From 2008-2009, guns killed 5,740 youngsters according to the Children’s Defense Fund. Less military personnel died in Afghanistan and Iraq in ten years of war (5,013).

They are not alone. Plenty of adults die with them. In the US alone, some 9,000 people died of gun violence. Now brace yourself, this was within ONE year!

No this is not a tirade about guns. How can any breathing American not understand that weapons protect, not kill, (note sarcasm) even though every statistic shows us otherwise. After all every one needs a gun and a hummer (more sarcasm).

In the case of Connecticut, Nancy Lanza, the mother of the shooter, was a gun owner.
Despite the fact that she felt her son was dangerous she had guns and they failed protect her. They killed her, six other adults and twenty young children.

It is always more heart breaking when children are involved. But lets face it people, guns got us into this tragedy not out of it. The idea that people should have weapons to protect themselves from the ills of society is a cop out. It sure didn’t work for Nancy. So despite the fact that this idea of gun ownership backfired, there are a slew of people out there that still think people should have more. They are going so far as to wanting to arm the teachers and no doubt the kids too. Really?

This argument was also used in the Jovan Belcher’s case. You know the football player who recently shot his wife then himself. Well, the standard response was ‘If she had a gun, she could have stopped him. ” Yeah right. I can see it now, “Oh honey, could you hold your fire a minute or so while I put down the baby, get my gun and try to protect myself from you?”

Those guns belonged to Lanza, the mother, who was caught by surprise and even if she had a gun on her person, there would have been no way to react to her situation in order to save herself.

The larger question here is why on earth are we so preoccupied with having all the guns, all the time, regardless of their dangers or what is happening in society. Recent inquiries into Lanza’s life show her to be paranoid and what Americans have now termed “preppers,” which we can learn about through this organization called the American Preppers Network.

She, like many other paranoid Americans, was preparing in case the U.S. turns into a nation of anarchy. Kind of like Syria I’m assuming. She was getting ready for economic mayhem that will do doubt arrive since the American Congress and the President can’t get its fiscal cliff talks in order. I wonder if she was also one of those who wanted to be prepared to fight off the government in case they were sending someone to take away their guns or preparing for the Mayan calendar end of thw world date. That’d be today folks and we are still here.

In truth, being prepared is a good thing. Socking away retirement funds or water in case you are hit by a hurricane are good starts. It’s also great to save for a rainy day, be self sufficient, and independent or prepare for injury, illness or the death of a loved one. No one would argue with that, but come on, if the U.S. is truly heading toward this anti-government anarchy, we better find another way to prevent it.

No weapon is going to save everyone from total mayhem or the end of the world. I hate to tell you all this, but if the world ends you are going with it. It does not matter how prepared and self sufficient your are or how many guns and ammunition you stashed – you are on your way out with the rest of us and there is nothing your guns are going to be able to do about it.

Personally I think all this violence is a reaction to, and perpetuation of, seclusion, fear, and this consuming obsession with Armageddon that is driving people over the edge. Maybe if we spent a little more time and money on building the economy and intellectual capacity instead of hiding from and contributing to the demise of it, things wouldn’t look so bad.

President Obama finally announced that he will have a plan by January to help curb the gun violence. Instead of applauding and aiding in the effort, the response is a 360-degree turn – people are running out to buy more weapons. No lessons of mice and men here.

I am free to end my life in many ways. Skydiving, driving, and even flying a plane, but I need training, preparation and a license for all of them. Perhaps a little gun control wouldn’t hurt. No one is taking your weapons, all those who died by accident, drive by shooting or massacre and their loved ones would just prefer that these things stop. So, no big deal, get screening, training and a license. Chill, if there’s nothing in your background you shouldn’t worry.

Sadly, since those twenty innocent children lost their precious lives, many more have joined them. No life, liberty, doomsday or second amendment will be a worry for them.

Frankly, all this “my right to a gun” stuff is getting old. It is high time we look beyond “to have or not to have a gun.” There is a reason these things are called weapons. Alternatively, let’s take action so these horrific situations end. Yes, we the people must work on psychology, mental health, anger management and the like. However, beginning our efforts with a bit of weapons control would not be the worst thing.

These precious children should not be allowed to die in vain. We need to come together and work on stopping the violence with positive change. Then perhaps Americans can stop living in fear of fear itself thus withdrawing from, rather than, engaging in a more communal and peaceful society that protects all instead of just some.

Some years later, I was in Afghanistan when pastor Terry Jones of Florida decided he was going to be the epitome of religious intolerance and burn some Korans, Islam’s holy book. To me this was an abomination. Not because I don’t believe in freedom of speech, but because it was completely irresponsible, insensitive and downright disrespectful. Here I was with countless other Americans and our allies trying to stabilize Afghanistan so our troops could come home and some American, pastor no less, was putting my life in danger . I knew that building strong relationships with Afghans would ensure trust and loyalty thus ensuring the likes of Al Qaeda would be kept at bay, but now my own intentions were being questioned.

Unfortunately for those of us in harms way, compatriots like Jones were the ones that made our safety and security much worse. The bottom line is that Americans have no idea how mindless actions like these jeopardize the safety of the rest of us.

The riots Jones incited in Afghanistan put my life and the lives of many Americans and their allies in grave danger. Apparently, the results of his careless actions were dismissed because he took it upon himself to inform the world about more senseless stupidity.

Now get ready because this is a soap opera. Supposedly an Israeli, living in the US, who is more probably a real estate developer, but calls himself a filmmaker, decided to make a “politically provocative” mockery of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad in and eight minute trailer and then past it on YouTube. In most countries he would be arrested for crimes against the state and inciting violence, but that’s another story. This person, supposedly named Sam Bacile, is spreading his own bigotry and intolerance caused more devastating international outrage than even Jones could muster. This time the insensitive provocation ended in the death of two US diplomats and the US Ambassador in Libya. The news now reports he unapologetically went into hiding while Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, his staff, their families and this country pay the price for his indiscretion and ignorance.

