Who's Fault is the Iraq Debacle?

Every morning, the local talk radio station here in Cincinnati plays a little thing called An American Story presented by Tom Brokaw.  Usually these things are inane ramblings that are more about the Tom Brokaw story than America.  Often, these little reports are about something done in other countries by non-Americans, so the name of the segment is a mystery to me.

Today Mr. Brokaw set about making everything in Iraq the fault of the George W. Bush administration.  After all, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush said that a democratic government could be set up there, the Iraqi people would have free elections, a constitution would be written, and Iraq would become just like the USA.  This certainly was a best case scenario and, given the history of the region, was a pretty unlikely scenario long-term.  However, anyone would have to admit that Obama's foreign policy decisions to tell the enemy when we would leave and turn over the country to the terrorists contributed greatly to this outcome.

I don't see how there will ever be peace and freedom in Iraq.  Even if a constitutional decree mandates separation of church and state, the people don't want that.  The citizenry feels that anyone that has a different religious affiliation than them is an enemy.  They don't want anyone to have the freedom to believe something different from them.  The majority religion in the country takes over by force or by coup or however they have to do it.  In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein oppressed religions that threatened his autonomy.  He used force or threat of force to keep opposing religious factions in check.  Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, the country is quickly dividing on religious lines, and it appears that making two or three countries out of Iraq is the best outcome.  Otherwise the majority faction will take over everything and force their will.

I wish we had never gone there and stuck our nose in other countries' business.  We started out in the first war after Iraq invaded Kuwait when George H. W. Bush was President.  I never got the impression that the Kuwaiti people appreciated what we did back then.  That "good deed" did nothing but put the USA at the top of every hated enemy list in the Middle East.  This was undoubtedly the impetus that drove Al Qaeda to commit the terrorist acts of 9/11/2001.

I think that Obama's reaction recently has been the correct one.  As Iraq falls into chaos, we should stay home and offer no assistance.  We trained and armed one million Iraqi military members.  That military has thrown down its weapons, changed into civilian clothes, and taken off for the hills.  They were prepared to fight for their freedom and their country, but they didn't have the will to do it.  These soldiers weren't willing to die for their country.  Why should we be there dying for something the Iraqis don't seem to care about?

Once again, the MessAPolitico didn't consider a point of view different from their own.  They love their country, are loyal to it, and can't understand why other peoples around the world don't feel that way.  They also don't understand why those people would be put off by our country telling them how to run their government.  I guess foreign policy isn't that much different than the domestic policies.  The government thinks they know what is best for us too.  The will of the majority party elected is shoved down our throats every day.  Why again is America's view of the federal government and politicians in general so low?

EPA Fires a Big Weapon in the War on Coal

Why has the Environmental Protection Agency decided to destroy what's left of the American economy?  Do they really believe this "global warming"/"climate change" nonsense?  Have the climatologists managed to convince the brainless bureaucrats that this stuff is real and that it is bad enough to destroy our way of life in the USA?  Apparently the answer to the last two questions is yes, and that is the answer to question number 1.

There could be another little dynamic in play here.  It's that pesky economic reality that was going to cause a huge problem shortly.  The EPA had already legislated limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that a power plant can emit per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.  Those limits were very simply designed to shut down a number of older coal-fired power plants.  Was it because those power plants were the main or even significant causes for global warming?  No.  No.  No.  The purpose of closing those plants was to drive up the cost of electricity to a level that would make wind and solar and any other alternative energy competitive with coal.

There is a bit of an issue with this strategy the EPA and the current administration has undertaken.  The states regulate the price of electricity using public service commissions.  They don't allow power companies to just raise prices without showing that costs have increased.  If an old power plant is simply shutdown, that doesn't constitute a major increase in cost of producing the electricity.  With that in mind, the utility wouldn't have enough production capacity to match the supply of electricity with the demand at current prices.  In fact, I believe that a major price increase would be required to reduce the demand, but the public service commission won't allow that price increase without a corresponding increase in the cost to produce the power.  That is likely to create a situation where the utilities will be forced to institute rolling blackouts to prevent a widespread blackout that covers large areas of the country.

These new regulations were presented yesterday as though the utilities will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade the equipment to meet the new regulations.  It remains to be seen whether this will really happen.  If the utilities decided to protest and just shut down a bunch of power plants, the government would be left in a touchy situation.  I wish these companies would fight back just like this.  It is unlikely to happen, but it needs to be done.  It's ridiculous that the government is running our business.  The federal government knows what is best for you and me and all the companies in the USA.  It is time to stand up to the tyranny.

If the power companies spend $500-$600 billion on new equipment, our price for electricity will have to rise.  That will allow the utilities to match demand to the lower capacity available.  That will drive some of the usage from electricity to natural gas or other power sources.  Unfortunately, it will drive some industries that use large amounts of electricity out of the country.  At least we can feel good that those steel and aluminum and other companies will move to those environmentally progressive countries like China and Mexico.  (In case you're a low intelligence tree-hugger, that last sentence was sarcastic.)

Not only will your electric bill rise by $200-$300 per year, look for increases in cost for anything that uses electricity in its manufacture, processing, or delivery.  Expect those commuter train tickets in New York and Chicago and San Francisco to rise accordingly.  If you were working in the steel mill making excessive steel worker wages, it's going to be hard to pay the extra cost of your electric bill, because your job will probably move out of the country.  Maybe the Obama administration is using the EPA to correct for wage inequality.  How do you like the change?  The current MessAPolitico is bringing a large dose of tyranny down upon the subjects of our benevolent king, Barack Obama.  All of this is being brought about by illegal legislation from the EPA -- not a legislative body as defined by the US Constitution.

I hope I wake up soon.  This MessAPolitical nightmare is really scaring me.  Everytime I get out of bed, it's just like Nightmare on Elm Street.  I'm never sure if I'm awake or in a dream.  The only difference is that Freddie Krueger was replaced by Barack Obama.  Maybe there should be a new movie called Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.