Counter Terrorism

Evan McMullin, Independent Presidential Nominee, Could Win Utah’s 6 Electoral Votes

Ronald Leave a comment

In the midst of all of the attention paid to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein, there is actually another Presidential candidate on the ballot in eleven states, Evan McMullin, running as a conservative alternative.

McMullin is a possible winner in Utah, with its 6 electoral votes, with his Mormon heritage, and his record as Chief Policy Director for the House Republican Conference, and as a CIA Operations Officer, all by the age of 40, easily the youngest Presidential candidate in a year where three are “elderly” and Gary Johnson is 63.

In a recent poll, McMullin had 20 percent, only a few points behind Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and with Gary Johnson having 14 percent, so there is a real four way race in Utah, the only state that we see that situation.

McMullin is pro life on abortion matters; accepts gay marriage; is pro free trade; against mass deportation of undocumented immigrants; and supports the basics of ObamaCare, but wants to make a better system. He is critical of Donald Trump on counter terrorism measures, as he has years of experience in that area of policy making.

He could “mess up” the Electoral College, and could become the first non major party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes since George Wallace in 1968.

It is highly unlikely that if he won the state of Utah with its 6 electoral votes, that he would be the decisive factor in who wins 270 electoral votes, but in theory, he could prevent any candidate from winning the required number of electoral votes, and require the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which has not been used since 1824, to be dusted off once again after 192 years!

If such a scenario developed, there is a slight chance that McMullin could become President, but do not bet on it by any means!

Reelected Presidents And Foreign Policy

Ronald Leave a comment

An interesting trend of reelected American Presidents is their tendency to become deeply involved in foreign policy matters. This is true since the dawn of America as a world leader in the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

The question is whether this is a planned strategy, or a simple reaction to events, or both.

After Theodore Roosevelt won his full term, having succeeded William McKinley after his assassination, TR became involved in aggressive policy making, criticizing Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany over Morocco at the Algeciras Conference of 1906, and taking leadership of relations with Japan.

Woodrow Wilson, after keeping us out of war in Europe, called for our entrance into World War I a month after his second inauguration, and then went to the Versailles Peace Conference after the war, and worked, unsuccessfully, to convince the US Senate to ratify the Versailles Treaty and membership in the League of Nations. He also committed troops, along with Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, to attempt an overthrow of the Soviet Union regime under Nikolai Lenin.

Calvin Coolidge, elected after succeeding Warren G. Harding in 1923, became involved in the promotion of the Kellogg Briand Pact in 1928, an attempt to outlaw war as an instrument of international policy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the nation closer to dealing with the German Nazi, Italian Fascist, and the Imperial Japanese threat before and during the early part of the Second World War, and then took us into the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in his third term, and pushed for an alliance with the British and the Soviet Union during the war, and advocated the formation of the United Nations as the war was ending.

Harry Truman, after succeeding FDR upon his death in 1945, and winning his own election in 1948, helped to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took America into the Korean War, and gave aid to the French in the Indochinese War.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his second term, engaged in diplomacy with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at Camp David in 1959 and secretly planned to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Lyndon B. Johnson, after succeeding the assassinated John F, Kennedy in 1963, in his full term, escalated American involvement in Vietnam to a full scale war that divided the country, and invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Richard Nixon, after being reelected, became engaged in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, saving the possibility of a Soviet intervention in the Middle East, and also arranged the overthrow of the Chilean President, Salvador Allende.

Ronald Reagan, in his second term, engaged in arms agreements with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; bombed Libya over its claim of a 200 mile territorial limit; and supported overthrow of dictatorial regimes in Haiti and the Phillippines.

Bill Clinton, in his second term, brought about peace in Northern Ireland; became engaged in war against Serbia over Kosovo; and engaged in counter terrorism actions against Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists.

George W. Bush, in his second term, conducted a “surge” in Iraq, and promoted action against the HIV-AIDS epidemic in Africa.

The question is what Barack Obama will end up doing in the field of foreign policy, and whether he will initiate it, or react to events he cannot control.

Defense Cuts Coming: Unavoidable, And Reasonable Long Term

Ronald Leave a comment

The Pentagon, Secretary of State Leon Panetta, and President Barack Obama have announced plans for the future of our military, which are unavoidable and reasonable long term.

The philosophy behind the defense plans is that present costs for military spending, and trying to have the capability for involvement in two major wars at the same time, is unsustainable in the present economic climate.

Instead, involvement in one major war, with ability to send troops to a second theater of war, with eventual commitment of some troops from the first theater of war over time, is the best that America can do.

Also, the goal is to face the reality that future military personnel cannot have the same expenditures on families, health care costs, salaries, and pensions, as those costs now are beginning to become a financial burden on the American treasury.

Also, the major focus will be on the area of Asia and the Pacific, rather than the Middle East, where so much effort has been concentrated . The thought is that China, North Korea, and Pakistan are the major challenges for the long term future, and should be given the focus of our attention, without forgetting about Iran.

The one way not mentioned to change this reality is to start heavier taxation, particularly of the wealthy, as cutting of entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is not acceptable in any major fashion. We will have tp pay as we go if we want everything to be what everyone wants, but right now, that is not possible, so we need to concentrate on where it is felt the major challenges are in the future.

We must also face a more restrained use of military force in general, and more modest foreign policy goals, and deal with the internal problems this nation faces.

Conventional forces will be de-emphasized in favor of counter terrorist actions and “irregular” warfare, and greater investment in long range stealth bombers and anti missile systems.

Fighting regional wars, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be no longer a goal of the military, causing long periods of commitment and wearing down the budget costs.

The goal is to cut defense spending by $480 billion over the next decade, but if Congress fights over it, automatic cuts could rise to $1 trillion!

Special Forces troops, elite counter terrorist troops, and armed drones are the future of the military, with a decline in conventional ground forces.

The Army and Marine Corps would decline in numbers, and fewer troops would be stationed in Europe, in order to allow greater deployment into the Asia-Pacific theater.

This plan for the future will lead to a fight in Congress, but what else is new?