Oil’s Decline Takes Toll on Saudi Conglomerate
. . . the son of a son of a contractor, or something. Best line in the piece, "'It’s too big to fail,” said a creditor at a Persian Gulf bank company who is close to SBG. “It’s an integral part of the Saudi system so they will find a solution,” the person said." Dude, it's not too late to pick up a large jug of Vasoline. You are gonna need it. Unless the price of oil take a sudden, sustained hike, large companies in Saudi will unquestionably fail, as the entire nation is an economic bankruptcy case without oil above $80-100 per bbl. The Saudi's can likely cut enough "welfare" to make ends meet at around $100, but at $50? Nope! I stand by my estimates that oil will end in the $30 range or perhaps a bit less. But even at $50, Saudi is in serious trouble, and will not be able to pay the bills. There is a reason why the House of Saud is leaving the Yemeni's on their own to fight the Iranian supported Shia factions. No money. Couldn't happen to a nicer House!
Comments
Does Obama Have This Right?
. . . has Friedman ever been right? "Sulaimaniya, Iraq — As one could see from President Obama’s recent interview in The Atlantic, he pretty much hates all the Middle East’s leaders including those of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iran and the Palestinians. Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya, and taught Americans the limits of our ability to fix things we don’t understand, in countries whose leaders we don’t trust, whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did. After all, the president indicated, more Americans are killed each year slipping in bathtubs or running into deer with their cars than by any terrorists, so we need to stop wanting to invade the Middle East in response to every threat. That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?" No! We know this because Friedman goes on to say, "Visiting here in northern Iraq, in Kurdistan, and talking to a lot of Iraqis leaves one thinking Obama is not entirely wrong." "But sitting here also makes you wonder if Obama hasn’t gotten so obsessed with defending his hand’s-off approach to Syria that he underestimates both the dangers of his passivity and the opportunity for U.S. power to tilt this region our way — without having to invade anywhere. Initially, I thought Obama made the right call on Syria. But today the millions of refugees driven out of Syria — plus the economic migrants now flooding out of Africa through Libya after the utterly botched Obama-NATO operation there — is destabilizing the European Union." This does not require any wondering, the EU is a mess because of the Libyan fiasco, and the Syrian fiasco. All of the Middle East, and all of the Northern third of Africa are under stress, and turmoil because of these failings. Now Europe more generally is caught in the conflagration. "Kurdistan and Tunisia are just what we dreamed of: self-generated democracies that could be a model for others in the region to follow. But they need help. Unfortunately, Obama seems so obsessed with not being George W. Bush in the Middle East that he has stopped thinking about how to be Barack Obama here — how to leave a unique legacy and secure a foothold for democracy … without invading." One of these, Tunisia is a Bush legacy, the other should have been, but Bush failed to take the correct action and allow the division of Iraq into pieces. This would have resulted in at least a tripartite separation between the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunni. Instead, Bush retained the incompetent colonial boundary. This was an appeasement of Turkey. The disasters spilling from Obama's actions, and failures dwarf the problems we saw from the Bush failure vis-a-vis the Kurds. While Obama has had 7 years to correct these problems, he has done nothing constructive, to the contrary he has acted foolishly, expanding the problem to North Africa, and Europe. Atta boy, Barack! BrothersJudd Blog: THE MIGHTY SAUDI WAR MACHINE...:
. . . brilliant! "For all the bluster of Saudi generals who vow to lead their troops into Sana'a if necessary, the campaign now has more limited goals, says the confidant. Saudi Arabia wants to send Iran and its regional clients a message that it will resist their regional push. With Iran holding sway through its proxies in Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, Saudi Arabia is loth to let a fourth capital, particularly one in its back yard, go Iran's way. But the campaign is now mostly about blunting the capabilities of the Houthis (a militia of Zaydis, a splinter Shiite sect concentrated in Yemen's north) and their ally, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who until Saudi Arabia engineered his removal in 2012 was the Arab world's longest-reigning ruler. Together the Houthis and Mr Saleh make a formidable force. Whereas the former are guerrillas who model themselves on Lebanon's Hizbullah, the latter commands Yemen's Republican army, which has been fighting wars (including against the Houthis) for 25 years. Together they wield an arsenal of tanks, ballistic missiles and, at one point, even the odd fighter-jet. Houthi fighters head to battle carrying charms, such as keys and visas to paradise. Their preachers on satellite television call for re-establishing Zaydi rule across the border, not just over the three border provinces the Al Sauds seized in 1934 but even over Mecca farther