Trump, NATO, and Nuclear Proliferation

Let Them Have Nukes!

Once again Donald Trump has sparked debate and controversy over his policy ideas. A few days ago Trump suggested that NATO was obsolete in its current form and needed to be reorganized in a way that better suited the threats of today. And that other countries need to take care of their own defense without America paying for it, and besides Europe, he mentioned Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

And while there is some truth to his assertions, as usual, he went a bit too far and ignored some key facts. He continued by suggesting that Japan, South Korea, and anyone else should be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons. What makes this kind of talk even more worrisome is the fact that Trump wasn’t aware of what our own nuclear triad even was (our ability to project our nuclear forces via land, air, and sea).

First, I’d like to take on the subject of joint security treaties and funding.

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was founded in 1949 on the heels of World War II and in the face of a growingly aggressive Soviet Union. Today it has 28 member states between North America and in Europe. NATO was founded to ensure peace in the North Atlantic region and is a joint-security organization. The main stipulation of the NATO agreement is Article 5 which states that, if any one NATO member is attacked by a non-NATO country, all of the other NATO countries will come to the defense of the other.

Trump has said that NATO is out of date, particularly when it comes to dealing with international terrorism, and he’s practically blamed them for not stopping the attack in Brussels. His criticism continues, saying that the United States is basically subsidizing the defense of the other NATO countries, which hurts our economy.

For the record, NATO is not some internal police force. It doesn’t have the authority to search homes, bust up gangs, and arrest people – that’s what law enforcement does. NATO, like every other military organization in the world, was founded to defend against invasions by another state. Of course, like any other military force, it also needs to adapt to become useful against terrorism. But it must do so within an existing foundation. NATO came about after two shattering world wars, and the lessons of a militarized “police” force and even letting the regular army engage in domestic matters, those lessons that we learned after the terror of fascism need to be remembered.

NATO has been involved in the fight against terror since 9/11. NATO even led the 42-nation coalition in the War in Afghanistan. At its height, NATO commanded 130,000 soldiers in that theater. It’s true that NATO needs to be modernized and intelligence sharing definitely needs to be increased, but ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (which is not a NATO member), the organization has been doing these things.

The only thought about NATO that Trump had that might have some validity was on funding.

The US contributes around 22% of NATO’s operational budget. Combined, the UK, Germany, and France contribute another 39%. And while these figures may sound like America is paying too much, when you look at our economy and the amount of money we spend each year on our own military, we far exceed the capabilities of the other countries. When you take all NATO members combined, America accounts for 35% of the total population, 48% of total GPD, and over 65% of military spending.

The US spends around $700 million on NATO, that equals 0.003% of our GDP, or 0.11% of our national defense budget. If you were to insist that each of the 28 member states paid an equal share, for a country like Albania, that would consume 1.6% of their GDP or a whopping 200% of their defense budget – JUST for NATO! And if you wanted to make things truly proportional, America would have to double or triple the amount we send to NATO.

Look, it’s certain that some countries can and should pay more, but NATO helps America too. The US received $3.2 billion in NATO funded projects during the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO has also funded hundreds of millions in military base expansions and improvements throughout Europe; bases the United States use.

Organizations like NATO are incredibly important. These types of cost-sharing and security guaranteeing organizations help to maintain over-all peace. Believe it or not, the world is far more peaceful today than it was in the past. NATO helped save West Germany from Soviet occupation, allowed the former European states of the Soviet Union to keep their independence, and, despite what Trump says, has played a role in defeating terrorism.

So while the US may pay more, we also spend more on our own military than any other country, we make more money than any other country, and we get stuff in return. The European Union accounts for $700 billion in annual trade for America, keeping Europe stable IS a great deal.

Next, I want to look at security arrangements with Japan and South Korea.

Trump makes it sound like all America does is give those countries money, men, and machines, while we get nothing in return.

The origins of all of this goes back to World War II and the Korean War. During WWII we had to occupy Japan and had a moral obligation to keep the civilians safe until a new, stable government could be formed. And since we occupied southern Korea after WWII, we needed to help keep them safe too, particularly since the Soviet Union was keen on taking all of Korea.

Then a little thing called the Korean War happened which resulted in the deaths of over 2 million civilians, and 128,000 American casualties. The southern half of the Korean Peninsula, the Republic of Korea, was our ally in that war and was nearly destroyed by the Soviet and Chinese backed Democratic Republic of Korea – otherwise known as North Korea.

Today, South Korea has a numerically smaller army than North Korea, and North Korea tests nuclear weapons every few years. North Korea has also violated the terms of the 1953 Armistice hundreds of times over years, including two separate attempts to assassinate presidents of South Korea.

Japan is also a mortal enemy of North Korea. And while Japan was definitely the aggressor during the early 20^th Century, Japan lost the war and has tried to make many reparations to both North & South Korea. Japan also has territorial disputes with Russia and China. And in accordance with their surrender after World War II, Japan doesn’t have a normal military capability, only a small self-defense force. So, the US helps to provide some additional backbone for these two countries.

We maintain 50,000 soldiers in Japan and 28,000 in South Korea. It’s important to remember, just like with Europe, that American trade with Japan and South Korea equals nearly $310 billion annually.

North Korea’s primary reason, they claim, for developing nuclear weapons is because South Korea is under America’s “nuclear umbrella”. However, North Korea’s nuclear program dates back to the founding of the country and has become an integral part of the country’s identity.

Trump seems to think that America is just handing over everything to South Korea. That’s simply wrong. In 2014 South Korea agreed to pay us $866 million to help maintain our presence. That was 5.8% more than 2013 and it’s on track to grow by 4% each year. This doesn’t pay the full bill, but it’s definitely more than “practically nothing” as Trump claims. Additionally, the size of America’s military presence in South Korea has remained quite stable since 2006 and the number of soldiers stationed there is at its lowest level since the Korean War – 63 years ago.

