Sunday, June 15, 2014

There is when I get to write what I think. There isn't enough space here to write entirely what I think. So...

...just a few highlights.

The global community is changing. The five nuclear powers each have their own issues domestically. Those domestic issues are not minor. At all. It is difficult to believe of the BRIC nations there are two that are permanent members of the UN Security Council. That tells me that any country develops it's national defense before it develops it's economy. Why is that noteworthy? Because we are seeing the very same pattern with nations that feel threatened by The West, namely North Korea and Iran. Those are the two unconquered powers listed in The Axis of Evil Speech. How does the USA justify such hate filled speech to two nations striving to improve their people's quality of life, but, chained to a reality of potential invasion by The West or worse? How is that justified? They have no security and yet The West expects them to change in the face of every reason not to. In a smaller sense that includes groups like Hamas, too. 

The USA might try to first respect the nations they seek to end hostilities with and actually begin cultural and medical exchanges to benefit future good will.

The climate is a huge problem. It effects everything. Yet, when it comes to changing the way the world finds energy it seems to be the last issue on any international agenda outside the United Nations. That is simply wrong. The global community cannot simply trade carbon dioxide emissions for methane emissions. It won't work and we are all on the Spaceship Earth together. Kindly find incentives for every country to apply alternative energy techniques. They will do it for the same reasons Americans do, their children's future.

The global powers are becoming more sophisticated and as an example is China. There are also other nations coming online with incredible potential for economic growth and improving the quality of life to it's citizens to spawn there own middle class. With that reality is the fact these other countries will be able to afford a larger and more substantial military, including navies. The USA will be unable to be everywhere all the time. It will become increasingly impossible to be in the Middle East, within reach of Japan and South Korea's safety and securing NATO all at the same time. The USA has to set free it's allies to grow more of their own military and national security. It isn't a matter of imperialism, it is about the balance of power in the world. The USA can't do it alone anymore.

The Middle East has a strong potential to settle into a peaceful posture, but, it won't so long as countries are being forced into secular governments. It just won't work. 

Every region of the world is different. Every culture within a region is different. The USA cannot demand a homogenized world in order to believe it has a strong national defense. It cannot demand every government be based in democracy and/or representative government or a melting pot to match that of The West. It can demand every nation seek the highest forms of human rights and quality of life. In that is peace and not homogenized replicas of the USA.

I don't believe The West has the right to demand religious pluralism in every country we have a relationship with for economic or national security reasons. It is completely unrealistic to demand the Middle East to practice the same democracy we have for over 2 centuries. They have a right to worship god in any manner they please so long as it doesn't demand deaths of others. The lines in the sands drawn so long ago won't stand and I find it unreasonable to expect The West to create war justified by such dogma. It is out of the question.

And then there is the South China Sea

VIETNAM and China (click here) share a long history of enmity—and of managing to patch things up when they go wrong. But their latest dispute is not running true to form.
Vietnam was taken aback in early May when China parked an oil rig on its doorstep. The behemoth, which cost $1 billion, lies 17 nautical miles (32 km) from the Paracel islands, which China seized from the American-backed South Vietnamese regime in 1974, and about 150 nautical miles from the Vietnamese coast. Vietnam’s leaders say the rig is inside their 200-mile exclusive economic zone as defined by international law. They wanted to settle the dispute quickly through negotiations. But China is said to have rebuffed requests for a summit and talks between lower-ranking officials went nowhere....
China 2013
Regional Dynamics 
During 2012, Beijing adopted strong, uncompromising positions in maritime territorial disputes with 
several of its neighbors. In each case, China sought to expand its control over the relevant territories and obstructed regional efforts to manage the disputes. Beijing’s regional activities appear to be, in part, a response to the US strategic rebalance toward Asia-Pacific, which Chinese leaders believe is aimed at undermining China’s position in the region. Globally, Beijing has both assisted and hindered US policy 
objectives on such issues as Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea, and it continues to expand its 

economic influence and to try to parlay it into greater political influence....
I want to just pause for a minute and substitute another nation for China. If I may?