north. That is implausible given Saudi Arabia's air power and network of allies. But some Saudis ask how their overfed armed forces would fare should battle-hardened Houthi fighters make even a limited push across the border. It says much about Saudi trepidation that General Olyan limits himself to defending Saudi territory; he says his troops make no attempt to attack the Houthi heartland of Saada governorate, just across the frontier." The lede comes from the spot on comment of Kaspar. The House of Saud's military "superiority" is entirely technical. And once the money dries up, so will the technical. Iran is playing a very good game of Go, the House of Saud is limited to its childish understanding of checkers. While Saud would like to get out of Yemen, for all practical intents and purposes, it cannot. The Shia will consolidate Yemen if allowed, and Saud cannot allow that. On the other hand, Iran is expending little in this fight, while Saud is expending much. The House of Saud was a spartan band, back at the dawn of time when it was not fat and money rich. Now rich Saud is wont to throw money at every problem. But the money dwindles, and the House of Saud's power dwindles as well. Iran is forcing Saud to spend money like the proverbial drunken sailor. The Saud's cargo cult military will eat up as much money as Iran desires, but will never deliver on its promises. Whether Saud stays or leaves Yemen, Iran will continue to prosecute this proxy war, and open others, eventually engaging the House of Saud, and likely reducing it. Expect the next decade of Middle East history to rewrite much of what we have known up to now. If the US is capable of coherent 21st century foreign policy strategy, we will find ways to undermine the House of Saud, while trading with, and democratizing Iran. This is a long game. We need to reduce the Iranian hardliners, and bring Iran to a modern economic, and political status. By doing so, the people of Iran will be able to soften the hardliners, and move away from Iranian nationalism, and hardline Islam to a more internationalist stance. At the same time we need to complete reduce the House of Saud, the Salafist, and the Wahhabist. This will allow a dramatic reduction in Islamic terrorism, and hopefully trigger a Reformation of Islam, and optimistically, the Enlightenment of Islam. The long game is always a difficult tightrope walk, it is always worth it. This will also allow the American foreign policy establishment to finally cull its remaining Cold Warriors. By my count that's a Win/Win/Win. Therefer! Where Is Islam’s Martin Luther?
. . . sounds like a new children's book, but it is much more serious. It is good to find I have fellow travelers on this long difficult road. I am not an Islamic textual scholar nor is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but her book is a fine first step towards changing the understanding of what is going on in Islam, both within Islam, and outside. The forces of antiquity and hate have about run their course, the Reformation, and modernization of Islam is now necessary, and the two large factions within Islam are in direct conflict, Shia, and Sunni ( Salafist/Wahhabist Sunni Islam). As we have seen in earlier posts, the House of Saud thought it could destabilize the Shia/Iran by cratering the price of oil. But this has only worked to the Shia/Iranian advantage. Proxy wars in Yemen, among other places are heating up, and the House of Saud will need to continue these to regain Sunni ascendency. Internecine warfare is also moving apace with the House of Saud fighting a fellow Sunni/Salafist/Wahhabist state, ISIS. The New York Times has an article on the sectarian war undergirding oil Category: Wahhabism Back to the article. "Whatever the case, Hirsi Ali states, “My own sense is that a Muslim Reformation will not come from within the ranks of the Islamic clergy.” Very well, but if the central “argument in this book is that religious doctrines matter and are in need of reform,” from what quarter—and how—these reforms ought to come, will take another book, at least." Because Reformation requires a book. Really? Reformation of Islam will likely require war, and perhaps books can make some people understand what it happening, and why it is happening, but no book published and sold in the non-Islamic nations will have much effect. Ali is simply explaining what we are seeing. I have no idea whether her Medina vs. Mecca vs. Moderate muslims paradigm is valuable, or not. I do find the Shia vs. Sunni valuable, but then again, perhaps I am wrong. I will continue to look for someone who I think can explain the deeper issues. The broad surface issues are simple enough even I can figure them out. US oil producers lock in high prices - FT.com
