4 Tough Questions Republicans Will Have To Answer To Win The White House

It seems to most observers, Democrats included, that the Republican Party has all the momentum in the 2016 elections. Just yesterday, for example, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that effectively blocks President Obama's attempt at unilaterally implementing immigration reforms. Obamacare is a failure, and our enemies are on the march. The Clinton campaign appears to be in trouble, wrought with scandal, and the Republican field appears strong.  Beneath the shifting tides, however, there is a storm gathering. Republican candidates will have to demonstrate to the American people that they are willing and able to tackle the bigger challenges that lay ahead, not just sit on the sidelines and protest liberal policies. It will start in earnest with the primaries as the field takes shape. Below are four issues Republicans will have to address with detailed planning and a genuine interest in solving the problems.

ISIS

For a year now, Republicans have more or less been able to sit back and criticize the President's Middle Eastern policy, in particular his half-hearted war against ISIS. Republicans have largely gotten away with this because the President's genuine failure in the region has far outweighed the politics of it all. Even though it was President Bush's fault that we went into Iraq, it became President Obama's baby to rock when he decided to precipitously withdraw from the country against the advice of almost everybody in government and the military. 

It is clear, however, that the threat is growing, and whoever becomes the next President will have to have a plan for successfully dealing with it. The fact of the matter is, ISIS has a good chance of winning the war in Iraq and Syria without U.S. intervention. While a strong argument can be made that U.S. intervention is unwarranted, President Obama has forced the issue by putting American prestige and influence on the line with his current policy. If the United States were to abandon the region entirely, and if ISIS were to take Iraq and Syria, it is very likely that our allies in the Middle East would abandon us in kind. That power vacuum will be filled by someone, probably Russia, China or Iran. 

Republicans are no longer able to engage in hypothetical debates about the failure of the President's policies, however. Each candidate will have to announce on the record what he or she would do to stabilize the region, preserve American influence, and avoid a larger war. It is unclear to me how those objectives can be achieved at this point without "boots on the ground" and yet another large-scale war. What is even murkier is how any candidate can win an election in the current climate by espousing war. These are questions that will have to be answered, and so far the candidates have not been pressed.

Immigration

Republicans were given a free pass by President Obama when he decided to use executive power to unilaterally implement sweeping immigration reforms. As I pointed out last year, the President took complete ownership of an issue that has divided Republicans for decades. For those who are interested, you can find the article here. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-good-and-bad-of-president-obamas.html

Now that the President's immigration actions have been halted by the courts, the onus will fall once again on Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, to propose legislation. Likewise, Republican Presidential candidates will have to take a position on immigration, which has been an albatross around the neck of every Republican politician who has tried. Marco Rubio, for example, has had to almost completely repudiate the plan that he proposed 18 months ago in order to have any chance of winning the nomination. It will no longer be enough to simply attack the President for his unilateral actions and the consequences of those actions. The Republicans will have to come up with a plan that has a realistic chance of solving the problem without alienating the base of the party. Again, in an election year, this is going to be a tall order. 

Tax Reform

If there is one thing the rank and file conservatives in this nation have had enough of, it's taxes. All grass-root followers of any wing of the Republican Party have been greatly disappointed in the complete and utter failure of the party to effect any meaningful tax reform. Bush, Sr. raised taxes. The Republican Party took control of the House in 1994 and did almost nothing on taxes. Bush, Jr. got elected and made minor reforms to the code, really only addressing a small part of the problem. This was in spite of the fact that Republicans held both houses of Congress at the time. Republicans are now in control again, and there is no consensus of any kind on tax reform.

Several candidates are recycling some old ideas that never really have gained any traction. Governor Huckabee is for a national sales tax. Several others are for a flat tax. Several are for a reduction in marginal rates. It seems to me that the party as a whole would do better if it agreed on one detailed tax reform proposal and then shopped it to the American people. Whether that be the flat tax or the national sales tax, conflicting messages from candidates and Congressmen will be self-defeating. It's time to pick one plan and run with it on a national level.

Russia

Russia has become a serious world threat. Their nearly $400 billion in military upgrades over the last 6 years far outstrips every nation in the world except the United States, who was engaged in two wars, and China. Russia spent $86.4 billion last year alone, and has roughly doubled their expenditures since invading Ukraine. President Obama's response has been weak and ineffectual to say the least. There really has not been any pause in the fighting, there hasn't been a meaningful cease-fire, and the current "pause" in Russian expansion reflects more of a strategic choice than a concession. 

