around the corner. Moderate Islamists would engage with the democratic process, and the experience would lead them to ever more moderate behavior. If America got itself on the “right side of history,” and supported this hopeful development, both America’s values and its interests would be served. Our relationships with the peoples of the Middle East would improve as they saw Washington supporting the emergence of democracy in the region, and Al Qaeda and the other violent groups would lose influence as moderate Islamist parties guided their countries to prosperity and democracy.

This vision, sadly, has turned out to be a mirage, and Washington is discovering that fact only after the administration followed the deceptive illusion out into the deep desert. The vultures are circling now as American policy crawls forlornly over the dunes; with both the New York Times and the Washington Post running “what went wrong” obituaries for the President’s efforts in Egypt, not even the MSM can avoid the harsh truth that President Obama’s Middle East policies have collapsed into an ugly and incoherent mess.

I wonder if Mead, usually a very measured man, realizes the irony that many of the president’s opponents have impolitely (but not inaccurately) nicknamed him “Bambi.”

And then there’s this, strongly related:

What is the common denominator of his failed foreign policy initiatives (reset with Russia, a new, kinder, gentler Middle East, supposed breakthroughs with China, outreach to Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela) and his domestic catastrophes (Obamacare, deficits, huge debts, or chronic unemployment)? In a nutshell, he does not seem to know much about human nature, whether in the concrete or abstract sense. Obama either never held a menial job or ran a business. In lieu of education in the school of hard knocks, he read the wrong, if any, seminal texts at all.

That’s the fundamental problem with Marxists and leftists in general, all the way back to Rousseau. They either completely misunderstand human nature (“the noble savage”) or they completely deny its existence (“the New Soviet Man”).

Political Commentary, Social Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

Mike Griffin: The Spoiled Generation

9 Comments

Asked by Jeff Greason why we as a society stopped pushing the technologies we needed to be pre-eminent in civil and military space, the former administrator blamed it on “My Generation,” the Baby Boomers. He prefaced the statement with the caveat that he had thought long and hard about it, and didn’t have a good answer, and that it was only his opinion, and that it might be wrong. Obviously many of us are exceptions (and he obviously thinks himself one) but that was the only answer that he could come up with.

In response to a question from Greg Sullivan, he noted that when we feel threatened (e.g., being attacked with IEDs) we throw the acquisition book out the window to solve the problem. Clearly, we don’t currently feel threatened enough to do that with space technology development and acquisition.

[Update a while later]

Jeff’s answer: We don’t want game-changing technologies, because they upset the Russians, and arms-control regimes. They don’t like game changers, because they like and are comfortable with the game. Reagan administration was rare exception. Not surprised that we do not attain that which we do not want.

In commercial market, the market will drive things. If Brilliant Pebbles had gone forward, we’d have much cheaper launch today. If there was a market, we’d have satisfied it by now. If assured market, he could go to the bank and get the money for reusable vehicle.

Demand is key. Airmail-like things would help (already starting this with COTS). Could buy payloads and capability, rather than resources. Isn’t as concerned about tech development for launch vehicles, except things that allow SSTO. But it’s important to learn how to integrate two-stage stage system, and that would be productive area.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Shale Gas

28 Comments

…is Rearden metal:

Rand’s fictional progressives don’t want Reardon Metal to succeed any more than their modern, real-life equivalents want shale gas to succeed.

Why not? For the same rag-bag of made-up, disingenuous reasons which progressives have used to justify their war on progress since time immemorial: it’s unfair, it uses up scarce resources, it might be dangerous. Rand doesn’t actually use the phrase “the precautionary principle.” But this is exactly what she is describing in the book when various vested interests – the corporatists in bed with big government, the politicised junk-scientists at the Institute of Science (aka, in our world, the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society), the unions – try to close down the nascent technology using the flimsiest of excuses.

It was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.