Wednesday, August 10, 2011

War. What is it good for?

How about bailing us out of our economic morass without a painful cut to entitlements? They used to say that war is good business. It may not be good, but it is big business. Getting stuff blown up means you get to produce more stuff. Very cool.

Over on American Thinker Adam Yoshida asks if there will be a war and offers some possibilities. I am the world’s worst prophet, but, a couple of years ago on the other blog, I suggested something similar might eventually happen.

The death of Osama bin Laden pulled Obama’s popularity out of the pits. He’s back down now after the debt mess, the S&P downgrade, and the stock market plunge, but war is generally good for a president’s reelection if he has a compliant media working with him. I know we have two or three wars currently ongoing, but, aside from the debacle, we might even say, quagmire, in Libya, Obama really can’t claim much credit for those. He needs something that will allow him to look decisive and possibly boost the economy if he plans on winning in November 2012.

Japan would be a good target since they hold a bunch of our debt, and the Japanese economy could use a boost as well. Maybe Obama and the Japanese prime minister could work out a sneak attack scenario, letting the U.S. Navy launch the attack this time. We could then let the Japanese win after a protracted war that used up a lot of tanks, planes, ships, etc., and they could come in and rebuild our infrastructure and all. I mean it seems only fair.

China would the other good choice. As the linked Yoshida’s piece says, China really is operating on a big economic bubble that could easily burst with the troubles in Europe and America. Our best bet there would not be a direct confrontation but a nice proxy war in, say, Mexico or Venezuela. I could almost (but not quite) talked myself into supporting that one if I thought it would result in a militarized southern border.

Possibly the least likely case suggested by Yoshida is an American Civil War Redux. I can imagine the federal government failing to a point that it defaults power to the states. I can’t see a coalition of states openly rebelling. Yoshida says that an internal conflict the legislative and executive branches is a more realistic spark for civil conflict. Even that is probably not going to happen in the short term; however, remember Honduras.

There, a Marxist president aligned with Venezuela’s Chavez wanted to remain in office. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled against him, and the president was removed by the military – not in coup, but lawfully carrying out the orders of the national court as prescribed by the Honduran constitution. This, of course, upset Obama and Hillary, and they tried to intervene on behalf of their Marxist fellow-traveler.

Obama has shown little respect for the Constitution. He has little regard for the wishes of most Americans who, according to his thinking, do not know what is best for them. Polls are showing an increasing sense on the part of the American citizenry that Washington is no longer operating with “the consent of the governed”. Should all of this converge, along with a media that is hardly better than Pravda back in the old USSR, we could find ourselves in an interesting situation.

I do not think that is the war that the Administration – or should I say the Regime – of Obama wants. But, we can’t always get what we want.

The British are buying bats (baseball or cricket, I’m not sure) in great quantities from Amazon as the riots continue in London. That’s better than nothing. Swing away.

Little Bill Daggett: You, sir, are a cowardly son of a bitch! You just shot an unarmed man.
Will Munny: Well he should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.

1 comment:

  1. What's not said here may be even more important than what is. The article mentions very briefly the "stratospheric cost of living". What that means is the cost of food.