Like with the ISIS issue, Republicans have so far gotten away with simply attacking President Obama's policies. Several have suggested arming Ukraine. Several have suggested beefing up our NATO presence in the region. Still, no one has articulated a coherent policy or strategy to bring Putin to heel. The mere suggestion of another large European war terrifies most members of the press, who in turn terrify the public. Indeed, a large scale European war would be terrifying. But the quickest route to war is and has always been appeasement. Appeasement encourages bad actors to continue acting badly. It allows rogue nations or rogue leaders the room they need to build their militaries and marshall their forces. It feeds nationalist fervor and silences more moderate voices inside hostile governments. In short, it is a terrible strategy which has proved disastrous throughout history. 

If the Republicans control the Congress and the White House, they will own this problem. If there is something in between appeasement and a renewal of cold war brinkmanship, now is the time to articulate it. So far, the proposals have been modest. Like the other issues, however, it seems nearly impossible to win an election by threatening to heighten tensions with Russia, even if the long term benefit to the world is obvious.

VE Day, The NSA, And The Failures Of Perpetual War

Today is Victory in Europe Day. On this day in 1945, Allied forces celebrated the defeat of the largest, most advanced military the world had ever faced. Nazi Germany caused the deaths of tens of millions of soldiers and civilians. The Nazis were celebrated by some of the world's most influential leaders when they first came to power. It didn't take long for that celebration to turn dark, as the Nazis annexed Austria and invaded Poland.

World War II lasted six years for the Europeans and four years for Americans. In that time, the Allies mustered their entire industrial might to fight and defeat a menace that most certainly intended to deprive the world of freedom. The casualties were high and the road was not easy. Along the way, our government made some controversial decisions which, in retrospect, violated some of our fundamental rights. Japanese internment, aggressive domestic spying, and a chill on free speech were just some of the wartime policies unanimously implemented by our government. At the end of the war, most of those policies and programs were dismantled, and life continued.

Fast forward 60 years. A relatively unknown terrorist group brings down the World Trade Center in New York. There was never any doubt that it was Radical Islamic militants who planned and executed the attack. As the nation prepared for war, our government once again unanimously implemented domestic security measures which, in retrospect, violated our civil rights. Mass data collection, rendition, so called "enhanced interrogation techniques," and domestic spying have all been identified as at least questionable practices in a free society. Just yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that mass data collection supposedly allowed under the USA Patriot Act was illegal. It matters little now, more than thirteen years later. The data has been collected, the rights have been violated, and we now live in a very different world and enjoy very different freedoms than we had before 9/11.

A comparison of the "War on Terror" with World War II perfectly illustrates the difference between total victory and Pyrrhic victory. The arguments vindicating our government's war strategy over the last 13 years are few. It is true that we were not victims of another large scale attack. There were other terrorist attacks, but nothing on the scale of 9/11. We did eject Al Qaeda from Afghanistan for a time, but they were never totally defeated and, in fact, have expanded into the rest of the Middle East. We changed the regime in Iraq, but that country is now in the midst of a civil war where the best result will be Iran increasing its influence in the region. We set out to change the hearts and minds of the poor ordinary people in the Middle East, only to find that they don't want change and, while they will take our money, they want nothing to do with our policies and culture.

While amassing these luke warm successes, our government turned inward, collecting every text message, phone call, and email every American has ever sent over the last decade. Keep in mind that these massive war powers were granted to the intelligence agencies more than four years before Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone. The selfies of an entire generation have been scooped up by the government, giving new meaning to the phrase "feeling exposed."

It wasn't until Edward Snowden defected to Russia and exposed the program that Americans got a glimpse into this extraordinary government intrusion. Keeping true to form, for years the government denied every part of the program. They lied about it to Congress. They denied even having the capability. They painted Snowden as a traitor and liar. Perhaps he is, but now, years later, the government has had to admit that they were, in fact, extensively collecting the data exactly as accused.

Much of the outrage has passed. Technology companies like Apple are now making it nearly impossible for the Government to snoop. So called "black phones" are being introduced in the market and being made affordable for the average American. New Apps have been created to make it more difficult to pilfer personal data and messages. Many new computers come with total hard drive encryption. The private sector is giving back to people what they demand - privacy. But there has been a paradigm shift in our nation nevertheless. It used to be the role of government to safe guard our rights, like privacy. Now it is the private sector fighting the government to maintain some privacy for our citizens.

