Friday, August 10, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine: Lessons Learned
The Marshall Plan was a startling success. The original plan offered aide to the war torn countries of Europe to rebuild. The aid was offered equally to all nations of both Eastern and Western Europe. The Soviet controlled Eastern Bloc rejected the aide at the behest of Moscow and Eastern Europe has remained financially weakened since the War and remains considerably weaker than Western Europe economically to this day.
The Marshall Plan provided literally the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars to Western Europe and sparked an economic recovery and economic boom that is impressive. Perhaps most impressive is that while the United States has lost industrial capacity to cheaper labor markets, European nations still remain highly industrialized with far fewer factory closings than US counterparts.
An important political component of the Truman Doctrine that inspired the Marshall Plan was a move to integrate Europe with the NATO alliance. This along with other diplomatic maneuvers by the US helped to build strong economic, social, and political relationships amongst European nations that had been adversaries for centuries, ultimately resulting in the creation of the European Union, originally including 12 nations, but having been expanded to 25, and continuing to admit new member states as they meet economic and political milestones required for entry. The EU enjoys a trade surplus, and by law cannot run a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP for any member state in any given year, while the US routinely runs budget deficits of 5% or more of GDP on the books and maintains larger off the books deficits. The EU has created a unified command structure for a 60,000 man Rapid Reaction Force, essentially a united European army, created a centralized patent office, and a central bank that manages the monetary policy and prints the unified currency for all, but three member nations. The British pound, Danish and Swedish croners remain in use, while the Euro has replaced the currencies of other nations. With the exception of Ireland and Great Britain who maintain passport and visa requirements, the citizens of EU member states can travel freely amongst the various countries without border stops. Given the island nation status of Britain and Ireland, their border requirements seem an appropriate measure as all EU member states require passport and border inspection to initially enter EU territory. Citizens of any EU member state can study at colleges or universities of any member state without visa, and generally without payment as college and university education in Europe is generally free for citizens as all colleges and universities are public institutions. Each country has enacted universal health care coverage for their citizenry, while delivering such service at a substantial savings when the percent of GDP expended by EU nations is compared with the US. Given the ease of travel, interconnectedness, economic stability and strength, as well as standard of living enjoyed by the Europeans living in EU countries, it would appear that the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall plan succeeded in their goals of reinvigorating European economies and united European countries. It is also clear given the collapse of the Soviet Union that the other goal of defeating communism was also achieved.
The EU has in fact become an important political and economic force shaping regulations beyond their territory, including here in the US because of the size of their market, 500 million strong, and enjoying members that include 5 of the 10 largest economies on earth, and controlling fully 40% of global wealth. EU regulators have routinely blocked the merger of American companies looking to sell in their markets due to anti-trust concerns, and unlike their counterparts in the US Justice Department aren't persuaded to change their minds easily through divestitures of certain assets. Standardized packaging for the EU has caused US manufacturers to regularly measure products using the metric system as required by EU law, and EU labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods have prevented the widescale adoption of many hybrid crops that would be much cheaper for many American farmers, but which would limit the export market possiblities.
It seems obvious that the EU created in part as a result of the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrines have caused some set backs for the US economy in the form of extra-territorial regulation as well. It also appears a united European economy with strong exports, and much more financially sound governments supporting a unified currency have given the US Dollar a challenger for the world reserve currency with the creation of the Euro. This could have serious economic consequences for the US government as well as US companies and American consumers.
According to recent surveys by Pew, Europeans don't like the US, and they don't trust the US, but they aren't likely to go to war with the US, or with each other, so it seems that stablizing the region and building an enduring peace for Europe has also been a success. The Europeans have been borrowing from the lessons learned by the Marshall plan and giving considerably more economic aide to developing regions than the US in terms of both Euros and in terms of the percentage of GDP. Currently EU nations are averaging about .7 percent of GDP in foreign aide, while the US is at about .3 percent of GDP. The goal for EU countries with this soft diplomacy appears to be to build strong friendships with developing nations by aiding in their growth, much as the US did with the Marshall plan. Unlike the US; however, the EU has not generally sent troops to regions where they have donated money, except when asked to provide peace keeping forces under the auspices of the UN. There are very few long term forward deployed bases for the forces of EU countries. Most are in remnant colonies, such as the Falkland Islands or French Guyana, where the EU has built its primary spaceport. Spending less on their militaries have allowed the Europeans to invest more heavily in their people, but it has also allowed them to avoid much of the blowback that comes from maintaining forces abroad.
