WAR

I have written before that , if I had to summarize my life in one word, it would be WAR.  We used to have a break between wars: WW-I to WW-II, WW-II and Korea, Korea and Vietnam, Vietnam and 9/11..  But now it seems to be a continuum where there is a short period of a lowered war effort (like now) only to shortly have a resurgence, and we seem to be seeing the early stages of escalation now from a president who vowed to end our wars.  Both Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are proposing we need to go back to major war in the Middle East to defeat ISIS.  Actually this is an odd view where there is a split in the Republican Party because Rand Paul and Donald Trump are agin' it.  I wonder what historians will eventually say about this period?  Perhaps it will be called the 30 Years War or maybe 50 Years War.  I don't know.  So how long can we stay at war when only about 1% of the population does the fighting, but the costs of the war are done on borrowed money.  Will it eventually lead to the destruction of America as a Great Power?

IS INEXPERIENCE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY?

As I hear criticism of Hillary and Jeb as being too "old school" or whatever the words, it seems that being president requires that the successful candidate be inexperienced.  Consider George W. Bush (Bush-43) and Barack Obama who really had very little experience in the various aspects of the presidency, especially foreign policy, before becoming president.  And Bush-43 managed to not only get us into the quagmire of Iraq but preside over the greatest economic collapse of the country since 1929.*

Now look at the Republican candidates for president.  A number of them won't even have survived a whole term as Senator by 2016 (Marco Rudio-elected 2011, Rand Paul-2011, Ted Cruz-2013).  None of these will have completed even one term as Senator by the time of the 2016 election.

And then there is Tom Cotton, though not a presidential candidate yet, who has been a Senator for barely more than 2 mo. who managed to stampede 46 of his colleagues into sending a letter to the Iranian Ayatollah and create an international incident.  Even senile John McCain now has reservations about doing this.

Though I feel Bobby Jindal has no chance to obtaining the Republican nomination, he seems to want to be a candidate and is somewhat more experienced than those mentioned above having served two terms in Congress and now as governor of Louisiana.

I don't know how good a president either of Hillary or Jeb will be (You won't know until they do it if elected.), but at least they have experience relevant to running things.

* Many assume that everything in Iraq would be all right if only Obama had left 10 or 15 thousand troops there (presumably under Sharia law).  We did leave 10-20 thousand troops in Afghanistan after running the Taliban into Pakistan, however, and they came back stronger than ever.  So I have my doubts.  We'll never know.

NO LEAST BAD CHOICE

I think our president is at a loss as to what to do about the use of poison gas in Syria now that the Brits have backed out from any type of military action.  Curiously the news programs don't mention why the President has changed his mind on military action in Syria.  The President definitely has backed off on his call for regime change, for now anyway.  After the Arab League sounding as it they are on board of some punishment of Assad, they have backed off.  The United Nations is not on board.  So it seems like it is just the French and now maybe us to do something about Assad's use of poison gas..

So now it appears like our president has cold feet about his "red line" over the use of poison gas and has turned the matter over to Congress.  Although Technically, poison gas is outlawed in war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (not signed by Syria), as if you can make war humane, it overlooks President Reagan's overlooking the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein on several occasions in the Iraq-Iran War and on his own people as well.*  In spite of a stronger prohibition by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (also not signed by Syria), most of the world does not seem to care if poison gas is used.

So what will Congress do?  It seems like a limited attack on Syria as punishment may be approved by the Senate, but what about the House? (1)  The House seems to oppose anything the President proposes. (2) There seems to be a drift among Republicans back toward isolationism (led by Rand Paul), something missing since the Solid South of the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party as the Southern Strategy. (3) The President's own party is not keen on an attack. Therefore my guess, and it is only that, is that the House will not approve any action against Syria.  Time will tell.  If this is the case, the prohibitive actions against the use of poison gas against your own people and probably in war in general will be null and void.  As C. Northcote Parkinson once said about the League of Nations, "The buildings of the League of Nations were  finished in 1938 and so was the League of Nations." (Not an exact quote.)

Although there are non-sectarian forces fighting against Assad, the el Qaeda forces seem to be more effective.  I guess the thought is that if there is a regime change, then there will be another war between the non-sectarian forces (Free Syrian Army) and al Qaeda.  And what role will Hesbollah play in such a circumstance?

* (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran); http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/01/world/poison-gas-viewed-as-uniquely-horrible/#.UiUT09uF9rw