To be boldly different from the Democrat platform on energy policy I believe that Republicans must commit to a multi-faceted approach to becoming energy independent. This approach should include each of these factors:

1. We need to remove the restrictions preventing domestic exploration and development of oil and gas resources in this nation. That includes ANWR, the coastal shelf, and internal regions within the United States.
2. We need to encourage the construction of additional petroleum refineries in a broader range of geographic areas within the United States.
3. We need to encourage and push the development of new technology nuclear plants on a large scale.
4. We need to encourage the research and development of clean renewable energy resources preferably in ways that energize the ingenuity and creativeness of private enterprise rather than using the old fashion government subsidy approaches of the past.
5. We need to encourage conservation, but stay away from mandating it.

In short we need to get off our butts and doing something about the problem instead of endlessly talking about it, blaming others for the problems, and doing nothing useful. … 

Removing Restrictions on Exploration and Development of Oil and Gas resources

The point of removing restrictions on exploration and development of oil and gas resources is that these are resources that are useable with currently technologies that can and should be used to provide a buffer for research and development of the other technologies that will most likely be needed at some point. Yet we are hamstringing ourselves by pushing forward with mass production in technologies that have not matured to the point where they are economically feasible absent massive government subsidies.

The American Enterprise Institute published an article that indicated that it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Yet that one gallon of ethanol contains less energy than does one gallon of fossil fuel. These people understand don’t their math!!!

Ethanol is not as easily transported as oil, nor is it that much cleaner for the environment yet somehow its proponents think it to be the savior for the country. The only people benefiting from these kinds of boondoggles are the large agricultural corporations like Archer Daniel Midland. 

For far too long, the so called environmentalists have held sway over members of Congress, delaying and preventing the exploration for new domestic energy resources all in the name of dubious claims that the exploration and or drilling would cause irreparable damage to our environment. They claimed for example that the Alaskan Oil pipeline would disrupt the migration patterns of caribou herds causing a drastic reduction in the size of the herds. The opposite seems to have happened. The caribou seem to like the warmth radiated from the pipeline and they are more numerous than before. They told us that the development of oil reserves in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve would be two risky and dangerous. They showed us pictures of caribou herds and of mountains and fields of grass to support their claims. But the problem with this is that the area for the proposed exploration is nothing like the images they showed us. It is a barren plain near the arctic sea. They mislead the population into thinking that great swaths of land would be needed whereas the truth is that the total amount of land required is about the size of Dulles International Airport compared to the entire state of South Carolina.

Members of Congress have prevented exploration along the continental shelf of the United States again proclaiming fear of irreparable damage should an accident happen. Yet during hurricane Katrina, the most powerful storm in a quarter century to hit the Gulf of Mexico even while oil platform were torn from their riggings, there were no reports of severe environmental damage from oil spills from those sources. Indeed, it was damage to on shore storage facilities in New Orleans that did more damage in terms of pollution than there was from any of the oil exploration platforms.

What we need in Congress is a healthy measure of pragmatism. It is possible to take care of the environment and extract the resources that we need as well.

In recent years their have been new, very large, oil discoveries of the coasts of Mexico and Brazil. I believe it was Chevron Corporation that found new resources in very deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico to the tune of billions of cubic feet of natural gas. China is drilling in the waters between Florida and Cuba. They aren’t afraid to look for new energy sources. Yet even in the face of sky high energy prices the Congress quibbles.

It is also reported that we have oil resources in the Colorado Rockies in an area called the Green River Range. The resources are in the form of oil shale deposits from which oil may be extracted. We have the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world. Oil from this source is thought to exceed the entire reserves of Saudi Arabia. Grant it, this oil would be harder to access safely than other sources, but we have not begun any sensible research into ways to use it.

We also have the largest know reserves of coal in the world, yet this energy source if not used as extensively as it could be used because we haven’t developed the technologies to use it cleanly as we want, nor have we finished work on liquification of coal for use as a fuel for transportation.

When if comes to fossil fuels we are not an energy poor nation; we just lack the will to use what we have. If Republicans wish to be anything other than that minority party then have to show some backbone on these issues.

Encouraging the Development of New Oil and Gas Refineries in Geographically Dispersed Areas.

Another factor affecting our energy prices is the fact that we have not built a new refinery in 30 years. In addition, those that we do have are largely located in hurricane prone regions of the country. In the same time period demand for petroleum has skyrocketed. Some factions claim that the reason we don’t have more refineries is because of consolidation in the oil industry and because the companies don’t make money on refining. I would ask why the companies can’t make money on refining. I don’t buy that argument. I think that it is more a matter of the Not in my back yard syndrome, than it is anything else. 

When you get down to it this is a matter of property rights. Should various governments have such a level of control over what private property owners may do with their land that they may stop any reasonable development? It has gotten to the point that governments may take practical control of private property without paying for it! Most recently the Supreme Court decided that government doesn’t even have to use the land for public purposes, only public “interests.” This is a perversion of the meaning of the takings clause of the Constitution!