At this point it would seem, at the very least, in Europe, there is no longer a need for the forward deployment of US forces. The withdrawal of US troops from Europe could provide a considerable savings to US taxpayers, and seems unlikely to cause a problem for the Europeans. The success of US soft diplomacy in Europe would seem to suggest that the Marshall plan and other soft diplomacy that accompanied it may provide an effective model for US engagement throughout the world during the 21st century.
A Marshall like plan for the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia that helped China and India avoid dependence on coal and oil for energy needs by a considerable US investment in a solar development project could for example prove useful in improving US relations in the Muslim world, while improving our relations with both China and India, as well as Europe because of the positive impact this could have on the global warming issue which is a greater concern for Europe because of low lying lands which could be effected by rising ocean levels resulting from polar melting, and the limited forrestation in Europe that makes the continent more of a heat sink than the US.
If the US were to reduce military spending to a level comparable to Europe, $150 billion per year, and spend the money saved, approximate $350 billion per year on soft diplomacy projects, a la a new Marshall plan, the security benefits for US taxpayers could be more substantial than the return we recieve on current military spending alone.
The Marshall Plan provided literally the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars to Western Europe and sparked an economic recovery and economic boom that is impressive. Perhaps most impressive is that while the United States has lost industrial capacity to cheaper labor markets, European nations still remain highly industrialized with far fewer factory closings than US counterparts.
An important political component of the Truman Doctrine that inspired the Marshall Plan was a move to integrate Europe with the NATO alliance. This along with other diplomatic maneuvers by the US helped to build strong economic, social, and political relationships amongst European nations that had been adversaries for centuries, ultimately resulting in the creation of the European Union, originally including 12 nations, but having been expanded to 25, and continuing to admit new member states as they meet economic and political milestones required for entry. The EU enjoys a trade surplus, and by law cannot run a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP for any member state in any given year, while the US routinely runs budget deficits of 5% or more of GDP on the books and maintains larger off the books deficits. The EU has created a unified command structure for a 60,000 man Rapid Reaction Force, essentially a united European army, created a centralized patent office, and a central bank that manages the monetary policy and prints the unified currency for all, but three member nations. The British pound, Danish and Swedish croners remain in use, while the Euro has replaced the currencies of other nations. With the exception of Ireland and Great Britain who maintain passport and visa requirements, the citizens of EU member states can travel freely amongst the various countries without border stops. Given the island nation status of Britain and Ireland, their border requirements seem an appropriate measure as all EU member states require passport and border inspection to initially enter EU territory. Citizens of any EU member state can study at colleges or universities of any member state without visa, and generally without payment as college and university education in Europe is generally free for citizens as all colleges and universities are public institutions. Each country has enacted universal health care coverage for their citizenry, while delivering such service at a substantial savings when the percent of GDP expended by EU nations is compared with the US. Given the ease of travel, interconnectedness, economic stability and strength, as well as standard of living enjoyed by the Europeans living in EU countries, it would appear that the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall plan succeeded in their goals of reinvigorating European economies and united European countries. It is also clear given the collapse of the Soviet Union that the other goal of defeating communism was also achieved.
The EU has in fact become an important political and economic force shaping regulations beyond their territory, including here in the US because of the size of their market, 500 million strong, and enjoying members that include 5 of the 10 largest economies on earth, and controlling fully 40% of global wealth. EU regulators have routinely blocked the merger of American companies looking to sell in their markets due to anti-trust concerns, and unlike their counterparts in the US Justice Department aren't persuaded to change their minds easily through divestitures of certain assets. Standardized packaging for the EU has caused US manufacturers to regularly measure products using the metric system as required by EU law, and EU labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods have prevented the widescale adoption of many hybrid crops that would be much cheaper for many American farmers, but which would limit the export market possiblities.
It seems obvious that the EU created in part as a result of the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrines have caused some set backs for the US economy in the form of extra-territorial regulation as well. It also appears a united European economy with strong exports, and much more financially sound governments supporting a unified currency have given the US Dollar a challenger for the world reserve currency with the creation of the Euro. This could have serious economic consequences for the US government as well as US companies and American consumers.