The incident in Libya was senseless. And, yes, the First Amendment exists, in the US that is, and you are more than welcome to through up any piece of garbage on the Internet. No problem. As long as you don’t bash my faith, you’re fine.

Honestly though, I’m getting really tired of the hypocrisy. People spewing hate when they know first hand what it is like to have hate spewed at them. They see no problem with insulting others despite the fact that they have had plenty of issues to face in their own lives. I bet Bacile, or who ever he/she is and if he is Jewish, is horrified every time someone questions the Jewish Holocaust though he will never make a satire about that. I haven’t heard one peep of protest from other religions. Christians who were incensed with Martin Scorsese’ Last Temptation of Christ or Jews who was thoroughly infuriated by Mel Gibson’s the Passion of the Christ are silent. Although none of these movies showed Jesus with his face in Mary Magdalene’s crotch, the one that is showing Mohammed between Khadeja’s legs is ironically ok. Really??

Republican candidate Mitt Romney, for his part, blamed Barack Obama. Just like everybody else he went straight to security instead of diplomacy. Romney was right in one aspect – that it is never wrong for a President to come out and speak against despicable acts. He is wrong, and so was Obama, about criticizing (in Obama’s case ignoring) the statement coming out of the US Embassy in Egypt. The US, in this case especially, must trust and stand by their diplomats to do the right thing in the countries they serve. Only the staff of the US Embassy in Egypt actually got it and made a hasty statement that worked to quell the masses. It was not an apology Mitt, and heartbreak like this should not be political, it was a way to ensure that the incident in Egypt did not end in the same tragic way it did in Libya.

If the US would take a deep breath and realize that the real issue here is that lack of diplomatic power, not to mention a failure of foreign policy in this region, it would be able to mitigate these types of problems. The US needs to get back to words and actions and away from endless war. It is time we learned the lessons from two decades of war. There is no military solution and the US must invest more consciously in its foreign service so they can engage in the countries where they serve. Currently, the military is training the warrior for the 21st Century; why is our government leaving the civilians out?

Becile, and Jones for that matter, knew what they were doing and our foreign service must be better prepared to respond. These actions have consequences and our civilian, like our military men and women must be engaged with the population. That, my friend, does not mean hunkering in the bunker. It means getting out there and building solid relationships so you’re working with the people, for the people and by the people, with your eyes open and ear to the ground giving you plenty of heads up that things like this are coming. Only then can our diplomates help manage the anger before it spreads.

This article was originally published on The Mantle

Follow Tricia on Twitter @Tricias_Take

This was not the first furious demonstration against the U.S. and its NATO partners, who Afghans consider occupiers, and it definitely will not be the last. No As-Salāmu `Alaykum or apology is going to help. Such blatant disrespect only further insights the anger and anxiety of endless war and violence that existed before the post 911 invasion and continues to thrive today.

The majority of foreigners, both civilian and military, should pack their bags and get out. Of course they will not. Afghanistan has this way of convincing even the savviest imperialist that there is hope the place might actually be tamed. This is an illusion. Afghans have their own culture and way of life and it doesn’t coincide with the efforts of modernization by the West.

The U.S. and NATO will dismiss the signs of failure, much like Brits and Soviets, and, instead, “stay the course.” That is because their idea of “stay the course” involves two things simultaneously. The first is negotiation with the Taliban and handing over Afghan security to the Afghans or replacing armed NATO soldiers with armed Afghan ones. Might as well go right back to the civil war where the Taliban and mujahedeen fighters killed and maimed while fighting for power.

Basically, the U.S. will again prop up the really nasty guys – in tandem this time. The Taliban will get the government back and the warlord members of the former Northern Alliance will get control over something we like to imagine called ‘security.’ The Taliban will probably keep its name while the Alliance will strategically be called the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police hoping no one will notice.

Although the Taliban is really vile, during the civil war, the Northern Alliance was brutal. These warlord/mujahedeen fighters raped women, burned up communities, and brutally murdered and tortured anyone who got in their way. Afghans hate the Taliban, but fear the leaders of the Northern Alliance. They do not trust them now and I guarantee that these feelings won’t change in 2014 when the troops retreat.

A new goal, followed by a thought process and strategy, is long overdue. If the parties want to leave without all hell breaking loose they need to start thinking beyond war.

There must be an Afghan political solution. The U.S. must assist the Afghans in stabilization the country instead of turning it into a martial state. Holding the space so that the Afghans can structure their own government instead just training a “security” force and causing yet more war is the key.

Recent FY 2010 figures show that the U.S. is spending around $2 billion a week on this war. I am sure two years later that it is more, but for arguments sake, I’ll leave it at that. With 52 weeks in a year, and two more years of battle, that comes out to around $208 billion (oh what I could do with $208 billion!).

I tried, but cannot seem to find out how much a Jirga or a tribal assembly of elders costs (A Jirga is a large group of people, sometime numbering up to 2000, that makes decisions by consensus), but after a bit of research I can safely assume that it costs less than a million a week. Since I like to overestimate, let’s just go with that number. At a million a week, the US can save a bundle over the next two years.

Now, why a Jirga you ask? Well, because this is the Afghan next best thing to democracy (and actually includes more people in the decision making than its American counterpart). Further, a Jirga will finally allow the Afghans to sit down and hash out their own future. While the West saves money and the elders debate lives will be saved because they’ll be busy talking instead of shooting or blowing things up. Historically Afghans have found one way or another to work out immense differences through this type of method.

