Tag Archives: George W. Bush

by Barry Kelly | October 1, 2014 · 7:30 am

INSIGHTS 160: FACTS ON THE GROUND

While the president and his administration are pointing fingers of blame at everyone and everything but themselves, let’s look at some ground truths.

The Obama administration could have had a Status of Forces of Agreement in Iraq to protect our troops from being charged, arrested, and tried in Iraqi courts. All that is required is for us to leave a mobile Army Division augmented by its supporting logistical units, air support, selected combat teams, and Special Forces in a U.S.-controlled base strategically located in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Maliki was in no position to follow his Iranian guidance and refuse. We could have replaced him. Sometimes the development of a new democracy needs a little forceful guidance.

When Obama pulled out all our troops, the training of the Iraqi Army with critical American combat support had reached a point where it could have defended Iraqi territory. Without American boots and eyes on the ground to detect and stop al-Maliki from critically weakening the Iraqi Army by replacing most Sunni and Kurdish officers with Shiite replacements, the Iraqi Army was no longer the force America trained. It had no chance against the ISIS invasion. al-Maliki’s leadership destroyed any faint hopes the Sunnis and Kurds had in sharing Iraq’s resources and having a real say in the governing of the country.

The powerful Sunni tribes that fought with U.S. forces to destroy al-Qaeda in Iraq are not going to fight to defend a corrupt Shiite government in Baghdad. Many of these Sunnis joined ISIS as the better choice for them. Some of the Sunnis trained by American forces may well be fighting with ISIS now. They only thing we can offer them to change sides is the promise of their own Sunni nation with no ties to a Shiite government located somewhere south of Baghdad.

The Kurds and their Peshmerga forces are good fighters. They will fight to the death to defend their people and their land. They will not defend the Shiite regime in Baghdad, no matter the name of the prime minister. For many decades, the Kurds have wanted control of their historical homeland. They have fought the Turks, Iranians, and Iraqis as far back as their oral history. American arms and supplies sent to the Kurds through Baghdad will never reach Kurdistan. Out of this chaos the Kurds are betting they have a good chance of winning their freedom. But they will need our help. Without assurances of a free Kurdistan, they will not fight ISIS forces very far from their own borders.

Iran is the biggest danger in the region. Their intent is to development nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. We don’t know when it will happen, only that it will. Probably during President Obama’s time in office. The mindset of the current Iranian Islamic autocracy is that when they have nuclear weapons, they will use them.

Here again, the president holds views that have no basis in reality. He even has a secretary of state who shares his view of peace through negotiations even when the other side only demands instead of negotiating. It is a one-sided negotiation. Iran doesn’t want ISIS on its doorstep but will not change its focus on the development of nuclear weapons. Iran does not want to be involved in a punishing ground war with ISIS. The Iraqi Shiites will be protected by Iran and become an Iranian puppet pseudo state.

The Obama administration could have prevented the ISIS crisis if it had been more interested in the reality of foreign affairs rather than using inaction to create a make-believe, no-fault-of-Obama’a world. Inaction led to pulling all our troops out of Iraq and turning victory into defeat. Inaction led to the civil war in Syria from spreading into Iraq. Either the Obama Administration did not know or ignored indications al-Maliki was destroying the fabric of the Iraqi nation by cutting the Sunnis and the Kurds out of their share of oil revenue and a voice in the running of the national government, creating a fertile environment for ISIS forces.

The rate of training 5,000 fighters a year in Saudi Arabia to serve as ground troops is not going to work. It creates the illusion of action but is not going to be effective. NATO countries and Sunni coalition members need to field a force of at least 20,000 combat troops, augmented by as many regional fighters as we can recruit, and declare all of Syria and Iraq as a no-fly zone for military aircraft. With the right approach the Sunni tribes we can cut them out of the ISIS recruitment pool and set up a Sunni government to rival ISIS. To do that, President Obama has to recognize the Baghdad government is over and to stop negotiating unimportant legalistic details with a government that will soon be fleeing south. He also needs to get over his anti-colonial hangups about the alleged misuse of America military power in foreign lands. It is not unusual to hear liberal Americans refer to our efforts in Iraq in the Bush years as the “occupation of Iraq.” This is the epitome of “hate America” thinking. We all deserve a better legacy than that espoused by progressives.