As I stated earlier, North Korea has attacked the South many times and regularly threatens to destroy their capital, Seoul, which has a population of 10 million. In fact, North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at South Korea and has hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed along the border. North Korea has even dug three massive tunnels into the South to enable a rapid invasion if war broke out. There is no doubt that having a defense treaty with South Korea has saved many lives and help to avert war.

I want to tie this in with Japan, which has territory within 350 miles of North Korea. North Korea regularly fires short and medium range rockets into the sea, and this activity has been increasing under Kim Jong Un. Many of these launches are aimed in the direction of Japan. North Korea has 3 types of missile that could reach Japan if launched from the Korean Peninsula. North Korea also has a submarine fleet that could help extend the range of other rockets and missiles. Regarding cost, just like every other country, Japan pays America – for the last 5 years Japan agreed to pay us $2 billion annually.

Besides North Korea, which remains the most pressing threat to the two countries, there are also continuing concerns when you look at China and Russia. It’s definitely in America’s interest to maintain our alliances and trade status. Both Russia and China have sought to extend their influence around the world and neither country is afraid to simply take territory. But having a strong and stable American presence acts as a very real deterrent and buffer.

The specific figures of how much we get paid is always up for renegotiation, but Trump continues to say that we need to be ready to “walk away” from anyone if they don’t do what we want. If Trump is such a business and economic expert, he should understand very well that even sending signals – regardless of how real they are – can send the markets crashing. Likewise, with foreign policy, when we tell our closest allies that we’d be willing to leave, even if we really aren’t going to, but by putting that out there we risk severely damaging our alliances.

Let’s not forget that both South Korea and Japan are not only our trading partners and allies against North Korea, but they’re also our allies when it comes to dealing with Russia and China. Telling them it’s possible we’d break our relationship with them, only serves to get them to reconsider their relations with other countries, like China, and drive them closer to our enemies.

Finally, I want to address the nuclear question. Trump’s suggestion that nuclear weapons should be spread to even more countries really blows my mind.

One of the problems with igniting an arms race is that neither country involved ends up better off – both countries have increased their military ability and have spent huge sums of money, so neither has gained a tangible advantage over the other. The goal is to come to a mutual agreement that leaves both countries in a better position and stops the weapons buildup. And promoting nuclear proliferation would create an arms race far more dangerous than the one between the US and the Soviet Union.

For many years the key tenant of global nuclear policy has been and is disarmament. From a high of 68,000 nuclear warheads in 1985, there has been an 83% decrease in the number of weapons today. The only people who want more weapons, or who think it might be a good idea, are those who have never seen their devastation. Even nuclear testing causes harm to people, never mind dropping a bomb on a city and killing a million lives.

America just finished a contentious agreement with Iran to prevent them from developing atomic bombs and we have been struggling to slow down North Korea’s weapons program for decades. Every few years, tensions rise between India and Pakistan, both of whom have nuclear weapons but aren’t members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why would anyone suggest other countries should get their own bomb?

Donald Trump likes to give ideas. He likes to use all of those great words he knows, but he rarely seems to think about their impact or the broader implications of such policies. So, allow me to elucidate what the likely outcome of his idea would be.

If South Korea developed their own bomb, North Korea would be compelled to put every last resource they had into expanding their own program. They would also improve their delivery systems and finally produce a miniaturized warhead that could not only hit South Korea, but the United States mainland. ‘The Donald’ seems to have forgotten that South Korea is Kim Jong Un’s arch enemy and it would verify every bit of Communist propaganda that they have been force feeding their population for half a century. This would lead to an arms race very similar to the one between America and the Soviets. But unlike having a Kennedy or even a Khrushchev in power, we have Kim Jong Un. Is Trump really willing to bet the lives of millions that this trajectory would not lead to an actual war?

The ability to restrain oneself, even in the face of possible annihilation, is paramount when it comes to being a good leader, as is the ability to say “no” to advisers who urge you to push the big red button. The Soviets considered using nukes to kick us out of Germany during the Cold War. And even some American generals during the Korean War debated using nuclear bombs to create a radioactive wasteland along the Chinese-Korean border to knock China out of the war. I praise God cooler heads prevailed.

The point of that history lesson is that even after being responsible for and witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even some American generals decided to go full crazy and propose using them again. Therefore, can we be certain that others who have no direct knowledge of the destruction these weapons can cause, and who talk about genocide as a matter of national priority, can we really be certain that these rogue regimes wouldn’t use this incredibly powerful weapon to accomplish whatever twisted goals they might have?

A South Korea with a bomb would also make Japan less than comfortable. And if both Japan and South Korea had them, China would feel it absolutely necessary to further expand their nuclear arsenal. Once China did that, India would feel compelled to do the same because India and China have territorial disputes and they have had three major military conflicts since India’s independence. 

You also have to consider that India is wary of China’s relations with Pakistan, and that Pakistan, another nuclear armed country, has had very strained ties with India since the creation of the modern Pakistani state.

Obviously, with India growing their own nuclear abilities, Pakistan would do the same. By the way, India and Pakistan have also fought 3 wars since independence. And unlike the US, Russia, or even China, both India and Pakistan have had widespread troubles with home-grown terrorism. Hell, Pakistan has even admitted to helping the Taliban! (Check out this interesting article about India & Pakistan.)

