Syrian Cesspool

I put up this map of Syria as the primary graphic accompaniment to this story in order to show people just where the country is located in relation to the rest of the cesspool that is the Middle East.

Syria lies just to the northeast of Israel, our lone reliable ally in the region, and the single nation that we need to be concerned with helping there. It lies up against the western border of Iraq, still a dangerous place in itself, despite our efforts of the past decade.

Now, like every nation, Syria has a long, deep, rich history that cannot be perfectly encapsulated in any short blurb of a story. But perhaps most importantly, today it is the site of major internal conflict between the Islamic Sunni and Shia factions and their allies.

For nearly five decades, from 1963-2011, Syria was under Emergency Law, ostensibly due to the ongoing tensions and at times war with Israel over the Golan Heights. This effectively suspended most constitutional protections for its citizens.

Bashar al-Assad, currently accused by the Obama administration of using chemical weapons on his own citizens, has been President since 2000, when he took over the reigns from his father who had served for 30 years.

In December of 2010, what has become known as the 'Arab Spring' began, a series of both violent and non-violent uprisings, demonstrations, protests, riots, and civil wars across the Arab world.

The aims were to overthrow and end the rule of authoritarian regimes that were politically corrupt and that in many cases stood accused of committing human rights violations. The movement has resulted thus far in the overthrowing of regimes in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen.

War is Not the Answer

One thing that should be fairly clear from Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980's, and American involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000's, is that waging war in the Middle East is not a winning long term strategy.

In the short-term, deposing dangerous regimes and tyrannical rulers with military force is something that may indeed be necessary.

Sadam Hussein certainly was tyrannical, torturing and killing his own countrymen. The Taliban and al Qaeda certainly were dangerous, deadly entities. All had to go.

But in the end, there is certainly one truth that has to be faced up to: the United States of America cannot be expected to place large numbers of troops in any foreign country forever.

There comes a time when we need to bring our troops home or redeploy them. I believe that President Obama is right in bringing our troops home from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Now, I don't agree with this President on very much. He is likely a Socialist, certainly an ultra-liberal, big government, anti-capitalist. But to say that he is wrong about every single thing the man does on every issue at every turn is to simply be a partisan contrarian yourself.

Where Will You Be When the Missiles Drop?

During his State of the Union address back in January of 2002, President George W. Bush famously called the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil", criticizing nations that sponsored terrorism and were seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Liberals everywhere, and especially their cheer leading media, called Bush a war monger and a liar, among other choice names.

Sitting here over seven years later, we understand far better that President Bush was in actuality simply a truth teller.

At the time of Bush's speech, former Iraqi leader Sadaam Hussein was still in power. He had already shown his propensity for evil and terror by using weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

He tortured political enemies, and his sons used 'rape rooms' to satisfy their own lusts and to further punish political enemies. Thankfully, the United States acted to rid the world of this evil power structure.

In Iran, a crazed President came to power under with the blessing of the Islamic religious leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to assail the United States with threats of destruction and domination by Islam and accelerated Iranian efforts to develop or otherwise obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamic regime will mean devastating war at some point in the near future. They are simply that crazy.

Islamism Series: Back to Afghanistan

For a land-locked nation that is basically a pile of rock and sand, Afghanistan holds some serious sway in the international community. The reasons are many, but they are sometimes difficult to grasp until you look more closely.

Afghanistan is bordered on the west by an Islamic nuclear-power wannabe ruled by a mad President in Iran, and on the east by the already nuclear-powered and increasingly fractious Pakistan.

There is even a small slice of northeastern Afghanistan that borders up against a Communist behemoth known as China. Along its northern borders lie a trio of former Soviet states in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Its land-locked status means that it has virtually no natural water supplies. There are no seas against which it borders, no rivers running through it, no lakes in which water has gathered. In short, there is very little of the life-sustaining, not to mention economy-sustaining water that is necessary for a country and people to survive, let alone thrive.

The median age is less than 18 years, which might make you wonder where are all the adults? Many of them are simply dead, as the average life expectancy is only a little over 44 years.

Because of the poor economic conditions there is a high risk of infectious diseases and wide-scale problems with other illnesses such as malaria, typhoid fever, hepatitis A, and 'bird flu' influenza strains.

So why does everyone care so much about a country that is so desolate and so inhospitable? Simply because of its strategic location as a 'buffer zone'.