. . . one step back. Crude oil slides back below $40 a barrel - FT.com "But many analysts believe that the advance has gone too far too fast and are tipping the price to fall back, with supply still expected to outstrip demand for most of 2016. On Monday, Brent fell as much as 3.5 per cent to $38.82 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate, the US oil benchmark, was down 4.5 per cent to $36.69 a barrel." Reality is a bitch. The US is approaching 100% full storage, and the use of train cars as "rolling storage." We are knee deep in oil, and yet the oil bulls still rampage at the merest flicker of hope of a rally. "Saudi Arabia, Opec’s biggest producer, and Russia agreed last month to freeze oil output at January levels, but only if other large producers such as Iran and Iraq agreed to do the same. Speaking on Sunday, Iran’s oil minister Bijan Zanganeh said that the country would only join discussions after its own output, which has been hit hard by western sanctions, reached 4m b/d. “They should leave us alone as long as Iran’s crude oil has not reached 4m. We will accompany them afterwards,” Mr Zanganeh was quoted as saying in local media. Iran pumped 3.22m barrels a day in February, in the first full month freed of nuclear sanctions, according to the International Energy Agency. Exports rose to 1.4m b/d but are still well below the 2.5m b/d Iran was selling before 2011." In this environment, a rally is beyond comprehension. I suspect the bulls are being shorn with each of these absurdist attempt to re-blow the oil bubble. "The International Energy Agency said last week that prices might have “bottomed” and there could finally be light at the end of tunnel, following a 20-month downturn. However, other commentators believe the recent rally could contain the seeds of its own destruction. Higher prices have thrown a lifeline to cash-strapped US shale producers which are taking advantage of the recent rally to lock in prices." The fear and loathing in the oil markets is palpable. The US shale producers will likely continue to find ways to decrease costs, and increase output. Many will find these low prices fatal, yet either through bankruptcy or liquidation and repurchase of assets, they will phoenix like rise ready for the next rally. The oil tyranny's, however, will find this market existential. Add, proxy wars within OPEC, and this should be a show stopper! Grab some corn, and beer, this might take a while. Putin orders Russian forces to start pulling out of Syria - FT.com
. . . oh, right, "withdrawal." This is the "we don't retreat, we runaway," theory of withdrawal. Putin has overextended Russia, with active fronts in Ukraine, and Syria, and he still is occupied with problems in Georgia, and Chechnya. On top of those military, and police problems, he is faced with a collapsing Ruble, and a nearly dead economy. Yeah, sure, it's not collapsing, it's just running away. Whatever, Vlad. So, what's the plan? "Yet there was little sign of any souring of attitudes toward President Vladimir Putin, with people instead blaming global economic trends or a Western plot. Magomed, a businessman walking along the upmarket Stoleshnikov Lane in central Moscow, said Western countries were deliberately driving the rouble lower. 'But we will defeat them. Russia is too large.'" The plan is the tried and true dictators friend, "blame the US," or the West, or both for some wackadoo conspiracy to destroy the tin pot dictators currency. This should rally the troops for a while. It really does work well, just look at Cuba, and Venezuela. But it will not help correct the collapse of the Ruble, or the Russian economic collapse. Russia can chart its course following the path of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. And with oil positioned to stay low for years Putin has nothing left but "blame the US." Oil prices will move around but the trend is lower, and this will continue. The oil bulls all believe there will be some Saudi/Russian agreement to lower production. But US shale, even after the closing of a large number of wells is still creating a serious surplus of supply over demand. Add to the problem that Iran wants in and will pump whatever they can, and supply will remain high for a very long time. Other players will soon be adding to supply, like Venezuela. Today Venezuela is handicapped by its government, and it control of its oil industry. It is mid collapse. Once that is completed, and a new government takes full control, there will be a new accord with US and other western oil companies, which will quickly return and help Venezuela pump more oil. Even though oil prices are low, Venezuela needs the foreign hard currency to help purchase necessities like food and toilet paper. Brazil is also in a state of near collapse with massive inflation, and myriad political scandal ripping the country apart. And like Venezuela it needs hard currency more than it needs oil, even if it must produce oil at a loss. Asset sales, and privatization will likely occur. Brazil is in dire straits, and the money is necessary to keep things functioning, if only barely. Expect US, and western oil companies to be allowed to develop oil new fields, and to create new efficiencies in new, and old oil fields. Likewise, Mexico has undergone much change in how it considers its oil output. It used to be the piggy bank of the Mexican federal government, until that resulted is shockingly reduced oil revenues. Changes in Mexican law have occurred and will likely continue to occur to allow US, and western oil companies to enter this market, pump oil, and help the Mexican oil industry create new efficiencies. Crumbling infrastructure, low oil prices, poor management, and worse government make this difficult, and necessary. MEO Australia goes out on front foot in Cuba oil exploration I would take this seriously, since Cuba is grindingly poor. Once again, the need for hard currency trumps costs to a great extent. Right now, most oil producing nations need the revenues from oil to meet their budgets. Without these revenues, they are facing serious problems. This means