According to recent surveys by Pew, Europeans don't like the US, and they don't trust the US, but they aren't likely to go to war with the US, or with each other, so it seems that stablizing the region and building an enduring peace for Europe has also been a success. The Europeans have been borrowing from the lessons learned by the Marshall plan and giving considerably more economic aide to developing regions than the US in terms of both Euros and in terms of the percentage of GDP. Currently EU nations are averaging about .7 percent of GDP in foreign aide, while the US is at about .3 percent of GDP. The goal for EU countries with this soft diplomacy appears to be to build strong friendships with developing nations by aiding in their growth, much as the US did with the Marshall plan. Unlike the US; however, the EU has not generally sent troops to regions where they have donated money, except when asked to provide peace keeping forces under the auspices of the UN. There are very few long term forward deployed bases for the forces of EU countries. Most are in remnant colonies, such as the Falkland Islands or French Guyana, where the EU has built its primary spaceport. Spending less on their militaries have allowed the Europeans to invest more heavily in their people, but it has also allowed them to avoid much of the blowback that comes from maintaining forces abroad.
At this point it would seem, at the very least, in Europe, there is no longer a need for the forward deployment of US forces. The withdrawal of US troops from Europe could provide a considerable savings to US taxpayers, and seems unlikely to cause a problem for the Europeans. The success of US soft diplomacy in Europe would seem to suggest that the Marshall plan and other soft diplomacy that accompanied it may provide an effective model for US engagement throughout the world during the 21st century.
A Marshall like plan for the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia that helped China and India avoid dependence on coal and oil for energy needs by a considerable US investment in a solar development project could for example prove useful in improving US relations in the Muslim world, while improving our relations with both China and India, as well as Europe because of the positive impact this could have on the global warming issue which is a greater concern for Europe because of low lying lands which could be effected by rising ocean levels resulting from polar melting, and the limited forrestation in Europe that makes the continent more of a heat sink than the US.
If the US were to reduce military spending to a level comparable to Europe, $150 billion per year, and spend the money saved, approximate $350 billion per year on soft diplomacy projects, a la a new Marshall plan, the security benefits for US taxpayers could be more substantial than the return we recieve on current military spending alone.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
We All Could Learn From Ron Paul
While I'm a Democrat and support Governor Richardson, I like Congressman Ron Paul on the Republican side's message regarding our foreign policy, if you watch this video, you will understand why:
Thursday, May 24, 2007
New Patent Law = Lower Prescription Drug Costs!
American patent law provides 20 years of protection for new inventions that are deemed worthy of patent by the Patent Office following a costly patent application process. This regime works well and provides adequate compensation to creators for many kinds of inventions. In the some areas it has not proved a particularly well suited regime, and in others it has stiffled creativity through what looks like abuse of the law.
The instances where patent law has been abused have occured primarily in cases where patents have been granted to "inventions" not considered worthy of protection prior to the State Street Bank case heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the late 1990s. Decisions by the US Supreme Court earlier this year may correct what would appear to be abuses of patent protection that had been harming the development and exploitation of new technologies in the area of computer technology for creations that seem obvious, and which were unlikely to gain patent protection prior to the State Street case. The principle requirements for patent protection are creation/discovery, novelty, and nonobviousness of the invention. A full exploration of patent law is beyond the scope of this article, which is primarily concerned with patent protection as it relates to medications and prescription drugs.
While patent protection extends for only 20 years, copyright protection extends for the life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from the date of creation for works made for hire, or 95 years from publication for works made for hire, whichever is less. The 120 and 95 year protections also apply to pseudonymous works and anonymous works where the author is not readily determinable, so a date of death is indeterminate. An interesting limitation of copyright protection occurs in the area of musical compositions, where a compulsory license is authorized by statute for the creation of mechanical reproductions once a phonorecord or sound recording of the composition has been published. Under this compulsory licensing rule, anyone can create their own "cover" of any popular or unpopular musical composition that has been published as a recording by filling out paperwork required by the statute and paying apporpriate statutorily determined fees to the copyright office to be held in trust for the author for each copy of the musical composition made. In other words, if you want to record your own version of your favorite song, you can do it, as long as you fill out the paperwork and pay the appropriate fee to the copyright office. Currently I believe it is approximately 9 cents per copy.