If they want to take back control of Congress then Republicans should commit to reversing this trend either through legislation or by amending the Constitution. They should find ways to encourage the building of alternative facilities in geographically dispersed areas so that a disaster in one region doesn’t mean a cut off of refined oil supplies and natural gas.

Encouraging and pushing the Development of New Technology Nuclear Energy

Countries all around the world are recognizing the need to build new nuclear energy plants. It is the only technology available capable of producing massive amounts of electrical energy with out producing large amounts of other forms on pollution. Other technologies, such as wind, or solar, or geothermal, or even wave energy are capable of producing energy at the margins, but they cannot possible the main suppliers for this form of energy.

Conservation only goes so far too. Demand for energy is expanding exponentially as we find new uses for an expanding population. Older nuclear plants are reaching the end of their service lives as well. I believe that we need a crash program of building new nuclear plants on a large scale. 200 new nuclear plants would not be an unreasonable number according to some people in the field.

New technology nuclear plants would be significantly different from the current plants around the country. For one thing, each plant would be built on a smaller scale producing smaller amounts of electricity per plant. Smaller reactors make it possible to use air cooling techniques as safety valves as opposed to current systems with their reliance on active plumbing systems. The use of pelletize fuel adds a safety factor as well. It is easier to isolate the pellets from each other to control the nuclear fission. New technology reactors would likely reprocess and use reprocessed nuclear fuel. The term breeder reactors might come to mind. I have read that current system extracts perhaps 5% of the energy in the nuclear fuel before having to replace the fuel rods. Through reprocessing nuclear fuel, however, a far greater percentage of the energy in fuel is used. You effectively burn the nuclear waste in the reactor, ending up with less nuclear waste to store.

People who are familiar with the term breeder reactor would realize that we are talking about the potential use of plutonium as a fuel source, and plutonium too many people means nuclear weapons grade fuel. But even here there is a solution. Plutonium may be doped with impurities that make it unusable for weapons while maintaining its qualities as and energy source.

Nuclear technology may be useful in providing a clean source of fuel for transportation as well and I will address that later.

Republicans that wish to be in the majority should push for new nuclear development.

Encouraging Research and Development of Clean Renewable Energy Resources

I am in favor of exploring all manner of alternative energy resources.  Bio fuels may eventually be a viable source of energy for transportation, but right now they do not compete economically with oil and they require heavy subsidies that hide their true costs. Their feed stocks are also a primary food source for livestock and as such their use in fuel production raises the price of all sorts of foods that depend in some way on the corn. As I noted earlier, the energy conversion factors do not seem to be to our advantage either. We need to continue research in this field until we, can use a feed stock that does not compete as a food source and the energy conversion factors must be improved so that we get significantly more energy out than was put in. And we must consider whether these sources meet our requirements for clean energy.

I see a place for wind, solar, geothermal, and wave energy as well. But, I believe that it is better to let these technologies develop on their own absent ongoing government subsidies. I don’t like the government placing bets with our money. If we must subsidize development then let us back load the costs, by giving appropriate tax breaks to the producers only after the new energy sources are online.

There is a European company looking at placing wind farms on floating platforms far out at sea. This avoids some of the currently know problems with wind farms, such as competition for land, the noise levels of the windmills, and perhaps even the danger to birds. Of course a sea based solution may have other issues such as obstacles to navigation, and sea birds may still be at risk. Then there is the matter of transmission of the energy back to shore, but I think that can be worked out.

Solar energy may be practical primarily is southern areas, and in deserts in particular; solar electric panels have not reached a sufficient energy conversion factor to be of much significance just yet. Continued research is needed in this area.

Geothermal energy may be practical in certain parts of the country. There are geothermal hot spots in Hawaii and all along the Pacific Rim, Arkansas has hot spots, and Colorado too. Each of these areas might be tapped for use of geothermal energy. Some of the major oil companies are already operating plants in some regions of the world. They should be encouraged to continue to explore whether or not it is practical to tap this energy resource in the United States.

Nuclear fusion is still a hoped for energy resource, but we have much research to do in this area before it will ever become a reality.

For transportation, hydrogen has been mentioned as a potential fuel, either for burning or inside of fuel cell vehicles. But free hydrogen does not exist in large quantities in nature. It must be extracted from other compounds such as water. This is where a large nuclear energy grid may come in useful for transportation. Nuclear energy would provide the energy for separating hydrogen and oxygen in the quantities that would be needed to be used as fuel for transportation.

My advice to Republican candidates with respect to alternative energy resources is to proceed with caution. If we decide that there is a public benefit worth subsidizing then please make sure it is delivered before you spend our money on the subsidy. Gambling with taxpayer money is not a good idea no matter who does it.

