Part-Time Pundit

What if Chavez Isn’t Bluffing About War with Colombia?

Hugo Chavez is making news again, this time threatening war with Colombia (a U.S. ally) over the assassination of terrorist elements that have taken refuge in Ecuador. The facts aren't quite known, but it is alleged the Colombia sent military forces into Ecuador to attack members of the FARC, a terrorist group that has been staging attacks in Colombia and taking hostages (it is currently holding three U.S. citizens, for instance).

In what was considered a bizarre response, Chavez ordered several battalions to the border with Colombia and has threatened all-out war with the country. Ecuador is understandably upset, but many attribute Chavez's latest media-grabbing stunt as more saber-waving from a dictator who craves international attention for "standing up to U.S. imperialism." There are important reasons to take Chavez's threats at face value, but first some background.

United States Military Doctrine

Since the 1990s, the United States Armed Forces have held various iterations of a win-win doctrine. The current version of the doctrine (the 4-2-1 strategy) states that the United States will maintain the capability to "conduct two, overlapping 'swift defeat' campaigns… [and] the force must be able to 'win decisively' in one of the two campaigns". In layman's terms, this means the United States has set up its military to win two medium-sized wars simultaneously.

It is also important to note that the United States military debates its over-reaching strategy out in the open for the world to see. Not a single spy is needed to determine how we structure our military and with what aims in mind. A foreign agent can pick up any number of academic journals, surf the various public military and government websites, or read the many books written on the subject. No security clearance is needed. Other countries know full well what we design our military to do and conversely know what limitations we build into our system.

One can look at the current situation of the U.S. military and see how this strategy has worked (albeit not without bumps). The military is engaged in operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and achieving successes in both countries. The only area where improvement has not been substantial is in the area of nation-building, particularly, getting the native populations to take responsibility for their own political destiny. The lack of will for U.S. imperialism has come at a price.

The current situation shows that the strategy can work and is working. Al Qaeda in Iraq is essentially no more. However, it has also shown that it engages a large proportion of the resources available to the United States military that can be used for war-fighting. The preventative operations still continue, sure, but it is less than clear that the United States could, without significant difficulty, engage in a third conflict; much less a fourth conflict.

The Foreign Policy Objectives of China and Russia

In the sense of power distribution, international relations is similar to a zero-sum game. When one nation loses power, some other nation or nations gain power. The inverse is also true; when a nation gains power, it comes at the expense of another. When the USSR collapsed, the United States largely gained the power that was left on the table. This has been a point of consternation for some time for the former world power.

On the other hand, China, which has never been a superpower, does overtly crave such a status. In order to achieve such a status, the United States would have to relinquish or lose some of its current power. This leaves China and Russia as partners in a similar quest, to gain international power at the expense of the United States, the only country which that power must come from.

As an additional sideshow, there are a variety of powers across the globe that would cheer at the prospect of an American military embarrassment (no small number are European). Many lay commentators cheer on Russia and China, who criticize America's foreign policy, including commentators in the United States. One ought not to be naïve to think that these nations which murder journalists and dissidents, repress speech, and shun the rule of law inside their own borders are suddenly acting with the purity of wind-driven snow once on the international stage.

Currently, both Russia and China have ties with Venezuela (that include Russia shipping military goods to Venezuela). Russia also has historical ties with Serbia and has been a vocal supporter of Serbia against the independence of Kosovo. Currently, both areas are now volatile with Chavez's threats on one side and antagonistic behavior by Serbia on the other. Kosovo and Colombia, on the other hand, are US foreign policy commitments to continue to support those countries.

As an important counterpoint, there are elements in China and Russia that do not see eye-to-eye with the hostile-to-the-US foreign policy. They are minorities but they are the ones with money. Many of the largest businesses in both countries are beneficiaries of the American economy and thus have a vested interest in the status quo.

Could Chavez Be Serious?

Currently, the United States economy is in trouble; there is broad consensus on that at this point. Bad lending is never a good thing for an economy. Full-on economic collapses are usually combinations of multiple factors, bad lending often being one. So if Chavez isn't serious, he, along with Russia and China, is quite stupid. That is a presumption we ought not to make.

