Dear Londa,
Statists never sleep.
That quote is becoming popular because it is undeniably true.
They never stop finding ways to curb our liberties. They want you reported and tracked anyway they can get it.
The gun-grabbers are scheming again. But this time they are stealing through the back door. They don't want you to see them coming.
The BATFE has recently begun to connive "emergency powers" from President Obama to monitor purchases from gun stores.
They don't want you buying more than one rifle without you being reported to Washington over so-called "terrorism concerns".
More importantly, they're using "emergency powers" so they can steal away what they want without a vote.
They've been monitoring citizens for decades with handgun sales, and now they're trying it with rifles.
Of course, you and I both know that they're plotting to stop you from buying any guns without them recording it. But this is how they start down that path.
Emergency powers.
The BATFE is using their favorite bogey man of terrorism and drug-related violence in other countries to trump the charge that your purchase of rifles is to blame. They are stealing powers away from your elected representatives and into their own hands to spy on and record your purchases if you buy more than one gun in a week.
If this is starting to sound all too familiar, that's because it is.
Remember Mayor Bloomberg? One of the wealthiest and most powerful anti-gunners out there?
This was Bloomberg's plan.
And it's blatantly against the law.
The Firearm Owners' Protection Act was designed specifically to prevent this perversion of freedom from happening.
In fact, this act also requires that any changes be given a public hearing no less than 90 days in advance (the BATFE is attempting this power-grab with just 30 days notice).
In other words, existing Federal law stops this move specifically, and the speed in which it is being attempted...
...And they are rolling right over it like it wasn't even there.
Even schoolchildren know that it is the legislature's job to write law in the United States, not the President or some power-hungry law enforcement agency, bent on crafting their own rules. But with so many distractions out there, some of your Congressmen and Senators don't even know what's going on with this story or how it will impact the average gun owner.
That's why I am writing to you now. I know the mainstream media isn't going to let you know about this.
We will keep you updated with ways to get involved as this issue moves forward. Thank you for your continued support.
For liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. The BATFE is creating its own set of rules to regulate the sale of "multiple rifles". In other words, they're doing their best to turn a right into a privilege.
I'll keep you updated as this develops, but I knew you'd want to hear about this outrageous power-grab by the BATFE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
FROM TOWNHALL
Will the 112th Congress Finally Get It Right?
Email Chuck Norris
Incoming House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues are intensely aware of public fury over how Congress operates. But following a lame-duck Congress that continued with business as usual, will this new Congress finally get it right?
As the 112th Congress officially convenes this week, the questions most of us have on our minds are: Will it finally...
--Reduce government spending?
--Reduce the national deficit?
--Reduce the national debt?
--Reduce earmarks and pork?
--Reduce briberies by lobbyists and special interests?
--Reduce Americans' taxes?
--Reduce illegal immigration?
--Reduce our foreign entanglements?
--Reduce government overreach into our lives?
--Reduce government lying, cheating and corruption?
--Reduce constitutional disobedience?
...And so stabilize the nation and economy?
Nov. 2 was undoubtedly a reprimand and a repudiation of the direction Washington is going and how it is conducting government business. But it was also a big renunciation of who our politicians have become.
Getting government right isn't merely a matter of knowing how; we've had plenty of that type of politician who have screwed up our country even worse. In fact, there has been one prevailing element that has been missing in recent recipes to reawaken and rebound our republic. It's the last "E" in the three E's to a successful government: expertise, experience and a good set of ethics.
For example, President Barack Obama made the audacious claim in the beginning of his presidency that his administration would "clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue" with "the most sweeping ethics reform in history." He repeatedly pledged that "an Obama administration is going to have the toughest ethics laws of any administration in history."
But what we've seen from his administration is more of the same old government corruption -- back-door deals, sidestepping constitutional protocol, manipulating the American public, buying votes, compounding broken promises, perpetuating Chicago-style politics, etc.
Good morals precede good laws, which is why government isn't much help. Unless the people and their legislators are grounded in morality, the best of laws will be broken and the worst of laws will be made, legalizing immorality.
Our Founders knew that for a government to "get it right," it first has to be filled with people who are "right and good." They knew that morality and religion are essential buttresses of a good and free government. As George Washington once said, "a good moral character is the first essential in a man." Patrick Henry wrote: "The great pillars of all government and of social life (are) virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor ... and this alone, that renders us invincible." And Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence on behalf of Maryland, similarly wrote, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure ... are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Our Founders had it right in the beginning, and we can, too, if we follow their footsteps. Good government is created and sustained only when we discern and elect character before charisma and promised political carrots.
That is why I endorsed Mike Huckabee a few years ago in the presidential race -- because I believed, before anything else, that he is a man of integrity, someone who means what he says and says what he means. I trust his word. And right now, he is encouraging all of us in Texas to ensure the vote for Ken Paxton, who is looking to become the next speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. I echo Mike's concern to rally citizens in local districts to call their state representatives and encourage them to vote for Ken.
As Mike and Huck PAC wrote, "soon to start his fifth term in office, Ken has twice been named 'Texas Taxpayer Hero' by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Ken proudly believes in the sanctity of life, and supporting conservative family values like traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Ken recognizes that the matters of social issues directly impact our economy, and I'm confident having Ken's conservative voice lead the new Texas House of Representatives will result in some great accomplishments." The vote takes place Jan. 11.
On Nov. 2, many decent, good, law-abiding and God-fearing men and women were elected, in and outside Washington. And it is this moral momentum in appointing leaders that we must continue. So be active in local elections, as well as national ones, and be mindful that our representatives are often electing their own leaders, so they need our feedback then, too.
In the end, the question isn't only whether the 112th Congress finally will get it right; it's also whether we the people finally have gotten it right by appointing good and morally upright people to leadership positions all across our land.
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Email Chuck Norris
Incoming House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues are intensely aware of public fury over how Congress operates. But following a lame-duck Congress that continued with business as usual, will this new Congress finally get it right?
As the 112th Congress officially convenes this week, the questions most of us have on our minds are: Will it finally...
--Reduce government spending?
--Reduce the national deficit?
--Reduce the national debt?
--Reduce earmarks and pork?
--Reduce briberies by lobbyists and special interests?
--Reduce Americans' taxes?
--Reduce illegal immigration?
--Reduce our foreign entanglements?
--Reduce government overreach into our lives?
--Reduce government lying, cheating and corruption?
--Reduce constitutional disobedience?
...And so stabilize the nation and economy?
Nov. 2 was undoubtedly a reprimand and a repudiation of the direction Washington is going and how it is conducting government business. But it was also a big renunciation of who our politicians have become.
Getting government right isn't merely a matter of knowing how; we've had plenty of that type of politician who have screwed up our country even worse. In fact, there has been one prevailing element that has been missing in recent recipes to reawaken and rebound our republic. It's the last "E" in the three E's to a successful government: expertise, experience and a good set of ethics.
For example, President Barack Obama made the audacious claim in the beginning of his presidency that his administration would "clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue" with "the most sweeping ethics reform in history." He repeatedly pledged that "an Obama administration is going to have the toughest ethics laws of any administration in history."
But what we've seen from his administration is more of the same old government corruption -- back-door deals, sidestepping constitutional protocol, manipulating the American public, buying votes, compounding broken promises, perpetuating Chicago-style politics, etc.
Good morals precede good laws, which is why government isn't much help. Unless the people and their legislators are grounded in morality, the best of laws will be broken and the worst of laws will be made, legalizing immorality.
Our Founders knew that for a government to "get it right," it first has to be filled with people who are "right and good." They knew that morality and religion are essential buttresses of a good and free government. As George Washington once said, "a good moral character is the first essential in a man." Patrick Henry wrote: "The great pillars of all government and of social life (are) virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor ... and this alone, that renders us invincible." And Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence on behalf of Maryland, similarly wrote, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure ... are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Our Founders had it right in the beginning, and we can, too, if we follow their footsteps. Good government is created and sustained only when we discern and elect character before charisma and promised political carrots.
That is why I endorsed Mike Huckabee a few years ago in the presidential race -- because I believed, before anything else, that he is a man of integrity, someone who means what he says and says what he means. I trust his word. And right now, he is encouraging all of us in Texas to ensure the vote for Ken Paxton, who is looking to become the next speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. I echo Mike's concern to rally citizens in local districts to call their state representatives and encourage them to vote for Ken.
As Mike and Huck PAC wrote, "soon to start his fifth term in office, Ken has twice been named 'Texas Taxpayer Hero' by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Ken proudly believes in the sanctity of life, and supporting conservative family values like traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Ken recognizes that the matters of social issues directly impact our economy, and I'm confident having Ken's conservative voice lead the new Texas House of Representatives will result in some great accomplishments." The vote takes place Jan. 11.
On Nov. 2, many decent, good, law-abiding and God-fearing men and women were elected, in and outside Washington. And it is this moral momentum in appointing leaders that we must continue. So be active in local elections, as well as national ones, and be mindful that our representatives are often electing their own leaders, so they need our feedback then, too.
In the end, the question isn't only whether the 112th Congress finally will get it right; it's also whether we the people finally have gotten it right by appointing good and morally upright people to leadership positions all across our land.
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
FROM TOWNHALL
We the People
Email Rich Galen
Columnist
When the House opens for business at noon on Wednesday, Republicans will hold a tag-team reading of the U.S. Constitution which is an excellent idea. Most of the incoming Freshmen will not have read any major part of the Constitution since 11th grade social studies, but it is the rule book and incoming Speaker John Boehner wants to make sure everyone understands that.
The 112th Congress will not begin today even though Clause 2 of the 20th Amendment states:
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
The 20th Amendment, which was ratified in January, 1933 changed the initial meeting day of a new Congress which had been, according to Article I, Section 4:
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Keep in mind that was the first Monday in December of the year following the elections. If the 20th Amendment had not been ratified, the Democrats would continue to control the House and Senate as a lame-duck 111th Congress until next December 5th.
The 20th Amendment also changed the date of the beginning of a Presidential term from March 4 to January 20.
Senators, remember, were not selected by election of the masses prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. According to Article I, Section 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.
In the 18th century, transportation and communications were such that it was often difficult to determine who had won which election. For the winners, getting their affairs in order and making the trip to Washington, DC (when it became the seat of government with the signing of the Residence Act in July of 1790) was often an arduous and time-consuming ordeal.
By the way, the Residence Act, which established what we now know as the District of Columbia, passed the House by a vote of 31-29 and the Senate by a vote of 14-12 and originally included land ceded by both Maryland and Virginia. The government didn't think it needed the Virginia piece so the land which now makes up Arlington County and Alexandria City was returned to the Commonwealth.
To show there is nothing new under the sun, the compromise which put the Capital in its current location had to do with resolving an argument between northern and southern states over paying off the debts which had been accrued during the Revolutionary War.
The deal was, if the northern states agreed to put the U.S. Capitol in a southern area (as opposed to Pennsylvania which was their choice) then the southern states - which had largely paid off their debts - would agree to transfer the northern states' debts for the war from the states to the federal government.
President Washington liked the Maryland-Virginia plan because his home, Mount Vernon, is only about 15 miles from the District so he could, in effect, walk to work.
It is also useful to remember that the Constitution was Governance Two-Dot-Oh. The original government document, the Articles of Confederation, were so carefully drawn to limit the power of a central government that they soon became unworkable and what became the Constitutional Convention which convened on May 25, 1787.
Even at that, the Convention was designed to refine the Articles of Confederation but, "the stated goal of the Convention - the revision of the Articles of Confederation - was quickly discarded, and attention given to more sweeping changes."