that most of these countries will need to continue to pump oil at the levels they are pumping today, or at greater levels, to help maintain government revenues. Plus, any time oil prices rise, all producers will rush to capitalize on this "boon." Oil supply will remain high for the foreseeable future. Even India is hot to develop oil. On the other side of the equation is demand. China continues to decline. The mouse that roared . . . India is now facing increasing headwinds from its banking sector. India has been considered a light spot in the international economy, but this banking crisis will dampen that, as will the generally moribund world economy. Europe is in a deeply weakened state with little potential going forwards, and the rest of the world is looking quite weak. Forecasts of world recession are in the air, and, really, it is difficult to argue the contrary position, athough the Peterson Institute for International Economics does so. We also are facing a new paradigm with increasing AI and automation of everything, even things we never though would be automated, like driving. George Jetson drove his flying car much of the time, although it seemed capable of driving itself. We forget how much less oil we will likely need if parents no longer need to drive children to and from every event, or elderly parents to and from appointments. The parent driving the child means the parent frequently drives to the event, and then back, then back to the event to pickup the child, and then home. This means four independent trips of equal length. However, with a self driving car, there would only be two trips. Further, it should be easier to carpool children with ride share self drive cars than with human driven cars. After all scheduling is often a problem for the human/parent driver. Add the Uber on demand self drive car, and scheduling conflicts evaporate, as do total miles driven. The elderly parent also offers efficiencies. Now, the adult child may need to drive many miles to pickup the parent at her home for an appointment. With an Uber like share ride self drive car this long drive to pickup the parent would be unnecessary. While Uber can perform this task today, the cost of the human driver makes this somewhat less likely. We are likely to see many other cost saving measures. Heavy trucking is likely to build trucks/engine combinations which will be optimized for carrying specific sized freight, I suspect this will be the standard international shipping container. They will be able to travel primarily at night and travel at the optimized fuel per mile speed. Smaller, more efficient engines will become the norm, since shippers will not need to maximize load size to help amortize the operator costs. Trucks traveling mainly at night should allow the trucks to drive at a stead state speed with fewer stops and starts, which would also reduce daytime driving congestion, reducing fuel use. Ride sharing, always difficult now, should be much easier, and, if desired by the public, we should see cars specifically designed for ride sharing, perhaps longer vehicles with more doors, and private seats. The self drive technology also promises fewer collisions so the vehicles can be made lighter, improving fuel economy. Engines would not need to be so large or powerful. If I am not driving, I care more about costs than power. Myriad other improvements should continue to lead to reduced fuel use, or at least a slowing of the demand curve. It appears oil will be low priced for a very long time. At least until something unbalances the system to favor demand and lower supply. Putin is correct to get out of Syria, he is likely too late, and the people of Russia need to brace for the coming Russian economic collapse. Oil dependent economies will be hard hit by this economy for a very long time. Good luck Russia, you are going to need it. How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself
"The oil wars of the 21st century are underway. In recent years, the Saudis have made clear that they regard the oil markets as a critical front line in the Sunni Muslim-majority kingdom’s battle against its Shiite-dominated rival, Iran. Their favored tactic of “flooding,” pumping surplus crude into a soft market, is tantamount to war by economic means: the oil trade’s equivalent of dropping the bomb on a rival. In 2006, Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security adviser, warned that Riyadh was prepared to force prices down to “strangle” Iran’s economy. Two years later, the Saudis did just that, with the aim of hampering Tehran’s ability to support Shiite militia groups in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere." This is a comedy routine, the House of Saud has no substantive economy outside of oil, while Iran does, and is already rebuilding that economy after the elimination of international sanctions. ". . . [I]n 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former chief of Saudi intelligence, told NATO officials that Riyadh was prepared to flood the market to stir unrest inside Iran. Three years later, the Saudis struck again, turning on the spigot. But this time, they overplayed their hand. When Saudi officials made their move in the fall of 2014, taking advantage of an already glutted market, they no doubt hoped that lower prices would undercut the American shale industry, which was challenging the kingdom’s market dominance. But their main purpose was