So now we would have North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, India, and Pakistan in an ever spreading arms race. The nuclear genie would never be able to be contained. Russia would be forced to adjust its military strategy to prepare for possible conflicts with Japan, China, South Korea, and India. Iran could then demand nuclear weapons for legitimate national security reasons. That in turn would mean Saudi Arabia would have to get the bomb. Israel might very well attack Iran in that case, leading to the largest conflagration since World War II.

And it’s not just these major countries either. Burma, also known as Myanmar, has been suspected of wanting nuclear weapons for many years. Burma has had nuclear conversations with Russia and has helped North Korea avoid sanctions as well as assisted them with arms and drug trading. Then there’s also groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda who have made their intentions clear. Trump even said in the same debate in which he made it clear he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was that, “The biggest problem this world has today…is nuclear – nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.”

You see, this is one area where controlling proliferation would become all but impossible. The more countries that have atomic weapons and the more places involved in manufacturing, transporting, and storing nuclear materials means that you have that many more potential places for security failure. It becomes far easier for a terrorist group to steal or buy needed materials, or for some disgruntled scientist to walk away with technology and products and have it windup in the marketplace.

Donald Trump’s suggestions do not make America secure, they make us far less safe – they make the planet less safe.

NATO is the linchpin of our strategy in Europe and it’s a cornerstone that enables trade, security, and stability on the continent. It has served as a bulwark against Russian aggression toward Finland and in the Baltic. Our treaties with Japan and South Korea have kept North Korea contained and has kept the seas open across the Asian-Pacific region. It has also served to stand against Chinese, as well as Russian, incursions, and has been key toward sustaining our relationships with other partners like the Philippines and Taiwan. We need a Commander-in-Chief who understands this. 

--Jacob Bogle, 4/4/2016

JacobBogle.com

Facebook.com/JacobBogle

Twitter.com/JacobBogle

Donald Trump's Policy on Terrorism (video)

I've made my first YouTube video and used it to examine Donald Trump's plan to combat terrorism, "whatever we need to do, even if we need to expand the laws". I discuss what that really means and the inevitable long-term implications. The video is 13:55 minutes long. Below, you'll find the main transcript.

Trump’s Foreign Policy

Today there was another horrible terrorist attack, this time in Brussels, Belgium. And as happens whenever such events occur, people start asking questions about security, how we can stay safe and prevent future attacks etc. And since Donald Trump is currently the top Republican candidate, he has been asked his views.

And so, I’d like to talk about the “Trump foreign policy”. Whenever I hear him talk about the need to reassess our foreign interventions, how going into Libya was a bad idea, and how bombing civilians tends to create more enemies – you know, that whole blowback concept – I get really excited.

I like it. It makes sense. There’s a lot of evidence to support those views. It’s a lot more of a Constitutional policy, more of a libertarian philosophy, and definitely more of a human-rights based philosophy.

But then, you have terrorist attacks. You have San Bernardino, you have the attacks in Paris and today in Brussels. And, of course, you ask “well, what do we do?” And Trump’s answer to that isn’t really libertarian. It isn’t really based on the idea of liberty or about protecting rights.

He talks about the need to be hard and be strong, and of course we do need to address these problems. But he goes on saying that he supports waterboarding, and that if we need to make the laws or expand them to do “whatever we need to do” in his words – that that’s fine.

It’s fine because the terrorists don’t use laws. ISIS doesn’t have laws, and we do, and we want to follow the law. So, we need to pass laws that gives us the authority to do things like waterboarding and capturing the families of terrorists, and all of this other stuff. Again, it’s whatever we need to do to be safe and win.

And of course the initial knee-jerk reaction is “Yes, yes! We need to do this!” We have been attack and we need to go and destroy our enemy.

But it’s also important to step back for a moment and think about what that actually means. We need to think about the consequences and the path that it leads us down.

Now nobody wants to be the first to break Godwin’s Law, but I’m about to – and I ask that you please stay with me here. You know, a prime, somewhat recent example of all of this is Nazi Germany.

The idea here was that Germany was under threat, they were under siege. Now, in their minds it was this “Great Jewish Conspiracy”, but it was also anarchists, Communism – and of course we in the West also opposed the Soviet Union – and so they were under threat by that. Eventually they had conflicts with France and the UK once Germany went into Poland.

So how do you deal with all of that? How do you deal with threats both external and domestically?

While there were some existing legal frameworks under which they could operate, but to make all of their actions and the ultimate goals of the Nazi regime palatable with the German people – who are now at war – they had to come up with other legal means and frameworks.

The problem was that they ended up being so broad in scope and in meaning, that ultimately it all turned into simply the words of Hitler were law. The words of Goering and Himmler were law. And of course all of this was done in the name of preserving the German Reich and protecting the people, and accomplishing the goals of the nation.

But what did that do? What did it lead to? 

You ended up with the Gestapo, you ended up with the T-4 euthanasia programs killing the disabled, going in and ransacking people’s homes, and searching for “terrorists” aka Jews, and homosexuals, and intellectuals, and Communists, and even people who were proud German patriots who simply disagreed with the Nazi Government.

And when you start talking about “doing everything we can”, when you talk about creating backdoors into encryption and allow the government to search anywhere and everywhere all in the name of safety. We have to remember, government is run by human beings, and human beings are corruptible, and we make mistakes; we fall victim to the prejudices we hold and the appeals of power and authority.

So unless you have openness and transparent checks and balances, and unless the people know what the government is doing had has the power to stop the government; if you don’t have those things government runs amok. And we’ve already seen this kind of secrecy and non-accountability with FISA Courts and literally thousands of abuses by the NSA.

Without such protections and an innate respect for liberty, you have what could have been legitimate revolutions in places like Cuba and elsewhere, all turn into nightmares for millions of people.