Encouraging Conservation while not Mandating it.

In my mind, the problem with most government conservation programs is that the politicians and the bureaucrats think that they are more clever than the rest of the population and so they dictate to us how we are to conserve resources. 

They tell us how much water we can use in our commode, they talk of forcing us to use a particular technology for lighting, or they scheme to put government controlled thermostats in our houses so they can force us to lower energy consumption, they have been passing vehicle mileage efficiency regulations for years absent any proof that the physics are yet there to provide the results.

I tell you now in all sincerity that the market reacts more quickly to the needs for change in all things, including, conservation, than any bureaucrat ever has and is a harsher critic of its failures than any bureaucrat ever will be.

If you must act on the conservation front then do it by using the carrot rather than the stick. Set broad general goals and come up with a list of metrics that would be evidence that the goals have been met. Then reward any producer that meets those goals in an appropriate fashion. Do not think your selves smarter then the rest of us because you aren’t!

P.S. I would think that one important metric should be broad market adoption.

In short, I am saying to Republican candidates that the U.S. population is in general cleverer than you give them credit for. If you want to be the majority party then commit to recognizing and acting on that fact.

A rational way to address immigration reform is to think of it as a multi-step process. Contrary to other opinions we do not need to paralyze ourselves until we can formulate a single integrated process. I believe that the Republican party should commit to the following policies:

1. We must first learn to control entry and exit of foreign national from our country. Without this control nothing else is possible.
2. Second we must make some tough decisions about how many people we can accept each year and what the qualifications for long-term residency in this country should be. It makes no sense to consider the problems of current illegal immigrants without knowing what is in the best interest of this nation in the long run.
3.  Only after we have gained control on immigration of new persons, both at the borders and via other methods, such a visitor and student visas, and can control these factors. And after we have determined what factors are in our long term best interests with respect to adding to our immigrant population, can we then look at what to do with those persons that are already here in contravention to our existing laws. I believe that we should be tough and fair. We must be tough to make sure that all persons understand that we intend to enforce our laws. In being fair we must teach that there are rewards for patience and obedience to our laws and the there are penalties sufficient to discourage disobedience to those same laws. We must remember that there are many people waiting outside our country that want to come here and that have chosen to abide by our laws while those who have come here uninvited are like the school lunch line bullies that butted in line ahead of others.

The idea of a single integrated solution to our immigration problems is, I believe, a fools mission and Republicans should reject this out of hand in favor of a phased approach.

Controlling Entry and Exit

The problems of controlling our southern border are perhaps the most highly publicized problems concerning entry and exit of non citizens, but they are by no means the only problems. We also have issues with people coming here with our permission to visit or to study and then not leaving when they should.

It is important to be able to control entry and exit of non-citizens for reasons of national security, for public health reasons, and for economic reasons as well.

Until the Mexican government cleans up their own house they should they their trap shut. Let them lead by example before they lecture us on how to treat illegal immigrants. Let them clean up their government and economy so that more people will choose to stay home in the first place.

Our northern border gets less attention, because we don’t see as many people crossing illegally from Canada. That does not mean that it doesn’t happen. Canada’s immigration policies are more lax than ours which is a problem that must be addressed. Our Canadian friends seem more likely to work with us than against us, I would hope we can work out cooperative efforts to keep out those who want to hurt this country. I believe that we need better control over our northern border as well, but I think that with the better cooperation of the Canadian government we can dispense with anything like a fence. Technology like UAVs and other remote sensors should be our force multipliers on the northern border along with a larger contingent of border patrol agents.

I don’t know the status of our Coast Guards efforts. Entry by sea is more difficult, but we need to be able work with foreign governments to ensure that ships are double checked for cargo and people before they head here. We need more checks at sea, and more effective technology to aid those checks. And we need more port security as well.

We need, and I believe we are already deploying more effective tracking systems at other points of entry, at airports, and border crossings but we need to expand those systems and add support internally to ensure that people are here for the reasons they say they are here. We need the cooperation of colleges and universities in telling us when a foreign student ceases his or her studies at those schools. We need some means of tracking people while they are here. I know that in Europe when you stay at a hotel you often must give them your passport. I don’t know if we do that here. There are those who will say that I am being paranoid or that such a level of tracking is inconsistent with a free society. I am not sure how to reply. If we want it to stay a free society we must find ways to not be taken advantage of.

Deciding on a Rational and Fair Immigration Policy

It is pretty obvious that our current immigration policies are not serving the needs of the nation well. Our economy appears to need workers at both levels of the skills continuum. How many people we actually need is in constant debate. One point that seems to be ignored, however, is the matter of assimilation. 

Our founders were rightly concerned that those who came here to live did everything possible to blend into the giant melting pot; they wanted immigrants to identify with this nation and our values. Teddy Roosevelt did not believe that it was possible to hold allegiance to two nations. He did not believe that one should be able to hold dual citizenship.