to make life difficult for Tehran: “Iran will come under unprecedented economic and financial pressure as it tries to sustain an economy already battered by international sanctions,” argued Mr. Obaid." There is a reason Lawrence of Arabia was necessary, it is not because the Arabs are great strategists. The elimination of the international sanctions allow Iran to begin quickly rebuilding their economy. The House of Saud, on the other hand is faced with oil prices which do not pay the bills. The Saudi's are in talks with various business consultants on developing and building their economy, to create an economy outside of oil. This is far too little, far too late. And who will be manning these industries, Saudis? What a joke. Saudis only want a position of authority in the company, the actual work must be done by others. It was not Iran which came under "unprecedented economic and financial pressure," but Saudi Arabia. "And then there is Saudi Arabia itself. All the evidence suggests that Saudi officials never expected oil prices to fall below $60 a barrel. But then they never expected to lose their sway as the swing producer within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. Despite wishful statements from Saudi ministers, the kingdom’s efforts last month to make a deal with Russia, Venezuela and Qatar to restrict supply and push up prices collapsed. The I.M.F. has warned that if government spending is not reined in, the Saudis will be bankrupt by 2020. Suddenly, the world’s reserve bank of black gold is looking to borrow billions of dollars from foreign lenders. King Salman’s response has been to promise austerity, higher taxes and subsidy cuts to a people who have grown used to state largess and handouts. That raises questions about the kingdom’s internal cohesion — even as the king decided to shoulder the burden of regional security in the Middle East, fighting wars on two fronts. Has there ever been an oil state as overleveraged at home and overextended abroad? Meanwhile, by concluding the historic nuclear agreement, Iran is getting out from under the burden of economic sanctions. It will not be lost on Riyadh that this adds another oil producer to the world market that it can no longer control. The instability and economic misery for smaller oil-producing states like Nigeria and Azerbaijan look set to continue. But that’s collateral damage. The real story is how the Saudis have been hurt by their own weapon." This article is a primer on how low oil prices are helping peace loving democracies, and throttling the more malignant oil tyrants. The author makes a serious foot fault early in the article writing, "In the West, we have largely forgotten the lessons of 1974, partly because our economies have changed and are less vulnerable, but mainly because we are not the Saudis’ principal target." This misunderstands the relationship between the House of Saud and Wahhabism. The US, and the West are the target, the principal target. Iran is only a regional target, and is considered only a religious pretender, which the House of Saud believes it can swat like a fly. The House of Saud is not an ally, just as the USSR was not an ally during, and then after WWII. After we gave the USSR massive support of food, weapons, train cars, fuel, airplanes, trucks, jeeps, pretty much everything but tanks, rifles, bullets, and men, Stalin turned agains the US, and the West, and opened a new front, the Cold War. If the House of Saud ever though the US were weak enough, it would do something similar. It is not an ally. While Iran is also not an ally, it could be, if we cultivate economic prosperity, and adopt a more rational Middle East policy. I am not holding my breath on either. For now, our primary policy in the Middle East needs to be the continuation of low oil prices. The House of Saud needs to be broken, and the Islamic Reformation needs to move apace. This will only happen if the House of Saud is placed under serious economic pressure to the point it fracture sufficiently to separate from the canker of Wahhabism/Salafism. The resulting loss of funding for Wahhabism/Salafism would impoverish this terror funding entity, and allow the Shia to pressure for actual reformation. Just as the Catholic Church needed reformation prior to 1500, so does the Wahhabist/Salafist Islam. This is not a war we need be involved in, but it is a war we should monitor closely. It would be nice if we were not saddled with the worst political class in history, but we are, and we will need to force them to do what is necessary, not what is expedient, nor what is most beneficial to the political class. The destruction of the cancerous oil tyrannies, and the Islamic Reformation will be built on the back of low oil prices, which is in major part due to shale oil, and fracking. We should be expanding this not limit available, drillable reserves. This will ensure low oil prices for a very long time, perhaps well past the time we leave oil as a primary energy source. It Begins