Predictably, the hawks and big government apologists have come out of the shadows forcefully arguing, that unless our entire population is entirely exposed all the time to government surveillance, we will be attacked again - and this time it will be worse. That may be true, but any future attacks will not be due to a lack of government intrusion or government power. It will be because we failed to wage an effective war against our enemies.

Perpetual, limited war has been the prevailing military strategy since World War II. For the last sixty years, our leadership has believed that a few smaller, but longer, lower intensity wars  is a better way to manage our enemies than massive world wars. So instead of fighting the Soviets directly, we fought Vietnam and Korea. For whatever reason, however, once the Soviet Union collapsed, we maintained that mentality. 

One of the many problems with perpetual war is that our domestic freedoms are perpetually compromised. Imagine World War II lasting 25 years, like our wars in the Middle East. Japanese internment for 25 years. Domestic spying for 25 years. Aggressive limits on free speech for 25 years. Our forefathers, and those who fought in that war would never tolerate that in perpetuity. Yet here we are, still at war, and our government still threatens us with "imminent attacks" if we don't give them unfettered access to our selfies.

Our government has failed to secure the objective. World War II was over in four years, but we've now been fighting a bunch of starving nomads in the desert since 1991. As our freedoms continue to erode, the danger to our nation from external enemies has actually grown. This is because the answer was never to turn inward and police our own people. Rather a strong nation projects its power outward, concentrating instead on annihilating the enemy where he lives, exterminating his will to fight and, if necessary, destroying his entire culture. Destroying your own culture and your own freedoms does the enemy's work for him. It is not a winning strategy.

That is not to say that temporary restrictions on our rights are never warranted. World War II is a good example. Our freedoms were truncated, some in very harsh ways, but only for a short period of time. After the war, our freedoms remained largely intact, and the war powers legislation used to take those liberties expired. Today we live in a country in which the government uses perpetual war powers to wage their perpetual war against the enemies abroad as well as the perceived enemies within. The damage to our society is becoming more evident every day. The citizens of our nation do not trust the government. Our inner city residents don't trust the police. Citizens in Texas don't trust the military to conduct drills in their state. 

All of this sounds crazy because it is. The Emperor has no clothes on and neither do we. The importance of privacy in a civilized society cannot be understated. Privacy is one of the fundamental principles of freedom. People say: "Well, I have nothing to hide." But it's not about "hiding" anything. It's about basic human dignity. You wouldn't walk down the street naked, even if you have "nothing to hide." You wouldn't invite an IRS agent into your bedroom while you have sex with your wife. Taking away someone's privacy is dehumanizing. Being stripped of your clothes and put on display is a tactic used specifically to humiliate the victim. Making a policy of it is evil.

Many people argue: "Well, I'd rather that than to get blown up in a terrorist attack. We have to use every tool at our disposal to expose the evil men." But that's a false choice. The true choice is between violently and permanently annihilating the enemy or locking down our nation, exposing ourselves to the world, and praying that they don't get through. Radical Islam is no where near as powerful a foe as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were during their peaks. If we were to muster the same comparative resources to defeat Jihad, it would be defeated and defeated quickly. 

Anyone who keeps up with this blog knows that I am very reluctant to support more wars in the Middle East. As I've said before, however, I'm not against war, I am against poorly planned, poorly executed wars like those that have plagued the last two decades. Limited war in this context is unnecessary and foolish. It seems pretty obvious at this point that Radical Islam is not going to retreat. In the meantime we are doing much more damage to ourselves than we are the enemy. This is an enemy that can be defeated. Perhaps it's time to get on with it. 

Texas Terror Attack Shows The Virtue And Limits Of Reactionary Politics

As everyone knows by now, two Jihadis dressed in body armor and wielding Ak-47s opened fire at a "draw Mohammad" contest in Texas. No one was hurt thanks to the very quick, very accurate shooting of an off duty Texas Patrolman and his six-shooter. Both terrorists were killed on the spot. ISIS took responsibility for the attack and there is evidence that the two gunman had been in contact with ISIS shortly before the shooting. 

Muslims view any depiction of the Prophet Mohammad to be offensive and sacrilegious. As with the other offenses on the very long list of crimes against Islam, the penalty is death. If you draw a picture of Mohammad, you die.