The Batista regime, even though they were backed by America, they weren’t pillars of democracy. It was corrupt and cruel and mean. Many people were arrested and tortured by this American-backed government in Cuba. So then you have Castro with his rag-tag team of, you know, 'Liberation Fighters', and things could have ended well.

But what happened?

They won. And now they have power. They were the oppressed, and unfortunately what happens many times is when the oppressed becomes the ones in power, the oppress the oppressors.

And they create new enemies and you have class struggle, and everything. And the revolution never dies! The revolution technically is still going on all of these decades later. Same thing in North Korea, the revolution continues! You had decades in China of these massive purges and rounding up people, and the Three Revolutions, and all of this terribleness and tens of millions of people thrown in jail and denied their rights – all because the government was trying to get at the actual enemy.

But then the enemies turned into not just the people who really were their enemies, but to the friends and families of the enemies. And then to the generations later on. “Well, your grandfather used to be a capitalist and so now we have to throw you in jail and destroy your family.” – And that is what happens.

And of course, that creates more discontent and more enemies.

And so it really bothers me to hear this type of rhetoric in American politics, in Western politics.

You can go after your enemy and defeat them without turning into your enemy.

When you do the things that terrorists do to fight terrorism, you become the terrorist!

You cannot defend the Constitution by tearing it up!

You cannot defend American freedoms by crushing them!

We fought the Nazis, and we won the war. And we put Nazi war criminals on trial. We fought the Japanese, and we won the war. And we put the criminals on trial. We’ve put domestic terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh on trial. It can be done.

If you follow the law, you follow the Constitution, you can still win.

Terrorism is frightening because it can pop up anywhere. But, I would argue, that’s what is more frightening in many ways is having Imperial Japan across one coast, and Nazi Germany overrunning all of Europe across the other coast.

Tens of millions of men under arms, guns pointed toward you. U-boats running the seas. I mean we had Nazi submarines right off of New York Harbor and in the Gulf. They even landed operatives on American shores with the purpose of blowing up dams and factories.

We had the Japanese sending explosive balloons over to set fire to the vast forests along the Pacific coast. And Japan was experimenting with chemical and biological weapons too. They could have easily set balloons over and taken out Seattle or Los Angeles.

These enemies were organized, had huge sums of money and infrastructure, and controlled millions of square miles of territory – and all of that was arrayed against us.

You know, at the very brink all you really had was the United States along with the UK which had barely managed to survive, and the Soviet Union which was being chopped into little bits and about to collapse. Not exactly a recipe for successes. And of course we weren’t exactly friends with Soviets. But we fought and persevered, basically, against half the planet when you look at terms of military strength and resources – and we won.

We won, largely, without turning our backs on our principles. And the time we did turn our backs – when we sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps, that effort damaged our national soul and didn’t do a damned thing to win the war.

Of course within that, what do we have today? We have a small group of people who have been incensed by decades of meddling and intervention by the West. Granted, today the motivation isn’t necessarily what we did in the past. The Genie is out, and its now largely terrorism for the sake of terror. But we still have to recognize when our actions contribute to radical motivation and think about long-term consequences.

The point is, there’s nothing wrong with following our Constitution and following the same principles that we had going into World War II.

No one thinks we were honestly friends with the Soviet Union. We were spying and them and they were spying on us. Heck, they knew about the Atomic Bomb before President Truman told them. And today, are we “besties” with Russia? No. But Russia has shown that they are willing to put skin in the game, to fight ISIS. So why are we talking about no-fly-zones and shooting down Russian planes?

You join with people who are willing to fight the same fight you are. That’s how you win. And then once you’ve defeated the immediate threat, you can deal with the other things.

But this insanity that we hear from pretty much everybody running for President, but especially Trump and even Ted Cruz – who has gone off the deep end with supporting military interventions around the world and promoting domestic spying programs – there is simply no reason why we can’t stick to our principles and still get the job done like have done time and time again.

And the last thing we need is someone in office who does not understand this.

The last thing we need is some basically guy pumped up on steroids going around half-cocked and yelling “we need to be strong, and I know people and I’m great at this, and we will be so strong, and we just have to do whatever we need to do because…yadda yadda yadda”.

That’s not what we need. Number one that isn’t a policy, and even if you could somehow craft it into a coherent policy and then take it to its logical conclusion – then we end up being an actual police state.

I know that phrase is used a lot, but we are nowhere near being the kind of ‘Big Brother, Mass Surveillance, If You Have Nothing to Hide Let Me In’ type of society we would become under the vision of people like Trump.

And it is time that libertarians, and actual lovers of Liberty – I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, or Republican, or even a freakin’ Socialist – it’s time that we ALL stand up against this madness.

If our leaders and those who are seeking to lead, if they won’t be the adult in the room the it’s up to us, we the people, to stand up and be the adult and take control of the situation. Because I, for one, am not willing to be led by the nose or otherwise forced into some kind of monstrous situation all in the name of security or patriotism.

Waving a flag, chanting “USA, USA”, and towing the line with your head down is NOT patriotism!

Patriotism is standing up for what is right. Not just because it’s legal; making torture legal doesn’t make it right. Not just because the polls show most people support X, Y, and Z. But to stand up for what is right and to defend the founding principles of our country.

Because when we turn our backs on that, we are no longer Americans. There’s no more line that separates us from the barbarians at the gate. And I am going to everything I can to make sure that that line, stays. That there is a clear difference between us, and that this country, as a free republic, remains a free republic.

For this and many other reasons are why those of us in the Liberty Movement need to stand strong against this level of inhuman and unconstitutional policies. Simply being an “outsider” and “speaking your mind”, or damaging the establishment is not reason enough to hand over the keys to this country to a man – or any candidate for that matter – who so clearly does not understand what the Rule of Law and Liberty for All means.