Walther Russell Mead is a favorite, a liberal with a clarion understanding of international relations. If you do not, you should read every one if his posts. Go ahead, I'm married with family, I am nothing if not patient, I'll wait right here. Back, good, right?! The Obama Doctrine The article starts, "Friday, august 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void . . . " This artfully points out the comedic nature of the chosen headline. The last word the knowledgable use to describe President Feckless ODither would be "sagacious." Obama, if not sagacious, is a mid-19th Century Cold Warrior. "Obama, unlike liberal interventionists, is an admirer of the foreign-policy realism of President George H. W. Bush and, in particular, of Bush’s national-security adviser, Brent Scowcroft (“I love that guy,” Obama once told me). Bush and Scowcroft removed Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait in 1991, and they deftly managed the disintegration of the Soviet Union; Scowcroft also, on Bush’s behalf, toasted the leaders of China shortly after the slaughter in Tiananmen Square. As Obama was writing his campaign manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, in 2006, Susan Rice, then an informal adviser, felt it necessary to remind him to include at least one line of praise for the foreign policy of President Bill Clinton, to partially balance the praise he showered on Bush and Scowcroft." It is difficult to place Bush since his Presidency spanned the fall of the USSR, and the end of the Cold War. Bush seemed to misunderstand what that meant. It is easy to understand Bush's problem here, he was a WWII vet who lived and fought before the Cold War, way back when the US and the USSR were putative allies. He then spent his entire career working politically to undermine and overthrow the evil empire responsible for the Cold War. Once it came, he was at a loss. President Feckless ODither has no such excuse, he never had any involvement in fighting the Cold War, instead, he seems nothing more than a Cold War romantic. And what is a Cold War Romantic to do in the face of modern chaos, and warfare? "'The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.” A doctrine this simple should have been easy to follow, but President Feckless ODither failed right out of the box, but his failures are unlike the Bush père failures, his failures are of the naif, inexperienced in all, who does not understand both action, and inaction pose equal danger. But then Obama, a man without even a hint of military experience, had the hubris to believe he was a greater adviser than his advisers. He has one position in the bag, he is without a doubt a greater fool than his Administration's Fool, that's a White House job, right? The article is long but worth your time. Obama plays the feckless prat, Hillary shows up as the interventionist , and Old Joe Biden plays the old sage forcefully arguing that "big nations don't bluff." Obama, invigorated, mans the ramparts, and orders the military to stand ready. And with the cold light of day, becomes "queasy" and takes a powder. Classic Obama, feckless, and dithering to the bitter end. Jellyfish have more spine. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." Although appending the phrase "good man" to President Obama is a bit of a stretch. At best, he could be considered a neutral. He seems a man with no discernible moral, or ethical compass. The Obama Doctrine, "don't do stupid shit, " is more a CYA self protection device than it is a doctrine. But this is all one should expect from a man whose sole drive to become President of the United States was to have "President of the United States" at the top of his resume. Obama puts to rest the argument that the first half of the Boomer cohort, which the Clinton's represent, are somehow more venal, and self serving than the second half, which the Obama's represent. Walter Russell Mead weighs in on another important topic within the article. "The fallout from President Obama’s indiscreet remarks in Jeffrey Goldberg’s landmark Atlantic article has begun. One day after the article dropped, reports of the President dissing major world leaders and close allies fill the London papers, which highlight Obama’s belittling of David Cameron. The Times of London‘s headline blares, “Obama Lays Blame for Libya Mess on Cameron,” and continues: In highly unusual criticism of a serving British prime minister from his American ally, Mr Obama claimed that Mr Cameron stopped paying attention soon after the 2011 military operation because he was “distracted by a range of other things”. Mr Obama also made clear that he forced Mr Cameron to sign up to Nato’s benchmark of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. “Free riders aggravate me,” he told The Atlantic magazine, which reported that he instructed Mr Cameron “to pay your fair share” during a G7 summit last year. The Financial Times (“Obama Criticizes ‘Free Riding’ Allies in 2011 Libya Campaign”) notes that the French came in for a beating too: Mr Obama said that British prime minister David Cameron was “distracted” in the months after the death of Mr Gaddafi and suggested that then French president Nicolas Sarkozy was more interested in trying to “trumpet” his country’s involvement in air strikes in Libya than ensuring a peaceful transition to a new government.[..] In an interview in which the president already appeared to be letting down his guard with 10 months still left in office, some of Mr Obama’s most pointed comments were directed at Mr Cameron.