North Korea adopted strong, uncompromising positions in maritime territorial disputes with several of its neighbors. In each case, North Korea sought to expand its control over the relevant territories and obstructed regional efforts to manage the disputes.
Now, whom is mentoring North Korea into hostilities and why? Would Bush know?
I'm just sayin'.

China 2014
China will probably continue its increasingly proactive approach to maritime disputes, including a hardline stance toward Japan over the Senkaku Islands. More broadly, China’s growing confidence, new capabilities, and other perceived challenges to China’s interests or security will drive Beijing to pursue a more active foreign policy.
Growing regional competition in territorial disputes and competing nationalist fervor increase the risk of escalation and constrain regional cooperation. Sovereignty concerns and resurgent historical resentments will generate friction and occasional incidents between claimants in the East and South 
China Seas and slow or stall bilateral or multilateral efforts to resolve the disputes.  
Beijing has highlighted its pursuit of a “new type of major power relations” with Washington, but China is simultaneously working at least indirectly to counterbalance US influence. Within East Asia, Beijing seeks to fuel doubts about the sustainability of the US “rebalance” and Washington’s willingness to support its allies and partners in the region. 
China is pursuing a long-term comprehensive military modernization designed to enable its armed forces to achieve success on a 21st century battlefield. China’s military investments favor capabilities designed to strengthen its nuclear deterrent and strategic strike options, counter foreign military intervention in a regional crisis, and provide limited, albeit growing, capability for power projection. During 2013, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) introduced advanced weapons into its inventory and reached milestones 
in the development of key systems. China’s first domestically developed heavy transport plane, the Y-20, successfully conducted its initial test flight. Additionally, China has continued to develop multiple advanced ballistic and cruise missiles....

Back to the Middle East for a second, there is the entire Israel - Palestine thing that refuses to relieve any threat in the region.

Saturday, 14 June 2014 15:21
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (click here) has demanded that the Palestinian Authority (PA) dissolve its unity pact with Hamas as a condition to resume peace talks, Israel Radio reported on Friday.
Earlier on Thursday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said that he is ready to resume peace talks with the Israeli occupation on condition the latter releases the fourth batch of long-serving Palestinian prisoners.
Netanyahu's office subsequently issued a statement describing Mr Abbas's announcement is "meaningless," claiming that the new Palestinian government "is not considered as supportive of peace."
Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, brokered by the US, broke down in April 2014 when the Israeli occupation government reneged on a previous agreement to release the veteran Palestinian prisoners.
Palestine really isn't Israel's greatest worry. As a matter of fact, Palestine isn't even listed as a threat in 2013 and 2014. Interesting, isn't it?
Iran 2014
President Ruhani has heralded a shift in political momentum in Iran toward the center, but we do not know whether he heralds a reversal of the authoritarian trend in Iranian politics during the past many years. Iran’s economy will continue to struggle without comprehensive sanctions relief, which drives Ruhani and his team of technocrats to pursue nuclear negotiations. Since his election, Ruhani has had the support of the Supreme Leader, which has silenced some conservative critics. Hardliners, however, have consistently argued that sanctions fatigue will eventually break the international sanctions coalition and are wary of Ruhani’s engagement with the West, as well as his promises of social and political moderation. Ruhani must maintain the backing of the Supreme Leader in order to continue to advance his political agenda. (Information on Iran’s nuclear weapons program and intentions can be found above in the section on WMD and Proliferation.) 
The USA is inconsistent with it's policy in regard to authoritarian trends. It tolerated Mubarak just fine. It tolerates the King of Saudi Arabia without question. It affiliates strongly with the King of Jordan. So, how does the USA resolve the issue of being Anti-Authoritarian anywhere else?
See, it really isn't about authoritarian regimes, now is it? I mean Rumsfeld was Saddam's buddy right up to the point where he wasn't. The USA divides also along lines of human rights which in many regimes is an issue. But, human rights problems also encompass countries like Russia and China. But, until recently Russia was a member of the G8. It isn't really authoritarian regimes the USA has a problem with, it is nuclear capacity. So the entire idea there are threats by authoritarian governments is nonsense. The USA weighs it's acceptance of authoritarian governments by their nuclear capacity.
It is time get over the fact the Middle East has many authoritarian governments that are ethnically affiliated and the USA is suppose to do what exactly? Go to war every time there is an opening to assault Iran? Or Russia? Or China? Or Syria?
I tell you what. Why not challenge the authoritarian government of Wall Street and the 1 percent so the entire world can breath easier?
Better put, the USA needs to focus on peace and how to attain it for any region on Earth, rather than focusing on war and it's ability to kill and destroy. There is religious freedom in the USA, however, it doesn't seem to be the case in the Middle East. Why is that?
Iran will continue to act assertively abroad in ways that run counter to US interests and worsen regional conflicts. Iranian officials almost certainly believe that their support has been instrumental in sustaining Asad’s regime in Syria and will probably continue support during 2014 to bolster the regime. In the broader Middle East, Iran will continue to provide arms and other aid to Palestinian groups, Huthi rebels in Yemen, and Shia militants in Bahrain to expand Iranian influence and to counter perceived foreign threats. Tehran, which strives for a stable Shia-led, pro-Iran government in Baghdad, is concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Tehran is probably struggling to find the balance between protecting Shia equities in Iraq and avoiding overt actions that would precipitate greater anti-Shia violence. In Afghanistan, Tehran will probably seek its own additional security agreements with Kabul, promote pro-Iranian candidates in the 2014 presidential election to increase its influence at the expense of the United States, and maintain its clandestine aid to Afghan insurgent groups. Iran sees rising sectarianism as a dangerous regional development, but we assess that Iran’s perceived responsibility to protect and empower Shia communities will increasingly trump its desire to avoid sectarian violence. Hence, Iran’s actions will likely do more to fuel rather than dampen increasing sectarianism