The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 when the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified it. But it wasn't until the two largest states, Virginia (June 25, 1788) and New York (July 26, 1788), ratified it that it was clear that the Constitution would be the governing document of the young republic.
The first Congress met on March 4, 1789 which is commonly noted as the date the Constitution became the supreme law of the land. President Washington wasn't sworn in until April 30 that year and other part of the document became effective when the infrastructure was available to support them.
Nevertheless, it is a remarkable document. When it is read aloud in the U.S. House this week, you might think about TiVo-ing or DVR-ing it and having the kids sit and watch.
Rich Galen
Email Rich Galen
Columnist
When the House opens for business at noon on Wednesday, Republicans will hold a tag-team reading of the U.S. Constitution which is an excellent idea. Most of the incoming Freshmen will not have read any major part of the Constitution since 11th grade social studies, but it is the rule book and incoming Speaker John Boehner wants to make sure everyone understands that.
The 112th Congress will not begin today even though Clause 2 of the 20th Amendment states:
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
The 20th Amendment, which was ratified in January, 1933 changed the initial meeting day of a new Congress which had been, according to Article I, Section 4:
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Keep in mind that was the first Monday in December of the year following the elections. If the 20th Amendment had not been ratified, the Democrats would continue to control the House and Senate as a lame-duck 111th Congress until next December 5th.
The 20th Amendment also changed the date of the beginning of a Presidential term from March 4 to January 20.
Senators, remember, were not selected by election of the masses prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. According to Article I, Section 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.
In the 18th century, transportation and communications were such that it was often difficult to determine who had won which election. For the winners, getting their affairs in order and making the trip to Washington, DC (when it became the seat of government with the signing of the Residence Act in July of 1790) was often an arduous and time-consuming ordeal.
By the way, the Residence Act, which established what we now know as the District of Columbia, passed the House by a vote of 31-29 and the Senate by a vote of 14-12 and originally included land ceded by both Maryland and Virginia. The government didn't think it needed the Virginia piece so the land which now makes up Arlington County and Alexandria City was returned to the Commonwealth.
To show there is nothing new under the sun, the compromise which put the Capital in its current location had to do with resolving an argument between northern and southern states over paying off the debts which had been accrued during the Revolutionary War.
The deal was, if the northern states agreed to put the U.S. Capitol in a southern area (as opposed to Pennsylvania which was their choice) then the southern states - which had largely paid off their debts - would agree to transfer the northern states' debts for the war from the states to the federal government.
President Washington liked the Maryland-Virginia plan because his home, Mount Vernon, is only about 15 miles from the District so he could, in effect, walk to work.
It is also useful to remember that the Constitution was Governance Two-Dot-Oh. The original government document, the Articles of Confederation, were so carefully drawn to limit the power of a central government that they soon became unworkable and what became the Constitutional Convention which convened on May 25, 1787.
Even at that, the Convention was designed to refine the Articles of Confederation but, "the stated goal of the Convention - the revision of the Articles of Confederation - was quickly discarded, and attention given to more sweeping changes."
The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 when the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified it. But it wasn't until the two largest states, Virginia (June 25, 1788) and New York (July 26, 1788), ratified it that it was clear that the Constitution would be the governing document of the young republic.
The first Congress met on March 4, 1789 which is commonly noted as the date the Constitution became the supreme law of the land. President Washington wasn't sworn in until April 30 that year and other part of the document became effective when the infrastructure was available to support them.
Nevertheless, it is a remarkable document. When it is read aloud in the U.S. House this week, you might think about TiVo-ing or DVR-ing it and having the kids sit and watch.
Rich Galen
FROM TOWNHALL
They're Back! The Return of the Death Panels
Email Paul Greenberg
They were supposed to be gone. They were supposed never to have existed. Remember the foofaraw over the part of ObamaCare that was going to have Medicare finance, uh, consultations about end-of-life treatment? They soon were dubbed death panels. The name stuck, and every time advocates of the idea derided it -- untrue! fictional! absurd! wholly imaginary! -- they only gave it more currency.
Which term do you prefer, end-of-life counseling or death panels? It makes quite a difference when discussing the issue. Because when it comes to a political conflict, vocabulary remains the Little Round Top of every engagement, the strategic height that determines the outcome of the battle. And any mention of death tends to, well, kill off enthusiasm for a proposal. Whether we're talking death panels or the death tax. (Its advocates much prefer to speak of the estate tax even if it's the same thing.) Why be blunt? Especially if it's going to cost your side of the debate votes.
Awkward facts must be sidestepped, euphemisms invented. The way abortion has become Choice. Names count; what a proposal is called may determine whether it ever gets into law. And so the death panels/end-of-life consultations had to be dropped from the final version of ObamaCare, which goes by an official euphemism of its own: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2009. And its Section 1233 raised concerns that the patient might be protected to death.
At the least the controversial section was sure to produce a whole new para-medical sub-specialty. For where there's a Medicare payment, payees are bound to spring up. (In economicspeak, this is called incentivizing.) What do you think the practitioners of this new art/science would be called? Nothing very precise, one can be sure. Preferably something long and latinate, a term that softens the hard edges of its meaning, something high-toned, even classical. How about thanatopsists?
You can almost see the new occupation being plugged into every top-flight medical center's table of organization. ("Thanatopsy? It's in Annex B on Level II. You'll have to take the elevator to the main floor, cross the parking lot, go through the underground garage, enter the red door and get off on Blue Level. It's simple. Just follow the signs. Be sure to bring your parking ticket, photographic ID, proof of insurance, medical records, list of pharmaceuticals, and....")
Thanatopsy. What better way for fledgling bioethicists to begin a long career of not calling things by their right names? Why alarm people by facing the facts of life, or rather death? Better to speak of end-of-life care or advance planning or, well, anything but death. Euphemism is the health of bioethics, which is never to be confused with ethics, or at least the kind explored by Aristotle or Bonhoeffer.
It's a strange thing: The very people so eager to plan for death never use the word. In any event, Section 1233 and its provision for periodic consultations about (insert appropriate euphemism here) never made it into law. Oh, death, where is thy sting, grave thy victory?
Answer: In a brand-new Medicare regulation in effect as of this brand-new year -- January 1, 2011 A.D. Issuing a regulation is always the fallback position for an administration that can't convince Congress to follow its lead. What an inconvenience it is to have to deal with popularly elected legislators anyway; they're so fickle, so sensitive, so slow to see reason ... and so accountable to the voters at the next election. Why not just work around them? Spare them the heat. We'd be doing them a favor, right?
And so it was done. Section 1233 now has been reborn as a Medicare regulation authorizing payment for "voluntary advance planning" to discuss, uh, end-of-life issues with patients and provide them with information about preparing an "advance directive" should they develop a life-threatening illness. Or well before.
With the disappearance of the old-time family doctor (and friend) in American medicine, the kind of physician who might be counted on to know a patient's condition, convictions, temperament and particular idiosyncrasies, we can now rely on experts to conduct these consultations. What a comfort. Kind of.
Don't get me wrong. There's no reason to doubt the president when he assures us in his ever-delicate way that there's nothing in his vast new health plan that "would pull the plug on grandma." These doctors, or some specially trained intern on their staff, would just ask the old lady a few questions periodically.
But as every polemicist knows, the way a question is asked can determine the answer. To quote one of those experts -- a thanatopsist? -- at the University of Michigan, someone with heart disease might be asked: "If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it?" Or someone with emphysema could be asked, "Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life?" Or the cancer patient would be asked, "When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?" As if anyone could know when the time will come, and how the patient will feel about it then. And please note the phraseology: It's not save your life, but delay your death. Never underestimate the power of negative thinking.
Life-and-death decisions that once could be safely left to the common-sense wisdom of the doctor most familiar with the patient now can be boiled down to a standard form--and a standard, billable procedure. Welcome to this Brave New World where any mention of death is banished. Just call it end-of-life. Euphemism is the first sign that you don't want to look too closely at what is being proposed.
Like a zombie who was supposed to have disappeared at the end of the first act of this drama, Section 1233 now has been revived. Even though it's taken on the form of a regulation instead of legislation. Thanks to the convenience of modern bureaucracy, all that messy business of congressional hearings and votes and open debate can be avoided just by issuing a new rule. But don't noise it about. Its modest backers have tried to keep its resuscitation as quiet as possible.
To quote an e-mail sent out by the Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a congressman from Oregon and an enthusiastic backer of this stealth regulation, the new rule represents a "quiet victory." Or as he told supporters: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops. ... The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."
The surest sign of a suspect political project is that it has to be adopted as quietly as possible. In this case, quiet as death.
So those celebrating this latest advance in society's pervasive culture of death are advised to sip their champagne without making much ado about it. No sense in alarming the rubes, who tend to have this irrational attachment to life.
Email Paul Greenberg
They were supposed to be gone. They were supposed never to have existed. Remember the foofaraw over the part of ObamaCare that was going to have Medicare finance, uh, consultations about end-of-life treatment? They soon were dubbed death panels. The name stuck, and every time advocates of the idea derided it -- untrue! fictional! absurd! wholly imaginary! -- they only gave it more currency.
Which term do you prefer, end-of-life counseling or death panels? It makes quite a difference when discussing the issue. Because when it comes to a political conflict, vocabulary remains the Little Round Top of every engagement, the strategic height that determines the outcome of the battle. And any mention of death tends to, well, kill off enthusiasm for a proposal. Whether we're talking death panels or the death tax. (Its advocates much prefer to speak of the estate tax even if it's the same thing.) Why be blunt? Especially if it's going to cost your side of the debate votes.
Awkward facts must be sidestepped, euphemisms invented. The way abortion has become Choice. Names count; what a proposal is called may determine whether it ever gets into law. And so the death panels/end-of-life consultations had to be dropped from the final version of ObamaCare, which goes by an official euphemism of its own: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2009. And its Section 1233 raised concerns that the patient might be protected to death.
At the least the controversial section was sure to produce a whole new para-medical sub-specialty. For where there's a Medicare payment, payees are bound to spring up. (In economicspeak, this is called incentivizing.) What do you think the practitioners of this new art/science would be called? Nothing very precise, one can be sure. Preferably something long and latinate, a term that softens the hard edges of its meaning, something high-toned, even classical. How about thanatopsists?
You can almost see the new occupation being plugged into every top-flight medical center's table of organization. ("Thanatopsy? It's in Annex B on Level II. You'll have to take the elevator to the main floor, cross the parking lot, go through the underground garage, enter the red door and get off on Blue Level. It's simple. Just follow the signs. Be sure to bring your parking ticket, photographic ID, proof of insurance, medical records, list of pharmaceuticals, and....")
Thanatopsy. What better way for fledgling bioethicists to begin a long career of not calling things by their right names? Why alarm people by facing the facts of life, or rather death? Better to speak of end-of-life care or advance planning or, well, anything but death. Euphemism is the health of bioethics, which is never to be confused with ethics, or at least the kind explored by Aristotle or Bonhoeffer.
It's a strange thing: The very people so eager to plan for death never use the word. In any event, Section 1233 and its provision for periodic consultations about (insert appropriate euphemism here) never made it into law. Oh, death, where is thy sting, grave thy victory?
Answer: In a brand-new Medicare regulation in effect as of this brand-new year -- January 1, 2011 A.D. Issuing a regulation is always the fallback position for an administration that can't convince Congress to follow its lead. What an inconvenience it is to have to deal with popularly elected legislators anyway; they're so fickle, so sensitive, so slow to see reason ... and so accountable to the voters at the next election. Why not just work around them? Spare them the heat. We'd be doing them a favor, right?
