Friends, those protests in Iran just keep escalating in intensity, and that puts DJT in a tight spot: he said he would use force against the regime if it slaughtered dissidents, and that's exactly what it's doing, so... Will he use force, and, if so, to what effect? This seems like a golden opportunity to topple a hated regime, and it would be dreadful to miss it, but on the other hand we want to be judicious about stepping into a potential quagmire and doing more harm than good. What's the right course? Darned if I know!
In other news, the mainstream media is getting highly agitated about sexualized deepfake images generated by X's A.I. platform known as Grok. There is widespread talk of banning X altogether in response, which naturally would suit the leftist authoritarians very nicely. Frankly, I'm surprised that more countries haven't banned X already. You'd think they'd take any excuse, and excuses aren't hard to come by these days. I advise Elon to keep fighting the good fight! Sooner or later they'll have an election in the U.K., which is on the frontline of censorship efforts, and our good friend Nigel Farage may be in a position to set things right.
The Europeans, and the establishment types in this country, are by no means happy with President Trump's aggressive talk re: Greenland. They believe that the use of force to take over Greenland would blow up the whole Western alliance. Well, in that case, maybe the Danes should man up and consider selling the island, after all? There's definitely some three-dimensional chess going on here. U.S. acquisition of Greenland would be historic, and I would remind DJT and everyone reading this that hurting the feelings of the global elite is a very, very easy thing to do. You can do it by invading Greenland, sure, but their hackles are elevated on a more or less continuous basis these days anyway, which means that there might be little downside to taking Greenland in a lightning assault. I mean, what is Europe going to do to us? Whine? Refuse to accept our complimentary security guarantees? Oh yeah, that would really hit us where it hurts...NOT!!! Again, I think it's much more likely that the Danes will consider handing over the island peacefully, because that would be much more dignified, and less destabilizing to that "rules-based world order" they love so much. Let's give Trump some leeway to sort this out and see where it goes.
Finally, the DOJ has enraged a whole lot of Democrats and more than a few RINOs by announcing a criminal investigation into Jerome Powell for his remarks to Congress about the reconstruction project at the Fed H.Q. Now, if he really did break the law eggregiously, I'm fine with him facing the consequences, but this does feel like gratuitous legal harrassment, especially considering that Powell is about to leave office. Who really cares how much the Fed's makeover costs??? Trump's attacks against Powell have been more than a little irrational, if you ask me. The Fed has a responsibility to keep the economy humming along by lowering rates, sure, but it also has a duty to keep inflation in check by keeping rates high. It's a balance that's called for, in other words, and reasonable people can disagree about how to strike that balance. Trump, as per usual, seems to believe that anyone who contradicts him is crazy, evil, or stupid...and that may be true in 90% of cases, but this might be one of the few where Trump himself is in the wrong. Just sayin'.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Fox quotes Crown Prince Pahlavi as saying that after Presidents like Obama and Biden, Iranians who yearn for freedom are counting on President Trump not to betray them as those two did. He implies that they are betting their lives that President Trump has their backs. He says there is good reason why some Iranians are naming streets after President Trump (though one does wonder how they could do so under such a viciously vindictive regime). Eastern Europeans, who knew best how he had helped them, named streets and squares after President Reagan; who, I ask you, could gainsay them?
ReplyDeleteConcerns expressed about possible negative consequences of our possible application of military force to support courageous Iranian dissenters are, I think, plausible. Such force must be carefully considered. Again, in 1979, Iranians themselves overthrew their regime albeit tragically mistakenly. They may well be in the process of redeeming their country and in our well intended desire to aid them we must refrain from unintentionally hampering them. The regime's murderous repression may ultimately necessitate our intervention in order to save this monumentally beneficial revolt; let it be well taken!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Here is a factor I haven't heard publicly considered yet in this Greenland situation: Canada. Certainly Greenland is of strategic importance to them.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that our assertive eh, enthusiasm about acquiring Greenland makes Canada wary? What , they may muse ,if we decided we need their western provinces? How might they react if we were to forcibly invest Greenland? Greenland is on our northern flank but Canada is on Greenland's western flank. Its also on our northern border and is of vital importance in keeping the Atlantic open. Our friendship with Canada should be treated as of great importance to us.