The destruction of some group of Neo-Cons does not take precedence over my life and your life, nor the lives of innocent people everywhere.

So I ask you to please join with me and stand strong for Liberty.

If you’d like to know more about me and what I do, please check out my website at www.JacobBogle.com or connect with me on Facebook and Twitter @JacobBogle

---Jacob Bogle, 3/22/16

www.JacobBogle.com

Facebook.com/JacobBogle

Twitter.com/JacobBogle

Jacob Bogle for 2016: An Interview

Out of control spending, crushing debt, an extremely volatile stock market, rising national security threats, and continual attacks on our liberties have left Americans both disillusioned with Washington and afraid for the future of our country.

Clearly the time has come for a real leader, one who is not controlled by the DC machine or sullied by big business interests, to step up and seek the office of President of the United State of America. In this time of great need, I am announcing my....

OK, I'm neither old enough to qualify for president nor experienced enough to run. Having said that, there are six Republicans (down from 17) and two Democrats (down from four) running, along with a several third party candidates. Few of them are offering any substantive alternatives to failed establishment policies. With all of the craziness surrounding this election, and the fact that this election will cement the course this nation takes (and the repercussions) long after the next four years are over, I would like to offer my own views on the pressing matters facing us. After all, everyone else is.

I don't claim to know everything or to have a clip full of magic bullets which would immediately solve our problems, but I do think these ideas would get us back on the right track and set up a path to success. Some of the things I support other real candidates are also promoting, while some of the issues/solutions I'll talk about have barely been mentioned at all. 

I am a small "l" libertarian, but I'm also pragmatic and realize that sometimes compromise is the only way to actually move us toward the perfect solution, where being unwavering in some areas (even if the solution is ultimately the best one) would only cause an immovable obstacle and result in us falling off a cliff.

The format will be that of a mock interview and I will try to answer the "questions" in a fairly succinct but also meaningful and direct way (something the current front runners of both parties have failed to do). The issues aren't in any particular order.

(NOTE: I'm a moderately intelligent, thinking person. I reserve the right to learn more, listen to other arguments, and to update or even change my beliefs based on new information.)

How would you deal with ISIS?
There is a lot of debate over what caused ISIS to develop and rise. Was it America's rapid withdrawal from Iraq, or was it our invasion in the first place? Regardless of which side you're on, the fact is a power vacuum was created and radicals took advantage of a destabilized region. This seems to be a pattern when it comes to our foreign policy, and one that dates back to the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat, during which the US directed the overthrow of the duly elected Prime Minister of Iran. That too ended up leading to a crisis situation, that of a radical Iran seeking nuclear proliferation.

Both major parties have taken part in regime change, most recently Libya and Egypt, and each time we have, we almost always end up with more enemies than we had in the first place. Our foreign policy choices have been made for the benefit of short-term gains while apparently ignoring the long-term possible consequences.

There is no doubt the illegal 2003 war in Iraq (which succeeded the 500,000 civilian deaths of the Gulf War and related sanctions) helped to spur on radicalization. But the actions of the Obama administration have practically handed over half the Middle East to terrorist organizations. Today, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, and several other countries have lost territorial control over large portions of their respective countries to ISIS and associated groups.

The debate over root causes is a long and delicate one, but there can be no mistake that what is happening now must be dealt with. The only question is will we continue making the same mistakes that unleashed ISIS onto the world?

Specifically regarding ISIS, the path to victory has been clear for some time, we have simply lacked leadership from both the President and Congress. The first step is to stop ignoring the Constitution.

1) We must officially declare war on ISIS.

2) Once that is done, we must immediately move to arm and supply the Kurdish fighters, who have long begged for our support, are capable fighters, and have generally been aligned with secular and Western interests. While that action may make some countries unhappy, the long-term fight against radical Islamic terrorism can only be won once the people of the affected countries rise up and destroy it themselves. Until they are willing to fight for their own freedom, no amount of US involvement will succeed - and the Kurds have proven they desire to stop ISIS and are willing to fight (they've been doing it for years).

3) We need to increase our support of Iraqi, Jordanian, Saudi, and Turkish air forces (along with any other regional country engaged in the fight) to enable them to step up their offensive capacity.

4) We ourselves need to dramatically increase the number of air strikes and create a joint US-anti-ISIS coalition that goes beyond the current Combined Joint Task Force-Inherent Resolve, even if that means working with Russia.

5) The focus of the air strikes need to be on command, training, and economic centers. There should not have been a single training base or major oil center left standing in ISIS held territory for France to have to bomb after the brutal attacks in Paris.

6) We must work with Russia and all concerned parties to address the Assad issue. If we take Assad out while ISIS still controls half of Syrian territory, and without having a strong transitional program (along with viable potential successors), we will only be making the same mistake we made in Libya. Even during WWII, despite the fact that Japan attacked us first, we agreed with our allies that our main effort should be against Hitler because he constituted the greatest threat. Likewise, ISIS is currently a greater threat than Assad.

7) We have to seek out everyone who is funding ISIS. They receive a large amount of support from people living in "allied" countries like Saudi Arabia and that must stop.

8) We need to wage an all-out cyber war against them - shutting off their ability to communicate in the open via social media and their publications, and go after their digital infrastructure.

9) We need to pass legislation to revoke the citizenship of any American who goes overseas to train with ISIS or who knowingly provides material or financial assistance to them.

10) Once the back of ISIS has been broken from massive and non-stop air strikes, we need to support a Muslim coalition of ground forces to take back all territory and destroy what's left of ISIS.