The United States military is structured to win two conflicts simultaneously. If both Kosovo and Colombia-Venezuela go hot, even militarily we would be stretched thin, if not to the breaking point. Odds are we would face the choice of sacrificing one or the other to avoid "losing" a war. With forces already on the ground in Kosovo under the auspices of NATO, we would likely have no choice but to fight in that conflict. Colombia, on the other hand, would be very easy to leave out to dry.

If forced to fight in both additional conflicts, it would provide an enormous additional strain on an already troubled economy. Drastic funding choices would have to be made to support the resources required to fight in all four conflicts simultaneously independent of the number of troops consideration. It is entirely possible that it could push an economy on the brink of recession into a full-on recession. Or for that matter, push an economy in a recession into a far worse economic position.

If China and Russia want to take definitive action to ensure American power is decreased, all they have to do is stoke the flames of conflict in Kosovo and Colombia. American political debate is focused on the superficials; no real political movement would support retaliatory action for subtle actions by Russia and China to provoke other nations to pick fights. In short, there would be little political cost to Russia and China in provoking these fights while there is everything to gain.

The only counterbalancing effect is whether those nations would prefer to ride on America's economic coattails or if they'd rather see American foreign power decline to their advantage. With the economic troubles America is facing, it becomes increasingly tempting to think those economic coattails aren't as long as they once seemed. Time will tell which trains of thought will win out.

March 14th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, International, Military / War, Politics | no comments

Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize First Ever Given That Has Nothing To Do With Peace

Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been awarded the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize for 2007. According to the Nobel Foundation, the award was given “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. Predictably, conservatives and others who challenge the doctrines of man-made climate change are apoplectic at the award and claim it shows bias in the committee that makes such awards. They, however, miss the larger point.

Let’s assume for the moment that all of Al Gore’s claims on climate change are true. The idea that he gets the peace prize for such claims is what should merit discussion. The president of Czechoslovakia , Vaclav Klaus, also questioned the award for such a reason. To be fair, President Klaus is a climate change skeptic, but his point remains. Isn’t the Nobel Peace Prize about peace?

In 2006, the peace prize was given to Muhammed Yunus and Grameen Bank for economic and social development of poor countries. In 2005, it was to the International Atomic Energy Agency for nuclear non-proliferation work. In fact, in reviewing the entire balance of past award winners, the prize was given to those working to end conflicts, promote human rights, promote economic development in poor countries, or weapons non-proliferation. 2007 marks the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for a reason wholly unconnected to stopping war. Claims that climate change will cause violent conflicts are absurd on their face. People are entitled to think that man-made climate change is important, but that doesn’t make it a peace issue.

In recent years the peace prize has strayed somewhat from its intended purpose to the point that it is mere comedy today. No serious commentator is truly surprised that Al Gore won the award, it was clear six months ago. It is no surprise that recent award winners were mere charlatans who took the award from true peacemakers. Yasser Arafat, Nelson Mandela, and Henry Kissinger wouldn’t be three people on the top of any list of people promoting world peace and there were far more worthy people who could have gotten those awards.

The IAEA and the UN have noble purposes but generally are resounding failures. Their awards were given more as a “stick-it-to-ya” directed at the United States, not because they actually accomplished the mission of peace. However, the wholesale abandonment of peacemaking as the criteria for which the Nobel Peace Prize is offered indicates how far the Nobel committee has fallen from its original purpose. Alfred Nobel was a pacifist, not a politician. He intended to award others who promoted peace, not those who promoted the fad policy of the day.

No one can dispute Martin Luther King Jr.’s contribution to peace, or the contributions of the Red Cross, Doctors without Frontiers, or the Dalai Lama. Even if you accept man-made climate change as 100% true as presented by Al Gore, you must admit that the issue isn’t about world peace. It is a true shame that the committee has so tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize that it has totally abandoned the vision of its founder.