Then there is North Korea. Rightfully so, Kim Jong Un is concerned about the drought and subsequent torrential rains.

(CNN) -- Don't you hate it (click here) when the weatherman gets it wrong? Apparently, so does Kim Jong Un.

According to state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun, the North Korean leader has been touring meteorological facilities in his country complaining that there are "too many incorrect" weather forecasts.

As further proof of the supreme leader's extreme displeasure, the Rodong Sinmun report includes photos of a red-faced Kim chastising what appear to be sheepish meteorological personnel.

The wording of the report is a little unclear at times, but it claims Kim's concerns about the weather relate to its potential impact on the economy....  

North Korea 2013

Kim Jong Un has quickly consolidated power since taking over as leader of North Korea when his father, Kim Jong Il, died in December 2011. Kim has publicly focused on improving the country’s troubled economy and the livelihood of the North Korean people, but we have yet to see any signs of serious economic reform. 

North Korea maintains a large, conventional military force held in check by the more powerful South Korean-US military alliance. Nevertheless, the North Korean military is well postured to conduct limited attacks with little or no warning, such as the 2010 sinking of a South Korean warship and the artillery 

Things have been rather busy when one reflects on the activities of North Korea over the last year. The USA has naval deployments in the area. It is somewhat of a relief to realize Kim is still concerned about his economy. If he weren't he would not even notice the weather. So, his concern for the country and it's economy, hence, it's people is legitimate. I don't see the USA leaving the region soon.

North Korea 2014 
Two years after taking the helm of North Korea, Kim Jong Un has further solidified his position as unitary leader and final decision authority. He has solidified his control and enforced loyalty through personnel changes and purges. The most prominent was the ouster and execution of his uncle, Jang Song Thaek in December 2013. Kim has elevated the profile of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) through appointments of party operatives to key leadership positions and the convening of party conferences and 
plenums. Kim and the regime have publicly emphasized his focus on improving the country’s troubled economy and the livelihood of the North Korean people while maintaining the tenets of a command economy. He has codified this approach via his dual-track policy of economic development and 
advancement of nuclear weapons. (Information on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and intentions can be found above in the section on WMD and Proliferation.) 

And the Middle East is not the only place the USA military is deployed.