Other issues deal with the practicalities of life in this country. 

If one is to live here then one should learn the English language. It is alright to keep your heritage and to speak your native tongue in your home and in your own ethnic community, but it should not be the job of this government to accommodate the many foreign immigrants by printing government documents in a multitude of foreign languages. When it comes to schooling total immersion is the way to go. It is alright to provide extra help in learning our language, but all other courses should be taught in English. Data shows that efforts in multi-lingual education only delays and interferes with the assimilation process. And it costs additional taxpayer dollars that could be better spent elsewhere or not spent at all.

Our immigration policies already dictate that immigrants be double checked for infectious diseases. This is design to protect our population. I sympathize with those that may be excluded by these policies, but the answer is to find a way to help them rid themselves of the disease before entering the country, not ignoring the problem.

Immigration policies should also look at the education level of immigrants. Data clearly shows that adults with less than a high school education end up costing this country more in terms of government services that they return in taxes. It is simply not a formula for success. On the other side of the coin we have quota systems that limit people entering from specific countries. I think that any quota system should be more skills based than on country of origin.

Finally, we should ask that anyone coming here to live be asked to study and learn our history and values. That is part of what assimilation is about. 

P.S. Because there are those that will view my requirements as harsh or not compassionate, including members of my own church and perhaps even my own family, I intend to address that side of the issue as well… just not here.

Dealing with the Illegal Population Already Here

At the beginning of this article I said that regarding those who came here illegally that we need to be tough and fair. This will be the most contentious issue and that is why I left it until last.

 The administration and others have argued that it would be impossible to hunt down and forcefully remove those that are already here. I agree, but it would not be all that hard to make living here without permission very unpleasant and thus encourage many illegal immigrants to repatriate themselves voluntarily.

I believe that we should handle the situation in a way similar the way you would handle a child that butts into the school lunch line. You send them to the back of the line. In coming here illegally these people have bypassed many others that have been patiently waiting for their turn to enter the United States. They have taken jobs, and housing that rightfully should belong to those who abide by our laws. It is not mean or racist to say to an individual that if you choose to live here you will abide by our laws without exception. We will need tools to enforce these rules and they should have been decided in step two. 

We will need tamper proof identity papers. We may even need to upgrade those papers used by lawful citizens including birth certificates, social security cards, drivers licenses, and passports. Some of this is already being upgraded, but the work must be comprehensive.

We need effective laws to prevent the employment of illegal workers. Penalties for employers should be high enough to effectively discourage such employment, but tools to help them avoid the penalties should also be readily available. 

We also need tools to help employers find legal workers to soften any dislocations to the economy. We need tools to match those new immigrants to employers willing to commit to keep them employed. We may even need local and state business councils that can learn to share the responsibilities for keeping these new workers gainfully employed. You will notice that I always prefer private solutions to government solutions when possible and local solutions over state or national solutions where possible. That is part of Republican philosophy as I know it.

We need bilateral agreements with foreign nations to ensure that they will take back their citizens. We might make free trade between these nations and ours contingent on cooperation in this area. We should arrange for criminal aliens to serve their time in prisons in their home countries, even if this means subsidizing the process. It would probably cost less than incarcerating the criminals here, so long as we can guarantee that they would not be let go before serving their terms.

We may also need assistance programs for those who turn themselves in to help them return to their home country or another nation. This should not be just a hand-out however. If they have assets here in the US, those assets should be used first to finance the deportation. They should forfeit any social security payments they have made while here illegally. If there are no assets upon which to draw they should incur a recorded debt that they will be required to repay in some manner should they be readmitted.

The policy of granting automatic citizenship to a person born here should be changed. I do not believe that this requires a Constitutional Amendment because the 14th Amendment requires that persons born here be subject to the laws of the United States. If the parents are here illegally they are obviously not acting under our laws. Having read some of the debate leading up to passage of the 14th Amendment, I believe that this is in keeping with the intent of the law.

• First of all what is there to guarantee that the fine will actually be paid? 
• If the fine is not paid, then what is the penalty? 
• What happens to those that take the chance that they won’t get caught? 
• Will there be an increased penalty for them then? If so, what will it be? 
• How does any of this help the persons that obey our laws find a job and a place to live? 
• Why do these legislators think that a $5,000 fine is a real penalty? 

• Is $5,000 and appropriate penalty for stealing that amount of money from the taxpayers of New Jersey? 

It is a truism that Freedom is not Free and we have neglected to make the necessary efforts to defend our freedoms ever since the Leftists in the Country declared a “Peace Dividend” and severely cut the size and strength of our military. We are paying the price for that short-sightedness today.