It also hides the great work done by many groups out there who are promoting human rights, freedom, economic development, and world peace. Those people certainly don’t get into that field because they want the glory, but it's a shame that this Nobel Prize takes away one avenue that the public has to see their important work.

October 18th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, International, Politics | no comments

Home Rule Begins in Northern Ireland Once More

Northern Ireland has for years been ruled from England. There have been several attempts to come to a compromise solution to let Northern Ireland rule itself since the Good Friday agreements. It appears that finally home rule is about to begin again there.

This is good news, not only because home rule is beginning again, but because both sides are expressing hope that it will work this time. Both Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness have said they believe the bloodshed over the territory has come to a close. However, this bright spot on another conflict coming to a close was overshadowed by the press inserting their politics into the story.

The conflict is not or has never been about religion. Ever. Yet the press continues to write on the conflict in terms of a fight against Catholics and Protestants. A few details would be helpful.

For many years, the British exerted complete control over Ireland. In 1921 the Irish Free State was formed free of British control. However, this territory did not include what is now called Northern Ireland. Many Irish believe that those territories rightly belong to Ireland as they were taken from them by the British centuries ago. Since that time, the nationalists had fought against the unionists to gain control over Northern Ireland.

Ireland is basically a Catholic country; England is obviously Protestant under the Church of England. The two nations have obvious religious identities. However, because a nation has a religious identity does not mean that every action that nation performs finds its origins in religion. The nationalists believe Northern Ireland is theirs (Ireland), the unions believe it belongs to them (England). The basis for those arguments have no support or recourse to religion.

The attempts to make the conflict (or hopefully the former conflict) about religion is politically driven by ideologues who want to paint religion as nothing but causing wars, devastation and destruction. It is disheartening, to say the least, that the so-called objective media has fully-throatedly adopted the propaganda of the anti-theists.

That said, I’m hopeful like other bloggers that the conflict is over.

May 8th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | International, Military / War, Politics, Religion, The MSM | one comment

France Becomes Respectable Again

Sources are reporting that center-right French Presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won the election by about ten points in France. The results mark the latest European government to make a rightward lurch in political orientation in the last several years.

Despite waging a dirty campaign that included a spam campaign suggesting riots and damnation should Sarkozy win, the voters came out in droves to elect Sarkozy. The attacks were reminiscent of campaigns in America, particularly dirty and deceptive campaigns against Barry Goldwater. Many people went to the airwaves to diagnose Sarkozy with mental illness, much like leftists in this country do against George W. Bush. Voters in France have rejected the fear-mongering campaign of the socialists, much like voters rejected similar attempts by Democrats to do the same in this country. Once again we see demonstrated that in the battle of ideas, socialists fight unarmed.

Sarkozy is most known for his previous post as interior minister by holding a tough law and order stand. The Paris riots by Muslim immigrants were considered stoked by Sarkozy who took a tough stand against such behavior. The fact that such a large turnout fell strongly behind Sarkozy indicates that France will not go silently into the night.

It is likely that France-U.S. relations will see a marked improvement with this election. Socialist candidate Royal not only ran a smear campaign, but was the latest socialist to run against George W. Bush and lose (a peculiar choice considering Bush wasn't on the French ballot). France for the past few years has been antagonistic towards the United States under Chirac including undermining the Iraq sanctions in the Oil-for-Food scandal which led to the ultimate renewal of conflict with Iraq. Sarkozy will likely end such antagonism and return to being a helpful international partner again.

The most telling part of the election results is that what is considered a bellwether bastion of socialism in Europe has overwhelmingly voted to reject socialist politics. Royal clearly made her platform of strong welfare policies and social platforms known and Sarkozy clearly indicated that he wanted to cut down on high unemployment by getting people to work. France follows Germany in moving to more conservative policies and governments.

This is little less than a revolution in France against an ideology that has become stagnant and a demonstrable failure. France's economy and society have been dragging behind the rest of the world and the French citizenry has decided they had enough. Likely pundits will shake their heads at voters deciding against "their own economic self-interest."