[..] On the French role in the Libyan campaign, Mr Obama said that “Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defences and essentially set up the entire infrastructure” for the intervention. Expect more shoes to drop—and the anger in London and Paris will be less damaging than the fallout in other parts of the world. For instance, the Iranians are starting to weigh in: (Laura Rosen tweet:) Adviser to Iran president citing Obama on Iran/KSA need to share Middle East, work out a cold peace … The Iranian trumpeting of Obama’s position will almost certainly not be warmly received in Riyadh, Dubai, and Amman." An American President, a feckless, dithering, decisionally impaired fool, has the temerity to blame other leaders for his incompetence?! But of course, President Feckless ODither has been blaming anyone, and everyone for his incompetence since taking the oath of office. This is his seminal accomplishment, blaming others, and whinging about how hard his job is while only making vague attempts to perform the duties, then going golfing, or spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars vacationing. We should have simply bought an island, and ship him off for the duration. Even that idiot pretender Biden could not have done worse. One thing we need to do post haste is to begin pressuring the calcified cankers which remain in the Middle East, primarily Saudi Arabia, and its Salafist/Wahhabist supporters to begin an Islamic "protestant reformation." The Saudi/Wahhabist association has become as horrible, and deadly as the Catholic church prior to the Protestant Reformation. The cure for this is for the US to begin to create better relations with Iran, while politically pressuring the House of Saud for reform. If that does not happen, we may need to support Iran and the Shite factions in what appears to be a building war of reformation. While this is not a significant point made in the Atlantic article, it is necessary, post haste. Mead ends his piece: "This sets up an odd duality: the President in the interview is reflective, thoughtful, making a strong case for why he is wiser and more far seeing than other people. But on the other hand, running your mouth and being openly contemptuous and dismissive of fellow leaders to a journalist is the mark of a careless and clumsy amateur. As so often is the case with this President, there’s a wide gap between the cerebral processes and the ill-considered actions. This would be somewhat explicable in the rookie year of a presidency, but it’s very hard to understand in the final year of an Administration." The answer to this enigma is that the actions are Obama's own, clumsy, amateurish, the naif in over his head. The later reflective, thoughtful is the spin his handlers/advisers feed him to respond to the accurate claims of incompetence. Obama is not stupid by any account, he is inexperienced, and he was Peter Principled years ago, and once PP'ed no one can learn, or gain experience, this is like the child who missed out on 4th - 7th grade math, unquestionably lost. The the only solution to this problem is to return to the experiences missed and gain the experiences the old fashioned way, by crucible. Obama emotionally cannot do this, and will never go back. He is terminally incompetent. But looking back at the Obama Presidency is valueless. What we must do now is look forward, and determine what we, as a nation need going forward. We need to leave the hoary old Cold War mentality once and for all, and we need to seriously rethink our goals in the Middle East, and our strategy to achieve those goals. Obama cannot do this, it will be up to the next President. The time of choosing is at hand. Choose wisely. UN touts federalism ahead of Syria talks | News | DW.COM | 11.03.2016
"The Saudi-backed HNC has dismissed the "idea of federalism" in Syria, calling it a prelude to partition. But the Syrian government, Moscow and the Kurdish PYD believe it could be key to ending the war." After the invasion, the great failure of the Bush reactivation of the Iraq war was to keep the nation intact over the objections of the people of Iraq. The people should have been allowed to either keep the nation intact, or partition as they desired. The Bush administration kowtowed to Turkey and kept the nation intact. This was to keep the Iraqi Kurds from creating a greater Kurdistan bordering Turkey, and Syria. Turkey believed, likely correctly, that the Turkish Kurds would have split off to join greater Kurdistan. Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript This was once a great document, which was studied by American students. It is simple, clear, and understandable. But it is obviously no longer studied, at least by those running the US. The Kurds in all three nations, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey had valid reason to separate under the concepts embedded in the United States Declaration of Independence, and form their own, new nation. We should have assisted them in this noble quest. The result would have been a much more stable Iraq likely fractured along the lines of a Shia Iraq, a Kurdish Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq. We now have the opportunity to not make this same mistake twice. We need to forcefully stand for the position that the people of Syria should make this determination on their own. It is long past time for We the People, to stand up to our government on these simple matters of choice. The Cold War is long over and these long calcified carbuncles of bad policy should be excised. We need to be the Champion of republican governance, free markets, and reformed religion, we know, here at the End of History, these things work. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|