From the 2013 Intelligence Assessment

...Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova 

In Belarus, Lukashenko has weathered an economic crisis that presented him with the greatest 
challenge to his rule since he took power in 1994. Corrective measures and financial assistance from Russia have eased some of the more harmful consequences of the crisis, and opposition movements, such as the Revolution through Social Networks, have petered out. Nevertheless, Belarus’s economic situation remains precarious, and Lukashenko’s refusal to institute structural economic reforms raises the likelihood that Belarus will fall into another economic crisis in 2013. 

Under President Yanukovych, Ukraine is drifting towards authoritarianism. The October 2012

parliamentary elections were marred by irregularities and fell far short of Western standards for free and fair elections, representing a step backwards from prior Ukrainian elections. Yanukovych also shows few signs that he intends to release imprisoned opposition leader former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko
any time soon, a key condition to improving Ukraine’s relations with the West. The government appears to be “doubling down,” preparing additional criminal charges against Tymoshenko that could keep her behind bars for life. In addition, the lack of structural economic reforms coupled with a precarious financial situation raises the risk of economic crisis in 2013. 

There was an obvious shift in the direction of Russia under Yanukovych. The people were feeling the change in their ability to live a life of freedom. The Ukraine with it's western facing economic engines, had a leader that 'personally' wanted none of it. The Ukraine was sinking into a dictatorship imposed by economic ties to Russia.

The status quo in Moldova is likely to prevail during the next year. Electing new leaders in Moldova 

and in the separatist region of Transnistria has improved the tone of relations between Chisinau and 
Tiraspol. A renewed focus on confidence-building measures, such as easing restrictions on the 
movement of people and goods, generated cautious optimism in early 2012 about progress toward 
eventual settlement of the Transnistria conflict. However, the negotiating positions of both sides later
hardened, and a settlement to the conflict is highly unlikely in the next year....

The first deaths of 2014 in Ukraine at the Maidan occurred on January 22, 2014. The 2014 Worldwide Intelligence Assessment was issued on January 29, 2014. The change in the Ukraine profile has radically changed. The beauty of the 2014 assessment is that the USA had given up on any change in leadership or democracy in Ukraine. The 2014 assessment of Europe focuses on Keypartnerships and the TTIP.  What occurred in Ukraine had absolutely nothing to do with any interest by Europe, the USA or NATO. It occurred because of the people and business leaders within that nation.

The USA assessment had absolutely no plans to expand the need for NATO in Poland or otherwise. The USA is now engaged with military exercises with NATO more intensely because of the continued instability along the Ukraine border that could effect NATO nations. Are we supposed to drop everything and redeploy to the Middle East? With Europe in the balance? It's NATO. Like what?

The 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment

Arab Spring (click here)

In the three years since the outbreak of the Arab Spring, a few states have made halting progress in their transitions away from authoritarian rule. Nevertheless, political uncertainty and violence will probably increase across the region in 2014 as the toppling of leaders and weakening of regimes have unleashed ethnic and sectarian rivalries that are propagating destabilizing violence. 

In Syria, the ongoing civil war will probably heighten regional and sectarian tensions. Syria has 

become a proxy battle between Iran and Lebanese Hizballah on one side and Sunni Arab states the other. Fear of spillover has exacerbated sectarian tensions in Iraq and Lebanon and will add to 
the unrest. The influx of over two million Syrian refugees into neighboring countries will continue to 
impose hardships, particularly on Jordan and Lebanon....

It is quite lengthy this year in regard to the Arab Spring. It states there are still ungoverned spaces, economic hardship, turmoil associated with transitional governments, in particular Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. Renewed unrest as the governments of 2011 created disillusionment. 

And last the continued negative view of the USA. 

...Negative Views of the United States. Some of the transitioning governments are more skeptical 
than before the Arab Spring about cooperating with the United States. They are concerned about protecting sovereignty and resisting foreign interference, which has the potential to hamper US counter terrorism and other efforts to engage transitioning governments. Additionally, the unhappiness of some Arab Gulf States with US policies on Iran, Syria, and Egypt might lead these countries to reduce cooperation with the United States on regional issues and act unilaterally in ways that run counter to US interests....

There is a problem for the USA in the Middle East among those countries still considered allies, such as Saudi Arabia and other countries along the Persian Gulf. Iran. Syria. Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood are all Shia. So the Arab Gulf States unhappy with USA policy with these countries are Sunni. 