Time gives another opportunity. One that would include bringing in regional actors so they too can participate and understand the benefits of dropping the “great game.” Pakistan, India, China and even Iran must agree to stop playing tug of Kabul. Perhaps in the process the U.S. can kiss and make up with Iran (I know, wishful thinking, but why not?)

The Afghans can develop an Afghan government for the people, by the people with Western mentorship instead of imposition. Let’s face it folks the Afghan government has done nothing but pretend to try to like the constitution and centralized American style government forced on them.

Will it be perfect? Probably not. Tell me one governance system that is. Afghans have had a pretty tough history filled with endless war and talk about post trauma stress… so it will all take time and patience. Reminds me of that saying, “good things come to those that have patience.” (ok, so I changed the last part, but you get the picture).

It is, however better than more NATO and U.S. officers dying, an all out Afghan civil war, propping up more malevolent warlords, or bringing back the Taliban so they can beat women if their shoes make noise.

In the meantime, it is time for everyone else — civilian and military alike — to reevaluate the lack of impact they are having and leave. Afghans need their space and the world needs to allow them to ‘ask’ for help when they need it. After all, it is preferable to ask for things not have them shoved down your throat.

Besides, there are too many compounds surrounded by concrete and barbed wire enclosing too many people doing way too little. I am not saying that they don’t mean well, I’m just saying in that type of environment a small stealth imprint makes much more impact. Fortresses with armored everything don’t really encourage relationships at all let alone long-term reciprocal ones.

Civilians can bow out fairly gracefully, however, it is those left behind to tear down the monstrous bunkers and the military withdrawal that will be a bit more complex to remove. The Obama Administration will have to be very strategic as it brings back most of its troops while leaving a very small contingency just in case. Historically as troops pack up and leave Afghanistan fighters from surrounding villages sabotage them. Both those in the British and former Soviet military can attest to that. Therefore, any extraction must be carefully calculated. Nevertheless, it must be done.

After speaking to some people on the ground, it is clear that the protests that were triggered by the Koran burning were a built up reaction to the overwhelming presence of “the foreign occupiers” and the Afghan people are feeling helpless as things get progressively worse. They continue to struggle for even the basics — electricity, water, and food.

Taking steps to allow Afghans to take the lead while supporting their efforts toward peace, governance and security will satisfy interests on both sides. U.S. and NATO troops can go home leaving a somewhat more stable nation while continuing a political partnership with the Afghans and their neighbors. We will all save money, but more importantly we will save lives on all sides by finally ending this war.

Then, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who just called General Dempsey “a puppet of Iran,” will be making his way over to mobilize the right wing American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) to send American men and women back to war.

To make matters worse, the US Congress seems to be yet again representing Israel instead of their American constituencies who already have war fatigue not to mention a $15 trillion dollar deficit costing tax payer $4 billion a day. Senators Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) are pushing through “let’s get everything off the table except bombing the hell out of Iran” legislation and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is siding with the Israel Prime Minister instead of the American Joint Chief who is right in his assessment that the US should not rush to war.

Nevertheless, the US, Israel and their coalition of the “willing to overthrow every regime on the face of the globe” are continuously debating going after the next victim. Attacking Iran, however, will not be a simple Shock an Awe operation. Iran actually has a formidable military. Perhaps maybe the world is just craving a traditional war with air fights, naval standoffs, and tanks rolling in – all coupled with asymmetric hybrid confrontations.

The most disturbing part of this whole picture is that the world seems to have forgotten that they can actually think beyond war. “All options on the table” seems to dismiss everything other than bombarding things, people or both. For too many years, Americans and allies alike have completely ignored robust diplomacy. They rushed into Afghanistan failing to acknowledge that the Taliban was ready to give up Osama bin Laden – threats instead of savvy cultural posturing and negation led to a ten-year war. Everyone couldn’t wait to hang Saddam Hussein despite the fact that all intelligence showed there was no mushroom cloud, not to mention the fact that he provided the United Nations with all the necessary documentation showing he had no weapons of mass destruction.

The US Secretary of State – America’s top diplomat – threw her patience right out the window calling for the Libyan President, Qadaffi, to be “captured or killed.” In her most recent outburst, she is calling for mutiny in the Syrian army to, yes, rid themselves of President Bashar Al-Assad.

Next stop – Iran.

So where is that “Diplomacy 3.0″ that the US State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) was touting just two years ago. Apparently all those foreign service officers that were suppose to be deployed to “centers of influence” missed the Middle East and Southwest Asia and/or are more likely they are unsuccessfully trying to influence behind giant slabs of concrete and perpetual lockdown.

Governments of the world, let your people go. The days of addressing today’s threats cannot be done behind armored vehicles and barbed wire or even at the barrel of a gun, people need to get out and get to know the people, not just hob nob with corrupt ministers – although that is important too. There are plenty of people who knew the “Arab Spring” was coming, but even the most seasoned diplomat can’t evaluate the changes from behind bars.

In today’s world, we need to stop warring and start a dialogue, one that lasts more than an hour and contains options other than coercive threats on the agenda. So what if we don’t like them, they probably don’t like us much either. if you can get eventually along with one monarch or dictator, why not another?

The bottom line is that there are more options on the table than mutually assured destruction. Political, economic and, most importantly, diplomatic options for Iran exist. It is time for us to break out of this over zealous combat mindset and try something new. In the grander scheme of things, it is much better than sending more of our young men and women off to yet another war or causing Armageddon. Maybe 2012 will be the end after all, if, that is, we make our own prophetic nonsense come true instead of thinking critically in order to find a better solution than more war.

It is quite clear to the Israeli government that this regional push toward democracy will directly affect them in a negative manner. After all, Israel continues to occupy over three million Palestinians in the West Bank and keep another million or so imprisoned in Gaza. Not necessarily a positive in anyone’s book.