Written by the author of “Insights: Transforming America — Is This What We Fought For?” available now as an ebook, in paperback or hardcover on Amazon.com or BN.com. Follow the author on Twitter @factsfictions80. If you think this message is important, please share it.

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 64 – THE ADVISOR

The Advisor on Big Goverment

“Good evening, Mr. President. Are you ready to hear my advice on the size and scope of government? Really, the same principles apply in some fashion to any very large organization. It’s not primarily dependent on which political party is in power. President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence, against the advice of my predecessor, two of the worst examples of growing the size of government to fix some problems.

“Conservatives grow the government’s bureaucratic forces to provide security. Liberals grow the bureaucracy to make things equal or to provide welfare services. Both are misguided. All bureaucracies are created to regulate and control the actions of people who actually produce goods and services. These people are the ones who built this nation and who have created the most productive and free society the world has ever seen. They are the substantive force in our civilization. They care little for regulation that makes production more costly or inefficient. They rely on the forces of a free market to guide the economy. The regulators are the process people who do not have creative skills or the individual skills to build or manage but are driven to control the process which means to control the means of productions and distribution. It would be foolish to believe regulation is not needed at times but only in the smallest amount.

“Left to themselves, the regulators will centralize and grow the size of government to the point no business can function efficiently. Today we are close to that point where the founders and leaders of industry have to pay more attention to the impact of government regulations and taxes than to the worldwide forces of the market place.

“The introduction was a bit long and you must want your cup filled and a cigarette. May I pour you some coffee? You’ll find your brand of cigarettes on the table. Any questions so far?”

” Yes, I’m ready, please pour. Although I’m beginning to doubt my sanity. I already think you must be a timeless relic from some faraway ancient civilization and wonder what beyond curiosity brings me back to your cave? Do you ever leave here?”

“Mr. President, the first eight decades of my life were spent above ground. It is much easier underground. We all eventually get here. But we can’t spend too much time talking about me. My past years are of no significance. Advising the President of the United States is a full-time job, especially when we don’t agree on a common set of facts.”

“Second question. Yes. I’ve been here several times now and I still don’t know what I should call you.”

“You may call me anything. I am and have been many things. I’m old enough to have learned names and titles are of little importance compared to the impact a man or woman makes in improving and protecting our world.”

“Maybe I should call you a professor. You know I was one once.”

“Mr. President, I was once a professor but do not prefer that title and you shouldn’t, either.”

“Why not?”

“Well, to start with your academic grades are not good and you were an instructor, not an assistant professor, an associate professor nor a professor. Your current title far surpasses your academic credentials. But let’s get started before you get up and leave. Remember, down here we must have honesty. All pretensions and embellishments must be left at the door. You can pick them up when you leave.

“My worry about big government is the embedded drive in humans to continue the process of centralization. Defined as combining segments of government, business, or religion into fewer and larger segments where fewer and fewer people make decisions. This process expands the scope of control beyond the ability of anyone to be an effective manager and steward of public funds. It is all part of the desire to make things better. Watch, when things go ‘wrong’ the cry is, ‘put someone in charge. Make someone responsible.’ 9/11 gave us that opportunity. Something was wrong. How else could such blow strike our homeland? A conservative government, under President Bush, moved to fix the problem by, of course, putting pieces of government together under a central control. To start with the pieces of government in their separateness, were not well managed. Many of them were already too large. Today Homeland Security is an example of centralizing management until you reach numbing inefficiency. Another example is the DNI organization. The Director of National Intelligence is about the worst fix anyone could have made to improve the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence. I defy anyone to prove money is being saved or that the product produced has been improved. Top managers of such over-centralized organizations don’t have a clue to what is happening in the trenches. Their main concern is often getting enough reporting from the far reaches of their commands to make them look credible, especially when briefing the President or appearing before an aggressive group of journalists or legislators.