Is there a legitimate place for the USA in the Middle East other than with Israel and Jordan? The Shia don't really seem interested in having the USA conduct war except for the Maliki government which we already know rejects Sunni involvement. The Sunnis are unhappy because the USA sees it's place among the Shia nations as well as their own. Now, you'll excuse me, but there are two heads to this snake and it is not getting easier to resolve the poison. 

The countries of the Middle East that once had Western dictators were accepted by the Sunni nations simply because they were Sunni as well. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Arab. Quaddafi was Bedouin which is an ancient culture that exists without question in the Middle East. Mubarak was a Sunni Arab.

There is no way to impose a generous spirit of acceptance in the Middle East. The nations are divided along ethnic lines regardless of their outward civility toward each other. The only way to resolve the ethnic divides in Iraq is to allow the country to self-determine it's borders. It is happening already. It is happening in a short period of time. The only people at this point unhappy are the American Neocons. 

The 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment

Arab Spring (click here)

Although some countries have made progress towards democratic rule, most are experiencing 
uncertainty, violence, and political backsliding. The toppling of leaders and weakening of regimes have 
also unleashed destabilizing ethnic and sectarian rivalries. Islamist actors have been the chief electoral 
beneficiaries of the political openings, and Islamist parties in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco will likely solidify 
their influence in the coming year. The success of transitioning states will depend, in part, on their ability 
to integrate these actors into national politics and to integrate—or marginalize—political, military, tribal, and business groups that were part of or benefited from the old regimes. At the same time, transitions that fail to address public demands for change are likely to revive unrest and heighten the appeal of authoritarian or extremist solutions. 

Three issues, in particular, will affect US interests: 

• Ungoverned Spaces. The struggles of new governments in places like Tripoli and Sanaa to extend 
their writs, as well as the worsening internal conflict in Syria, have created opportunities for extremist 
groups to find ungoverned space from which to destabilize the new governments and prepare attacks 
against Western interests inside those countries. 

• Economic Hardships. Many states face economic distress—specifically, high rates of 
unemployment—that is unlikely to be alleviated by current levels of Western aid and will require 
assistance from wealthy Arab countries as well as reforms and pro-growth policies. Failure to meet 
heightened popular expectations for economic improvement could set back transitions in places such 
as Egypt and destabilize vulnerable regimes such as Jordan. Gulf states provide assistance only 
incrementally and are wary of new governments’ foreign policies and their ability to absorb funds. 

Negative Views of the United States. Some transitioning governments are more skeptical than 
their predecessors about cooperating with the United States and are concerned about protecting 
sovereignty and resisting foreign interference. This has the potential to hamper US counterterrorism 
efforts and other initiatives to engage transitioning governments


The effects of climate can't be ignored. The 'comfort zone' for climate of most people is not what they experience today.

...MENA ( Middle East and North Africa) (click here) is a valuable repository of traditional and institutional knowledge, which, if preserved and made accessible, could prove an important contribution, globally, to efforts to address climate change. These are gaining new momentum in the aftermath of the recent Bali conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  In addition to setting out a roadmap for a new international agreement on the reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions, the conference launched a series of initiatives to help countries adapt to climate change, including the activation of an “Adaptation Fund” to be entrusted to the World Bank, with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) operating as Secretariat of the Fund.

The MNA Climate Change Experience

An increasing level of awareness is building among all stakeholders in the MENA region on the significance of climate change, reflecting both the global increase in awareness of the phenomenon, as well as mounting concerns in the region about increasingly frequent droughts and a looming water supply shortage. While ultimately, effective adaptation to climate change will depend on countries’ commitment, the Bank has a key role to play in mainstreaming adaptation measures in MENA’s development agenda....

Many (click here) are still asking is current global warming natural or human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, 'is current global warming natural'? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:

...2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.

3.  We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.

4.  The models and the observations match....

By Coral Davenport
May 13, 2014

...In an interview, Secretary of State John Kerry signaled (click here) that the report’s findings would influence American foreign policy.