And so it was done. Section 1233 now has been reborn as a Medicare regulation authorizing payment for "voluntary advance planning" to discuss, uh, end-of-life issues with patients and provide them with information about preparing an "advance directive" should they develop a life-threatening illness. Or well before.
With the disappearance of the old-time family doctor (and friend) in American medicine, the kind of physician who might be counted on to know a patient's condition, convictions, temperament and particular idiosyncrasies, we can now rely on experts to conduct these consultations. What a comfort. Kind of.
Don't get me wrong. There's no reason to doubt the president when he assures us in his ever-delicate way that there's nothing in his vast new health plan that "would pull the plug on grandma." These doctors, or some specially trained intern on their staff, would just ask the old lady a few questions periodically.
But as every polemicist knows, the way a question is asked can determine the answer. To quote one of those experts -- a thanatopsist? -- at the University of Michigan, someone with heart disease might be asked: "If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it?" Or someone with emphysema could be asked, "Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life?" Or the cancer patient would be asked, "When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?" As if anyone could know when the time will come, and how the patient will feel about it then. And please note the phraseology: It's not save your life, but delay your death. Never underestimate the power of negative thinking.
Life-and-death decisions that once could be safely left to the common-sense wisdom of the doctor most familiar with the patient now can be boiled down to a standard form--and a standard, billable procedure. Welcome to this Brave New World where any mention of death is banished. Just call it end-of-life. Euphemism is the first sign that you don't want to look too closely at what is being proposed.
Like a zombie who was supposed to have disappeared at the end of the first act of this drama, Section 1233 now has been revived. Even though it's taken on the form of a regulation instead of legislation. Thanks to the convenience of modern bureaucracy, all that messy business of congressional hearings and votes and open debate can be avoided just by issuing a new rule. But don't noise it about. Its modest backers have tried to keep its resuscitation as quiet as possible.
To quote an e-mail sent out by the Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a congressman from Oregon and an enthusiastic backer of this stealth regulation, the new rule represents a "quiet victory." Or as he told supporters: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops. ... The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."
The surest sign of a suspect political project is that it has to be adopted as quietly as possible. In this case, quiet as death.
So those celebrating this latest advance in society's pervasive culture of death are advised to sip their champagne without making much ado about it. No sense in alarming the rubes, who tend to have this irrational attachment to life.
FROM PROPHECY NEWS
Wars and Rumors Of Wars - Brewing Conflicts to Watch for in 2011
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the globe today, you'll find almost three dozen raging conflicts, from the valleys of Afghanistan to the jungles of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the streets of Kashmir. But what are the next crises that might erupt in 2011? Here are a few worrisome spots that make our list.
Côte d'Ivoire
Côte d'Ivoire is on the brink of what may be a very bad 2011. After a five-year delay, Côte d'Ivoire held presidential elections on Oct. 31. A peaceful first round of voting was commended by the international community, but the runoff between incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara was marred by clashes and allegations of fraud on both sides.
The international community, including the United Nations, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), former colonial power France, and the United States, has recognized Outtara as the victor, but this has not prevented Gbagbo, with the backing of senior military officials and the Constitutional Council, from taking the oath of office. Both politicians have named prime ministers and governments as tension mounts and protests occur in the streets. The United Nations has reported disappearances, rape, and at least two dozen deaths so far.
Worst case scenario: Gbagbo stays in power, armed conflict between the supporters of each side plunges the country into civil war. Best case scenario: Gbagbo succumbs to international appeals and steps down. But it's not clear how things could get better from here. The international community has already ratcheted up pressure, including financial restrictions and travel bans. And the United Nations renewed the mandate of its peacekeeping operation there, despite Gbagbo calling for its immediate departure.
It's very possible that Cote d'Ivoire will take a turn for the worse in 2011. Gbagbo and Ouattara both have heavily armed supporters who seem ready to fight for the long haul.
Colombia
At first glance, Colombia's prospects for 2011 look bright. The country's new president, Juan Manuel Santos, has surprised many former critics with his bold reform proposals, many of which are aimed at addressing the root causes of the country's 46-year civil conflict against leftist rebels. He has mended relations with neighbouring Venezuela and Ecuador, committed to protect human rights advocates, and proposed legislation to help resettle the country's four million displaced.
The news is not all good, however. Despite a series of strategic losses in recent years -- from territory to key leadership -- the country's leftist guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), still maintain about 8,000 armed troops and perhaps twice that number of supporters. The rebels killed some 30 police in the weeks after Santos's inauguration, clearly to make a point. Meanwhile, new illegal armed groups have sprung up to capture the drug trafficking market, their ranks filled with former paramilitary fighters. These gangs are largely responsible for the rising incidence of urban violence; homicide rates have gone up by over 100 percent in Colombia's second city, Medellín, last year.
If these new armed groups are not contained, Colombia stands to regress in its long fight to finally root out the drug trade -- and the militancy it fuels. In such a scenario, FARC could see a comeback, restarting its campaign of terror in the country's major cities. As has been the case so often in Colombia's recent history, it would be the civilian population who would suffer most from such a return to conflict.
Yet the opposite scenario is equally likely in the coming months. Santos has worked with his counterparts in Venezuela and Ecuador to increase border surveillance, putting pressure on illegal armed groups holed up there. Under such pressure, FARC may even welcome the chance to start talks with the government about disarmament and reintegration. Much rests in this government's hands.
Zimbabwe
Keep an eye on Zimbabwe in 2011 as the country's "unity" government -- joining longtime President Robert Mugabe with opposition leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai -- will warrant its conciliatory name less and less by the day. The flashpoint next year? Elections. Both men want to hold them -- but they don't agree about what Zimbabweans should be voting on.
Mugabe and Tsvangirai were never going to be fast friends. Since the two were brought together in February 2009, following a 2008 election that Tsvangirai won (but his opponent refused to recognize), Mugabe has continued to monopolize the real levers of power. Despite Tsvangirai's protests, it's Mugabe who still holds sway over the army, the security forces, and all the state functions that generate revenue.
Earlier this fall, Mugabe declared that he wanted the unity government to end in 2011. He wants full elections mid-next year, and his party, ZANU-PF, is giving every indication that it will employ the same coercive tactics used in elections past to deliver victory to Mugabe. Tsvangirai's idea of the 2011 ballot is quite different: he wants to pass a new constitution.
The row over elections has pushed the nominal two-year truce between Mugabe and Tsvangirai toward the verge of collapse. Open violence could break out around the elections unless regional and international mediators negotiate a compromise and bring real pressure to bear on Mugabe to play by the rules.
Iraq
Iraq today is in far better shape than it was in 2007, when nearly two dozen Iraqis were dying each day in suicide bombings. But it's still far from out of the woods. And these days, it's not militants but the country's politics that post the biggest threat. The new government, formed in December after nine months of wrangling, is weak and lacks the institutions to rule effectively. Iraq's bureaucracies are nascent and fragile, and its security forces remain heavily dependent on U.S. training as well as logistics and intelligence support. Meanwhile, grievances abound -- from minority groups to repatriated refugees -- and it is unlikely that the state will be able to appease these many political demands. Sectarian violence resurfaces in fits and spurts, and is far from quashed entirely; approximately 300 Iraqis died in violence in November.
Iraq's neighbors could exploit the country's ongoing political turmoil to gain influence and sway, particularly Iran, which has long supported Shiite militants. Insurgents also await an opportunity to capitalize on political discord. At the same time, U.S. troops will be largely -- if not entirely -- withdrawn by the end of next year. And lacking that safety net, it would take very little for the country to lapse back into conflict.
That course is not inevitable, however. More likely, Iraq will continue on its current trajectory, retaining enough stability to keep its citizens relatively safe, even if services remain deficient. But in a muddle-through scenario, it may be the best the country can reasonably hope for as it emerges from an 8-year U.S. occupation.
Venezuela
Over the next 12 months, watch for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to take his brand of 21st-century socialism to the extremes. Having lost his majority in Parliament in September, Chávez has since been working hard to ensure that the new, opposition legislature will be irrelevant by the time it is sworn in in January. The Venezuelan president has consolidated control over the military and police, seized more private companies, and won temporary "decree powers" from the outgoing, pro-government National Assembly.
Chávez's power grab comes as the country's economic, social, and security problems are mounting. Violence has spiked dramatically in urban areas; there were some 19,000 homicides in 2009 out of a population of 28 million. In recent years, Venezuela has become a major drug-trafficking corridor, home to foreign and domestic cartels alike. State security forces have also been accused of participating in criminal activity. Meanwhile, Chávez has escalated -- rather than soothed -- the situation with fiery, partisan rhetoric that seems to egg on a violent suppression of the opposition. That message has an audience; government-allied street gangs in Caracas stand ready to defend his revolution with Kalashnikovs.
Sudan
The fate of Sudan in 2011 will be set early, on January 9, when a referendum on southern self-determination is scheduled to take place, and which will likely result in independence for the south. Two decades of war came to an end in Sudan in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). But as the agreement enters its last stages, however, that delicate peace will be tested. While securing the referendum has been an international priority, the long-term stability of the region relies on the ability of north and south Sudan to forge a positive post-CPA relationship.
If matters go well, the January referendum will take place smoothly, with its results respected by the government in Khartoum. This would provide the perfect platform for negotiations on post-referendum arrangements to be successfully concluded. But should the vote go poorly, we might witness the reignition of conflict between north and south and an escalation of violence in Darfur, all of which could potentially draw in regional states. At this point, nothing is certain.
Finally, there's the tricky matter of creating a new, independent Southern Sudan, which many are already dubbing a pre-failed state. The border remains undecided -- no small matter since the contested middle ground happens to sit on a large oil field. Meanwhile in Juba, the nascent capital, institutions and services would urgently need to be built from scratch.
Mexico
It has been four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared war on the country's drug lords. During that time, 30,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict, many of them along the northern border with the United States, largely as a result of in-fighting among rival gangs vying for control of trafficking corridors. Today, Ciudad Juarez, a border city near Texas, competes with Caracas as the most deadly city in the world. Over the last 12 months, the violence has spread to Mexico's economic and cultural hubs that were once considered immune from drug infiltration. To the north, Mexico's organized crime routes now reach into nearly every metropolitan area of the United States.
In short, despite a $400 million annual aid package from the United States, and big boosts in funding for the military, it's far from clear whether the government of Mexico is winning -- or can win -- this battle.
During the last year in particular, Calderón has been criticized for the conduct of the narco war. Not only is it difficult to pinpoint clear progress, but for many, life has visibly deteriorated since the crackdown began. Twenty times more Mexicans have died during the last four years than Americans have in the entire war in Afghanistan. Two gubernatorial candidates and 11 mayors have been assassinated. The press is under increasing pressure to self-censor. One paper in Ciudad Juárez went as far as asking, in an open letter to the cartels, what it was that they were allowed to publish.
"Winning" would require a hard look at the Mexican military and police, which have been credibly accused of committing flagrant abuses while fighting the drug gangs. The judicial system likewise needs strengthening to bring the guilty to fair trial. And, of course, much depends on Mexico's northern neighbor: America remains the largest market for drugs in the world, and so long as U.S. users demand product, the cartels will keep the supply flowing.
Guatemala
Mexico's drug war is also sending shockwaves throughout Latin America. Under pressure from the Mexican state, the most infamous cartels are seeking friendlier ground and finding it in Guatemala, where the state is weak and the institutions are fragile. In the worst case scenario for 2011, Guatemala could be host to a perpetual turf war of attrition between these various cartels, all competing to control drug trafficking routes -- and increasingly human-trafficking corridors -- to the United States.