As the Arab Spring continues, Western influence wanes. In tandem, Israel is becoming more isolated. This isolation has not transitioned into support of the democratic civil society movements of its neighbors. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. These anti-regime populist movements, which arguably started with the Green Revolution in Iran, have instead pushed Israel toward a more agitated, fear based and increasingly paranoid posture.

In response, the Israeli government has moved on two fast and furious initiatives. The first is to escalate the annexation of the West Bank by increasing settlements and confiscating land, while keeping Gaza under its thumb with daily aerial bombardments. And the second is to ensure its hegemonic position in the region by directly challenging its only capable opponent — Iran.

According to a new report by Israeli organization Peace Now, Torpedoing the Two State Solution – The Strategy of the Netanyahu Government, there has been a “20% rise in construction starts in the settlements — at least 1,850 building starts for housing units, 35% of them (650 units) in isolated settlements east of the planned route of the Separation Barrier” and “at least 3,500 units under construction during 2011 (started to be built or continued construction from previous years).”

The report goes further to say that although the Netanyahu government promised to dismantle illegal outposts, this has been skirted by, instead, making them legal. In addition, more roads connecting Palestinian towns have been severed by settlement expansion making it close to impossible to travel and if Palestinians do, they will encounter even more checkpoints. There are some 500-plus “physical impediments,” as the United Nations calls them, in the West Bank. B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, reported that, in addition to permanent checkpoints, the army erects hundreds of surprise flying checkpoints along West Bank roads at will.

Israel is successfully appropriating the West Bank to ease its fear-based obsessions. It craves a level of security that is non-existent yet these policies continue.

Despite the consequences, keeping the Palestinian territories is, in the Israeli mind, one major step to keeping them protected. This along with their ever-growing stockpile of weapons, nuclear and otherwise allows the Netanyahu government plenty of time to focus on its desire for imperial dominance and the destruction of its only regional competitor — Iran.

Israel has been testing the waters for some time to see if it can in effect bully Iran into relinquishing its, to date, minimally influential regional place. To keep the pressure on, Israel has relied on the West to impose sanctions while continuously threatening Iran with military strikes. This has been going on since about 2004. For almost ten years now — give or take — Israel has claimed that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and at any moment it will drop it right in the middle of a bunch of nations it actually has good relationships with just to destroy Israel.

No one can deny Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s bellicose rhetoric against Israel, but if they were to really to use nuclear weapons that would be a surefire way to wipe out not only Israel, but major portions of the five surrounding states in the process and most probably would poison many more — including Iran itself.

Our bombs today are much more powerful than they used to be. “Today, the B-2 Stealth bomber is capable of delivering 1,280 times the destructive power that the Enola Gay brought to bear on Hiroshima in 1945″ says Peter Fedewa in his Ploughshares Fund blog post Nuclear Weapons To Scale. Thanks to the US taxpayers, Israel has twenty-five of them.

Various authors, including this one, have voiced numerous ways to use diplomacy to solve this Israeli-Iranian doomsday scenario. Iran is in no way perfect, but it has at the very least shown ample willingness to talk. It is most unfortunate though that Israel, and by proxy its US supporters, are hell-bent on war.

It seems that Israeli leaders have dismissed the fact that “all options on the table” includes robust diplomacy and actually conversing. Although it took about seven years for Muammar Qaddafi to come around, the Iranians were only allotted about twelve weeks from the Obama Administration to put up or be punished with yet more sanctions. Bush, as you might recall, labeled it as part of the ‘axis of evil,” which gave that Administration a sub-zero chance.

Yes, talks take time. It may be easier to pick up a weapon; however, that would probably guarantee one of two things: 1) everyone will end up right back where they started or 2) due to nuclear fallout — we will all be dead.

Sanctions at this point are definitely working. How can they not? In addition to freezing Iran’s hard currency assets and boycotting their banks, the West has successfully sanctioned everything from pistachios to caviar and carpets and now they are targeting Iranian oil. This has not only starved a lot of very poor Iranians who don’t even like their government, it has set Iran’s nuclear timeline back several years back.

Let us get real, though: sanctions will not and cannot work forever so why not get our diplomatic efforts moving toward preemption through negotiation instead of preemption through total destruction.

The US can and should immediately take the lead in this effort. It would behoove the Israelis to forgo war and jump on board — for once.

Israel’s short-term future may be guaranteed by occupation and bullying. In the long run, however, it is a high-risk wager to continue on such a violent path. A path that will only ensure more anxiety, mistrust and unrelenting blowback, which we have already seen for many years. Reaching out with a handshake instead of a weapon is the only way to guarantee the semblance of the security the Israeli state desires.

It is time for Israel, and those who support it, to rethink its defensive posture and look at the regional push toward democracy as an opportunity instead of a threat. No, it won’t gain friends overnight, but at least it will start to convey that it is a willing partner in the region. A partner that prefers peace and security for all, not just Israelis, as well as one that is against war and destruction not committed to it.

Also see Huffington Post

It seems inevitable that US forces will be looking at about a $450 billion budget cut over the next ten years. Moreover, if Congress doesn’t stop its incessant bickering over who stole whose cheese, the military will then lose an additional $500 billion to cover the US government’s flagrant disregard for Congress’s failure to responsibly use your tax dollars.

So I ask you all out there in US land — what is the big deal? Warren Buffett could cover the $45B a year decrease (or $95B a year if the full cut goes through) before you can say Goldman Sachs. Although I bet neither Warren Buffett nor Goldman Sachs would lend or, in this case, give that money away without first figuring out what recipient is going to do with it and, more importantly, what they are going to get out of it.

This, however, is not true for Congress or the Pentagon. Like previous downsizing ventures, the Department of Defense is scrambling. They will be managing these defense reductions on the fly. Congress will yet again mandate cuts without any semblance of a long-term strategic view making it impossible for the Joint Chiefs to make any true change.

