Opuscula Wet foot Dry foot

 

GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BEN CARSON doesn't know anything about the U.S. government's "Wet foot/dry foot" policy.

Not surprising. He is not a Cuban, south Floridian, or denizen of New York City.

Before anyone discounts his candidacy as they did that of then Alaska governor Sarah Palin for her lack of foreign experience, the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had even less experience with foreign policy. At least Gov. Palin could see a foreign nation from her state. The Chicago community organizer couldn't even see Canada from the Windy City.

While this is about politics, it is not about politicians.

WHAT IS AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH CUBA?

There are, basically, three "official" problems with Cuba; reasons why Washington and south Florida politicians want to maintain the status quo.

Problem 1: Cuba's government barely tolerates dissent.

Problem 2: Cuba's government is one of several Communist/Socialist governments in the Western Hemisphere.

Problem 3: Cuba lacks a U.S.-style democracy.

NOW CONSIDER

The United States has diplomatic and trade agreements with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries that stifle civil rights.

China, through its proxies North Korea and Vietnam, has been involved in shooting wars with the U.S. and still threatens U.S. allies South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Chinese ICBMs and ship-born (sea-to-land) missiles easily can strike cities on the U.S. mainland. China over the years has greatly increased its naval presence on, and beneath, the waves. Now Chinese warships are welcomed at U.S. ports.

Clip on image to enlarge

Russia, now in expansionist mode, has been involved with the U.S. in the so-called "cold" war for decades. Like China, Russia has the capability of sending missiles into American cities.

Saudi Arabia, which never has been in a shooting war with the U.S. does expect the U.S. to send troops to die protecting it while at the same time being one of the least tolerant nations of the world. The Saudis - under a harsh variation of the already harsh sharia law - execute women by stoning for the crime of being raped; it lops off heads of people who dare criticize the prophet (as do other Islamic nations).

Despite the above, the U.S. "enjoys" diplomatic and trade relations with all three of the above - and many more nations where civil rights are severely restricted or non-existent.

The Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State Of The World's Human Rights provides civil rights overviews for the world's nations.

But Cuba? While the U.S. has several times invaded Cuba, Cuba never has invaded the U.S. - at least not as a military operation. True, the Russians, back when the Soviet Union existed, wanted to put ICBMs on Cuban soil and Fidel Castro was willing to accept the weaponry - in return for which the Soviets guaranteed to buy sugar and tobacco from Cuba to keep the Cuban economy from absolute collapse having Cuban products embargoed by the U.S.

Unlike China and Russia, Cuba is the U.S.' neighbor, famously 90 miles away from Key West.

It does allow some dissent, the Women in White as an example.

It seems to this scrivener that the best way to improve the lot of the average Cuban is to develop trade with the island; to export the flavor of U.S. style democracy (while realizing that not every nation can handle democracy as it is, or perhaps was, known in the U.S.).

It was Trinidad, not Cuba, but the bottom line of Rum and Coca-Cola was the "Yankee dollar." It may not have the power it once had, but it's still more welcome than the Russian ruble or even the Chinese yuan.

Opuscula Strongman rule Putin vs. Obama And "Arab Spring"

 

Obama's Arab Spring tried to depose all Arab tyrants that Obama didn't like; in particular in Libya and Syria. The result of his meddling in Arab affairs is civil war in Libya and Syria.

It is interesting to note Obama's Arab Spring did not include Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states. .

Russia's Putin, being a political strongman himself, knows the value of powerful leadership. He had put Russia in bed with both the ayatollahs of Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

WHILE PUTIN IS doing everything he can to "show the world" that Russia is a power with which to contend, Obama is rapidly destroying any vestiges of respect for the U.S. left from his first term as U.S. president.

Unlike Sarah Palin, who could at least SEE Russian territory from the state she governed, Alaska, Obama had zero international experience, which the voters conveniently overlooked in both elections.

Obama exudes weakness, indecisiveness, and like the Bushes before him, a lack of planning that reaches a position that advances America's interests - or at least causes no damage. Even "Tricky" Nixon had a plan to extract us from Vietnam - a legacy from JFK & LBJ* - and to open diplomatic relations with China, a move that may in the end be the worst thing Nixon ever did.

Putin is, as he proved in the Ukraine, a bully, but there seems to be no one who can reign him in except perhaps the Islamists. In that case, the "cure" is worse that the "disease." Putin would like to see the former USSR restored and Soviet influence once more dominate much of Europe and Asia. Obama shakes his finger and figuratively says "naughty, naughty" and Putin laughs at the impotent U.S. president.

 

* I am aware that Dwight Eisenhower sent in limited personnel Military Advisory Groups before JFK sent in a division-size units at a time until it was decimated, then he sent in another division; LBJ tried to end the war by inundating Vietnam with thousands of troops. Nixon, having learned the lesson of the French - who earlier has been chased out of Vietnam with their tails between their legs, ended the war. Not proudly, but at least with an end to U.S. deaths and injuries. Interestingly, Johnson, who actually tried to win the war - was the target of the leftists - not JFK - who talked of LBJ's "Youth In Asia (euthanasia) program." Maybe they still were angry for LBJ lifting a beagle off its front paws by its ears.