So far, Guatemala's best ally in fighting back has been the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), a tribunal-like institution set up to root out corrupt and cartel-tainted officials. But its mandate ends in 2011 and its star prosecutor recently resigned, claiming that the political leadership was thwarting his work. Presidential elections are slotted for August, but early polls suggest a polarized nation, with around 20 candidates and no clear front runner. That's just the sort of uncertainty that cartels are good at exploiting.
Haiti
Nature had it in for Haiti in 2010, but it may be politics that batters the small island country in the coming year. The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere began the year with a devastating January earthquake that killed more than 300,000, a deadly cholera outbreak, and a tortuously slow reconstruction process, which remains way off the pace and beset with difficulties. A November 28 presidential election, which should have led to the election of a new, legitimate government, remains wedged in an impasse over allegations of fraud. The winner won't be decided until a run-off vote is held in January, but protests have already erupted over what some saw as the unfair exclusion of certain candidates in the second round. At least a dozen lives have been lost in the street clashes so far.
Already, Haiti was on the verge of a social breakdown. Today, more than 1 million Haitians remain homeless in the ruined capital. The government, whose ranks and infrastructure were devastated by the earthquake, has no capacity to deliver services or provide security. And international aid groups and U.N. peacekeepers can only plug those gaps temporarily. Relief work has also been hampered by a lack of funding. Despite big promises from international donors, dollars have been slow to trickle into the country.
This precarious situation will make for an enormous challenge if and when a new government does at last come to power next year. The run-off election will mark a year since the earthquake, with little improvement in the everyday lives of Haitians, whose patience is running out.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan, a land of striking beauty, grinding poverty, and rapacious leaders, could well become the next stomping ground for guerrillas -- Central Asians and other Muslims from the former Soviet Union -- who have been fighting alongside the Taliban for years and may now be thinking of returning home to settle scores with the region's brutal and corrupt leaders.
Run since 1992 by Emomali Rahmon, a post-Soviet strongman, Tajikistan has been hollowed out by top-to-bottom corruption. A U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks has an American diplomat noting that "From the President down to the policeman on the street, government is characterized by cronyism and corruption. Rahmon and his family control the country's major businesses, including the largest bank, and they play hardball to protect their business interests, no matter the cost to the economy writ large."
Not surprisingly in such an environment, most public services -- including the health system -- have all but collapsed. The economy survives on remittances from migrant laborers in Russia, and roughly half of the country's population lives below the poverty line. It is a dangerous brew for instability.
In recent months, the Tajik government has attempted to crack down against Islamist insurgent groups who have crossed the border from northern Afghanistan, but to little effect. There is rising concern in Washington that Tajikistan will become the new theater of operations for Islamic militants, and might offer a convenient route for insurgent penetration of other volatile or vulnerable parts of Central Asia -- first off, Tajikistan's desperately weak neighbor, Kyrgyzstan.
In the coming year, it's easy to imagine Tajikistan sliding further and further toward a failed state as the government quietly cedes control of whole sections of the country to militants. Even if the Afghan militants were out of the picture, however, Tajikistan's democratic prospects would look bleak. As the American cable put it, "The government is not willing to reform its political process."
Pakistan
It's hard to remember a time when Pakistan didn't seem on the brink of collapse. This coming year will likely be no exception. The country faces a humanitarian crisis in its mid-section where floods displaced 10 million people, a security threat from terrorist groups operating on Pakistani soil, and political instability from a weak administration still trying to wield civilian control over the all-powerful military.
The most immediate priority is assisting the millions of people who are still displaced following floods in Pakistan's countryside. The cities could also use attention; 2010 saw the biggest spike in urban terrorist attacks since the war next door in Afghanistan started. Insurgent and terrorist groups now have strongholds not just in the northwestern tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, but in urban centers such as Islamabad, Karachi, Quetta, and Lahore. Yet despite the flurry of attacks on its heartland, Pakistan still seems reluctant to confront the insurgents with full force. So far, military operations against terrorist groups have vacillated between the extremes -- either heavy-handed and haphazard force or ill-conceived peace deals. Further, the criminal justice system has failed totally to preempt, investigate, and convict militants. Violence may well spike again in 2011.
Meanwhile in Islamabad, the civilian leadership under President Asif Ali Zardari has grown unpopular and weak, plagued by corruption and an inability to maintain control of the military leaders. Civilian control over national security policy, in both the domestic and external domains, could help put the criminal genie back in the bottle. Stronger civilian leadership of the humanitarian agenda would also prevent the millions living in regions devastated by the massive monsoon floods of 2010 -- in the conflict-hit zones in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and also in the Pakistani heartland -- from becoming a soft target for militants. However, clashes between the judiciary and Zardari, and the military's propensity to destabilize elected governments, could result in the democratic transition faltering and even failing, with grave consequences for an already fragile state.
Somalia
If Somalia keeps heading south in 2011, the entire country could fall under Islamist insurgent control. Up to now, the country's U.N.-backed transitional government has withstood attacks from Islamist insurgents only thanks to protection from an African Union peacekeeping force; it remains weak and divided, a national government in name alone. Further, the capital city of Mogadishu is under perpetual siege by militants, a reality that has sent millions fleeing from their homes in this year alone. When the government does make gains on the insurgents, they are counted in mere city blocks, captured one by one.
The largest and most alarming insurgent group is al Shabab, which professes to desire the creation of a strict, conservative Muslim state and portions of whose leadership pledged allegiance to al Qaeda in early 2010. The group already controls most of southern and central Somalia and is currently trying to capture Mogadishu. Meanwhile, Somalia's neighbors fear that al Shabab will begin to export terrorism, as it did for the first time last summer in a series of bombings in Uganda during the World Cup.
That said, Somaliland in the country's northwest is an island of stability and democracy, and Puntland in the northeast is relatively peaceful, if troubled by Islamists and pirate gangs.
The best hope for Somalia is for its forces to exploit the divisions among the insurgency to recapture territory, particularly in Mogadishu. International support, already forthcoming, will help. But so would a lot of luck.
Lebanon
Still smarting from a war with Israel in 2006 that left a precarious balance of power between Christians and Islamic fundamentalists, Lebanon today is arguably more than ever on the brink.
In the coming months, an international tribunal is expected to issue indictments against Hezbollah members for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a step that could spark sectarian strife throughout the country. Most alarmingly, the indictments could unravel a fragile inter-Lebanese power-sharing agreement reached in Doha in 2008. In that scenario, Lebanon could see a return to political assassinations, all-out sectarian strife, or attempts by Hezbollah to assert greater political or military control. None of these scenarios are far-fetched in the coming year; indeed, they have all happened in Lebanon's very recent past. The fact that it is so hard to imagine both how the current status quo may survive and how exactly it will unravel says volumes about the state of uncertainty and shakiness which afflicts the country.
In addition to Lebanon's internal political unraveling, the country risks sliding back into war with Israel. Nearly five years after the 2006 war, relations between the two countries are both exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous -- for the same reason: On both sides of Israel's northern border, the build-up in military forces and threats of an all-out war that would spare neither civilians nor civilian infrastructure, together with the worrisome prospect of its regionalization, have had a deterrent effect on all. Today, none of the parties can soberly contemplate the prospect of a conflict that would come at greater cost to themselves, be more difficult to contain, and be less predictable in outcome than anything they witnessed in the past.
But that is only the better half of the story. Beneath the surface, tensions are mounting with no obvious safety valve. The deterrence regime has helped keep the peace, but the process it perpetuates -- mutually reinforcing military preparations, Hezbollah's growing and more sophisticated arsenal, escalating Israeli threats -- pulls in the opposite direction and could trigger the very result it has averted so far.
Nigeria
Nigeria's 2010 was about as rough as they come: The country's president disappeared on medical leave -- and then died -- hundreds were killed in sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians in the country's middle belt, and a rebel amnesty in the oil-producing Niger Delta region completely unraveled, leading to a string of bombing attacks and kidnappings.
And 2011 also looks rocky for Africa's most populous country. A presidential election is slated to be held in the spring; the last election in 2007 left international observers awestruck by flagrant intimidation and ballot stuffing. Voting in Nigeria has never been a pretty affair, and despite promises to reform the electoral system, the old habits of intimidation and vote buying die hard. After the polling does takes place, post-election turmoil is also entirely possible, particularly if one region or group is unhappy with the result. Nigeria's many regions -- north, south, west, east, and everything in between -- count on office-holders to pass out patronage and favors, so the stakes of losing are high.
Whoever it may be, Nigeria's new leader will have urgent tasks ahead. The rebellion in the Niger Delta is flaring up again, with militants promising to continue attacking oil facilities and government offices. A once effective anti-corruption commission has lost its momentum. And vast economic inequality is the order of the day, leaving oil wealth in the hands of a few while the majority of the country's 140 million people languish.
Guinea
Guinea enters 2011 on a hopeful path. In December, the West African country inaugurated its first-ever elected leader, Alpha Condé. After decades of strongman rule, followed by a 2009 coup, this new leadership seems nothing less than miraculous.
Yet the back-story offers some sense of just how deep tensions run. After the country's president died in December 2008, a small group of military leaders took over, declaring themselves the new leaders of Guinea. So corrupt and ineffectual had the former president been that many welcomed the junta's rule. But it soon became apparent that the military president, Moussa Dadis Camara, was equally inept. The pinnacle of that failure came in September 2009, when his troops massacred over 150 peaceful protestors in a local stadium.
International condemnation flooded the country, putting pressure on the junta to hold elections. Meanwhile, Camara was shot by a fellow junta member and sent to Morocco for treatment. His successor, Gen. Sekouba Konate, appointed a civilian interim leader and organized the recent election.
But throughout the junta's brief reign, the military took the opportunity to enrich and entrench its role in the economy, a fact that remains today despite the nominal civilian leadership. Guinea's military now has a strong stake in controlling mineral wealth -- the country is the world's largest producer of bauxite -- and other major industries. In the past, it has used strong-arm tactics to get its way, economically and otherwise, and this old habit will surely die hard. Having tasted the fruits of power under the junta, the military may not so easily return to its barracks.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Years after the official end of the Second Congo War, which raged from 1998 to 2003 and was responsible for up to 4.5 million deaths, whole swathes of the enormous Central African country remain in upheaval. In the eastern Kivu provinces, an undisciplined national army battles with rebel groups for territorial control. Amid the frenzy of violence and rape that follows in their path, the world's largest U.N. peacekeeping force is at a loss to protect even those civilians that live close to its bases.
Lurking behind the conflict is Congo's vast natural wealth, the very embodiment of the so-called resource curse. Government, militants, private corporations, and local citizens all angle to tap the gold, cobalt, copper, coltan and host of other minerals under the country's soil -- which are focused in the east and south of the country. Meanwhile, the central government lies nearly 1,000 miles to the west, separated from its eastern provinces by impenetrable jungle, a different language, and ethnicity. Rebel groups still roam the eastern border regions, exercising their authority with impunity and cruelty. Neither the government nor rebel groups have the strength to win, but both have the resources to keep fighting indefinitely.
Adding to the misery are appalling humanitarian conditions. Only a third of Congolese in rural areas have access to clean water, an estimated 16,000 children die each year before ever reaching the age of five, and life expectancy has actually fallen by five years since 1990.
Unless the Congolese and regional governments try different tactics, there is no end in sight to Congo's troubles. In an ideal world, military campaigns in North and South Kivu provinces would be suspended until better-trained troops can be deployed -- troops than can carry out targeted operations while protecting civilians. Meanwhile, governments in Africa's Great Lakes region should convene a summit and negotiate agreements on economic, land, and population-movement issues. A worst-case scenario would see more of the same: a mosaic of armed groups in eastern Congo continue to fight indefinitely, with civilians paying a terrible price.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the globe today, you'll find almost three dozen raging conflicts, from the valleys of Afghanistan to the jungles of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the streets of Kashmir. But what are the next crises that might erupt in 2011? Here are a few worrisome spots that make our list.