After years of sanctions, how should we address North Korea?
Iran has gotten the lion's share of attention when it comes to their nuclear program and terrorism. Iran is undoubtedly a threat to Israel and peace in the region, however there's another country we need to be focusing on. Unlike Iran, North Korea has already produced and tested functional nuclear weapons despite being subjected to the most restrictive and expansive sanctions regime in the world. Their nuclear ambitions go back half a century, they now have a full-fledged ballistic missile program, and they have a long history of funding, arming, and training terrorist groups as well as committing terrorist acts themselves. Intelligence Director James Clapper has recently said North Korea is actually a bigger threat than Iran.

As I wrote about in 2013, the sanctions regime has comprehensibly failed and North Korea has the domestic capacity to build many of the needed components to construct warheads and ballistic missiles. We have basically been doing the same thing over and over for decades, and all that has happened is millions of people starve while their military works toward a functional nuclear arsenal. As recently witnessed with Iran, diplomacy can and does work. Of course, North Korea doesn't actually exist in a vacuum, and without the continued support of China they would be in a much worse situation. However, I subscribe to the policy of President Reagan, that "a hungry child knows no politics." We should not punish a destitute and starving people for the actions of a government they have zero control over. With that said, there are still many pressures China could place on the North Korean leadership and their military, and we should help China see that cooperation with the United States to ultimately achieve a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula is in their best interests too.

When we were actively engaging with North Korea, their nuclear program slowed, and for a time, was largely suspended. I would rather us talk to them and help to prevent any further nuclear development (as we did with the Agreed Framework), than double down on policies that have done nothing to stop them, which was made evident once again with a nuclear test in January 2016 and a missile launch in February.

College Debt has become one of the main issue this election cycle. How do you propose helping students?
College debt is one of the biggest threats facing our generation and could result in many in future generations not being able to attend college at all. We have created an environment where getting a college education is both economically and socially required, even if it isn't always the right thing for each individual. This has led to fields being overcrowded with applicants and a devaluation of their degrees, which in turn hampers graduates' ability to pay back any loans they have.

The real problem, however, is the cost of tuition. In its infinite wisdom, the government decided to guarantee student loans. This meant that universities will get paid regardless. That damaged normal market forces and removed the pricing mechanism between cost, ability to pay, and the true value of the degree. In other words, universities were free to hike up tuition costs because it doesn't matter if the student becomes saddled with debt, or if they ever pay a dime - the government has guaranteed repayment. And in the process, the government rakes in billions in profits off the backs of students. The folks over at the National Bureau of Economic Research (which has contributors such as Paul Krugman and Janet Yellen), released a 60-page report in 2015 verifying that tuition costs have risen drastically because of the government.


We need to return control over education back to the student. By allowing the market to reassert itself, costs will decline - as it does in every sector where government interference is at a minimum. We also need to promote college preparation courses in high school and help make vocational/technical training more accessible to students who want to earn a great living but who don't want a degree requiring studies in floral arrangement.

The military budget consumes the largest portion of non-discretionary spending. With the threats facing us, are we spending enough?
Let me make something clear first. Our defense budget is larger than the next 9 top-spenders combined. We have more aircraft carriers, more destroyers, more nuclear submarines, more combat aircraft and tanks than any other country. Instead of freaking out that we have fewer ships than at the end of World War II (when we were fighting for the survival of the planet), we need to be focusing on what the threats are today.

The Pentagon needs a great deal of reform. From procurement to weapons development, we waste and misspend billions every year. It took us nearly $7 billion and many years, just to produce the first 34 F-35 fighter jets, which has been described as a financial black hole. On top of that, it costs $32,000 to fly a single plane for an hour. After spending $2 billion to develop new littoral combat ships, the Dept. of Defense announced they were cutting the program and instead would focus on new variants. Not to mention the $864 million drones that don't work, which makes the new ships useless. Plus, there's the growing debate over the effectiveness and continued need for new, billion-dollar aircraft carriers in the modern seascape of naval warfare. Or the continuing saga of the M1 Abrams tank, for which the Army has asked Congress to stop funding new construction since half our tank fleet sits in storage. But Congress keeps handing out millions to build tanks we don't need and the Army doesn't want.

Instead of spending ever more sums of money while we go deeper into debt, it's time we reassess the entire way we do business. To survive our military, and its bureaucracy, must become efficient. And those who waste money, or contractors who break their contractual obligations, need to be dealt with. Additionally, we need to encourage increased competition between contractors. Relying on a handful of giant companies to develop, build, and supply weapon systems and material decade after decade, only solidifies entrenched special interests and harms our national security by making it more difficult for innovative technologies coming from small firms and individuals to make it to the battlefield where they're needed.

Immigration has been a hot button topic for decades. What are your plans to address it?
Over 80% of non-American Indian descendants trace their heritage to after the Mayflower. My own ancestors came to the Colonies around a century after the Pilgrims, and a vast number of Americans today can't trace their American ancestry back beyond a century. The problem has never been immigration itself, otherwise most of us wouldn't be here. The problem stems from misinformation and fear mongering (like the fix pie fallacy), and from the fact that our government has constantly lied to us.

Immigrants don't steal jobs from citizens. And when someone migrates to the United States, they often end up starting businesses of their own, which creates net job growth. Even the number of illegal immigrants has fallen from 12.2 million to 11.3 and the number of illegals coming from Mexico has also fallen - which means things are slowly moving in the right direction.

There are two main issues: stopping new illegal immigration and what to do with the ones already here.

We don't need new laws; we need to enforce the laws we already have. However, the problem really is huge and since immigration and border control is a legitimate function of the federal government, I propose we streamline the process of immigration, visa enforcement, and deportation, and increase funding to modernize the system and hire enough people to clear the gigantic backlog of cases that we have, as well as finish securing the border.