The idea of the compulsory license present in copyright law seems to suggest a path towards reducing the cost of prescription drugs while still providing an incentive to the inventors of new medicines through a similar compulsory licensing scheme for generic drug manufacturers. It would seem appropriate in the area of medicine to create a special category of patent protection that would extend the protection beyond its current 20 years, which is often reduced further by the FDA approval process, to for example the same 95 years granted for works made for hire in the copyright law, while requiring a compulsory license that will allow generics manufacturers to create competing drugs on the first day following FDA approval. The compulsory licensing fee could be set at a rate equal to for example 15% of the manufacturer's wholesale price for the drug. This would give the patent holder a competitive advantage in the event it chose to manufacture drugs, but would also allow for pure research companies to be developed which would then exploit their patents through compulsory licenses used by manufacturers. As is the case with musical compositions in copyright law, patent holders would also be able to offer negotiated licenses at a reduced fee to generics manufacturers as well.
By introducing a change in the patent law that extends patent life while also allowing for immediate competition, the economic incentive to research new medicines would remain, while consumers would be allowed to enjoy the benefits of market competition for new prescription drugs which should dramatically reduce the cost of new medicines. The added benefit of this new theory of patent protection would be the ability to use it as a model to negotiate new international treaties which should allow American drug companies who have traditionally subsidized research for medicines used worldwide with inflated prices in the United States to spread the costs of research throughout international markets as well because the market based pricing built into this scheme would allow foreign markets to redesign their rules that have included heavy pricing restrictions for drug manufacturers.
The instances where patent law has been abused have occured primarily in cases where patents have been granted to "inventions" not considered worthy of protection prior to the State Street Bank case heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the late 1990s. Decisions by the US Supreme Court earlier this year may correct what would appear to be abuses of patent protection that had been harming the development and exploitation of new technologies in the area of computer technology for creations that seem obvious, and which were unlikely to gain patent protection prior to the State Street case. The principle requirements for patent protection are creation/discovery, novelty, and nonobviousness of the invention. A full exploration of patent law is beyond the scope of this article, which is primarily concerned with patent protection as it relates to medications and prescription drugs.
While patent protection extends for only 20 years, copyright protection extends for the life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from the date of creation for works made for hire, or 95 years from publication for works made for hire, whichever is less. The 120 and 95 year protections also apply to pseudonymous works and anonymous works where the author is not readily determinable, so a date of death is indeterminate. An interesting limitation of copyright protection occurs in the area of musical compositions, where a compulsory license is authorized by statute for the creation of mechanical reproductions once a phonorecord or sound recording of the composition has been published. Under this compulsory licensing rule, anyone can create their own "cover" of any popular or unpopular musical composition that has been published as a recording by filling out paperwork required by the statute and paying apporpriate statutorily determined fees to the copyright office to be held in trust for the author for each copy of the musical composition made. In other words, if you want to record your own version of your favorite song, you can do it, as long as you fill out the paperwork and pay the appropriate fee to the copyright office. Currently I believe it is approximately 9 cents per copy.
The idea of the compulsory license present in copyright law seems to suggest a path towards reducing the cost of prescription drugs while still providing an incentive to the inventors of new medicines through a similar compulsory licensing scheme for generic drug manufacturers. It would seem appropriate in the area of medicine to create a special category of patent protection that would extend the protection beyond its current 20 years, which is often reduced further by the FDA approval process, to for example the same 95 years granted for works made for hire in the copyright law, while requiring a compulsory license that will allow generics manufacturers to create competing drugs on the first day following FDA approval. The compulsory licensing fee could be set at a rate equal to for example 15% of the manufacturer's wholesale price for the drug. This would give the patent holder a competitive advantage in the event it chose to manufacture drugs, but would also allow for pure research companies to be developed which would then exploit their patents through compulsory licenses used by manufacturers. As is the case with musical compositions in copyright law, patent holders would also be able to offer negotiated licenses at a reduced fee to generics manufacturers as well.
By introducing a change in the patent law that extends patent life while also allowing for immediate competition, the economic incentive to research new medicines would remain, while consumers would be allowed to enjoy the benefits of market competition for new prescription drugs which should dramatically reduce the cost of new medicines. The added benefit of this new theory of patent protection would be the ability to use it as a model to negotiate new international treaties which should allow American drug companies who have traditionally subsidized research for medicines used worldwide with inflated prices in the United States to spread the costs of research throughout international markets as well because the market based pricing built into this scheme would allow foreign markets to redesign their rules that have included heavy pricing restrictions for drug manufacturers.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
If it's Good for GM, it's Good for America!
If you read between the financial statements for General Motors, available here, it becomes clear that one of the costs hurting that hundred year old American industrial icon's bottom line are the costs of health care for its American labor force and US retirees. GM recently announced the closing of its powertrain plant in Massena, New York near my hometown. The closure is set to occur by a phase out to be completed by the end of 2008. The closure will cost approximately 500 jobs directly, but economic analysis has suggested that approximately 8 lateral jobs are created in the community as a result of the money that the GM jobs bring into the community. Clearly what is bad for GM workers is bad for the greater American economy.