Côte d'Ivoire
Côte d'Ivoire is on the brink of what may be a very bad 2011. After a five-year delay, Côte d'Ivoire held presidential elections on Oct. 31. A peaceful first round of voting was commended by the international community, but the runoff between incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara was marred by clashes and allegations of fraud on both sides.
The international community, including the United Nations, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), former colonial power France, and the United States, has recognized Outtara as the victor, but this has not prevented Gbagbo, with the backing of senior military officials and the Constitutional Council, from taking the oath of office. Both politicians have named prime ministers and governments as tension mounts and protests occur in the streets. The United Nations has reported disappearances, rape, and at least two dozen deaths so far.
Worst case scenario: Gbagbo stays in power, armed conflict between the supporters of each side plunges the country into civil war. Best case scenario: Gbagbo succumbs to international appeals and steps down. But it's not clear how things could get better from here. The international community has already ratcheted up pressure, including financial restrictions and travel bans. And the United Nations renewed the mandate of its peacekeeping operation there, despite Gbagbo calling for its immediate departure.
It's very possible that Cote d'Ivoire will take a turn for the worse in 2011. Gbagbo and Ouattara both have heavily armed supporters who seem ready to fight for the long haul.
Colombia
At first glance, Colombia's prospects for 2011 look bright. The country's new president, Juan Manuel Santos, has surprised many former critics with his bold reform proposals, many of which are aimed at addressing the root causes of the country's 46-year civil conflict against leftist rebels. He has mended relations with neighbouring Venezuela and Ecuador, committed to protect human rights advocates, and proposed legislation to help resettle the country's four million displaced.
The news is not all good, however. Despite a series of strategic losses in recent years -- from territory to key leadership -- the country's leftist guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), still maintain about 8,000 armed troops and perhaps twice that number of supporters. The rebels killed some 30 police in the weeks after Santos's inauguration, clearly to make a point. Meanwhile, new illegal armed groups have sprung up to capture the drug trafficking market, their ranks filled with former paramilitary fighters. These gangs are largely responsible for the rising incidence of urban violence; homicide rates have gone up by over 100 percent in Colombia's second city, Medellín, last year.
If these new armed groups are not contained, Colombia stands to regress in its long fight to finally root out the drug trade -- and the militancy it fuels. In such a scenario, FARC could see a comeback, restarting its campaign of terror in the country's major cities. As has been the case so often in Colombia's recent history, it would be the civilian population who would suffer most from such a return to conflict.
Yet the opposite scenario is equally likely in the coming months. Santos has worked with his counterparts in Venezuela and Ecuador to increase border surveillance, putting pressure on illegal armed groups holed up there. Under such pressure, FARC may even welcome the chance to start talks with the government about disarmament and reintegration. Much rests in this government's hands.
Zimbabwe
Keep an eye on Zimbabwe in 2011 as the country's "unity" government -- joining longtime President Robert Mugabe with opposition leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai -- will warrant its conciliatory name less and less by the day. The flashpoint next year? Elections. Both men want to hold them -- but they don't agree about what Zimbabweans should be voting on.
Mugabe and Tsvangirai were never going to be fast friends. Since the two were brought together in February 2009, following a 2008 election that Tsvangirai won (but his opponent refused to recognize), Mugabe has continued to monopolize the real levers of power. Despite Tsvangirai's protests, it's Mugabe who still holds sway over the army, the security forces, and all the state functions that generate revenue.
Earlier this fall, Mugabe declared that he wanted the unity government to end in 2011. He wants full elections mid-next year, and his party, ZANU-PF, is giving every indication that it will employ the same coercive tactics used in elections past to deliver victory to Mugabe. Tsvangirai's idea of the 2011 ballot is quite different: he wants to pass a new constitution.
The row over elections has pushed the nominal two-year truce between Mugabe and Tsvangirai toward the verge of collapse. Open violence could break out around the elections unless regional and international mediators negotiate a compromise and bring real pressure to bear on Mugabe to play by the rules.
Iraq
Iraq today is in far better shape than it was in 2007, when nearly two dozen Iraqis were dying each day in suicide bombings. But it's still far from out of the woods. And these days, it's not militants but the country's politics that post the biggest threat. The new government, formed in December after nine months of wrangling, is weak and lacks the institutions to rule effectively. Iraq's bureaucracies are nascent and fragile, and its security forces remain heavily dependent on U.S. training as well as logistics and intelligence support. Meanwhile, grievances abound -- from minority groups to repatriated refugees -- and it is unlikely that the state will be able to appease these many political demands. Sectarian violence resurfaces in fits and spurts, and is far from quashed entirely; approximately 300 Iraqis died in violence in November.
Iraq's neighbors could exploit the country's ongoing political turmoil to gain influence and sway, particularly Iran, which has long supported Shiite militants. Insurgents also await an opportunity to capitalize on political discord. At the same time, U.S. troops will be largely -- if not entirely -- withdrawn by the end of next year. And lacking that safety net, it would take very little for the country to lapse back into conflict.
That course is not inevitable, however. More likely, Iraq will continue on its current trajectory, retaining enough stability to keep its citizens relatively safe, even if services remain deficient. But in a muddle-through scenario, it may be the best the country can reasonably hope for as it emerges from an 8-year U.S. occupation.
Venezuela
Over the next 12 months, watch for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to take his brand of 21st-century socialism to the extremes. Having lost his majority in Parliament in September, Chávez has since been working hard to ensure that the new, opposition legislature will be irrelevant by the time it is sworn in in January. The Venezuelan president has consolidated control over the military and police, seized more private companies, and won temporary "decree powers" from the outgoing, pro-government National Assembly.
Chávez's power grab comes as the country's economic, social, and security problems are mounting. Violence has spiked dramatically in urban areas; there were some 19,000 homicides in 2009 out of a population of 28 million. In recent years, Venezuela has become a major drug-trafficking corridor, home to foreign and domestic cartels alike. State security forces have also been accused of participating in criminal activity. Meanwhile, Chávez has escalated -- rather than soothed -- the situation with fiery, partisan rhetoric that seems to egg on a violent suppression of the opposition. That message has an audience; government-allied street gangs in Caracas stand ready to defend his revolution with Kalashnikovs.
Sudan
The fate of Sudan in 2011 will be set early, on January 9, when a referendum on southern self-determination is scheduled to take place, and which will likely result in independence for the south. Two decades of war came to an end in Sudan in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). But as the agreement enters its last stages, however, that delicate peace will be tested. While securing the referendum has been an international priority, the long-term stability of the region relies on the ability of north and south Sudan to forge a positive post-CPA relationship.
If matters go well, the January referendum will take place smoothly, with its results respected by the government in Khartoum. This would provide the perfect platform for negotiations on post-referendum arrangements to be successfully concluded. But should the vote go poorly, we might witness the reignition of conflict between north and south and an escalation of violence in Darfur, all of which could potentially draw in regional states. At this point, nothing is certain.
Finally, there's the tricky matter of creating a new, independent Southern Sudan, which many are already dubbing a pre-failed state. The border remains undecided -- no small matter since the contested middle ground happens to sit on a large oil field. Meanwhile in Juba, the nascent capital, institutions and services would urgently need to be built from scratch.
Mexico
It has been four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared war on the country's drug lords. During that time, 30,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict, many of them along the northern border with the United States, largely as a result of in-fighting among rival gangs vying for control of trafficking corridors. Today, Ciudad Juarez, a border city near Texas, competes with Caracas as the most deadly city in the world. Over the last 12 months, the violence has spread to Mexico's economic and cultural hubs that were once considered immune from drug infiltration. To the north, Mexico's organized crime routes now reach into nearly every metropolitan area of the United States.
In short, despite a $400 million annual aid package from the United States, and big boosts in funding for the military, it's far from clear whether the government of Mexico is winning -- or can win -- this battle.
During the last year in particular, Calderón has been criticized for the conduct of the narco war. Not only is it difficult to pinpoint clear progress, but for many, life has visibly deteriorated since the crackdown began. Twenty times more Mexicans have died during the last four years than Americans have in the entire war in Afghanistan. Two gubernatorial candidates and 11 mayors have been assassinated. The press is under increasing pressure to self-censor. One paper in Ciudad Juárez went as far as asking, in an open letter to the cartels, what it was that they were allowed to publish.
"Winning" would require a hard look at the Mexican military and police, which have been credibly accused of committing flagrant abuses while fighting the drug gangs. The judicial system likewise needs strengthening to bring the guilty to fair trial. And, of course, much depends on Mexico's northern neighbor: America remains the largest market for drugs in the world, and so long as U.S. users demand product, the cartels will keep the supply flowing.
Guatemala
Mexico's drug war is also sending shockwaves throughout Latin America. Under pressure from the Mexican state, the most infamous cartels are seeking friendlier ground and finding it in Guatemala, where the state is weak and the institutions are fragile. In the worst case scenario for 2011, Guatemala could be host to a perpetual turf war of attrition between these various cartels, all competing to control drug trafficking routes -- and increasingly human-trafficking corridors -- to the United States.
So far, Guatemala's best ally in fighting back has been the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), a tribunal-like institution set up to root out corrupt and cartel-tainted officials. But its mandate ends in 2011 and its star prosecutor recently resigned, claiming that the political leadership was thwarting his work. Presidential elections are slotted for August, but early polls suggest a polarized nation, with around 20 candidates and no clear front runner. That's just the sort of uncertainty that cartels are good at exploiting.
Haiti
Nature had it in for Haiti in 2010, but it may be politics that batters the small island country in the coming year. The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere began the year with a devastating January earthquake that killed more than 300,000, a deadly cholera outbreak, and a tortuously slow reconstruction process, which remains way off the pace and beset with difficulties. A November 28 presidential election, which should have led to the election of a new, legitimate government, remains wedged in an impasse over allegations of fraud. The winner won't be decided until a run-off vote is held in January, but protests have already erupted over what some saw as the unfair exclusion of certain candidates in the second round. At least a dozen lives have been lost in the street clashes so far.
Already, Haiti was on the verge of a social breakdown. Today, more than 1 million Haitians remain homeless in the ruined capital. The government, whose ranks and infrastructure were devastated by the earthquake, has no capacity to deliver services or provide security. And international aid groups and U.N. peacekeepers can only plug those gaps temporarily. Relief work has also been hampered by a lack of funding. Despite big promises from international donors, dollars have been slow to trickle into the country.
This precarious situation will make for an enormous challenge if and when a new government does at last come to power next year. The run-off election will mark a year since the earthquake, with little improvement in the everyday lives of Haitians, whose patience is running out.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan, a land of striking beauty, grinding poverty, and rapacious leaders, could well become the next stomping ground for guerrillas -- Central Asians and other Muslims from the former Soviet Union -- who have been fighting alongside the Taliban for years and may now be thinking of returning home to settle scores with the region's brutal and corrupt leaders.
Run since 1992 by Emomali Rahmon, a post-Soviet strongman, Tajikistan has been hollowed out by top-to-bottom corruption. A U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks has an American diplomat noting that "From the President down to the policeman on the street, government is characterized by cronyism and corruption. Rahmon and his family control the country's major businesses, including the largest bank, and they play hardball to protect their business interests, no matter the cost to the economy writ large."
Not surprisingly in such an environment, most public services -- including the health system -- have all but collapsed. The economy survives on remittances from migrant laborers in Russia, and roughly half of the country's population lives below the poverty line. It is a dangerous brew for instability.
