Update no.651

Update from the Heartland

No.651

2.6.14 – 8.6.14

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

Sergeant Bowe Robert Bergdahl, USA, was a POW held by the Haqqani Network for five years in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  On 31.May.2014, Bergdahl was traded for five Guantánamo detainees – all Taliban leaders, not al-Qa’ida operatives.  The exchange sparked volatile public debate and outcry largely because of the circumstances surrounding his capture.  This whole Bergdahl kerfuffle is so bloody emblematic of the insane political calcification that has crippled this Grand Republic for decades.   Yes, there are more than a few aspects of the Bergdahl case that bother me.  Yet, for reasons I can only attribute to blind political partisanship, a lot of folks have their panties in a knot.  Yes, the publicly available information strongly suggests Bergdahl is a deserter on the battlefield – an offense that used to be punishable by death – Private Eddie Slovik [31.January.1945] comes to mind.  Yet, the issue here is NOT the trade.  Prisoners have been exchanged for centuries, so that cannot be the objection.  Some members of Congress whined about not being notified prior to the trade.  We can argue the wisdom, purpose and the intentions of the trade at this particular moment in time; however, the prisoner exchange has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture.  My recommendation would have been, celebrate the exchange to get our last POW back on our side.  Once that is done and secure, then let the experts investigate what happened on 30.June.2009, and during his captivity.  If he was a deserter, then charge and try him before a general court-martial, and then sentence him to the punishment he deserves for his crime(s).  The President deserves our gratitude, not our disdain.  As for the five Taliban leaders, I hope they do go back to their support for radical Islamic fundamentalism and Islamo-fascism, and the next time we run across them, they get a bullet or twenty, rather than a hood and plastic restraints.  So, I shall be a minority voice here; thank you President Obama for having the courage to do what had to be done.  Now, let the debate begin.

President Obama nominated General Joseph F. “Fighting Joe” Dunford, Jr., USMC, to be the next Commandant of the Marine Corps and replace General Amos, whose term of office expires this coming fall.  Dunford is currently commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan.   He should have little problem with confirmation, unless of course the politicos decide to resist “just because.”

News from the economic front:

-- The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) reported its Purchasing Manager's Index (PMI) rose to 56.0 in May from 54.9 in April.  The PMI indicates the manufacturing sector is picking up the pace and supporting the improving recovery from the Great Recession.

-- The Frankfurt-based European Central Bank (ECB) reduced its emergency overnight loans to 0.40% from 0.75%, its main refinancing rate to 0.15% from 0.25%, and its deposit rate from 0.00 to -0.10%, becoming the first major central bank to venture into negative territory.  The ECB is walking a very fine line as it seeks to keep ultralow inflation from gaining traction and derailing the euro zone’s fragile recovery.

-- The Labor Department reported non-farm employment increased a seasonally adjusted 217,000 in May.  April's gain was revised down slightly to an increase of 282,000 from an initially reported gain of 288,000. Still, April's improvement was the best in more than two years. March's gain was unrevised at 203,000.  The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 6.3% in May, matching the lowest level since September 2008, at the beginning of the Great Recession.

Comments and contributions from Update no.650:

“When you started this debate on prayers at council meetings I thought that’s going to be a long runner and it has proved so to be.

“I have had the honour of addressing the full council of our county at the opening slot normally reserved for prayers. I used the moment not to eulogize but to remind all of the sacrifice of our warriors and of the duty incumbent on all citizens, especially those in power, to uphold and maintain the obligation of support to the dependents of those who have made the supreme sacrifice.”

My response:

            Indeed, my friend . . . a worthy debate nonetheless.

            It is nice to see your exercise of freedom and your demonstration of precisely the point made in this humble forum – a solemn statement of purpose or inspiration before public meetings.

Another contribution:

“I'm concerned as we're in the 100th year anniversary for WW-I, or in your blog, the context-fit is that geopolitical strains and tensions could take us into something bigger than any of us need/want.  Flash points, outliers, or a Black Swan. It would appear both Russia and China are taking advantage of a perceived leadership weakness of the United States of America, whether they miscalculated, that remains to be seen, and simultaneously makes it dangerous.

“While Russia is playing chess, the Chinese moving on the GO board, are we really just playing poker, or as you suggest, Russia and China are "bullies" and taking advantage of a RISK board full of hot points? 

“Was Syria a test, by the other players, to see about our RESOLVE (which amounted to not much)?

“It's not climate caused GLOBAL WARMING most of us should be concerned about right now.”

My reply:

            Good points.  The similarities with history are far too striking.  The motivations of the leaders vary as each human being is unique.  However, from my perspective, there are more than a few commonalities. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Kim Jung Un are dictators who appear to be ego driven.  Xi Jinping is the titular leader of a small, central Politburo, which means the PRC is driven by an odd group-think.  Putin is more like Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, while Xi is more like Hideki Tojo.  These aggressive leaders strive mightily to whip up nationalistic fervor within their people for their selfish, egocentric purposes, and once those fires are lit, they take on a resonate sustenance of their own.  From my experience, the people are rarely the problem; most folks around the world want the same things . . . to live a peaceful, comfortable life and to help their children to have a better life than they have enjoyed.  Megalomaniacal leaders are the problem, not the people.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“One of the angles that I entertain, while not wanting to be overly speculative since some call it conspiratorial, is that these leaders that from time-to-time pop-up, are elected (or installed), or gain their power through coup (like Saddam), actually are being directed or brought forward by a cabal that is orchestrating global events on mass scale, in concert with objectives that only the initiated would understand.  Do you believe this is too difficult to achieve, and that rather than a long time organized blueprint, these leaders you refer to are just part of the chaos of a complicated system of nation-states with independent nationalistic leaders?  