Yet again, the status quo will no doubt win out and any possibility that our military’s top brass will be able to ensure that US forces remain ready for a relatively unknown and increasingly complicated future is as unlikely as finding human life on mars.

One can hope, but historically, cuts in defense have failed to produce the real change. Successive U.S. administrations have failed to outline a post Cold War defense strategy while American interests have remained constant over the years and any recent attempt at a global national security or grand strategy has been preempted by fear of rocking the defense department boat, political infighting and, more importantly, two wars.

And yet again it seems the powers that be are reverting to past practices instead of future realities. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s first major policy address focuses on air and sea-based capabilities and highly modernized adversaries which are code words for “the US is sending military policy right back to the cold war paradigm.” The Administration is, again, repeating history. The Army will shrink substantially to control current debt and fatigue after a decade of war. While America’s other forces ramp up and focus on China, which will replace the defunct Soviet Union.

Forces will be subject to the age-old percent budget based ancient parameters instead of need. As usual the Army will get the lion’s share and the same old safe solutions will be again based on past budget deduction cases and, not on the hard choices and changes our military must make. Choices like keeping planes and ships in production, which support Panetta’s speech and are sure to please the military industrial complex, do nothing to address larger national security requirements.

Unfortunately, percentage cuts, which are the easy way out, will probably win out. Thus, it is up to those who lead to ensure that America’s military remains strong and able. The military chiefs must not allow petty politics to intrude on making a comprehensive military assessment and creating a 21st century military to address its outcome.

Despite the inevitable drawdown, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military have a unique opportunity to make wide-ranging change in the pentagon as a whole. By streamlining bureaucracy, minimizing operational overlap, reorganizing personnel and improving the capacity of all troops to truly exhibit “jointness,” America’s forces can continue to be the modernized, adaptable, and rapid reaction military that the United States needs or, if you will, a lean mean fighting machine.

In this context, it is also time that the Defense Department embraced “lessons learned,” instead of gathering them up, filing them and staying the course much like it did during the Clinton Administration and, again, miss this chance to bring the US out of the Cold War and ready for the next decade.

Pure percentage cuts do not make good strategy. They instead cause infighting and fail to look at the overall defense picture viewing the parts instead of the whole. Leaders must therefore look beyond. The US is coming out of two wars where it amassed vast lessons on bringing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, including National Guard and reservists together to win the fight. Turning our back on these joint operational gains would be a mistake.

The Joint Chiefs and Combatant Commanders must come together to turn the tide away from politics and strategically asses what is needed for a stellar combined force ready for the next twenty plus years while making the Pentagon as disciplined as the troops.

They are part way there. According to the Stimson Center’s report, What We Bought: Defense Procurement from FY01 to FY10, among other things, the military has “completely upgraded all the Army’s vehicles, bought more ammunition than expected, acquired a whole new fleet of F-22s and C-17 cargo aircraft for the Air Force, and a lot of new naval vessels.” All absolutely necessary, however, the main problem, after ten years of upgrades, is not modernization; it is the lack of a long-range comprehensive strategic forecast of the future operating environment including threats and opportunities across regions. That is what will shape future US intervention and defense policy. It includes economic austerity, but is not beholden to it.

Without a complete strategic assessment it is truly impossible to make any reliable assessments as to whether the current force is “good enough.” No one really knows whether an “Air-Sea Battle” focus will prove sufficient, or even right. Devoid of a strategy and proper prioritizing of US national interests, the armed services is again left only with an increasingly difficult “math problem.” One that focuses solely on who gets cut and who gets cut out.

No one can predict the future, but it is counterproductive to try to guess what, where and when threats will present themselves. These types of faulty determinations leave consecutive Administration with the inability to guage whether it should invest more or less in air, sea, or land forces (or combinations thereof). The result is inevitably quantitative assumptions, political debates about which party is better on defense, and, no surprise, parochial competition between services.

Today’s political leaders must play a part in this as well. Rather than consuming themselves with partisan politics and protecting the military-industrial complex, they must take their oversight responsibility more seriously. Congress must understand that within the context of our economic concerns, our nations security is going to depend on a disciplined Defense Department that must plan strategically in order to protect the American people.

Until American lawmakers and military leaders commit to the necessary changes for the nation’s defense, this country is limited to random military decisions and pure speculation on threats and force structure. In the meantime, if the military can do nothing else, it must invest in educating and training the highest quality soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors while encouraging civilian excellence as well (the highest-quality diplomats, foreign service officers, intelligence professionals, and first-responders, to include our teachers). Our human capital is the only outlay that is more likely to guarantee future success since no one has the courage to engage in strategic planning despite an increasingly uncertain future.

Outrage over the behavior of the international community and its endless war-drumming rhetoric and sanctions is understandable. Acting like a bull in a china shop is not. All things considered, both sides on this equation are behaving like spoiled children who exhibit no end to their temper tantrums because no one is getting their way. Russian and China are actually sounding like the only rational voices. Nevertheless, the problem is all these children masquerading as international leaders and diplomats have deadly means of coercion.

Let’s face it though, no one is innocent here. The Iranian government for its part is playing with fire while the U.S., Israel and the west keep stoking the ashes daring Iran to put it out. The bottom line here is that all of the above want Iran to end their nuclear program because they are terrified Iran is making weapons. To date there is excessive speculation, but nothing has been proven. Problem is this: it’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

The very countries calling on Iran to scrap their nuclear program are armed to the teeth with their own nuclear weapons. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Israel are all nuclear powers. Germany, the Netherlands and the rest of the NATO countries are “sharers” of nukes kindly supplied to them by the US. Together they could destroy all of mankind ensuring that no life will exist on this planet for, lets say, the next several million millenniums.