In recent months, the Tajik government has attempted to crack down against Islamist insurgent groups who have crossed the border from northern Afghanistan, but to little effect. There is rising concern in Washington that Tajikistan will become the new theater of operations for Islamic militants, and might offer a convenient route for insurgent penetration of other volatile or vulnerable parts of Central Asia -- first off, Tajikistan's desperately weak neighbor, Kyrgyzstan.
In the coming year, it's easy to imagine Tajikistan sliding further and further toward a failed state as the government quietly cedes control of whole sections of the country to militants. Even if the Afghan militants were out of the picture, however, Tajikistan's democratic prospects would look bleak. As the American cable put it, "The government is not willing to reform its political process."
Pakistan
It's hard to remember a time when Pakistan didn't seem on the brink of collapse. This coming year will likely be no exception. The country faces a humanitarian crisis in its mid-section where floods displaced 10 million people, a security threat from terrorist groups operating on Pakistani soil, and political instability from a weak administration still trying to wield civilian control over the all-powerful military.
The most immediate priority is assisting the millions of people who are still displaced following floods in Pakistan's countryside. The cities could also use attention; 2010 saw the biggest spike in urban terrorist attacks since the war next door in Afghanistan started. Insurgent and terrorist groups now have strongholds not just in the northwestern tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, but in urban centers such as Islamabad, Karachi, Quetta, and Lahore. Yet despite the flurry of attacks on its heartland, Pakistan still seems reluctant to confront the insurgents with full force. So far, military operations against terrorist groups have vacillated between the extremes -- either heavy-handed and haphazard force or ill-conceived peace deals. Further, the criminal justice system has failed totally to preempt, investigate, and convict militants. Violence may well spike again in 2011.
Meanwhile in Islamabad, the civilian leadership under President Asif Ali Zardari has grown unpopular and weak, plagued by corruption and an inability to maintain control of the military leaders. Civilian control over national security policy, in both the domestic and external domains, could help put the criminal genie back in the bottle. Stronger civilian leadership of the humanitarian agenda would also prevent the millions living in regions devastated by the massive monsoon floods of 2010 -- in the conflict-hit zones in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and also in the Pakistani heartland -- from becoming a soft target for militants. However, clashes between the judiciary and Zardari, and the military's propensity to destabilize elected governments, could result in the democratic transition faltering and even failing, with grave consequences for an already fragile state.
Somalia
If Somalia keeps heading south in 2011, the entire country could fall under Islamist insurgent control. Up to now, the country's U.N.-backed transitional government has withstood attacks from Islamist insurgents only thanks to protection from an African Union peacekeeping force; it remains weak and divided, a national government in name alone. Further, the capital city of Mogadishu is under perpetual siege by militants, a reality that has sent millions fleeing from their homes in this year alone. When the government does make gains on the insurgents, they are counted in mere city blocks, captured one by one.
The largest and most alarming insurgent group is al Shabab, which professes to desire the creation of a strict, conservative Muslim state and portions of whose leadership pledged allegiance to al Qaeda in early 2010. The group already controls most of southern and central Somalia and is currently trying to capture Mogadishu. Meanwhile, Somalia's neighbors fear that al Shabab will begin to export terrorism, as it did for the first time last summer in a series of bombings in Uganda during the World Cup.
That said, Somaliland in the country's northwest is an island of stability and democracy, and Puntland in the northeast is relatively peaceful, if troubled by Islamists and pirate gangs.
The best hope for Somalia is for its forces to exploit the divisions among the insurgency to recapture territory, particularly in Mogadishu. International support, already forthcoming, will help. But so would a lot of luck.
Lebanon
Still smarting from a war with Israel in 2006 that left a precarious balance of power between Christians and Islamic fundamentalists, Lebanon today is arguably more than ever on the brink.
In the coming months, an international tribunal is expected to issue indictments against Hezbollah members for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a step that could spark sectarian strife throughout the country. Most alarmingly, the indictments could unravel a fragile inter-Lebanese power-sharing agreement reached in Doha in 2008. In that scenario, Lebanon could see a return to political assassinations, all-out sectarian strife, or attempts by Hezbollah to assert greater political or military control. None of these scenarios are far-fetched in the coming year; indeed, they have all happened in Lebanon's very recent past. The fact that it is so hard to imagine both how the current status quo may survive and how exactly it will unravel says volumes about the state of uncertainty and shakiness which afflicts the country.
In addition to Lebanon's internal political unraveling, the country risks sliding back into war with Israel. Nearly five years after the 2006 war, relations between the two countries are both exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous -- for the same reason: On both sides of Israel's northern border, the build-up in military forces and threats of an all-out war that would spare neither civilians nor civilian infrastructure, together with the worrisome prospect of its regionalization, have had a deterrent effect on all. Today, none of the parties can soberly contemplate the prospect of a conflict that would come at greater cost to themselves, be more difficult to contain, and be less predictable in outcome than anything they witnessed in the past.
But that is only the better half of the story. Beneath the surface, tensions are mounting with no obvious safety valve. The deterrence regime has helped keep the peace, but the process it perpetuates -- mutually reinforcing military preparations, Hezbollah's growing and more sophisticated arsenal, escalating Israeli threats -- pulls in the opposite direction and could trigger the very result it has averted so far.
Nigeria
Nigeria's 2010 was about as rough as they come: The country's president disappeared on medical leave -- and then died -- hundreds were killed in sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians in the country's middle belt, and a rebel amnesty in the oil-producing Niger Delta region completely unraveled, leading to a string of bombing attacks and kidnappings.
And 2011 also looks rocky for Africa's most populous country. A presidential election is slated to be held in the spring; the last election in 2007 left international observers awestruck by flagrant intimidation and ballot stuffing. Voting in Nigeria has never been a pretty affair, and despite promises to reform the electoral system, the old habits of intimidation and vote buying die hard. After the polling does takes place, post-election turmoil is also entirely possible, particularly if one region or group is unhappy with the result. Nigeria's many regions -- north, south, west, east, and everything in between -- count on office-holders to pass out patronage and favors, so the stakes of losing are high.
Whoever it may be, Nigeria's new leader will have urgent tasks ahead. The rebellion in the Niger Delta is flaring up again, with militants promising to continue attacking oil facilities and government offices. A once effective anti-corruption commission has lost its momentum. And vast economic inequality is the order of the day, leaving oil wealth in the hands of a few while the majority of the country's 140 million people languish.
Guinea
Guinea enters 2011 on a hopeful path. In December, the West African country inaugurated its first-ever elected leader, Alpha Condé. After decades of strongman rule, followed by a 2009 coup, this new leadership seems nothing less than miraculous.
Yet the back-story offers some sense of just how deep tensions run. After the country's president died in December 2008, a small group of military leaders took over, declaring themselves the new leaders of Guinea. So corrupt and ineffectual had the former president been that many welcomed the junta's rule. But it soon became apparent that the military president, Moussa Dadis Camara, was equally inept. The pinnacle of that failure came in September 2009, when his troops massacred over 150 peaceful protestors in a local stadium.
International condemnation flooded the country, putting pressure on the junta to hold elections. Meanwhile, Camara was shot by a fellow junta member and sent to Morocco for treatment. His successor, Gen. Sekouba Konate, appointed a civilian interim leader and organized the recent election.
But throughout the junta's brief reign, the military took the opportunity to enrich and entrench its role in the economy, a fact that remains today despite the nominal civilian leadership. Guinea's military now has a strong stake in controlling mineral wealth -- the country is the world's largest producer of bauxite -- and other major industries. In the past, it has used strong-arm tactics to get its way, economically and otherwise, and this old habit will surely die hard. Having tasted the fruits of power under the junta, the military may not so easily return to its barracks.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Years after the official end of the Second Congo War, which raged from 1998 to 2003 and was responsible for up to 4.5 million deaths, whole swathes of the enormous Central African country remain in upheaval. In the eastern Kivu provinces, an undisciplined national army battles with rebel groups for territorial control. Amid the frenzy of violence and rape that follows in their path, the world's largest U.N. peacekeeping force is at a loss to protect even those civilians that live close to its bases.
Lurking behind the conflict is Congo's vast natural wealth, the very embodiment of the so-called resource curse. Government, militants, private corporations, and local citizens all angle to tap the gold, cobalt, copper, coltan and host of other minerals under the country's soil -- which are focused in the east and south of the country. Meanwhile, the central government lies nearly 1,000 miles to the west, separated from its eastern provinces by impenetrable jungle, a different language, and ethnicity. Rebel groups still roam the eastern border regions, exercising their authority with impunity and cruelty. Neither the government nor rebel groups have the strength to win, but both have the resources to keep fighting indefinitely.
Adding to the misery are appalling humanitarian conditions. Only a third of Congolese in rural areas have access to clean water, an estimated 16,000 children die each year before ever reaching the age of five, and life expectancy has actually fallen by five years since 1990.
Unless the Congolese and regional governments try different tactics, there is no end in sight to Congo's troubles. In an ideal world, military campaigns in North and South Kivu provinces would be suspended until better-trained troops can be deployed -- troops than can carry out targeted operations while protecting civilians. Meanwhile, governments in Africa's Great Lakes region should convene a summit and negotiate agreements on economic, land, and population-movement issues. A worst-case scenario would see more of the same: a mosaic of armed groups in eastern Congo continue to fight indefinitely, with civilians paying a terrible price.
FROM PROPHECY NEWS
Power Shift - China deploying new missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.
Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.
"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."
The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China's claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China's press reports and continued testing.
The new weapon, the "D" version of China's DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning it into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target
Military officials consider using ballistic missiles against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors, navigation systems and precision guidance technology - capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.
Asked about the integrated system, Adm. Willard said that "to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large."
The admiral said that while the U.S. thinks "that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested," China's testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship.
"We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system," he said.
Adm. Willard said he did not view the new missile as a greater threat to U.S. and allied forces than China's submarine forces, which also have been expanded greatly in the past decade.
"Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed," he said.
"It´s not exclusively China that has what is now being referred to as A2/AD capability. But in China´s case, it´s a combination of integrated air-defense systems; advanced naval systems, such as the submarine; advanced ballistic-missile systems, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile, as well as power-projection systems into the region," he said.
The new weapons can threaten "archipelagos" in Asia, such as Japan and Philippines, as well as Vietnam and other states that "are falling within the envelope of this, of an A2/AD capability of China," Adm. Willard said.
"That should be concerning - and we know is concerning - to those countries," he said.
Adm. Willard said the new weapons are "an expanded capability that ranges beyond the first island chain and overlaps countries in the region."
"For that reason, it is concerning to Southeast Asia, [and] it remains concerning to the United States."
Andrew S. Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the admiral's comments on the missile deployment confirm earlier reports that the Chinese are moving ahead with the DF-21D missile.
"China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D [missile] is mature enough for initial production, deployment and employment," Mr. Erickson said in an e-mail.
Mr. Erickson estimates that at least one unit of China's Second Artillery Corps, as its missile forces are called, must be equipped with the road-mobile system.
"While doubtless an area of continuous challenge and improvement, the DF-21D´s command, control, communications, computers, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance infrastructure must be sufficient to support attempts at basic carrier strike group targeting," he said.
Mr. Erickson said, based on Chinese missile-deployment patterns, that the new missile system likely will be fielded in "waves" at different units to meet deterrence objectives.
Military specialists have said the DF-21D deployment is a potent new threat because it will force U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to operate farther from hot spots in the western Pacific.
Currently, U.S. military strategy calls for the Pentagon to send several strike groups to waters near Taiwan in the event China follows through on threats to use force to retake the island. The lone U.S. aircraft carrier strike group based permanently in the region is the USS George Washington, whose home port is inYokosuka, Japan. A second carrier is planned for Hawaii or Guam.