“Unfortunately, both our main political parties are vulnerable to the drive to fix things by centralization. National Health Care or Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, over reaches of OPA and the Department of Energy are other examples of good intentions leading to disastrous unforeseen consequences. While some centralization is necessary, decentralization is the sure path to renewed growth and vitality in both business and government. Good people in charge of manageable organizations can fix problems. Over centralization cannot. Creating a larger population of civil unionized workers is not a good thing even in the short run. To start with, U.S. Government employees should not be members of any union. Who or what does unionization protect them against? They are hired by the people, work for the people and are the people.

“You don’t need anymore union powers lobbying your presidency. Nearly every political pundit comes to realize that the growth in government beyond that which is absolutely necessary, threatens individual freedom and the overall freedom to create and produce new goods and products. Look at all the cases in history where freedom has been lost or eroded by governments grown beyond the need. The growth of government is always pushed by people who have good intentions and a poor understanding of history and management principles. Don’t let your presidency be the one that pushes growth of government beyond need and endangers freedom and economic growth.”

“I’m not sure I believe any of that but I will think on it.”

“Mr. President, thank you. You must make the final decisions. Not all advice is good. Maybe I am not 100% right all the time. But I have no personal or organizational agenda. What do want to cover at our next meeting?”

“You decide. I must go now. It’s a good thing you serve the best coffee and I have the freedom to smoke without anyone giving me disapproving looks. That alone makes me come back.”

The author of the Jack Brandon novels is a Korean War veteran and served in the Vietnam War as a CIA agent who has 27

Meeting with President Reagan, Vice President Bush, Deputy National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci and General Colin Powell in the Oval Office.

years of government service, including two years serving President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as an advisor. Considering today’s volatile political situation, you are encouraged to pass on this blog or parts of it to your contacts and friends. Comments and dialogue are welcome and helpful. www.factsandfictions.com.

Eight Decades of Insights 32 (factsandfictions.com)
The High Cost Of Maintaining ‘Homeland Security’ (warnewsupdates.blogspot.com)

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, centralization, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, Intelligence & Politics, management theory, Politics, Progressives

Tagged as big government, Bush, Department of Homeland Security, director of national intelligence, George W. Bush, Oval Office, President, United States

by Barry Kelly | June 17, 2013 · 8:19 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 57

OVERSIGHT?

Our Constitution, most state constitutions, judicial procedures and corporation bylaws, all contain checks and balances. All aspects of our republic purposely contain a system of checks and balances. The premise behind the need for such restraints is that people can be corrupt and power breeds corruption. Corruption in government and unchecked power can and will destroy individual liberty. It doesn’t matter which political party is in power, the motivation to use the full and unchecked power of government for ideological supremacy is always there. Our system of checks and balances relies on another principle for its effectiveness. The protector of viability of checks and balances is Congressional and Judicial oversight and an aggressive questioning press, which is the third, very important leg of oversight.

079 Capitol Hill United States Congress 1993 (Photo credit: David Holt London)

In our federal government structure, the Congress and the Courts provide the arms of oversight of the Executive. It is the Executive branch of our government whose management of the nation’s business contains the power to encroach on individual freedom in the name of security or in misguided attempts to destroy opposition to changing or transforming the American nation. Up until the last ten years the check and balance process has worked well with effective oversight.

In the 1980s and ’90s, the Executive often struggled to maintain its position of prominence in running the affairs of government. At times it seemed to those of us working in the Executive branch that Congress believed oversight meant management. Congressional staff members and reporters made their bones by ferreting out real and imagined overreaches and inefficiencies of the Executive. There was a constant stream of officers from various agencies marching up to testify in front of various committees. One Director of the CIA often commented, “That while CIA is an executive agency under the command of the President, CIA works equally for the Congress.” (This is not an exact quote but it is very close and was accurate at the time.)