“Tribes are killing each other over water today,” Mr. Kerry said. “Think of what happens if you have massive dislocation, or the drying up of the waters of the Nile, of the major rivers in China and India. The intelligence community takes it seriously, and it’s translated into action.”

Mr. Kerry, who plans to deliver a major speech this summer on the links between climate change and national security, said his remarks would also be aimed at building political support for President Obama’s climate change agenda, including a new regulation to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants that the administration will introduce in June....

There is the USA view of events and then there is the Iraqi view of events.

Iraq’s former Vice President Tareq al-Hashimi (click here) described what is happening in the country as an “Arab Spring uprising” aimed at ending Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s “sectarian” regime, in an interview with Al Arabiya News Channel’s sister channel al-Hadath on Sunday. 
“I am being frank when I say that I know what’s happening in my country; therefore I am careful when I say that this is a revolution who all Iraqi people contributed in,” said Hashimi, who fled Iraq in 2012 after he was given a death sentence for two murder cases.
The former vice president, who has resided in Turkey since leaving Iraq, rejected how media outlets portrayed what had happened initially in Iraq's second largest city of Mosul late Monday, when fighters from the jihadist militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took the city and its province in a offensive.
“The media today is promoting that what’s happening today in Mosul and beyond is driven by al-Qaeda and ISIS, I strongly believe this is a big lie and the evidence is that the previous days in Mosul were peaceful which allowed Maliki’s army to go home safe,” he said....

Is there any doubt the Iraq invasion was wrong and a complete disaster? Nation building doesn't work.

The Iraqis have never been a strong military, even under a dictator that threatened death. Gulf War 1 was ridiculous. There was no resistance and the USA secured Kuwait without much of an effort.

The food for oil program worked to a greater extent than it didn't work. 

June 15, 2014
Anmar al Shamary and Jabeen Bhatti
Special for USA Today

...The pictures on a militant website (click here) appear to show masked fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) loading the captives onto flatbed trucks before forcing them to lie face-down in a shallow ditch with their arms tied behind their backs. The bodies of the captives are then shown, soaked in blood after being shot....

The militias have stated they have assassinated 1700 Iraqi soldiers. The USA is also removing a percentage of their embassy staff. 

The invasion into Iraq occurred in 2003. The Arab Spring occurred in 2011. Nearly eight years apart. How long does it take for the people of any country to realize they have untapped and oppressed power.

The USA withdrawal from Iraq began June 2009 and was completed by December 2011. The withdrawal of US Troops nearly meets exactly with the beginning of the Arab Spring. 

We know the beginning of the Arab Spring started with a street vendor that self immolated in Tunisia. Does anyone believe ISIS was responsible for that event and the subsequent events to follow in over 15 countries?

Something changed in the Middle East and it didn't happen because the USA pulled out of Iraq. The people changed. The oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein fell in open theater to all those in the streets. The people carried out religious events unseen in open forum with self inflicted pain that is ceremonial to the act of saving Islam. And the statue of a dictator was dragged from it's pedestal. These images and the news surrounding the end of a regime was not isolated to the TV viewers in the USA. These images were played in most every nation in the region and across the world. 

How is it every country in north Africa was increasing movement toward rebellion?

By December 2013 rulers had been forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt (twice) and Libya. There were civil uprisings in Bahrain, Mali and Syria with major protests in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morrocco and Sudan and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Djbouti.

Can the people of an entire nation identify with one street vendor to unseat a president?

On December 17, 2010 Mohamed Bouazizi in Sidi Bouzid, self-immolated after an incident where he was humiliated by the Tunisian government. He was a street vendor. His wares were confiscated by the local government. This was the incident that began a revolution and took down a president. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia after 23 years in power stepped down less than a month later on January 14, 2011.

How is it that a merchant who committed suicide could have that far reaching effect on a nation? 

Tunisia was basically the same as Egypt, Libya and Iraq. They all had western placed dictators that held control of the country. There was widespread poverty in most of these countries with the exception of Libya. Libya at least recognized the fact the oil sales were to benefit the people and to the extent it did there was a higher degree of comfort than most of these nations.