Carrier forces also provide air power in the event of a new war in Korea and are used to assure freedom of navigation, a growing problem as the result of recent Chinese military assertiveness in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea.
Adm. Willard did not discuss what U.S. countermeasures the Navy has taken against the new anti-ship missile. U.S. naval task forces include ships equipped with the Aegis system designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.
Wallace "Chip" Gregson, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said in a speech earlier this month that China's new anti-access and area-denial weapons, including the DF-21D, "threaten our primary means of projecting power: our bases, our sea and air assets, and the networks that support them."
He warned that China's military buildup could "upend the regional security balance."
Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the new ASBM is only one part of a series of new Chinese weapons that threaten the region.
"When we add the ASBM to the PLA's [People's Liberation Army's] growing anti-satellite capabilities, growing numbers of submarines, and quite soon, its fifth-generation fighter, we are seeing the erection of a new Chinese wall in the western Pacific, for which the Obama administration has offered almost nothing in defensive response," Mr. Fisher said.
"Clearly, China's communist leadership is not impressed by the administration's ending of F-22 production, its retirement of the Navy's nuclear cruise missile, START Treaty reductions in U.S. missile warheads, and its refusal to consider U.S. space warfare capabilities. Such weakness is the surest way to invite military adventurism from China," he added.
Mr. Fisher said the Pentagon should mount a crash program to develop high-technology energy weapons, like rail guns and lasers in response to the new ASBMs.
Mark Stokes, a retired Air Force officer who has written extensively on the new missile, said the new deployment is a concern.
"China's ability to place at risk U.S. and other nations' maritime surface assets operating in the western Pacific and South China Sea is growing and closer to becoming a reality than many may think," Mr. Stokes said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.
Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.
"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."
The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China's claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China's press reports and continued testing.
The new weapon, the "D" version of China's DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning it into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target
Military officials consider using ballistic missiles against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors, navigation systems and precision guidance technology - capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.
Asked about the integrated system, Adm. Willard said that "to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large."
The admiral said that while the U.S. thinks "that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested," China's testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship.
"We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system," he said.
Adm. Willard said he did not view the new missile as a greater threat to U.S. and allied forces than China's submarine forces, which also have been expanded greatly in the past decade.
"Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed," he said.
"It´s not exclusively China that has what is now being referred to as A2/AD capability. But in China´s case, it´s a combination of integrated air-defense systems; advanced naval systems, such as the submarine; advanced ballistic-missile systems, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile, as well as power-projection systems into the region," he said.
The new weapons can threaten "archipelagos" in Asia, such as Japan and Philippines, as well as Vietnam and other states that "are falling within the envelope of this, of an A2/AD capability of China," Adm. Willard said.
"That should be concerning - and we know is concerning - to those countries," he said.
Adm. Willard said the new weapons are "an expanded capability that ranges beyond the first island chain and overlaps countries in the region."
"For that reason, it is concerning to Southeast Asia, [and] it remains concerning to the United States."
Andrew S. Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the admiral's comments on the missile deployment confirm earlier reports that the Chinese are moving ahead with the DF-21D missile.
"China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D [missile] is mature enough for initial production, deployment and employment," Mr. Erickson said in an e-mail.
Mr. Erickson estimates that at least one unit of China's Second Artillery Corps, as its missile forces are called, must be equipped with the road-mobile system.
"While doubtless an area of continuous challenge and improvement, the DF-21D´s command, control, communications, computers, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance infrastructure must be sufficient to support attempts at basic carrier strike group targeting," he said.
Mr. Erickson said, based on Chinese missile-deployment patterns, that the new missile system likely will be fielded in "waves" at different units to meet deterrence objectives.
Military specialists have said the DF-21D deployment is a potent new threat because it will force U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to operate farther from hot spots in the western Pacific.
Currently, U.S. military strategy calls for the Pentagon to send several strike groups to waters near Taiwan in the event China follows through on threats to use force to retake the island. The lone U.S. aircraft carrier strike group based permanently in the region is the USS George Washington, whose home port is inYokosuka, Japan. A second carrier is planned for Hawaii or Guam.
Carrier forces also provide air power in the event of a new war in Korea and are used to assure freedom of navigation, a growing problem as the result of recent Chinese military assertiveness in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea.
Adm. Willard did not discuss what U.S. countermeasures the Navy has taken against the new anti-ship missile. U.S. naval task forces include ships equipped with the Aegis system designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.
Wallace "Chip" Gregson, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said in a speech earlier this month that China's new anti-access and area-denial weapons, including the DF-21D, "threaten our primary means of projecting power: our bases, our sea and air assets, and the networks that support them."
He warned that China's military buildup could "upend the regional security balance."
Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the new ASBM is only one part of a series of new Chinese weapons that threaten the region.
"When we add the ASBM to the PLA's [People's Liberation Army's] growing anti-satellite capabilities, growing numbers of submarines, and quite soon, its fifth-generation fighter, we are seeing the erection of a new Chinese wall in the western Pacific, for which the Obama administration has offered almost nothing in defensive response," Mr. Fisher said.
"Clearly, China's communist leadership is not impressed by the administration's ending of F-22 production, its retirement of the Navy's nuclear cruise missile, START Treaty reductions in U.S. missile warheads, and its refusal to consider U.S. space warfare capabilities. Such weakness is the surest way to invite military adventurism from China," he added.
Mr. Fisher said the Pentagon should mount a crash program to develop high-technology energy weapons, like rail guns and lasers in response to the new ASBMs.
Mark Stokes, a retired Air Force officer who has written extensively on the new missile, said the new deployment is a concern.
"China's ability to place at risk U.S. and other nations' maritime surface assets operating in the western Pacific and South China Sea is growing and closer to becoming a reality than many may think," Mr. Stokes said.
FROM PROPHECY NEWS
Former Oil Exec Predicts $5-a-Gallon Gas by 2012, Energy Shortages by Decade's End
http://www.foxnews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The former president of Shell oil is predicting that the United States will face 1970s-style energy shortages and rationing by the end of the decade, accusing the federal government of turning its back on the country's domestic oil supply.
The dire prediction comes as energy analysts toss out a string of frightening predictions about the rising price of oil in the short term. Oil has topped $90 a barrel, and JP Morgan Chase & Co. earlier this month predicted oil could hit $120 a barrel by the end of 2012. At the same time, the national average gasoline price is about $3 a gallon for the holiday season
But former Shell executive John Hofmeister offered a more aggressive estimate, saying Americans could be paying $5 a gallon in two years. And he predicted that sometime between 2018 and 2020, supply and demand will become so out of balance that gas stations in several regions of the country will simply start to run out.
"I think it's going to be a cumulative problem that won't happen suddenly," Hofmeister, who now heads Citizens for Affordable Energy, told FoxNews.com. He predicted the problem would start with "stockouts" at select gas stations during the summer and during bad weather and then spread. He said those states farthest from refineries would get hit the worst and that in order to maintain some consistency, local and state governments might resort to the kind of rationing they employed in the early '70s -- when drivers with even-numbered license plates would buy gas on even days, and vice-versa.
With this kind of possibility on the horizon, Hofmeister, who earlier aired his concerns in an interview with Platts Energy Week, criticized the administration for cracking down on domestic oil drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"It is pure politics that keeps us from drilling more of our own resources," he said.
The Interior Department announced earlier this month that it would not pursue any new drilling off the East Coast or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years. Planned lease sales would be pushed off until late 2011 or early 2012.
"As a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill we learned a number of lessons, most importantly that we need to proceed with caution and focus on creating a more stringent regulatory regime," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a written statement at the time, calling the new plan a "careful, responsible path."
The April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 people and opened up a leak that gushed oil into the Gulf for months. The decision to tighten Gulf drilling regulations was cheered by environmental groups. The Sierra Club said the BP disaster showed how "dirty, deadly and dangerous offshore drilling is," applauding the administration for heeding those lessons -- the group praised the administration for moving to support alternative-energy investment like wind power.
While clamping down on domestic energy production, the Obama administration has invested billions in renewable energy sources via last year's stimulus bill and has pushed improved energy efficiency for a range of products in a bid to at least keep demand a bit lower in the long term. New emissions standards for cars and trucks will soon mandate an average fuel economy of just over 35 miles per gallon for new vehicles by 2016.
In addition, the Interior Department is continuing to honor leases for oil drilling in the Arctic.
But government-fueled investment in alternative-energy research takes time, while other options, like nuclear energy, are slow and costly to get off the ground. Hofmeister, noting that domestic oil production has dropped from 10 million barrels a day just a few decades ago to about 5 million a day, said the United States could address its short- and medium-term energy needs by expanding drilling at existing sites and exploring new sites. He said that could help bridge the gap toward ultimately implementing alternative energy sources on a wide scale, as well as improving mass transit.
Oil industry organizations joined together this month in predicting the new regulations on domestic oil production would hurt the economy and increase dependence on foreign oil. The president of the American Petroleum Institute plans to deliver a speech next week in Washington, D.C., on how domestic oil and natural gas production can help stabilize the country.
Oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens is likewise pushing for U.S. production of both those energy sources in his high-profile campaign to pry the country off foreign oil. But that's just one component. His Pickens Plan organization argues that while the U.S. needs every ounce of domestic energy it can muster, there's not enough oil in all the potential U.S. deposits combined to make up for the 12 million barrels the United States imports every day.
http://www.foxnews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The former president of Shell oil is predicting that the United States will face 1970s-style energy shortages and rationing by the end of the decade, accusing the federal government of turning its back on the country's domestic oil supply.
The dire prediction comes as energy analysts toss out a string of frightening predictions about the rising price of oil in the short term. Oil has topped $90 a barrel, and JP Morgan Chase & Co. earlier this month predicted oil could hit $120 a barrel by the end of 2012. At the same time, the national average gasoline price is about $3 a gallon for the holiday season
But former Shell executive John Hofmeister offered a more aggressive estimate, saying Americans could be paying $5 a gallon in two years. And he predicted that sometime between 2018 and 2020, supply and demand will become so out of balance that gas stations in several regions of the country will simply start to run out.
"I think it's going to be a cumulative problem that won't happen suddenly," Hofmeister, who now heads Citizens for Affordable Energy, told FoxNews.com. He predicted the problem would start with "stockouts" at select gas stations during the summer and during bad weather and then spread. He said those states farthest from refineries would get hit the worst and that in order to maintain some consistency, local and state governments might resort to the kind of rationing they employed in the early '70s -- when drivers with even-numbered license plates would buy gas on even days, and vice-versa.
With this kind of possibility on the horizon, Hofmeister, who earlier aired his concerns in an interview with Platts Energy Week, criticized the administration for cracking down on domestic oil drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"It is pure politics that keeps us from drilling more of our own resources," he said.
The Interior Department announced earlier this month that it would not pursue any new drilling off the East Coast or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years. Planned lease sales would be pushed off until late 2011 or early 2012.
"As a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill we learned a number of lessons, most importantly that we need to proceed with caution and focus on creating a more stringent regulatory regime," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a written statement at the time, calling the new plan a "careful, responsible path."
The April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 people and opened up a leak that gushed oil into the Gulf for months. The decision to tighten Gulf drilling regulations was cheered by environmental groups. The Sierra Club said the BP disaster showed how "dirty, deadly and dangerous offshore drilling is," applauding the administration for heeding those lessons -- the group praised the administration for moving to support alternative-energy investment like wind power.