This offense has been used as an excuse to attack newspapers in Paris, politicians in Europe and behead journalists in the Middle East. Roving Jihadis apparently canvas the world looking for cartoonists who have the nerve to engage in satire at the Prophet's expense in order to kill them.  What is clear now is that we have the enforcers of Sharia in the United States, and they chose an event in Texas, where almost everyone is armed, as their coming out party.

The draw Mohammad rally was organized by Pamela Geller, head of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). AFDI is a reactionary political group that spends most of its time as a provocateur of our enemies. As of late, Radical Islam has been their target, and there is no doubt that the Texas rally was selected for Jihad because of the AFDI's provocative mocking of the Jihadi religion. 

Within hours of the attack, Ms. Geller was criticized for provoking the incident or "poking the bear." Politicians and media analysts, while quick to condemn the attack, also condemned the "methods" used by AFDI to protest Jihad. Regardless of what you think of Ms. Geller or her rally, the attack was very revealing in a number of ways.

First, after more than a year of living in denial, we can no longer pretend that ISIS Jihadis aren't living amongst us. This rally forced them to surface. Protestations from naive politicians that our borders are secure, or that we do not have to wage war on our soil, can now be cast aside. The President could classify the Ft. Hood shooting as "workplace violence." But, two ISIS Jihadis with body armor and AK-47s attacking an anti-Jihadi rally cannot be classified as anything but an attack. Anyone who pretends differently is a fool.

Second, we have learned that our political and media establishments are afraid. For whatever reason, ISIS has them obviously living in fear. The amount of hand-wringing being done in the media over this rally, and the fear that Americans might mock their enemies, demonstrates a whole new level of Elite weakness. In contrast, the winner of the contest was a moderate Muslim. He wanted to make the point that not all Muslims are unreasonable Jihadis who kill people for drawings. He is taking an enormous risk and will probably be killed by radicals, yet no major media outlet has the courage to even show his drawing. The Jihadis have successfully chilled free speech at the highest levels - the media. Luckily, most Americans don't have any use for the media anyway and will continue exercise their First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, shame on the guardians of the First Amendment for cowering in the face of an illegitimate assault on our freedoms.

Third, we have learned that it is important to be armed and on alert. We have been at war with Radical Islam for almost two decades, we just haven't accepted it. While our enemies used to only pop up sporadically in the United States, they are now here in force, and we need to accept it. Our porous border has allowed tens of millions of people across in the last twenty years. The internet has no borders, which makes it easier to recruit lone wolves already living in the country. We can no longer ignore the fact that Jihadis are here and that they will attack us where we live.

More importantly, however, we need to recognize that terrorist attacks, like most other attacks, happen in places in which people are disarmed. The Paris attacks were qualitatively different from the Texas attacks because French citizens have no right to own or carry a weapon. Three Jihadis went on a rampage, holding the entire city hostage for two days. In Texas, the attack was a total failure, and it was doomed to fail from the beginning. Unlike France, almost everyone in Texas (or the South for that matter) owns a gun. Many people carry their firearms. In this case, it was an off-duty traffic cop who ended the Jihad before it could start. The plain truth is that, in the future, these types of low-intensity attacks will be thwarted by armed citizens as well as police. "Gun-free zones" will be magnets for Jihadis looking to amass a high body-count. It's just that simple, and we need to begin to take that into consideration in our planning.

Finally, we have seen the limits of reactionary politics. Americans are pretty sick of Radical Islam. The War On Terror has taken an enormous toll on our nation, both in terms of lives and money. Two trillion dollars later, we have a situation that is even worse than it was before 9/11. Jihad has spread like wildfire across the Middle East, Africa and the Asian Pacific. Whatever we've been doing hasn't worked. When you see "draw Mohammad day" or "draw Mohammad" rallies in Texas, you are seeing a sharp rise in frustration from the population. For better or for worse, it is a natural reaction to our government's failure to solve the Jihadi problem. Mocking an enemy is the first step in dehumanizing them. Once dehumanized, exterminating them is no longer morally inconvenient. It is not a good thing by any means, but it is what has historically happened when a nation begins the march to towards total war. It is a warning sign that the nation is fed up and ready to fight to the death. This is a fight that the Jihadis want and believe that they will win. They are wrong. When enough ordinary Americans have decided that it's time to provoke the enemy, there will be a change of government, and what comes next will be all out war. A failed attack on a bunch of armed Southerners is just the beginning.