Real American Hero: Paul Smith

The Congressional 'Medal of Honor' is our nation's highest military award. There have been over 3,400 recipients in our history, but just over 840 since requirements were tightened in World War II. In order to be eligible a person must be nominated by his or her commanders.

The nominee then must have their story wind through a dozen levels of military and presidential reviews, during which various factors are taken into account to ensure that only the greatest among the many noble sacrifices are selected for the final honors.

Some of it's recipients have gone on to fame, or earned it by their honored actions, including President Teddy Roosevelt, Audie Murphy in World War II, and even 'Buffalo Bill' Hickock.

It's recipients have been called 'unsung soldiers who acted valiantly in a moment of extraordinary pressure'.

Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, over a million military men and women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the first from this 'War on Terror' to be so honored was Sergeant Paul Smith.

He grew up in Tampa, Florida, enlisted in the Army in 1989, and served in the first Gulf War in 1991. He didn't join up at first out of patriotism, that developed later. At first he wanted just a good-paying job right out of high school, and saw this as his best shot. A career soldier, Smith was serving in Bosnia when the United States was attacked in 2001.

In April of 2003 he had moved on to Iraq, and was serving there as a combat engineer as his unit moved from Kuwait towards Baghdad, seizing a part of the Baghdad Airport on April 3rd, 2003.

The following morning, Paul was part of a team that was constructing a holding cell that would house prisoners of war, when the company came under attack by at least 100 Iraqi soldiers of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard.

A Better Country

In September of 2002, with the first anniversary remembrances of the 9/11 attacks taking place across the country, and with America obviously preparing to go to war to thwart another such attack, Arthur Borden began to notice some disturbing reactions coming from his Democratic Party, even among his own friends and colleagues. 

These reactions and the totality of the circumstances involving 9/11 and it's various related issues led Borden to study the issues more closely and led him to realize that he was now living "..in an America which is not the country where I went to college, served in a good war, and enrolled in law school.." 

The result of his studies is the book "A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq" released this year as a soft cover by Hamilton Books. 

In it's short number of pages (67 plus a handful of indices), Borden makes a compelling argument that not only was President George W. Bush right in going into Iraq and deposing it's despotic leader Saddam Hussein, but that this move was vital. 

Bush League Bush Administration

The administration of President George W. Bush has been disappointing to me and many others who got them elected. 

Major changes need to occur quickly and extensively. Otherwise, the bush league actions and inaction of the President, his team, and many elected Republicans threaten to make his Presidency one of the least respected in recent memory.

Now don’t take that commentary to mean that I am turning into some liberal Democrat on you folks. Far from it. 

LibDems such as John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Schumer would certainly have many criticisms for the President and the Republicans. But their criticisms would certainly be nearly the opposite of mine. 

The Democrats would advocate that we should get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, reverse the tax cuts, and turn our attention to redistributing wealth from the wealthy and middle class to the poor.
Theirs is a recipe for failure. But sadly, so is the President’s.

President Bush was elected by his base to aggressively protect our nation, reduce taxes, reform the tax system, reinvent social security, and if given the opportunity appoint conservative, originalist jurists to the Supreme Court. Thus far, on almost all of those mandates, he and his administration have failed us.

The Trial of Saddam Hussein

Who in their right mind could have conceived of this as recently as 4-5 years ago? Yesterday, the trial of Saddam Hussein began in a courtroom in the heart of Baghdad. 

A judge presiding over a court to begin the first of what is expected to be a dozen cases brought against the former tyrannical Iraqi dictator. 

Specifically, this particular trial finds Saddam facing charges that he ordered the 1982 massacre of his own citizens in the Dujail region. 

If convicted, Hussein faces the death penalty, and it is conceivable that it could be carried out quickly thereafter. However, due to formal legal proceedings, the trial could be held in a largely halting, stop-and-start manner. 

Hussein was defiant on the first day. When the formal proceedings began and he was asked to state his name, this despicable excuse for a human being replied to the judge in a combative tone "Who are you?!", implying that the judge was no one, and had no right to be questioning him. 

Hopefully we, and more importantly the Iraqi people, won't have to be putting up with very much of his rhetoric during the trial. And here's to hoping that this judge has a little more going for him than our own fumbling American jurist from the O.J. Simpson trial, Lance Ito. 

"Death to America!", Saddam? 

How's the shoe feel on the other foot, pal?