Porkins Policy Review
This is what happens when you kill 24 Pakistani soldiers
The last few days we have seen the media and national security experts have a minor nervous breakdown over the recent news that Iran is in possession of one of our RQ-107 drones. Everyone seemed shocked, just shocked, that this could happen. Well guess what? We spy on Iran, constantly. We have satellite taking pictures and we have drones flying in and around the Islamic Republic. CBS news quotes U.S. officials as saying that we have been flying drones from Afghanistan into Iran for years now.
With all of the rhetoric that we here from politicians and pundits about the “threat” that Iran is, it really should come as no surprise that we are flying spy planes over the country. It should also come as no surprise that we are going to lose drones; most likely a lot. We lose drones all the time. The Margin of error for drones is much higher than a manned aircraft. A drone takes off in Afghanistan, is piloted in a remote base somewhere in the U.S.; do the math and there is a tremendously high chance that something is going to go wrong. Everyone need to take a deep breath and understand that this is going to happen again, and again, and probably again.
Secondly, to everyone that is terrified Iran is going to reverse engineer the RQ-170 and figure out classified military technology, your probably right. But, the second that they do, we will have five new state of the art drones that will make the RQ-170 obsolete. This is the age of the drone right now. Every defense contractor on the face of the earth is developing new and better drones. This is not some sort of novelty peice of military hardware; this is the new face of warfare and intelligence gathering.
If we are terrified of this happening again perhaps we should stop spying on Iran and talk to them. We violated their sovereignty and airspace and must now pay the price. Once again we will see a heightening of tensions between the U.S. and Iran, at a moment when our relationship is at its lowest in years. With no foreseeable change in how we conduct our foreign policy with Iran this will become the norm. Get used to it.
Everyone is a flip flopper. The sooner we understand this the faster we can get on with the complicated process of picking the right political candidate. One would be hard pressed to find any politician that has not flip flopped or changed opinions on an issue. Lets stop making this into such a big deal already.
In honor of the new front runner of the GOP presidential election, Newt Gingrich, I thought I would just link an excellent little list of some of his more spectacular foreign policy flip flops. The list was composed by Uri Friedman and Joshua E. Keating of Foreign Policy magazine.
Laurent Gbagbo’s Ivorian Popular Front party (FPI) is boycotting the vote according to Al Jazeera. They also claim that the election will not be fair because the electoral commission is now controlled by President Ouattara. This was of course the same line that was used by Ouattara when he was fighting to gain power in the nation. Even with a fair election taking place the FPI will be able to score huge political points with its base, simply by claiming that the election commission is corrupt. Sylvain Miaka Ouretto, now in control of the FPI said the elections are “masquerade organised by the powers in place”.
Ivory Coast braces itself for parliamentary elections amid smoldering tensions with the country. Still recovering from the violence of last years presidential election, the worlds leading exporter of coca could be set for more fighting. In anticipation, UN tanks are patrolling the commercial capital Abidjan.
Last years fighting was brought on after Laurent Gbagbo refused to step down after losing to Alassane Ouattara in the presidential elections. Nearly five months of fighting between rebels in the north, largely Muslim and supporters of Ouattara, and Gbagbo’s southern and largely Christian supporters, would end in 3,000 deaths. With the aid of French and UN troops Laurent Gbagbo was arrested April 11 2011. Mass graves, rape, arson, Liberian mercenaries, and the displacement of a million people took place.
This in turn fractured an already uneasy truce between the north and south of the country. Just this Thursday a rocket attack killed three people at political rally. To make the situation more grave, former president Gbagbo is on trial currently in the ICC for war crimes. So what do we have to look forward to?
Unfortunately this is not going to be an easy or violence free election. Many in the south of the country, particularly in Abidjan, still have huge resentment towards what happened to there leader. The BBC reports that hundreds of protestors gathered outside the ICC in the The Hague to voice their anger at the proceedings. Confounding the situation even more is the fact that no one within Alassane Ouattara’s government has been charged with anything. This to spite evidence that atrocities took place on both sides. While President Ouattara has called for calm in Cote d’Ivoire, it is unlikely to have much effect on a very divided public.
Several years before the elections experts were predicting that some sort of small scale civil war would be fought. Now while it seems unlikely that the nation will descend into what happened in 2010-2011, it seems inevitable that violence will break out again. Gbagbo and his supporters still hold sway over the youth militia the Young Patriots. These hardcore supporters are poised to fight again; there leader Charles Ble Goude is still at large with in the country. On the flip side, those northern rebels and supporters of Ouattara are certainly willing to take up arms again.
I could take the rest of night writing about this debate and what it means for the rest of the election cycle. It being Saturday night instead will keep it short.
The debate was a bit more lively than previous ones. There were some interesting moments, including the first mention of lunar colonies by Mitt Romney. The biggest moment undoubtedly was Romney’s failed attempt to get Gov. Rick Perry to enter into a $10,000 bet. $10,000 roughly equals about three months wages in Iowa. Governor Romney’s advisers must have been screaming back stage when he picked $10,000 as betting amount. This will run in the news cycle for weeks to come; everyone from the president to pundits to the candidates will hammer Mitt on this one . In a debate in which Romney had to fight back and gain lost ground he seemed to fall short.