GM sited its need to move to a different, more efficient technology as the reason for the closure, but the history of the plant which involved retooling for its current foam casting process in 1990 suggests that the need for newer more efficient technologies are only at most half of the story. During the 1990s GM reported that costs for health care benefits provided to is workforce were highly variable depending on the national location of its factories and offices.
The cost of healthcare per vehicle manufactured in the United States during the 1990s was approximately $600 per car, while the cost of healthcare per vehicle manufcatured in Canada where single payor universal healthcare is the norm was dramatically less at approximately $200 per car. Today GM and other big three auto manufacturers state that the cost of healthcare per car manufactured in the United States is $1400 more than the price per vehicle manufactured in nations with single payor universal healthcare. This information comes from that oh so liberally biased business reporting site Bloomberg News.
Toyota has surpassed GM because Japan's single payor universal health care system has allowed Toyota a dramatic competitive advantage over their American counterparts. As GM, Chrysler, and Ford suffer with this huge competitive disadvantage, more than 40 million Americans suffer from a complete lack of medical coverage, despite the fact that the United States spends a larger percentage of its GDP on health care than other industrialized nations with universal health care. From a purely dollars and cents perspective single payor universal health care is a good deal for Americans and American business' bottom line.
If it's good for GM, it's good for America! Universal health care might even make closing down US plants make a lot less sense for GM's bottom line.
GM sited its need to move to a different, more efficient technology as the reason for the closure, but the history of the plant which involved retooling for its current foam casting process in 1990 suggests that the need for newer more efficient technologies are only at most half of the story. During the 1990s GM reported that costs for health care benefits provided to is workforce were highly variable depending on the national location of its factories and offices.
The cost of healthcare per vehicle manufactured in the United States during the 1990s was approximately $600 per car, while the cost of healthcare per vehicle manufcatured in Canada where single payor universal healthcare is the norm was dramatically less at approximately $200 per car. Today GM and other big three auto manufacturers state that the cost of healthcare per car manufactured in the United States is $1400 more than the price per vehicle manufactured in nations with single payor universal healthcare. This information comes from that oh so liberally biased business reporting site Bloomberg News.
Toyota has surpassed GM because Japan's single payor universal health care system has allowed Toyota a dramatic competitive advantage over their American counterparts. As GM, Chrysler, and Ford suffer with this huge competitive disadvantage, more than 40 million Americans suffer from a complete lack of medical coverage, despite the fact that the United States spends a larger percentage of its GDP on health care than other industrialized nations with universal health care. From a purely dollars and cents perspective single payor universal health care is a good deal for Americans and American business' bottom line.
If it's good for GM, it's good for America! Universal health care might even make closing down US plants make a lot less sense for GM's bottom line.
Have the Terrorists Won?
A common phrase in the American lexicon during the past few years has been, "If you do 'X,' then the terrorists win." "X" has been filled with numerous mantras, such as "if you don't shop," "if you vote Democrat," "if we leave Iraq," "if we don't invade Iraq," "if you don't fly," "if you don't invest in stocks," if this and if that, with most having no relation to the real meaning of terrorist victory, because most of the "if's" have missed the point.
Rational people begin their analysis of how a terrorist wins, by first asking a question. That question is, what is a "terrorist?" The question doesn't offer an instant answer. In order to define the word, first the root word must be considered, but that too is illusive, "terror" would appear a likely candidate. Unfortunately,"intense, sharp, overmastering fear" as defined here seems to offer only a portion of the true meaning. The real root it would seem is not "terror," but "terrorize." The dictionary defines "terrorize" as "to fill or overpower with terror, terrify" or "to coerce by intimidation or fear," as you can see here. It would appear that a "terrorist" is someone who "coerces political action through intimidation or fear." In other words, at the end of the day, a terrorist is little more than a mafiaso or common street thug, attempting to extort political action through fear.
Having determined that the goal of a terrorist is to coerce a change in political action through fear or intimidation, it is clear that since moments after their attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, terrorists, and in particular that network of terrorists known as Al-Qaeda have been wallowing in victory. How can your gentle observer offer such a statement? Because from moments after the World Trade Center buildings fell, America has not acted as a rational state when dealing with common street thugs. Common street thugs attempting to extort this nation are dealt with by the force of our judicial system, not force of arms, yet within hours of the towers' collapse our military was preparing for operations in Afghanistan, followed shortly thereafter by our misadventures in Iraq.