President Sneaky Right action Wrong method

 

ONCE AGAIN President Sneaky has made what I consider a correct move but in a, what seems typical for him, sneaky manner.
First it was Obamacare. American needs a national health care system. That the Obamacare needs lots of work to make it usable is another matter, but it was a step in the right direction.
Now, Cuba.
The U.S. has attempted - and failed - to embargo Cuba for more than 50 years. The Castros still are in charge even without their former backers, the now-defunct - perhaps temporarily defunct - Soviet Union.
Obungler saw the embargo failed to benefit the U.S. or the "oppressed" Cubans who remain in Cuba. (There are so many Cubans in South Florida - Cubans who swore they would go back "just as soon as" that if you don't speak Spanish you don't do business in Dade County.)
Nixon (re)opened China to the U.S. - a mistake since China now "owns" the U.S. China it may be recalled was the chief sponsor of North Korea and of what was North Vietnam; in other words, no friend of the U.S.
Reagan saw the Berlin wall come down and lead detent with the former Soviet Union. We have - or perhaps soon "had" thanks to Mr. Putin - business relations with the former enemy. The Soviet Union and the U.S. were combatants in a cold war and a number of proxy hot wars (including Israel and its neighbors) since the end of World War II. Like China, no friend of the U.S.
Never mind that before the guns had cooled in 1945 the U.S. was rebuilding Germany and Japan at a cost U.S. manufacturers still are paying.
Cuba NEVER was an enemy. It never attacked a U.S. operation, and with the Guantanamo base, it had (has) plenty of opportunity.
THE PROBLEM with the president who would be king is that he is trying to rule by fiat, by executive order.
He's not the first to issue executive orders, nor will he be the last.
But he is sneaky about his intents.
The U.S. has a congress and a supreme court that are supposed to be equal with the executive branch. They are supposed to work in concert.
Obungler contends that he can't get anything thorough Congress because of the nasty Republicans.
Granted, the two parties probably have never been as diametrically opposed as during the current administration, but past administrations with a congress controlled by the opposing party HAVE made great progress.
Obungler acts like a thief in the night, sneaking his desires into law by either by-passing Congress or by inundating Congress with bills of thousands of pages and demanding immediate passage - don't bother to READ the bill, just pass it - which is how we got the Obamacare kludge. (Again, IMO the U.S. needs a better social welfare program.)
The U.S. can afford this if it will stop sending money - and jobs - across the border and overseas to countries that should stand on their own financial feet. How many American dollars go into foreign rulers' pockets rather than to the people for whom the money is intended?
I agree with President Sneaky - we should deal with Cuba as the U.S. deals with other countries. There may NOT be an immediate improvement in what Americans term "basic rights," but there also won't be a degradation of what rights are extent now. Over the long term I think - I hope - that commercial and social intercourse with the United States will benefit the average Jose Cuban.
It may LOOK as if the U.S.-Cuban detent is one sided, with the U.S. giving up everything and getting very little in return, but in time, the Communist influence will diminish as even the (aging) government will once again realize the benefits of democracy.
TO THEIR CREDIT, the Cubans of South Florida have so far kept their expressions of their pro or con opinions of Sneaky's latest fiat to verbal sparring; let's hope it stays that way.

ERM-BCP-COOP: A war risk Never considered

An article heded^cq WWII-Era Chemical Agents In Sea Drifting Close to Poland on my daily Global Security Newswire email from Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) presents a risk I never consciously considered.

According to the Oct. 28, 2013 article, Chemical-warfare materials dumped in the ocean after World War II have been discovered by scientists drifting closer to Polish territory than was previously known, United Press International reported on Monday.

A minimum of 15,000 metric tons of German chemical armaments were demilitarized by Russian and U.K. forces by being poured into the Gotland Deep -- an 800-foot-deep Baltic Sea basin positioned between the Baltic states and Sweden. The dumped chemical agents included mustard blister agent and tabun nerve agent.

Researchers believe the moldering chemical agent still represents a danger to the surrounding marine life as well as to nearby fishermen and beach-goers that might come across washed-up munitions.

Obviously, the Russian and U.K. forces that "poured (the chemicals into the Gotland Deep" either failed to consider the potential risks or simply didn't care; the waters into which the chemicals were dumped were near neither Britain nor Russia.

Remnants of war should have been considered, although I confess that such "souvenirs" never crossed this scrivener's mind. Land mines left over from wars past still claim lives; likewise unexploded shells are commonly found in Europe when holes are dug for new construction foundations.

The greatest "water" risks in my area are sharks and pollution. Both can incapacitate personnel and that can disrupt business as usual. Unexploded ordinance can be found in most countries that have gone to war or that have practiced going to war. At least we are alerted to migrating sharks and dangerously high pollution levels before venturing into the water.

Watching the news - history in the making - must be considered an integral part of "keeping current" for every risk management practitioner. It is an extension of group dynamics when the practitioner gathers everyone together to - with apologies to Intel - "imagine the possibilities."

No one person can think of everything, but practitioners can expand the risks lists by reading a variety of publications, both general and professional, by gathering client personnel for no-holds-barred sessions where no risk is too off the wall, and by communicating with other practitioners, but the latter must be a two way exchange.

What is DONE about individual risks is a matter of prioritization and management decision; but all risks, no matter how "off the wall" they may seem, deserve consideration.

 

If I wrote it, you may quote it.