We also need to address the "magnet". E-Verify needs to be nationwide, laws regarding the hiring of illegals need to be strictly enforced, and no city, county, or state should be allowed to offer "sanctuary". Again, immigration is firmly under federal jurisdiction, and ignoring the law is a crime - even if it's a city doing it. Concurrently, we must focus on deporting every non-citizen, legal or otherwise, who commits serious crimes or has a history of committing crimes regardless of their severity.

Depending on the sector, undocumented workers make up between 10% and 25% of the workforce in food service, construction, and agriculture. Rounding them all up and deporting them would have very bad consequences for our economy, particularly in its current fragile state. Additionally, there are millions who were brought here as kids and have grown up in America, have gone to school, speak English, have American friends, and want to make their adult life here in the US. All of this needs to be taken into consideration. And while many scream "amnesty", that word has an actual definition. Having a path to legal status for those who have earned it, imposing fines, making sure everyone speaks English and assimilates into America, enforcing tax payments, sending them to the back of the line etc., is the opposite of amnesty. However, the border must be secured before anything else.

(Economic snap shot, charts via St. Louis Federal Reserve. Click for larger view.)

It's been 7 years since the Great Recession, but the economy is still lagging. What are some of the solutions you have?
When Obama came into office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion. We were also in a terrible recession and our economy was on the verge of collapse. In the years following, few in government dared voice the idea that the government did indeed have a huge role to play in causing the recession in the first place, thanks to years of meddling and mandates.

Today the debt is over $19 trillion, the labor participation rate is at a 38 year low (falling at its fastest rate for the last 6 years), incomes are stagnant, Social Security Disability is projected to go broke this very year, and other economic indicators are looking poorly as well (like GDP growth). It's clear there is much to be done and there's little time to solve some problems before things get really bad.

We have lost billions on "green investment" and continue to give subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies despite their combined trillions. It's time we end subsidies for all energy. The government doesn't need to be in the job of picking winners and losers, and allowing well established industries to not pay their otherwise required taxes, only adds to our fiscal woes. Public sentiment has been swayed and there are now vast sums of private money going toward renewable research - as it should be.

Americans have been burdened with an insane tax code for far too long. Compliance costs our economy billions and has encouraged special interest groups to fight for their own "carve outs", adding to complexity and removing revenue. It also makes it difficult for the IRS itself to enforce the law, resulting in $21 billion in fraudulent tax returns in 2015. Not to mention the antiquated technologies the IRS uses. Loopholes must be ended.

A lack of regulations wasn't the cause of the 2008 banking failure. And the "solutions" implemented have only made the big banks bigger and resulted in fewer small, local banks. This makes our economy even more vulnerable if and when another major recession happens. Simply demanding fines of those who were responsible doesn't cut it. If I break into your house and steal $1,000, I'll go to prison for years. But if I'm in charge of a bank that stole your retirement fund (and those of countless others), the bank itself pays a fine to the government and I get to retire with a golden parachute. The law should apply to everyone, and those responsible for fraud, illegal activities, and encouraging malinvestment need to be incarcerated, not slapped on the wrist.

Intelligent regulatory reform and holding everyone accountable is the only way we can restore confidence. On the topic of reform, fully auditing the Federal Reserve is long overdue.

Much has been made of income inequality lately, but few seem to realize that thanks to the FED's policies, trillions of dollars have been pumped into the economy - directly into the hands of Wall Street. On top of that, the dollar has lost over 10% of its value since 2009. Under Obama the rich have gotten richer because of government policies! All of this, on top of keeping interest rates low, have added to the stock market's volatility because so much of its value is artificial and no longer tied to production and real economic activity.

Finally, it is time we strongly look into ways of reforming Social Security. The retirement age does need to be raised. This doesn't mean that those who are retiring this year, or even 5 years from now, would have to work longer. It means that those who are a decade away or more from retirement age would need to work a little longer. The current system was designed around shorter life spans. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to stick to that when the avg. American life span has increased 20-30% since 1900. 

Apart from fighting to keep Social Security working for those who are or will become dependent on it, it's important that we consider ways of allowing younger generations to invest in their own retirement without being forced to rely on government. After all, it is their money and their lives.

What are your views on the NSA and using bulk collection for national security?
Cruz, Rubio, Christie, and others have fought to expand the government's ability to collect all of our phone records, emails, and pretty much anything else it wanted. Ted Cruz, after claiming he wanted to stop the practice, bragged that he voted for the USA FREEDOM Act which gave the government the power to access 100% of American's phone records. 

Without the ability to have data on every American, supporters claim, we won't be able to stop terrorists. However, the FBI has admitted that there hasn't been a single attack prevented or major arrest due to bulk collection. On top of that, the government itself has violated the rules surrounding these programs thousands of times. This is the same government those on the right and left decry for overreaching authority, abuse, waste, and attacking political foes. Yet they want to give it even more power?

Some, like Gov. Chris Christie, have claimed that without these programs, the government can't do its job in fighting terrorism and that calls to follow the Fourth Amendment are naive (despite boasting that he was the only one running who has actually filed for warrants and that doing so works). What he should know, perhaps more than most, is that the government already tracks the phones of known terrorists and suspects. There's no need to spy on every citizen when all you have to do is look at who the terrorists are calling - those are the numbers we need to follow up on using search warrants. Instead of treating every American like a criminal and exposing 310 million people to government abuse (or having that massive database hacked by our foes), we can follow the evidence the suspects themselves are creating. 