“At any rate, whatever is happening now, sure seems it will compromise a unified global order, though maybe this too was the goal.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Interesting question and proposition.

            There is certainly history to support your hypothesis.  William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers are often blamed for whipping up nationalist fervor after the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, Yellow Journalism at its most graphic performance.  We get another look-see in Smedley Butler’s essay “War is a Racket” [1935].  There are certainly examples of orchestration.  However, I have a hard time finding those connections with guys like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.  Saddam, yes, Komeini, no.  Who knows how deep some of these connections go?

            For the most part, I think folks should choose their leaders, their form of government.  If the people accept the mullahs of the IRI or the Taliban, I’m OK with that.  What I am not OK with and cannot tolerate is their exporting or supporting violence or interference with commerce.  The U.S. supported Saddam in his confrontation with the IRI, if not back to his coup d’etat; but, when he began to support Islamist terrorist groups, he became an enemy.

Comment to the Blog:

“Putin and Russia are louder than China, but that is no measure of the situation. Putin most likely hopes to live out a false memory (“euphoric recall” if we were discussing alcoholism) of the days when the USSR dominated a much larger area than Russia does today. The USSR paid a price for those days and so will Putin. However, these days Europe is far stronger than it was in the Cold War days. Let us allow those in the most danger to lead the response.

“China, on the other hand, has a long and strong history of empire-building. I caution that meeting threats with threats will not bring about any desirable resolution to this tension. China fears nobody, and they have much stronger support for that position than Putin or that clown in North Korea. If Vietnam has become an ally in the formal treaty-bound sense, we need to find ways to support them. Peaceful methods should receive strong preference. If we have no obligations, let us tread carefully. Historically, the great empires have fallen through over-extending their resources. Ours is in enough trouble already.

“I will state here as I have elsewhere that if I were in Edward Snowden's position, I would not attempt to change the system from within. It is no secret today that the US spy services have upset entire national governments. There is no reason to believe that they would hesitate to simply kill a low-level contractor who tried to upset their operations, legal or not.

“Your pro-Christian correspondent and his kind need to study the subject rather than quote hymns and such behaviors. Probably the least they need to do is read a book or two by people who have spent years studying their subject. The American Revolution was based on Enlightenment thinking, and that thinking did not endorse the religions of its time or of ours. Thomas Jefferson, the subject of a biography I just finished (A Life Worth Reading: Thomas Jefferson, by C.P. White), was a deist, as were many of the Founders. This particular book defines deism as “a quasi-religious view . . . which believed the universe was the creation of a rational God that can be known through the observation of natural phenomena and understanding of natural laws.” That is rather far from Christianity, whether conservative or not. No Bibles in that, none of the trappings of any formal religion at all. There are good reasons why not. The Founders understood the potential for abuse of religion far better than modern Americans. They had seen it in action.

“I guess I need to state that I support your view on the Founders' readiness to support broadening the availability of freedom to women, people of other races and religions and responsible persons in general.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Russia.  Spot on, I’d say.  Putin sure appears to be nostalgic for the bad ol’ days of Uncle Joe.  Indeed, Europe is far different from 70 years ago.  Yes, Europe can handle Russia today, but I doubt that will happen without the United States.

            Re: PRC.  I am not aware of any official or public defense treaty with the SRV.  Again, spot on, regarding the PRC.  Further, I’m not aware of any threats to the PRC.  Our public statements have been to standby our allies and resist PRC hegemony.

            Re: that fugitive in Russia.  Assassination, yes, plausible, but more an event of the cinema than reality.  If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he could have figured out a way to alert Congress and to expose the warrantless surveillance programs without doing such extensive harm to the national security of this Grand Republic and the safety of ALL American citizens.  Yes, this is a debate we must have, but he did not have to instigated in such an injurious manner.  This is one of many reasons his actions appear to be far more narcissistic and egocentric than in the public interest.

            Re: Christian.  I think the point of noting the historic patriotic songs was a reminder that God has been prominent in our heritage from before the Republic.  As has been voiced in this small, humble forum, many Christians feel and believe the efforts to secularize our history is an assault on our Christian founding.  Yes, history has recorded that prominent Founders and Framers were deists rather than Christians.  Likewise, the history is undeniable that this Grand Republic has been and remains predominately of the Christian faith.  My point has been not to expunge history of God or even religion, but rather to find balance between our religious faith (whatever that may be) and our secular governance.  The challenge before us is balance.  Again, spot on, the Founders had graphic, first-hand evidence of religious abuses.  Heck, so many of the early settlers in fact fled religious persecution in Europe, including my ancestors . . . Huguenots fleeing deadly violence in France (1686).  As I’ve said many times and continue to say, this Grand Republic is a nation of all religions and no religion.

            Re: broadening freedom.  Thank you.  From my perspective, they intended “men” to be all human beings, although in their day, only educated, male, Protestant landowners were understood to be relevant.  Fortunately, we have grown and matured.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)