To win back the majority in November Republicans should stand foursquare for strengthening our national defense operations. That means:

1. Increasing the size of our full time military forces so that we don’t have to put as must pressure and reliance on our reserve forces.
2. Funding national defense at a level that is sufficient to meet all our expected needs over the long term. The Heritage Foundation suggests that this level should be somewhere around 4% of GDP.
3. Improving integration between our diplomatic and military operations
4. Ensuring that we have the right mix of forces for our expected needs. We should take into consideration not only the current conflict, but potential conflicts in the next few decades.
5. Strengthening our national intelligence operations especially with regard to human intelligence gathering.

Increasing the Size of Our Full-Time Military Forces

We do not now have the number of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that we need to perform that tasks that the Defense Department is being asked to perform. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we are something like four divisions smaller in the Army, at least two Air Wings smaller in the Air Force, and God knows how many ships went out of services and sailors were let go.

We are using our National Guard and reserve units as frontline troops in conflicts that do not immediately threaten our homeland. While I am sure that these men and women are patriotic Americans, I believe that it is an undue burden on those who volunteer to serve in an emergency. I view an emergency as a relatively short duration event unless we are willing to put the entire nation on war footing as we did in World War II.

While we should always be judicious in the use of military force, this is a very dangerous world and it is always better to be prepared and not have to use force then to be unprepared and then to need the forces we do not have them. 

Funding National Defense at an Appropriate Level

I agree with members of the Heritage Foundation that a certain percentage of the budget each year should be set aside for national defense. The Heritage Foundation sets this value at 4 percent of GDP. Given the lack of funding during the Clinton administration and the heavy use of our armed forces during this administration, I suggest that the number might be initially larger than 4% of GDP. What ever the rate is, it should be enough to support a large enough military to meet our need to defend both our homeland and meet growing threats from foreign nations.

China is spending huge amounts of its income on building modern offensive military forces. Reports are that they are spending somewhere around 13% of their budget on their military. Consider the huge trade surpluses that they have with us and your will realize that we are funding their armed forces. They are building a large blue-water navy complete with very quite ballistic missile and attack submarines. Their army is the largest in the world in terms of manpower at it too is modernizing. They are building modern jet fighter aircraft that can compete with our frontline fighters. They have thousands of surface to surface missiles aimed at the island nation of Taiwan, a means of intimidation toward a sovereign nation that they regard as belonging to them. China has been in the forefront on nuclear weapons proliferation. Some people believe that it was China that helped Pakistan become a nuclear nation, and I believe that they have also aided North Korea. It was also reported that of the materials removed from Libya they found plans for a nuclear bomb written in Chinese. The country has demonstrated its willingness to ruthlessly put down dissent and has already taken over the independent nation of Tibet. They aid the government of Sudan that is responsible for the atrocities in Darfur.  They want the Sudan’s Oil reserves. They have prevented any effective U.N. sanctions against Iran for the same reason.

North Korea is a belligerent nation whose military dictator starves and terrorizes his own people and threatens war against peaceful South Korea and other nations. Kim Jung Ill spends on his military while his people starve. Now, North Korea has nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach the west coast of the United States. North Korea has engaged in counterfeiting U.S. currency and has aided and cooperated with both Iran and Syria.  It exists as a threat today because we failed to finish the job of removing the threat during the Korean War. So much for the effectiveness of the United Nations!

Iran is ruled by an Islamic Theocracy even though it is technically a “democracy.” You can’t make it to the parliament without the support of the mullahs. The president of that country tells the world that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.  He seems to believe that he can bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam by starting Armageddon. Iran is one of the world worst sponsors of terrorist organizations. It is the primary benefactor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, both terrorist organizations. It aids and supports the Syrian dictatorship that also supports Hezbollah and Hamas and funnels weapons to them so they can attack Israel. Despite its theological differences with Sunni Muslims it aids and shelters members of Al Qaeda. Reports are that at least one of Osama Bin Laden’s son’s lives there openly in a city near the Afghan border. The United Nations Nuclear Regulatory agency has recently reported that Iran in not being truthful about its atomic energy activities, that it is developing high explosives and missile technologies that are incompatible with peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but have everything to do with nuclear weapons. Iran has cooperated closely with North Korea and missile technology and uses North Korean technology in its ballistic missile systems.

In Venezuela, a belligerent dictator with oil money is working to undermine democracies in the southern hemisphere. He is making friend with Iran and building a military force that I s beyond what is needed for purely defensive purposes.

Sadly, even Russia is moving back toward its old autocratic / dictatorial ways. It is nationalizing its oil industry again, and stifling opposition media. It too is cooperating with Iran and blocking effective actions against that country in the United Nations. It shows open suspicion of and even belligerence toward any expansion of NATO even though that alliance has been historically a defensive alliance. This does not bode well for near term relations with Russia, which is still a nuclear nation and potentially very dangerous.