The lesson in France is that whenever conservatism is on the ballot (unhindered by corruption, bad implementation of policies, or personal problems) conservatism wins. Today France joins the world in adopting more sane economic and governmental policies.

May 6th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, European Union, International, Politics | no comments

Leak of Israel’s Plans to Nuke Iran Smells like BS

Drudge Report is splashing the news that the Sunday Times of London plans on reporting that Israel is planning a nuclear strike against Iran to head off Iran’s nuclear ambitions. According to Drudge:

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, the SUNDAY TIMES of London is planning to report, British media sources tell DRUDGE…

At first glance, the entire story smells of a fabrication. The obvious reason being that if Israel had secret plans to nuke Iran, they likely wouldn’t have been leaked. If they did get leaked, the police better start dredging the Sea of Galilee for the bodies of those involved. More importantly this leak gives huge benefits to Iran.

Israel is not stupid. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely do very little for a protected underground bunker. It is possible that either Drudge or the London Times doesn’t know precisely what a tactical nuclear weapon is. However, the fact remains in order to really do damage to the facility an ICBM (a strategic nuclear weapons) would need to be used. The momentum of a missile coming down from low earth orbit would be necessary to burrow deep enough to do the damage desired. There is indication that even then, the strike might not be successful.

One simulation indicated it would require 400 or so missiles to do the job. At best, entrances and exits from the underground facility could be collapses and that would certainly delay the program. The radiation from the strikes would need to dissipate and the tunnels would have to be rebuilt. It is possible such a strike could be times when Iran’s nuclear weapons were being brought above ground, but that would be extremely difficult to pull off.

Iran’s move to build its nuclear program underground was brilliant. They learned the lessons of Iraq in 1981. However, the key defense of the move is also its biggest weakness. Namely, any nuclear weapon developed underground could not be used until it is brought above ground at already known locations. A nuclear strike at those locations would keep the weapons out of Iranian hands underneath irradiated soil. That move, however, is only a temporary solution.

It is likely that both Israel and the US have drawn up simulations and plans but every indication is that they are a last resort. The other fact is that these plans aren’t precisely secret, at least in general. Leaking the plans now, just shortly after sanctions have been levied against Iran indicate that the plans were likely not coming from Israel.

Iran’s general tactic has been to run the clock and delay as much as possible. This indicates that they are likely very close to being finished making nuclear weapons which would change the dynamics of diplomacy greatly. They have every incentive to keep stalling until they’ve met that landmark.

This plan, being leaked now in the way it was only gives more cover to Iran. The international community and human rights groups will likely jump all over Israel and demand investigations and action. Despite basically looking the other way of actual genocide going on in Darfur, they’ll jump to action on the rumor of a hypothetical “genocide.” We’ll skip past the international community’s non-response over Iran’s very public desire to commit genocide against Israel.

This leaking has every indication that it was done by Iran, or a supporter or Iran, to give more cover and time. While international eyes are peering at Israel, Iran’s program will continue undeterred.

See others: Blogs of war, LGF, Wizbang, Ed Driscoll,

January 6th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | International, Iran, Military / War, Politics, Sudan, United Nations | 8 comments

The ACLU is Fighting for the Trafficking of Women Worldwide

AIDS is a growing epidemic in the world. There was a time when it was considered a “gay-only disease” but those days are gone. International agencies and world governments are working to solve this problem before a demographic nightmare takes place. However, the ACLU is on the case to push their usual agenda.

The ACLU is arguing before a federal appeals court that the United States is funding AIDS prevention unconstitutionally. Specifically, they argue that having a ban on funds to organizations that promote commercial sex work inhibits free speech. It should be no surprise that the ACLU is in bed with those who want to legalize prostitution.

It is true that advocating the legalization of prostitution is free speech. That doesn’t mean that such speech needs to be funded by the government. As much as some like to think otherwise, Uncle Sam isn’t an ATM machine for every special interest. The old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” If one doesn’t like the government’s rules, don’t take the government’s money.