As of right now Gingrich is still the front runner and the man to beat. This is not going to be a simple and easy primary season. This is going to be a long and hard fight.
This exchange warranted a quick post.
The candidates were asked to comment on the recent comments that Speaker Gingrich made about the Palestinian people; what followed one perhaps one of the more inflammatory and idiotic discussions thus far. Rather than call out Newt for making false and racist comments, the candidates debated over if it was ok with Israel to say that.
There was more concern about us speaking for the Israeli government, instead of the fact that the remarks were offensive. Gov. Romney didn’t think it was right to say not because it perpetuates the image of an uncaring
United States, but because it might hurt Bibi. Not even an after thought about the hundreds of thousands of people living under occupation. A people living under the occupation of a people that didn’t exist until 1948.
Some how I don’t see the peace process gaining any ground by abusing the Palestinian people.
The ABC News/Yahoo News GOP debate is this Saturday from 9:00-11:00. While not the most ideal time for a debate, it will be the first debate where former speaker Gingrich will really need to hold his own. Having shot up in the polls as the new “Not Mitt” candidate the former Congressman will have to show that he can go all the way. In an election cycle where organization has meant nothing and debate have meant everything; this will prove to be an important step in the nomination process.
Here are my predictions:
Gingrich will come out and do what he has done in the previous debates and take on professorial, and slightly condescending, role for himself. He will display himself as above the fray, and as the only one with any real, serious, and most importantly, different ideas. We can expect him not to attack any of his fellow candidates and instead direct his anger at the media; something he has done in almost every debate. Gingrich has seen some recent attacks against him by other GOP candidates and will need to contend with that on Saturday. Provided that he doesn’t get too bogged down there though he will be alright . When all is said and done everyone will go on about how Newt is the great debater and a real idea man. Inthe end he will come out as both civil, intelligent and the winner.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney this time around will not be able to rely on his front runner status anymore. He will need to go on the attack. This attack will most likely be directed at Gingrich and will probably back fire. Like any other time in the campaign when Romney has come out swinging, he will come across as petty and mean. The image of him as a flip flopper and as someone not to be trusted will most definitely come across to the audience. Romney must also contend with the fact that most in the GOP electorate don’t like him and are enamored with Newt right now. Romney has little to gain and will ultimately lose in this debate.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul is trailing in the polls at third place and for him this debate like all the others is not important. Knowing he cant win the White House, the Congressman has used his campaign and the debates as a platform for his libertarian views. He will likely attack Gingrich as not being a true conservative. He will likely say that we should do away with several Federal agencies. He will likely say that we should not stick our noses into every foreign powers internal affairs. He will get both huge applause and big boos from the crowd.
Governor Rick Perry is more a less done. He is polling at around 7%, and just simply wasn’t ready for prime time. Surely we will have some sort of “oops” moment during the debate coming out of the mouth of the Governor. He doesn’t pose much a threat to anyone aside from his own future political career.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann now polling at a measly 5% will be of no threat to anyone Peaking way too soon in the cycle, the congresswoman deflated very fast and has not been able to gain back any semblance of front runner status.Gone is the Bachmann of the past who could rouse the whole debate audience to their feet with the line “Mark my words, President Obama will be a one term president.” Like the other also rans, the Congresswoman will simply be on stage, occasionally saying something that no one is really listening to.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum warrants even less thought than Rick Perry. Polling at a horrendous 3.5% Santorum will say the following.
1.I am the son of legal immigrants
2.Iran is the most dangerous threat out there and we should bomb it back to the stone age
3.Make a face like he smelled something really bad
SIGH. Then we get to the only sane, intelligent, and moderate candidate running, former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. Unfortunately for Mr. Huntsman he is polling at around 2.3% and has no chance of getting elected by the current GOP electorate. This might explain why Huntsman is skipping the debate all together. In any case be sure to follow his daughters on twitter for some of the best political commentary out there.
When asked by The Jewish Channel if he were a Zionist, Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich responded
“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire, and I think we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community, and they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and I think it’s tragic.”
Aside from this being an often used tactic of Zionists like Prof. Alan Dershowitz to deny that the Palestinians exist as a people and nationality, under this definition t would mean that there are no such thing as Syrians, Iraqi’s, Saudis, Algerians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese,Kuwaitis, Moroccans, Libyans, Bahraini, Yemeni, Omani. Instead they are all just Arabs. I guess they all just decied that politically it would make more sense for some of them to live in North Africa some in the Persian Gulf and so on.
Under this idiotic assumption then there is no such thing as an Italian or a Serbian or Finnish person. There all just Caucasian. Politically it made more sense for the Finns to live in the north, they are big skiers. I guess we should have let those silly Africans in Rwanda know that there isn’t any such thing as a Hutu or a Tutsi. Your just African. I mean hell, Rwanda was part of the Belgian Empire, and it was populated by a bunch of Africans, and they had a chance to go many places, they just decided on this small land locked nation.
Thanks Professor Newt.
With so much rhetoric about Iran and the possibility of war, I thought that I would share this recent episode of Empire. Everyone advocating for some form of military action should take a deep breath, sit down, and watch this.
Porkins Policy Review 