For all of our intelligence gathering powers and myriad of overlapping defense/law enforcement agencies, the government failed to prevent the Boston Bombing, the San Bernardino attack, and others. What's more unsettling is the amount of evidence the government already had regarding some of those attacks but failed to act upon. 

When we ignore the Constitution and engage in warrantless searches, indefinite detention, or torture, not only do we validate our enemy's propaganda and enable recruiting, but we ourselves walk down the immoral path the terrorists themselves use. We brought the Nazis to trial. We brought Timothy McVeigh to trial. We can reply on our constitutional foundations to keep America safe and defeat our enemies.

Was Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis right in her actions?
The controversy surrounding Kim Davis underscores the level of misunderstanding over the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage. The first fact is that it had nothing to do with religious liberty; churches and pastors aren't legally required to marry anyone. In fact, the religious ceremony isn't even required for government recognition of marriage. For most of human history marriage was just a private contract between individuals and families, and in the US it has been a civil, that is, secular institution. When someone works for the government, their job is to execute their portion of the law that their job covers (be it building a road or issuing a marriage license). If your religious views conflict with that law, say, you're not allowed to build an access road to a mosque, then your legal rights gives you the freedom to find a new job. It doesn't give you the right to prevent that road from being built. No one has an inherent right to any specific job, but a representative of government does have an obligation to treat all citizens equally and to provide them with equal legal services and recognition.

The broader issue at hand, however, is that of marriage licensing in the first place. Why should any two consenting adults need to beg permission of the government to commit to living their lives together? Licensing has roots in our dark past of systemic racism. It's time that chapter was closed forever.

Healthcare remains an important issue for Americans and the Affordable Care Act has survived a Supreme Court challenge. Where do we go from here?
America's healthcare system has been in need of reform for a long time. But, it's extremely important to remember that just because Americans generally want reform, that doesn't mean they want a specific policy. Obamacare may have a good idea or two, but as a whole, it's been a nightmare and relies on government force. Despite the Supreme Court's baffling ruling, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the ability to require purchase of a product.

The only way we can improve the healthcare system is by going after the structural problems, not mandating everyone jump on the train wreck. Solely looking to government to solve the problems it created by creating more mandates and interventions isn't the most logical thing. 

To assist in bringing down costs, increased priority needs to be placed on prevention first, as well as doubling down on cancer and Alzheimer's research, which is a growing economic disaster waiting to explode. Alzheimer's alone costs Medicare over $100 billion a year, and will cost the economy $1.1 trillion/annually by 2050. Innovations in healthcare will play a huge role in keeping Medicaid/Medicare solvent.

Individuals need to be able to buy insurance across state lines and it needs to be portable. The idea that you can lose your insurance when you switch jobs is appalling, and those are problems created by government. The doctor-patient relationship also needs to be restored. Like tuition costs, when patients and doctors have little say in the pricing, there's no real way for prices to match the marketplace and they will keep rising. Patients also have every right to know how much something is going to cost before they ever set foot in an office.

The federal government should get out of the way and allow states to experiment. One-size-fits-all mentalities have never worked. It didn't work in Soviet Union and it isn't working here. Fifty states mean 50 chances for innovation. When Washington DC makes a mistake, 310 million people suffer and those involved usually get promoted. If a state makes a mistake, the citizens have a much better chance of solving the issue and kicking people out of office.

Another area that has been neglected for far too long is the Food and Drug Administration. There is a revolving door between drug companies and FDA leadership. That must stop. The FDA is supposed to be the defender of America's health, not a company's bottom line. Outrageous FDA fees and red tape also plays a role in why new drugs can cost over a billion dollars to develop, which equals high prices for customers. Additionally, it makes it very difficult for smaller companies and universities to discover, develop, and deliver new medicines to patients. On top of that are the patents. There needs to be a standard, limited time period for all patents, after which a drug enters the "generic" market. Darapim is a great example. It was invented decades ago, yet remained under the exclusive control of its various corporate owners. It was government regulation that allowed Turing Pharmaceuticals to raise its price 5,000% and prevented cheap generic versions from being made in the US. The FDA needs reform and its scope limited; it should not be a crime to drink raw milk.

Will more gun control stop mass shootings?
(See my 2012 article on gun control)

Every time a horrible mass shooting occurs, the left goes into overdrive demanding more and more gun control; some even call for an outright ban on the ownership of personal firearms. What they fail to realize is that criminals are criminals, by definition they ignore and break the law. They also seem to be blind to the fact that the cities with the strictest gun control laws are also cities with the highest rates of violent crimes and shootings.

The history behind the Second Amendment, the text of the amendment, and court rulings are all very clear: all citizens have the right to keep and bear personal arms for self-defense and because we are all part of the militia, regardless of military service, as Presser v. Illinois noted.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves and I defy anyone to honestly say that when their house is being broken into or their wife is being sexually assaulted, that they would rather wait anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour for the police to show up than prefer to have the ability to defend their own home and loved ones with a weapon.

The problem of gun violence isn't the gun. It stems from a woefully inadequate mental healthcare system and from a culture that has tried to push guns away, and so most lack respect for the weapon and lack proper training. It also comes from a society that seems to relish in violence and bullying (movies, games, etc.) yet becomes confused and surprised when someone snaps, or when disturbed individuals act out by killing.

Trying to diminish a fundamental right we all have (remembering that rights do not come from government but are inherent) will not solve to the problem. We must, as a unified nation, recognize what the root causes are. Once we recognize that, then we have to put every resource available into assisting those with mental health issues, addiction services, and rebuilding broken families and communities.





--Jacob Bogle, 2/18/16
www.JacobBogle.com
Facebook.com/JacobBogle
Twitter.com/JacobBogle