Iraq was claimed to be wealthy before 1980. It's oil supply was diminishing and then came the Gulf War 1 and Saddam was placed on a UN program of food for oil. The program was successful from the stand point of alleviating hunger and the need for medicine, but, it failed from the standpoint of corruption in handling the exchanges of oil for supplies into Iraq.

Now, while all this seems irrelevant there is a very important understanding to the cultural underpinnings of these dictatorships. They were widely accepted as powerful and the people were reminded often enough of the brutality they could face at a whim. 

Qaddafi's rule started in 1969. 

Mubarrak was 1981.

Saddam Hussein was 1979.

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was 1989.
It's Sunday Night

Bob Dylan- BBC Tonight Show- With God on Our Side (1964)

This song was released in 1995 and was on the album "MTV Unplugged"

"With God On Our Side" By Bob Dylan (click here)

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns on their hands
And God on their side.

The First World War, boys
It came and it wen
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

I dare anyone to find one article in Russia's state newspaper about Syria or the Middle East.

Today, July 15, 2014, according to the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, the actions of The West in 2003 had absolutely nothing to do with ISIS. He states only 2011 that determined this outcome.

Really, Mr. Blair?

This is from "The Foreign Policy Center" a leading British progressive think tank.

February 26, 2010
...The coalition seems (click here) to have focused almost entirely on getting rid of the figurehead, with little attention paid to other leaders in Saddam’s Baathist party. As Blair told the enquiry, “the only commitment I gave [then-US president George Bush] was to deal with Saddam.” This narrow focus, neglected Iraq’s need to deal effectively with the wider Baathist leadership. This is reflected in the failure of today’s politics to move on.

Saddam was, of course, executed along with three key associates in 2006. But only a handful of the other 50,000 Baathists that the Bush administration estimated would not be suitable for integration into the post-Saddam regime have been tried – most simply dismissed from their posts and are still free. No one has been called to account for most of the crimes committed under Saddam.

Because there has not been formal justice process for former Baathist leaders, there has been no process of coming to terms with the abuses of the era. The whole issue is, seven years on, still raw and open to exploitation.

And with the election coming, this is just what is happening. This was illustrated recently by a ban on 511 candidates who were allegedly former Baath party members, by Iraq’s Accountability and Justice Commission. The commission presented no evidence of any crimes committed by these candidates. Most Baath party members (95% according to a US estimate in 2003) were obliged by their government jobs to join; yet no distinction is begin made in the widespread anti-Baath rhetoric now prevalent among all Iraq’s major political parties.

Anti-Baathism is being used as a tool to win votes, especially by Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki who has publicly embraced the bans. This is a polarizing trend, with Sunnis feeling targeted since they are often associated with the Baath party. The Baathist past has become so politicized that the need for accountability, truth and reconciliation has been forgotten....

I remember quite vividly a British Command Officer talking to a CNN correspondent on March 21, 2003, stating "We are interested in capturing all the Baathists that contributed to the instability we are now witnessing in Iraq." The Anti-Baathist theme was the favorite slogan of Bush to justify the USA in a forever war, but, his jargon was not as clear, he stated, "It is the dead enders."

The Iraq War was illegal, completely compromised the war in Afghanistan where many British soldiers were killed in honor of their country and the idea a secular government in Iraq was sustainable over time was a dreamscape carved out for politics and nation building. Tony Blair needs to stop denying the facts he knew more about the viciousness of the Rumsfeld Cabal and it's ability to even turn it's power on Europe as traitors to NATO. He should never deny the fact he knew full well there was no solid evidence to justify an invasion and in that reality he also saw the vulnerability of every other country on Earth. 

There was no justified war into Iraq, no justification to sustain it and absolutely no reason to revisit it.

Iraq as a sovereign nation became a mirage for Western news and nation building on March 19-20, 2003. The protracted presence of The West's military only maintained a lulled war that was to dissolve Iraq into sectarian provinces and ultimately to see the end of it entirely.

How convenient the figurehead government of Maliki would serve the purpose of the Iraq image as a freely elected democracy only to be so weak in actuality it would require The West to wage the war to enforce a secular government all over again. 

I don't think so. We are not returning to the status of Killing Machine again. That is what a military becomes when it loses it's purpose as a defense of a country.