While clamping down on domestic energy production, the Obama administration has invested billions in renewable energy sources via last year's stimulus bill and has pushed improved energy efficiency for a range of products in a bid to at least keep demand a bit lower in the long term. New emissions standards for cars and trucks will soon mandate an average fuel economy of just over 35 miles per gallon for new vehicles by 2016.
In addition, the Interior Department is continuing to honor leases for oil drilling in the Arctic.
But government-fueled investment in alternative-energy research takes time, while other options, like nuclear energy, are slow and costly to get off the ground. Hofmeister, noting that domestic oil production has dropped from 10 million barrels a day just a few decades ago to about 5 million a day, said the United States could address its short- and medium-term energy needs by expanding drilling at existing sites and exploring new sites. He said that could help bridge the gap toward ultimately implementing alternative energy sources on a wide scale, as well as improving mass transit.
Oil industry organizations joined together this month in predicting the new regulations on domestic oil production would hurt the economy and increase dependence on foreign oil. The president of the American Petroleum Institute plans to deliver a speech next week in Washington, D.C., on how domestic oil and natural gas production can help stabilize the country.
Oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens is likewise pushing for U.S. production of both those energy sources in his high-profile campaign to pry the country off foreign oil. But that's just one component. His Pickens Plan organization argues that while the U.S. needs every ounce of domestic energy it can muster, there's not enough oil in all the potential U.S. deposits combined to make up for the 12 million barrels the United States imports every day.
FROM HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA
Refer Your Friends to Heritage Action
It's Time to Repeal Obamacare
Dear Londa,
Conservatives are storming Washington. Tomorrow, when the 112th Congress is sworn in, your voice will finally be represented in Congress.
You sent these conservatives to Washington with a clear mission: repeal Obamacare.
We are ramped up and ready to fight. Refer your friends to make our efforts more powerful.
By now, the refrain is all too familiar – Obamacare will increase costs, decrease choice and empower Washington bureaucrats. The 111th Congress tried to remake America, putting government bureaucracy ahead of the individual. In November, though, Americans rejected the liberal policies of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now, it is time to rollback their assaults on our freedoms.
This Friday and next Wednesday, the House will hold key votes on fully repealing Obamacare. This is what YOU fought for last year – a vote on full repeal. Now, we must make sure the repeal passes the House with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate is likely to stifle the repeal effort. We'll continue to put heat on the Senate, while focusing on defunding Obamacare.
It's time to put our winning formula to work: conservatives like you and our experienced government relations team working together to pressure Congress. By taking action, you’re empowering our team and holding the new Congress accountable to conservative principles.
Please forward this message to 10 friends. By joining us, they will multiply our effects, enabling the repeal of Obamacare and enactment of good, conservative policies.
Thank you for everything you’ve done and continue to do as we advance the cause of freedom.
Sincerely,
Tim Chapman
Chief Operating Officer
Heritage Action for America
It's Time to Repeal Obamacare
Dear Londa,
Conservatives are storming Washington. Tomorrow, when the 112th Congress is sworn in, your voice will finally be represented in Congress.
You sent these conservatives to Washington with a clear mission: repeal Obamacare.
We are ramped up and ready to fight. Refer your friends to make our efforts more powerful.
By now, the refrain is all too familiar – Obamacare will increase costs, decrease choice and empower Washington bureaucrats. The 111th Congress tried to remake America, putting government bureaucracy ahead of the individual. In November, though, Americans rejected the liberal policies of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now, it is time to rollback their assaults on our freedoms.
This Friday and next Wednesday, the House will hold key votes on fully repealing Obamacare. This is what YOU fought for last year – a vote on full repeal. Now, we must make sure the repeal passes the House with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate is likely to stifle the repeal effort. We'll continue to put heat on the Senate, while focusing on defunding Obamacare.
It's time to put our winning formula to work: conservatives like you and our experienced government relations team working together to pressure Congress. By taking action, you’re empowering our team and holding the new Congress accountable to conservative principles.
Please forward this message to 10 friends. By joining us, they will multiply our effects, enabling the repeal of Obamacare and enactment of good, conservative policies.
Thank you for everything you’ve done and continue to do as we advance the cause of freedom.
Sincerely,
Tim Chapman
Chief Operating Officer
Heritage Action for America
FROM ISRAEL TODAY
Arab world in uproar over Zionist spy birds
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Ryan Jones
Print Version
Share
Israel’s Ma’ariv daily newspaper reported on Tuesday that Saudi Arabian officials have “arrested” a wounded vulture that landed in a rural area of the country wearing a transmitter and a leg bracelet etched with the words “Tel Aviv University.”
The bird is part of ongoing long-term research into bird migration patterns, but the residents of Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries had far more fanciful ideas. For them, this bird is a winged Zionist spy, and the transmitter he was wearing was sending vital classified information back to the “Zionist regime.”
Saudi Arabia’s Al Weeam newspaper was the first to report about the incident. It noted that the vulture had landed near the house of a local sheikh, and was not afraid of people. The reporter and the people he interviewed asserted that the aggressive nature of the bird and the foul odor that came out of its mouth were evidence of a Zionist plot, rather than tell-tale signs that this was in fact a vulture.
That article led to an explosion of comments on Arabic news websites and online forums, where people across the region were convinced that “the Zionists” had somehow trained the beasts of the wild to do their bidding.
Iran’s Tabnak news agency said as much when it reported that “spy personnel number of X63 [the identification number on the bird’s leg bracelet] leaves no doubt that other birds are going to be sent by the Zionist regime for espionage against Saudi Arabia and other countries.”
The story of the spy bird comes just weeks after Egyptian officials claimed that a string of shark attacks at resorts in the Sinai Peninsula were the work of Israel’s Mossad spy agency.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Ryan Jones
Print Version
Share
Israel’s Ma’ariv daily newspaper reported on Tuesday that Saudi Arabian officials have “arrested” a wounded vulture that landed in a rural area of the country wearing a transmitter and a leg bracelet etched with the words “Tel Aviv University.”
The bird is part of ongoing long-term research into bird migration patterns, but the residents of Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries had far more fanciful ideas. For them, this bird is a winged Zionist spy, and the transmitter he was wearing was sending vital classified information back to the “Zionist regime.”
Saudi Arabia’s Al Weeam newspaper was the first to report about the incident. It noted that the vulture had landed near the house of a local sheikh, and was not afraid of people. The reporter and the people he interviewed asserted that the aggressive nature of the bird and the foul odor that came out of its mouth were evidence of a Zionist plot, rather than tell-tale signs that this was in fact a vulture.
That article led to an explosion of comments on Arabic news websites and online forums, where people across the region were convinced that “the Zionists” had somehow trained the beasts of the wild to do their bidding.
Iran’s Tabnak news agency said as much when it reported that “spy personnel number of X63 [the identification number on the bird’s leg bracelet] leaves no doubt that other birds are going to be sent by the Zionist regime for espionage against Saudi Arabia and other countries.”
The story of the spy bird comes just weeks after Egyptian officials claimed that a string of shark attacks at resorts in the Sinai Peninsula were the work of Israel’s Mossad spy agency.
Monday, January 3, 2011
FROM ISRAEL TOIDAT
'Israel is not facing a demographic threat'
Monday, January 03, 2011
Ryan Jones
Most Israelis remember that just 40-some years ago, Judea and Samaria (including the eastern half of Jerusalem) were in Arab hands. They are smart enough to realize that surrendering those areas back to the Arabs wouldn’t result in peace today any more than it did before 1967.
As such, international pressure alone is not enough to get the Israelis to meet Arab demands, which the world insists must be done for peace to reign in the Middle East. So, instead of howling that Israel must make concessions to appease the world, advocates of the land-for-peace process both in Israel and abroad claim that if Israel does not facilitate the birth of a Palestinian Arab state, the Jewish state itself will soon cease to have a majority of Jews.
They call this the demographic threat.
But the demographic threat has been repeatedly debunked, although the mainstream media tends to only cover those predictions that support the demographic threat.
Two left-wing Israeli demographers have again been pushing the demographic threat in major local newspapers. This week, the deputy director of the Yesha Council of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria sought to once again set the record straight.
Speaking to Arutz 7 radio, Yigal Dilmoni noted that one of the demographers made similarly gloomy predictions decades ago. In a 1987 feature article that appeared in Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, demographer Prof. Arnon Sofer insisted that by the year 2000, Israel would no longer be majority Jewish.
Of course, that prediction turned out to be utterly erroneous, as Jews today, in 2010, make up about 80 percent of Israel’s population.
Dilmoni noted that even if Israel annexed Judea and Samaria and added the Arabs there to its population, Jews would still hold a majority of 67 percent in the lands west of the Jordan River.
One of the biggest problems with these demographic games is that Israel’s leading “experts” and the government itself too easily accept Palestinian-provided population figures, which naturally are massaged to benefit the “Palestinian cause.”
A recent study done by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group revealed that instead of the 2.5 million Arabs the Palestinian Authority claims live in Judea and Samaria, in reality only 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs live there. Additionally, the Palestinian Arab birthrate has been dropping, while the Jewish birthrate in Israel has seen a slight increase over the past decade.
The bottom line is that Israel is not facing a demographic threat, even if it fully exercises its biblical mandate and annexes Judea and Samaria. And even if the demographic threat that many claim exists was real, it would still pale in comparison to the actual demographic threat that existed in 1948, but which did not deter David Ben Gurion and his fellow Jews from declaring statehood.
Intelligently defend Israel - Setting the Record Straight
Monday, January 03, 2011
Ryan Jones
Most Israelis remember that just 40-some years ago, Judea and Samaria (including the eastern half of Jerusalem) were in Arab hands. They are smart enough to realize that surrendering those areas back to the Arabs wouldn’t result in peace today any more than it did before 1967.
As such, international pressure alone is not enough to get the Israelis to meet Arab demands, which the world insists must be done for peace to reign in the Middle East. So, instead of howling that Israel must make concessions to appease the world, advocates of the land-for-peace process both in Israel and abroad claim that if Israel does not facilitate the birth of a Palestinian Arab state, the Jewish state itself will soon cease to have a majority of Jews.
They call this the demographic threat.
But the demographic threat has been repeatedly debunked, although the mainstream media tends to only cover those predictions that support the demographic threat.
Two left-wing Israeli demographers have again been pushing the demographic threat in major local newspapers. This week, the deputy director of the Yesha Council of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria sought to once again set the record straight.
Speaking to Arutz 7 radio, Yigal Dilmoni noted that one of the demographers made similarly gloomy predictions decades ago. In a 1987 feature article that appeared in Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, demographer Prof. Arnon Sofer insisted that by the year 2000, Israel would no longer be majority Jewish.
Of course, that prediction turned out to be utterly erroneous, as Jews today, in 2010, make up about 80 percent of Israel’s population.
Dilmoni noted that even if Israel annexed Judea and Samaria and added the Arabs there to its population, Jews would still hold a majority of 67 percent in the lands west of the Jordan River.
One of the biggest problems with these demographic games is that Israel’s leading “experts” and the government itself too easily accept Palestinian-provided population figures, which naturally are massaged to benefit the “Palestinian cause.”
A recent study done by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group revealed that instead of the 2.5 million Arabs the Palestinian Authority claims live in Judea and Samaria, in reality only 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs live there. Additionally, the Palestinian Arab birthrate has been dropping, while the Jewish birthrate in Israel has seen a slight increase over the past decade.
The bottom line is that Israel is not facing a demographic threat, even if it fully exercises its biblical mandate and annexes Judea and Samaria. And even if the demographic threat that many claim exists was real, it would still pale in comparison to the actual demographic threat that existed in 1948, but which did not deter David Ben Gurion and his fellow Jews from declaring statehood.
Intelligently defend Israel - Setting the Record Straight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