In an effort to move toward a non-nuclear world, which is a no-brainer, most countries have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), by which they all basically try to promote the use of nuclear materials for peaceful purposes while halting the proliferation of nuclear materials for weapons. Iran is a member of this treaty. Israel is not. In fact, the most vociferous instigator of pummeling Iran and sanctioning it until it shrivels is the one country that refuses to admit they have nuclear weapons of their own or sign the NPT. And, might I add, no one is talking about bombing them. Israel, India, and Pakistan, for that matter, all have nuclear weapons and don’t get sanctioned, but get just about all the military support they want from U.S. and the west. Talk about double standards.

No wonder Iran thinks turning their backs on a bunch of thugs climbing embassy walls and tearing up papers is OK. They and the whole world are confused as to who gets to do what, when and where. Apparently they just didn’t get the memo that a state’s freedom ironically depends on submissiveness, subservience, and, giving up sovereignty not fighting the west’s status quo.

Iran has been through this before. Britain wanted all its oil without sharing the proceeds. Like most people who get their resources stolen, they decided to end that zero sum deal. However, instead of saying — gee you’re right, we should pay you for your oil — Britain, with the help of the American CIA, decided to conduct a good old fashioned game of “regime change” overthrowing Iran’s one and only democratically elected leader. In came the Shah, followed by the Mullahs, and here we are sanctioning the crap out of a country we all helped create. We will never learn.

So now everyone is mad because Iran wants to be part of the worldwide international club of “do as I say, not as I do.”

Really, what’s the difference if Iran has British, French or German embassies in Tehran? They don’t seem to be making any difference in the grand scheme of things. The back and forth rhetoric hasn’t changed in decades. There is no progress in helping the Iranian regime see that they’re atrocious behavior must change. These diplomats haven’t been able to build better relations, find out anything about Iran’s nuclear program or help improve Western relations and move non-nuclear negotiations forward. Only Turkey and Brazil could do that and the Americans ignored them anyway.

And what if Iran has nuclear weapons, really? Does anyone really think they’ll use them before the rest of us? Personally, I’m more concerned about Pakistan, who has no leadership, and the fact that Israel and India get U.S. support in their nuclear ambitions without any accountability at all.

At this point, everyone should just calm down and take the marbles they haven’t already lost and go home. Until the world’s wayward diplomats realize that to get anything done, one has to compromise, be consistent and at least try to be fair, nothing is ever going to change. Putting a nuclear free zone across the region would have been a brilliant start, but, of course, no one wants to give up their precious, and extraordinarily lethal, toys. They just don’t want anyone else to have them.

Since that is really the case, I suggest we all get used to a nuclear world that, like it or not and due to all the stubbornness, will include Iran. As the world turns, I’m sure this will all lead to another endless and senseless war, which I’ll remind you — none of the “deciders” will be the ones to fight.

Sparked by protests in Tunisia, dictatorial leaders in the region are being removed through unprecedented peaceful protest despite responses of regimes like those in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria which respond by brutally imprisoning, torturing and murdering populations that want change. These demonstrations are not purely for democracy. They are being waged in hopes of changing an inequitable and unjust system, one that gives no rights to the individuals who want a voice in their future, be it economic, political or legal.

The West, and in particular the US Secretary of State, is missing this important point which is necessary if we are to ensure progress that is for the people, by the people in these countries. Instead Clinton did not waste time celebrating Gaddafi’s murder. Following her lead, television outlets seemed overjoyed at the ability to parade the bloody, shirtless and seemingly deceased Gaddafi all over the airwaves. Adding drama to insult and injury, anchors did not quit. “Did they pull him out of a hole?” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the Libyan Ambassador to the US over and over again. American soldiers would be in jail for that behavior, but not American leadership. They applaud those responsible for Gaddafi’s cruel death. It is exceedingly surreal.

Of course, it is the right of the Libyan people to rejoice in their new-found “freedom,” which will hopefully turn into some semblance of order with civil, economic, democratic and judicial progress. It is not however responsible or acceptable for world leaders to mock someone’s gruesome demise. From the Secretary of State on down, Senators and Republican presidential candidates took pleasure in American hegemony and the loss of life, apparently oblivious to the grisly pictures. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war who should by all counts know better, went so far as to put the leaders of Iran, Syria and even China on notice telling them they should not test American resolve because they could be next.

Instead of embracing engagement and robust diplomacy, the US seems to be too content with its excessive use of military power and coercive statecraft. Rule of law or just basic self-respect are secondary.

Like him or not, Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, believed that the US supported him in more ways than arms and oil exploration. Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program, although it was fairly nonexistent, and energy credits to normalize relations at the insistence of one American president only to find himself the literal target of another.

“We hope he can be captured or killed soon,” spouted Clinton, basically calling on the Libyan people to assassinate a leader who ruled for over 40 years. At the forefront of this war was the administration’s call for the “responsibility to protect.” In Gaddafi’s case though, he apparently did not deserve protection or trial. In all too many eyes, protection is sadly afforded to some but not “others” — putting little room between the administration and the dictator they deposed.

The world has shockingly become a society that favors some human life over others, blinding us all to brutality and outright murder. True, there are people that are criminals, but this is why there is the rule of law. As the Arab world embraces civil rights and democracy, it would do better to learn to honor the very rights that it is fighting for. As for the US, it must get serious about spreading human rights across the board.

This incessant need to create a foreign policy based on force must change. In July of this year, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported that “in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan, the belief that Americans and Europeans are hostile has become more common since 2006.” The US call for, and then subsequent reaction to, the Gaddafi’s death does little to counter this impression. The only way to respond to such a dishonorable sense of who Americans are is for this and every US administration to conduct foreign policy by holding steadfast to its own beliefs in democracy and the rule of law for all people — and this, like it or not, includes dictators.