Improving Integration between Our Diplomatic and Military Operations

I understand the sentiments of people like Congressman Ron Paul, who believe that we should not be involved in foreign interventionism. He seems to believe that we are acting more out of the special interests of our own industrial commercial interests than for any concern for security, or altruism. In a perfect world I would like to believe as Congressman Paul does, that we should not get involved in foreign affairs. I don’t think that we ought to be or even can be the world’s policemen. But I do not see the situation as being that uncomplicated. We are a trading nation; that is our lifeblood.  We can no more withdrawal from the world than we can solve global warming, (A subject for another post!). We need a military force that is capable of protecting our people and their property wherever in the world that might be. And it is not practical to play solely a defensive game. If you always wait until you are attacked then you are always playing catch-up.

I do not believe that we were attacked on 9/11 solely for our foreign interventionism; I believe that we were attacked because our presence presented an obstacle to Al Qaeda’s plans for dominion in that region of the world. I believe that was the reason for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Towers, the attack on the Kobar towers, the attacks on the embassies, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I believe that it was our failure to respond properly to those attacks that lead to 9/11.

We need to use all facets of national power to interface with the rest of the world to keep a level playing field. Diplomatic and economic influences should be primary, but the use of military force is just diplomacy by another means. I do not believe in cooperating for the sake of cooperation. I believe that we must always consider what is in the best interests of our people. As George Washington warned we must always be wary of foreign entanglements.  I think that both the State Department and the Defense Department should understand that they both work for the President and it their job to carry out his or her foreign policies. They should not be working at cross purpose regardless of their own beliefs.

Ensuring the Right Mix of Forces

Today’s conflicts seem to require an emphasis on developing and being able to use special operations forces. These are highly trained highly mobile forces that can move in and out of areas of conflict and that can interact closely with the local populations. We also need people with diplomatic skills, with language skills, with skill in civil affairs, police services and public health. Because no war can be won without the support of the population, we need those skills that will help us win that support. And because of the nature of this warfare we need a whole lot of people on our side. That is one of the reasons we should have already increased the size of the armed forces.

I don’t think that we entered these foreign lands just to impose our will on them. We went there because that was where the bad guys were.

We need to be able to transport combat power to any portion of the world where the conflict exists and that means we need sufficient airlift and sea lift capabilities. Because of the very long times it took to build up forces for operation Iraqi Freedom, I question whether we have sufficient capabilities now.

The navy needs new multi-mission warships that may be operated with fewer crews. They need to be able to use their active sonar along our coastal waters because the Chinese subs are now so quite that there is no other way to detect them.

The army needs weapons systems that are highly mobile and yet have effective striking power and that may be air transported if necessary. I believe that we will see even more use of robotics in the future defense forces from UAVs of different sizes to robots dealing with mines and explosives, to weapons that use non-lethal force such as directed sound systems or microwave systems than can incapacitate an enemy fighter long enough to take them prisoner without killing. The Army is also looking at the use of remote sensors to assist in guarding of borders to alert our forces to the presence and perhaps even the nature of enemy fighters.

Given the dangers of ballistic missiles in the wrong hands, I believe it is imperative that we continue to develop and deploy advanced ballistic missile defenses, both land based and sea based. As these are truly defensive weapons systems I cannot see the logic in slowing down or stopping their development as has been suggested by Barrack Obama. That is just simply stupid.

It is not just the danger of a missile or missiles hitting our homeland, but the danger of a nuclear blast at high altitude above our country. The electro-magnetic pulse form such a blast could literally put this country out of commission. Anything that depends on electricity could be damaged to the point of being useless. Vehicles would stop working, phones and radios would not work, power plants could be put out of commission, water and sewer plants would not work. People would die in large numbers due to lack of food and services. Chaos would break out.

The Air Force also needs to update it aging fleet of aircraft. I do not believe in relying of foreign technology for strategic weapon systems and so I would rather see Boeing building the new air tanker aircraft. The A-330 airframe is bigger, but that also means it is more limited as to where it can land.

I am impressed by the capabilities of the F-22 Raptor fighter, but I think that it comes at way too high a price. Surely we can find ways to build capable systems that compete with the best others have to offer, but don’t break the bank. 

The Air Force also needs a new line of heavy, long-range bombers. The B-52s are ancient and should be retired already, the B-1 program was killed by President Carter, which means the ones that exist are old, and even the B-2’s are getting older and we don’t have enough of them. Heavy bombers are useful because they are capable of delivering large payloads anywhere in the world. They would be capable of delivering non-nuclear bunker buster bombs against hardened targets such as the underground nuclear facilities in Iran that currently can not be effectively stopped by any other method short of nuclear attack. Unlike missiles, they can be recalled. As with other programs we need to figure out how to build them at a lower total cost.

Strengthening National Intelligence Resources

We need to engage in long-term improvement of our intelligence gathering capabilities. The biggest weakness here is in the area of human intelligence. It is not enough to know a potential enemies capability, it is essential to know their intentions. This is something that may take decades to improve.