Now, nearly six years after their collapse, can America finally see the error of its ways and deny Terrorists the victory they have held dearly since the grief and shock of those departed on September 11, 2001 overwhelmed the American psyche and caused us to act irrationally.
For those who remember the days following those awful events, let us not forget that the world stood unified with us, even in the streets of Tehran vigils were held in honor of those lost and in support of a nation that had in that moment a chance at long last to build an enduring world of peace. It is that lost opportunity for which I will always condemn this miserable failure, but regardless of the political opportunities lost and political leanings, today I hope we can begin to see with fresh eyes the course of action most appropriate in addressing the world's need for a unified plan to address our common concerns in dealing with terrorists.
In that hope, this humble observer offers the following suggestions for the next occupant of the White House, 1) through diplomacy seek to build a worldwide police infrastructure to combat, and unified international court to hear cases and controversies regarding those who would attempt to manipulate political discourse through terrorism, 2) focus the American police and intelligence communities on preventing future attacks, 3) withdraw the American military from the nation of Iraq and rededicate our country to the traditional notion that our military is only used to address attacks against our country by foreign nations, 4) invoke the Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal against terrorists residing in nations that choose not to join our unified international policing community, and pay privateers a bounty to capture these thugs and bring them to justice.
This post will likely be the last regarding this issue, but the policy considerations behind it will remain the stance of this observer, because if I were to change my position, then the terrorists win. I only hope more people convert to my way of thinking, so that we can issue the terrorists their first defeat.
Rational people begin their analysis of how a terrorist wins, by first asking a question. That question is, what is a "terrorist?" The question doesn't offer an instant answer. In order to define the word, first the root word must be considered, but that too is illusive, "terror" would appear a likely candidate. Unfortunately,"intense, sharp, overmastering fear" as defined here seems to offer only a portion of the true meaning. The real root it would seem is not "terror," but "terrorize." The dictionary defines "terrorize" as "to fill or overpower with terror, terrify" or "to coerce by intimidation or fear," as you can see here. It would appear that a "terrorist" is someone who "coerces political action through intimidation or fear." In other words, at the end of the day, a terrorist is little more than a mafiaso or common street thug, attempting to extort political action through fear.
Having determined that the goal of a terrorist is to coerce a change in political action through fear or intimidation, it is clear that since moments after their attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, terrorists, and in particular that network of terrorists known as Al-Qaeda have been wallowing in victory. How can your gentle observer offer such a statement? Because from moments after the World Trade Center buildings fell, America has not acted as a rational state when dealing with common street thugs. Common street thugs attempting to extort this nation are dealt with by the force of our judicial system, not force of arms, yet within hours of the towers' collapse our military was preparing for operations in Afghanistan, followed shortly thereafter by our misadventures in Iraq.
Now, nearly six years after their collapse, can America finally see the error of its ways and deny Terrorists the victory they have held dearly since the grief and shock of those departed on September 11, 2001 overwhelmed the American psyche and caused us to act irrationally.
For those who remember the days following those awful events, let us not forget that the world stood unified with us, even in the streets of Tehran vigils were held in honor of those lost and in support of a nation that had in that moment a chance at long last to build an enduring world of peace. It is that lost opportunity for which I will always condemn this miserable failure, but regardless of the political opportunities lost and political leanings, today I hope we can begin to see with fresh eyes the course of action most appropriate in addressing the world's need for a unified plan to address our common concerns in dealing with terrorists.
In that hope, this humble observer offers the following suggestions for the next occupant of the White House, 1) through diplomacy seek to build a worldwide police infrastructure to combat, and unified international court to hear cases and controversies regarding those who would attempt to manipulate political discourse through terrorism, 2) focus the American police and intelligence communities on preventing future attacks, 3) withdraw the American military from the nation of Iraq and rededicate our country to the traditional notion that our military is only used to address attacks against our country by foreign nations, 4) invoke the Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal against terrorists residing in nations that choose not to join our unified international policing community, and pay privateers a bounty to capture these thugs and bring them to justice.
This post will likely be the last regarding this issue, but the policy considerations behind it will remain the stance of this observer, because if I were to change my position, then the terrorists win. I only hope more people convert to my way of thinking, so that we can issue the terrorists their first defeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