Suggested citation: Patricia DeGennaro, US Response to Gaddafi’s Death Sets Bad Precedent, JURIST – Hotline, Oct. 28, 2011, http://jurist.org/hotline/2011/10/patricia-degennaro-gaddafi-death.php.

Really? The whole set of circumstances seems suspect.

According to ABC news, a five count complaint was filed in New York claiming that one person – the would be assassin – was paid by another person- who was once or is in Mexico – a $100,000 down payment to go to Washington, DC and kill the Saudi Ambassador. All purportedly ordered by Iran. Moreover, the first person who was going to bomb some unknown restaurant where the Ambassador might have been and then if he was lucky enough to get away go way over to another part of town to maybe then bomb the Israeli Embassy after which he would get a full $1.5 million.

As you can see, the details, or lack there of, are very sketchy. There is no evidence of lethal materials, no evidence of a direct connection to Iran and no evidence that this dynamic duo could be super human enough to carrying out such a plot. There was however a conversation that someone said they overheard so a complaint was filed by the FBI.

Now if you ask me, this does not sound like Hollywood at all, it sounds like a really bad episode of the Days of Our Lives with a Tom Clancy twist. Although, even Tom Clancy would have passed on this one.

In an effort to try to support my country, I’m trying my hardest to believe, but I just can’t because there are too many suspicious claims. Why on earth would the Iranian government send somebody here to infiltrate the toughest security in the world when they can basically reach across the Arabian or Persian Gulf and cause a lot more chaos with much less risk. Further, it sounds all too familiar to those Iraqi scenarios. You know the ones that connected Saddam to 911. The U.S. government tried to sell us that one as well. Since American’s weren’t buying, the Bush Administration sold weapons of mass destruction instead, which we now know was a lie as well.

So what on earth is the Obama Administration doing following suit? This is an exceedingly dangerous accusation and could have far reaching consequences for the US across the globe. American influence dwindled dramatically because of lost trust during the Iraqi fiasco; an Iranian one will pretty much snuff any remaining American clout right out.

I really hope this is not an election ploy for another “evil” person to be targeted giving politicians a scary, but unfortunately affective way to rally Americans.

Additionally, I hope this is not another US ploy to broker more weapons. The US already sold a slew of bunker buster bombs to Israel just in case they need to use them on Iranian nuclear facilities. This alleged plot would continue to justify the Administration’s case to provide even more weapons to Israel and its neighbors. Specifically America wants to arm its Arabian Gulf allies to the teeth. Billions of dollars in armaments yet to be sold to them will supposedly “protect them from Iran” even though no bunker busters or any other type of missiles, planes and other things they will buy will give them absolutely no protection against this kind of terrorist attempt. At the end of this scenario $120 billion worth of armaments will go to the Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia: $67 billion, UAE: $35-40 billion, Oman: $12 billion, Kuwait: $7 billion).

Further, I hope this is not another drumbeat toward war. There has been an exceptionally hard drum roll for strikes against Iran over the last several years. The Israeli government has been pressuring the U.S., non-stop, to go after the “real threat” in the Middle East – Iran. (Short note here – it is very convenient to have a Latin American connection in all this, one that tries to tie the duo dummies to Hezbollah, an supposedly Iranian proxy, who works with some drug cartels in the Columbia-Costa Rica –Mexico drug triangle to raise funds through money laundering although at this point it would just be better for Hezbollah to take their money and house it in Dubai).

Moving on.

Can someone, anyone, tell me why we can’t find ways other than war to deal with people? Never mind.

Finally, I really hope that the US is not going to misuse its military again. US troops have paid a high price in Iraq and Afghanistan and do not deserve to be sent on a fool’s errand trying to beat up Iran starting yet another war without due cause.

Just because politicians who like big toys are scheming to sustain the military industrial complex does not mean we need to send any more men and women to fight another endless, and senseless, battle or try out new technologies on innocent people.

It is a truly sad day. It really makes one miss the era of the Cold War. In the past, the U.S. would never have held an accusatory press conference even with iron-clad evidence risking international blowback and American lives. The President and his cabinet would have raced to use all the diplomatic resources they could muster to avoid conflict much like President Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. Ministers would have talked and the mere thought of using military power would have been a last, last, last resort.

Today is different and there is no Cold War. There are asymmetric threats and exceedingly complex international and domestic issues. This however does not mean our country has to loose its head accusing when facts are unknown. More importantly, it does not have to use the threat of force first. The military is an insurance policy for our security today and in the future, it is not a political tool used on a whim for selfish political gain – and that goes for both republicans and democrats.

If these actions are true, they should be of course be condemned. Either way though, this gives the U.S. an opportunity to restart a robust diplomacy effort with Iran so neither party ends up starting World War III.

Yes, diplomacy takes time and you may have to talk to people you don’t really like, but isn’t that better than sending our young men and women back to war especially when we haven’t even finished the first two.

War, and selling a plethora of weapons, must be last. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can get beyond the mistrust of others, which all too often leads to dangerous accusations and misunderstandings with eventual consequences we no longer have to image. We have seen war for over ten years now in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have also seen two World Wars, Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia and Kosovo. It is high time that we take bold steps to think beyond the initial impulse to kill and alternatively select another path to sustain not death, but life.

The American Ambassador, Robert Ford, was thankfully unharmed, but those egg shells “seriously damaged embassy vehicles.” Anyone who has been in a school food fight knows that eggs and tomatoes can result in a pretty nasty hair day, and we are glad that Ford did not have to go through something so atrocious, but damage what was probably an armored SUV – please.

“This is clearly part of a campaign to intimidate diplomats who are bearing witness to the brutality of the Assad regime,” Jay Carney, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman said. I couldn’t agree more. Syrian civilians who happen to support President Assad by throwing eggs at what is probably a fortified vehicle, is very scary. It does not matter at all that the US government is doing its dandiest to get rid of their President. At least these people didn’t have access to something that can really cause damage like those missing SAMs in Libya, which, by the way, the US probably sold to them.