If Republicans want to avoid minority status I suggest they take a strong stand on rebuilding our national defenses.

There are those that want to continue the debate as to why we went to war in Iraq and whether we should be there at all, but the fact is that we are there. Why we entered the country and whether that was right or wrong is irrelevant. The real issue is what are the implications of future actions in that country and elsewhere, especially regarding our country’s national security and lives and safety of the citizens of Iraq.

I am a former Marine Officer and I learned a few things during my training and experiences in the Marine Corps that I think are relevant to the situation at hand.

First, despite the complaints about the length of this war, you should know that there is no such thing as a definite time table for a war.  Wars are fought until one side or the other loses its will to fight. Only then does the war end and the side that loses their will to fight is the loser. In fact this does not mean that there is an end to violence. That depends on the will of the victor. 

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could very well mean a blood bath of innocent civilians who’s only crime was cooperation with U.S. authorities while we were there. It could be a mass migration of refugees seeking safety and asylum from the wrath of the victors. You only need to remember the exodus of refugees in rickety boats from Vietnam at the end of that war to understand this problem.

A withdrawal from Iraq also does not necessarily mean that we in the U.S. will be any safer. The Islamic Fascists that wish to rule Iraq also have another mission to spread Islam, and they will do this using all means at their disposal. History reveals that Islamic territories expanded through violent conquests. They believe that is their right to retake all lands that were once under their control. As they think of the United States as the Great Satin, standing in their way, they will not hesitate to attack us as well. And should they control Iraq they will have both a base of operations, and the economic wealth that comes from control over the oil to help them in their conquests. For these reasons alone we must stand firm in Iraq.

Other lessons that I learned in the Marine Corps have to do with the nature of this war. We are fighting a counter-insurgency war and counter-insurgency wars require more and different kinds of resources than do traditional wars. In the mid 1970s when I was going through the basic school the one example of a successful counter-insurgency war was that of the British fighting insurgents in Malaysia. At that point, one of the keys to success was considered to be overwhelming superiority in numbers of combatants. I believe they said that you needed to outnumber the enemy by a factor of 10 to 1. Modern tools of technology may have reduced that figure, but there is still no substitute for feet on the ground. Just so we are clear here, this does not mean that we have to have 10 Americans to one enemy combatant, but it does mean that we have to have a substantial number of Iraqis on our side.

Lesson three was that no war can be won without the explicit support of the civilian population. That means that the insurgents cannot win without the support of a substantial portion of the civilian population to give them aid and cover, nor can we win without that same support. You may gain their support through intimidation or persuasion. Of these methods persuasion is the more effective method. Witness the negative effects of intimidation in the Al Anbar province.  So, to a large extent the battle in Iraq depends on a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. I could be wrong, but I believe that we are winning that part of the struggle, because a) we are the ones building facilities to help the Iraqi people; we build schools, we build hospitals and clinics, we build power stations, and our strategy of taking and holding territory is making life safer for the average Iraqi. You rarely see it on the major media, but our soldiers are more than just soldiers; they are ambassadors. In their day-to-day lives they demonstrate our values and care for innocent life. They are making friends among the Iraqi population.

An extension to lesson three is something I have learned from reading the book, The Sling and the Stone  By Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC. What we are dealing with in Iraq and in Afghanistan is asymmetric warfare. Hammes describes these conflicts as 4^th generation warfare. The other side may not have the same military might, but there are numerous ways that they can offset that advantage. In many cases their immediate goal is not to win battles, but to create havoc, which in turn undermines the confidence that the civilian population has in the opposing force. They believe that by doing this over time that they will wear us down or wear down the support of the civilian population and that can happen if we let it. They try to provoke our over reaction to events, another technique designed to separate us from the civilian population supporting us. 

They follow a Maoist strategy which says that when the enemy attacks you retreat, when the enemy holds you harass, when the enemy withdrawals then you attack. Another thing that they have learned to do, and this was something first employed in Vietnam, they have learned to use our own press against us. Their propaganda machine is very effective. They provide film footage that is often misleading. They stages violent attacks at times when there may be positive news or when such things as elections are nearing. All of this is designed to demoralize our population and reduce support for the war effort. Unfortunately many in our media, I believe, have not learned to discern truth from fiction, real versus staged events. Until and unless we learn to tune out that kind of propaganda we will have problems. 

I know that I will be criticized for this statement, but I believe that vocal opposition to the war, especially by our elected officials is the greatest single barrier to our winning the war. Calling the commander-in-chief a liar is helping the enemy. Calling him stupid does not help. If you disagree, then you should disagree in private inside meetings at the White House or the Defense Department, not on Television. In my mind, if you give moral aid and comfort to the enemy than you are a traitor.  I am not calling anyone in particular an traitor. You should decide if the shoe fits.