Canada was a vital ally in the Battle of the Atlantic and Canada would probably be equally loath to see, say, a Chinese base in Greenland. Perhaps in mutually beneficial cooperation with Canada we could enact an exclusion zone around Greenland which would not threaten Greenland's sovereignty. Together we could frankly announce its limited but force backed purpose. We wouldn't be policing the world's commerce with Greenland , only the possible incursion of adversarial military powers.
I very much doubt that even a Russia - China - N. Korea alliance would be capable of projecting the power to overcome such a barrier. Why not leave it at that; we could be very frank with those adversaries about our absolute refusal to countenance them establishing bases in Greenland. Our power speaks for itself.
As for Europe, maybe its time to leave them on their own and concentrate our defenses on our own hemisphere and on the Western Pacific. I still think most of Europe (with the possible exception of Eastern Europe, which knew the Russian boot and knows we removed it); most of Europe otherwise still disdains us as hayseeds. But we must take great care to preserve a close relationship with the UK. As you have noted they may soon have a common sense PM Farage and he can be a close friend to America. And after all he led the UK's wise detachment from the EU. Perhaps the Royal Navy could participate in guarding the maritime approaches to Greenland. The UK would of course have intense concern about the entry into the N. Atlantic anywhere of potential adversaries.
Dr. Waddy from Jack; Though I am a neophyte on economics I share your concerns about the possible charges against Powell. I don't remember Powell having participated in the lawfare on DJT in the 2021-2025 interim. Our laudible President sometimes does go overboard with personal derogation. I admire his gutsy cussedness and anyone of influence who indulges in TDS should not but expect comeuppance if they give him legal grounds for it. "If ur gunna do the crime, get set to do the time " is a maxim well known to the vicious.
ReplyDeleteJack, I think a key factor in 1979 was the Shah's illness. But for that, who knows how the revolution would have gone. Certainly, as we've discussed, President Carter should not have allowed Islamist forces to overpower our best friend in the Middle East (save Israel). Let's not make the same mistake twice by failing to act in this critical moment!
ReplyDeleteWhat you are suggesting re: Greenland, Jack, is, if I understand correctly, that Trump may be "negotiating", and he may be willing to settle for something less than U.S. ownership of the massive island. He might accept instead robust new security guarantees, privileged U.S. military and economic access to the island, or some such. Well, maybe. I suspect he'll get concessions of some kind. Would that be enough for him? I dunno. I sense that the acquisition of Greenland is important to Trump, because he sees it as a legacy that could help to define his presidency in the history books. Almost a million square miles added on to U.S. territory would be kind of a big deal! And, as for Canada, Trump may feel that, if he can pull off the annexation of Greenland, all or part of Canada might someday fall in line too. Just imagine a world in which Trump has helped to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba (which could all happen), and has increased U.S. territory by a third. Who would want to say no to such a man???
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think Pres. Trump assured himself of a positive legacy simply by denying Hillary the vindictive power to "fundamentally transform" a recalcitrant and unjust U.S. she thought her just due and which she would have exercised with a grim determination born of her travails such as gross public humiliation by her caddish "husband". Her Scotus would have been incalculably compromised by her totalitarian convictions. She would have left office perhaps having assured the eventual subjugation of the U.S. to all encompassing far left tyranny.
ReplyDeleteBut he is still devoted to permanently returning our country to the common sense confidence in proven American verities which is the antidote to the curse of Marxist presumption. If he accomplishes that he will deserve to be historically lauded as a great President. My opinion is that he is already one and we are going to need every ounce of his "happy warrior"opposition to the onerous and still very dangerous threat "American" radicals pose to all we cherish in this, on balance, creditable democracy we enjoy.
It would be unfortunate to see an ambition on his part to work geographical expansion interfere with his paramount and plausible prospect of domestic redemption. His very favorable attitude toward our war fighting forces and his demonstrated willingness to use them or the promise of their deployment affords us adequate security, I think.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: BTW I heard President Trump today disdainfully correct an MSM quasi professional as to her characterization of his remark"there is nothing Denmark can do about it" as referring to irresistible US power. He said he was referring to Denmark's obvious inability to resist any incursion on Greenland by China or Russia. I'll give our President the benefit of the doubt whenever he encounters one of these disingenuous "newsmaking"weasels!
ReplyDeleteJack, you're preaching to the choir: DJT already has an overwhelmingly positive legacy in my book, BUT 1) his second term ain't over yet, and 2) my opinion and yours don't count for as much as we would like to think!
ReplyDelete