It is true that the Assad regime is using excess force on his people and it should cease immediately, but the Syrian people do have the right to protest for him or against him – and they can protest for or against the US, who in this case, is inappropriately intervening.

These wayward Syrians should be very careful though because these very dangerous “eggs and tomatoes” could get an unexpected response. The US is already busy bombing the Libyans, Afghans, Pakistani and Yemenis (and might I add Gazans who are being bombed with US weapons although not by the US technically) and pretty much destroyed Iraq. Before Syrians move forward on any other “attack” they should ask the Iraqis, who lost over 200,000 civilians, what it was like to feel the wrath of a US JDAM because they had an “axis of evil” leader that we know was a tyrant, but no threat to the US. Sorry about all that “collateral damage.”

This posturing by Clinton is another example of how the United States continues to go directly to defense (not the other 2Ds – diplomacy and development) without putting events in any perspective. To condemn these actions in the “strongest possible terms” sounds to me like another threat of violence possibly in the form of unmanned flybys dropping a few tons of explosives not caring at all who gets hurt.

Come on people – eggs and tomatoes? Certainly, if thrown hard enough, they can sting or even cause a pretty nasty oval black and blue mark, but to liken them to the brutality of a regime using attack helicopters, AK 47s, and tanks storming and pounding civilians is quite a reach.

This comment by Clinton, who is suppose to be America’s leading diplomat, reminds us that even our supposedly peaceful arm of foreign policy has become excessively militarized with policies that involve nothing more than threats and war.

I suppose that now that the US is the number one maker and exporter of weapons that it must do its part in using and distributing them. I already mentioned how they are being used. Unfortunately they are being distributed and used in more than half of the world. Israel, our number one consumer of lethal wares gets over $3 billion weapons per year – gratis – thanks to the US taxpayer. Of course these weapons are necessary in the case of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the rest of the Gulf countries in cast that nasty country of Iran rears its ugly head.

Is anyone else seeing a very dangerous pattern here? And let me tell you all this rush to violence is getting far too embedded in American culture. This country has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years now. Ten years while selling all kinds of military equipment to countries who may want them or perhaps may or may not be helpful with the war on terror. Even if you smile nice or the US just feels like it this week, you can get weapons.

Iraq for its pains is now the proud owner of multibillion-dollar Lockheed Martin F-16s warplanes – 18 of them and the US probably somehow paid for them. This means you pay taxes so the government can give Iraq money and they can spend it at Lockheed on war planes. Why not just give Lockheed the money directly and have them do something beneficial like more efficient and better medical technologies to save lives and money? Personally, I’d really appreciate painless mammograms, but that’s another story.

Afghanistan is getting billions of its very own lethal weapons too including 75,000 M16 rifles. Whoo hoo!! Only problem is that they are now being used on US forces.

Saudi Arabia got over $60 billion dollars in advanced aircraft and weapons in 2010, the United Arab Emeritus is the US’s third largest weapons client after Egypt and Israel and Israel, well they have so many weapons I don’t even have to go there. Although, recently they supplemented their stockpile with some nice shiny bunker buster bombs, again, courtesy of the US taxpayer and Obama Administration, who sold weapons that the Bush Administration wouldn’t event consider. Case and point, this US weapons bonanza is getting worse.

Now the US banks are basically busted, all this country seems to be exporting are weapons and pretty nasty ones for that matter. And I haven’t event talked about the arsenal being sold to countries like Taiwan, South Korea or the various countries in Africa.

While the Arab world is working to rid themselves of dictators and authoritarian governments so they can build nations of democracy and civil justice, the US is selling and using tremendous amounts of weapons there. I’m baffled. How did we all become so numb to widespread lethal action. Even the military is against all this sharing of deadly technology because they know how it can be used and how it may be used sometime in the future – against them. Selling armaments to other countries – i.e. weapons that may someday kill your own people – seems to me to be somehow counter intuitive or just simply mad. Yet, not only does this country do it – it is proud of itself for spreading death.

Instead of threatening people who throw tomatoes, Mrs. Clinton, would be better off building a stronger diplomatic and engagement machine. Her Ambassador should be fired for inciting more chaos in a country where people are dying. Diplomacy is not used to cause more conflict, it is used to mitigate or prevent it. Clinton should know better. Unfortunately, the US diplomatic machine has been severally compromised and she has sat by and watched.

The Department of Defense has taken over much of its management and implementation responsibility and Congress has failed to give the State Department sufficient funding. In reality it still gets about $52 billion a year and from where I’m standing Clinton could have made a lean and mean diplomatic service with that so the US can resort to something other than force.

Unfortunately, the Secretary herself has done little to make true change. Instead, she continues to rack up frequent flier miles while State destroys itself by deferring to defense, failing foreign service officers by sending them out without proper support and training and allowing FSOs to be compromised in their duties. Compromised by fortified embassies controlled by the military disallowing diplomats and staff to engage with the very people they are suppose to work with: because no one knows them, they are always in danger. She had another opportunity with the QDDR, her knowledge and her own political prowess, but Clinton wasted it.

Her tenure was an opportunity to build a stellar State Department, brilliantly reorganized, to lead America into the next age of complex diplomacy and engagement. Instead she has chosen specific projects and resigned herself, like too many Americans, to the fact that defense – while sacrificing our soldiers and souls – should be in charge of foreign policy because it is an easier way to go. Building a talented team of regional foreign policy professions who understand complexities beyond war, and don’t live behind bars, is just too hard.

Peace creates a world of prosperity diminishing the opportunities and abilities of those who prefer violence. The sooner we all realize this, the less we will feel the need to lethally punish someone who is doing nothing more than tossing a tomato.