To win in the fall Republican should make an absolute and unequivocal commitment to finishing the job in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We should do this because the cost of failure is far greater than any cost that we now bear while trying to win.

It took more than 20 years of cold war to defeat the Soviets. We are still in Korea with thousands of troops and land mines protecting the South because we didn’t finish the job then. We are still in Europe and Japan, though under far better circumstances; then why are we being asked to leave Iraq before the job is done?

I may be wrong about this , but I believe that Republicans are heading for a major defeat in 2008 if they do not get together and present a coherent set of policies to address core issues .

On the other hand, if they come together and do come up with a set of coherent policies and promises that they promise to enact and follow through with, then maybe, just maybe, they can turn defeat into victory and regain the majority. One of the main challenges they will face is their record when they were last in power. They promised, but did not deliver. Indeed they followed policies not unlike those of the ruling Democrats before them. It is my contention that, that, not the war in Iraq, and not charges of corruption that cost them the majority.

Like one of my favorite Radio Talk Show hosts, Sean Hannity, I believe that we need to present the differences between the two parties in bold colors. Subtle distinctions are custom made for failure because there is little real choice in tiny shades of differences. This is one of the reason I am concerned about our choice of a presidential candidate in John McCain. When I look at some core subjects I am convinced that I have little choice but to vote for McCain because the alternatives are just simply unacceptable. But on other core issues, I see no real difference between McCain and his opponents. Therefore I believe the battle must be fought at the legislative level. Can Republicans win? That depends on the message, on unity of effort, and on their ability to convince the voting population that this time they will follow through.

These are the core issues that I would address for better or worse. I will attempt to address each topic in a separate post later, but I would be interested if any readers would be willing to give their feedback on the relative importance of these topics to them. If given the opportunity, would they add others or remove ones that I have selected, and how would they rank the issues in terms of importance.

·        The War Against Islamic Terrorists

·        National Defense Issues in General

·        Immigration Reform

·        Energy Policy

·        Fiscal Discipline in Government

·        Taxation and Fairness

·        The Courts and Tort Reform

·        Improving Healthcare

·        Education Reforms

·        Man Made Global Warming; Fact versus Fiction and what to do about it.

·        Amendments to the Constitution

Perhaps it is just me, but I do not understand why the oil execs don't take Congress to task when they perform these sham hearings.

They sit there and politely reply to the inane ranting of these demagogue legislators as if they were having tea with a friend. Why can’t they be more combative? The legislators can ask any question they want. The respondent should be able to choose the way they respond. I know, I know, They are probably afraid of being charged with Contempt of Congress.   But as long as you provide the answer to the question why is it that you should be constrained in the way you answer it? I would love to see an opening statement something along these lines:

“Senators you have called us in here today to determine why oil prices are so high. You want to know if there is price gouging going on. There is, but it is not being done by the oil companies; it is being done by the government. Yes that is right, when you take the total cost of a gallon of gas, we the oil companies get to keep only 9 and ½ percent of the total costs, while government at all levels extracts __% of the value of the gallon of gas from the consumers pocket. We are not the robber barons, you are! Over the years the inflation adjusted value of a gallon of gasoline has risen only x%. At the same time the taxes on that gallon of gas have risen y%. Given the increased demand for fuel world wide it is a wonder that fuel does not cost even more than it does.

Tell me Senators, can you say the same about the cost of Education? Why is it Senator that the cost of education has risen more than 4% per year over the f our decades? Have they delivered the increased quantity and quality of education that we should expect for those prices? If not, then why are you not hauling the heads of colleges and universities before you to berate them for the ungodly increases in the cost of education? Why are you not berating the heads of the teachers unions for their poor performance? Why aren’t they being accused of price gouging? Could it be that you have an agenda that doesn’t allow for the scenario to be exposed?”

If they tried to stop me I would challenged them and tell them that “I wasn’t aware that I gave up my first amendment rights when walking into this chamber. Is that what you are trying to do? Can you not take a little criticism on your own ground? Are you trying to steer my answers into a form that is convenient for you or do you want the whole and unvarnished truth?”

Then I would lay out the details that prove my point. I would show what percentage of the costs are accounted for by exploration and development, what costs are caused by refining, and government regulation of refining, the creation of boutique fuels for State by State demands, I would show what percentage of the costs get allocated to transportation, and the cost of insurance, and any other costs that are incurred. I would point out to them where government could help to lower the cost by changing regulations.   I would point out to them all the areas in this country that they have put off limits to exploration and give them estimates of how much oil and natural gas they are preventing the oil companies from obtaining. I would show the demand curves for fuel both domestically and internationally. I would delineate each an every time the oil companies applied for and were denied the right to build a new refinery and point out to them the effects of such actions on the costs of fuel.

I would risk going to jail and hammer each individual Senator that put me there as a violator of my civil rights.