More importantly though is that the advocacy for legalized prostitution and AIDS prevention are mutually exclusive. One cannot support the reduction of AIDS infections and support legal prostitution at the same time. Prostitution remains one of the leading vectors for AIDS infection. This is true in the case of both legal and illegal prostitution.

Prostitutes, because of their many partners, have a greatly increased risk of exposure to HIV. They are likewise able to spread HIV to many other partners. While a promiscuous society can approach a similar infection rate, prostitution is a leading avenue of spreading HIV. While on its face condoms seem like they could prevent the spread of AIDS, the trust is that they don’t. HIV infection rates increase in countries that have condom distribution programs. Abstinence programs, on the other hand, has been shown in Uganda to reduce AIDS infections. The simple truth is that when one only has sex with one’s spouse, the risk of AIDS exposure approaches zero.

The redefinition of prostitution as “commercial sex work” is just an attempt to legitimize sex trafficking. It should come as no surprise the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have signed on. While both groups are considered “pro-woman”, it is odd that they support an industry of flagrant abuse of women. Planned Parenthood in the United States has even been shown to enable to abuse of little girls.

There are a multitude of studies to show the high level of abuse that prostitutes suffer (see a few here). Women are literally bought and sold as property. The incidence of drug addiction is high among women, partially explaining why they became prostitutes to begin with.

The argument for legalization goes something like this. Prostitution will happen anyway but legalization and regulation will help stem the abuses. The argument has 50,000 foot appeal. Using the same logic, slavery (which still exists in many places) should be legalized so underground slaves can be given some measure of human rights. The fact that the ACLU and the bevy of left-wing international groups don’t argue for the legalization of slavery shows the logical inconsistency of their position.

Further, the legalization of abortion has shown that it lead to a radical increase in abortion. The legalization will lead to an untold number of women being forced into sex slavery. Make no mistake, women will be forced into commercial sex work in greater numbers if it were legalized.

The government need not be forced into funding programs that have no hope in every helping fix the problem. It certainly should not fund programs that will make the problem worse. Lastly, nothing in the constitution requires the government be forced to fund groups who support the most unthinkable human rights abuses known to man. AIDS prevention dollars should be used for AIDS prevention, not for the promotion of sex slaves.

January 2nd, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Freedom of Speech, International, Law / Legal Issues, Politics, StoptheACLU | no comments

Human Harvesting for Stem Cells Begins in Ukraine

The BBC is reporting that healthy new-born babies appear to have been killed in order to harvest stem cells for the flourish stem cell trade that has begun in the country. Dr. Hwang Woo-Sook was found last year to have fabricated his scientific claims on stem cell research. A scandal which in no small part involved his subordinates donating their ova or paying women for their ova.

Despite the fact that the science is clear that embryo-destroying stem cell research will require either massive efforts to get women (usually poor ones) to donate their ova or other behaviors that amount to human harvesting, stem cell supporters either ignore the problem or ridicule the claim. Today they can no longer do that.

Ukraine, it appears, killed healthy babies in the name of getting the “biological materials” they need to continue their work on stem cells. The pathological scientific obsession with embryos for this research is disquieting. Adult stem cells are treating people today and have none of the ethical problems that embryo-destroying stem cell research has. Yet they press on.

Far from an anomaly, Ukraine is the future of embryo-destroying stem cell research. There exists no way to even produce enough stems cells for research, much less medical treatment, without getting massive donations of ova or killing babies in the womb. Or for that matter, killing babies already born. Imagine abortion providers, who already have a problem covering up for child rapists, starting up a trade of stem cells from aborted fetuses.

I have every confidence that the scientific community can eventually figure out how to make cures with embryo-destroying stem cell research. However, that was never really what was the concern. I could stop drunk driving by cutting off the tongues of those who commit the crime, yet that would hardly be just. Embryo-destroying stem cell research, and the treatment that it might eventually produce, will require a massive pool of ova (from poor women of course), human harvesting, or both. We have seen the future in Ukraine, the question is, will we still embrace it?

December 16th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | International, Politics, Pro-Life | one comment