The power and effectiveness of the oversight process has been steadily degraded. Four things are primarily responsible for the weakening of the oversight process.

First: The Executive Branch of Government has grown much larger, starting with President George W. Bush and continued by President Obama. The Congressional and Judicial Branches have not kept up.

Secondly: The media has become politically one-sided and ignores covering events that might be critical of President Obama. In doing so they have abrogated their historical position as a key element of the oversight process.

Thirdly: Only the Executive Branch has keep up with the technology necessary to improve the management and control of their branch of government.

Lastly: No one in the Legislative or Judicial Branches anticipated that a political party would so openly and ruthlessly use the power of the executive to destroy political opposition groups. There is scarcely a piece of the executive that has not stepped over traditional lines to seize and expand political power. A few examples of the most egregious are the IRS, EPA, the State Department, the Justice Department, ranking military officers, DEA, Immigrations, HHS, Department of Labor and others that will emerge if oversight regains its footing. How can we expect Congress to oversee the collection and use of information on U.S. Citizens if it cannot even provide oversight of the the IRS, one of the most bureaucratic and pervasive of all agencies? This is not over. Watch the Congressional hearing.

By the author of the Jack Brandon novels. http://www.factsandfictions.com

Checks, balances, and the National Security Agency (tv.msnbc.com)
Constitutional Standoff: Obama Syndicate vs. the People… “It’s no secret to anyone who watches any newscast – even once a week – that the Obama syndicate (aka Executive Branch of the US government) has been flexing its muscles, in order to take over all gov (gunnygblog.wordpress.com)
James Clapper Hails Checks and Balances, Evades Oversight (crooksandliars.com)

2 Comments

Filed under centralization, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, information technology, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, Politics

Tagged as Barack Obama, CIA, Congress, Executive (government), George W. Bush, Obama, United States, United States Congress

by Barry Kelly | February 11, 2012 · 7:23 pm

INSIGHTS FROM EIGHT DECADES #6

CENTRALIZATION

President George W. Bush signs the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 on October 1, 2003. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Does every civilization contain the seeds of its destruction? Maybe the historians are right when they publish learned tomes describing trends and signals of certain decline in highly organized cultures. Conservatives sometimes claim when the ‘takers’ out number and out vote the ‘givers’ the end is coming. Maybe, maybe not. Another signal I’ve recently heard is fascination or obsession with spectator sports or games is a sure sign we’re sledding downhill. Again, maybe. I don’t find either of those or a number of others, persuasive.

My own worry is the embedded drive in humans to continue the process of centralization. Defined as combining segments of government, business or religion into fewer and fewer segments where fewer and fewer people make decisions. This process expands the scope of control beyond the ability of anyone to be an effective manager and steward of public funds. It is all part of the desire to make things better. Watch, when things go ‘wrong’ the cry is, put someone in charge. Make someone responsible. 9/11 gave us that opportunity. Something was wrong. How else could such blow strike our homeland? A conservative government, under President Bush, moved to fix the problem. By, of course, putting pieces of government together under a central control. To start with the pieces of government in their separateness, were not well managed. Many of them were already too large.

Today Homeland Security, is an example of centralizing management until you reach numbing inefficiency. Another example is the DNI organization. The Director of National Intelligence is about the worst fix anyone could have made to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence. I defy anyone to prove money is being saved or that the product produced has been improved. Top managers of such over centralized organizations don’t have a clue to what is happening in the trenches. Their main concern is often getting enough reporting from the far reaches of their commands to make them look credible, especially when briefing the President or appearing before an aggressive group of journalists or legislators.

Unfortunately both our main political parties are vulnerable to the drive to fix things by centralization. National Health Care or Obamacare, Dodd Frank, over reaches of OPA and the Department of Energy are examples of good intentions leading to disastrous unforeseen consequences.

While some centralization is necessary, decentralization is the sure path to renewed growth and vitality in both business and government. Good people in charge of manageable organizations can fix problems. Over centralization cannot.

by the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series http://www.factsandfictions.com