Reagan and the Modern Republican Party

The Hill: Reports on the debate within the Republican Party how to regain the success the Party had under Reagan, do they go for ideological purity or a party that allows for different shades of Republican thought. At the end of the day Reagan understood you had to win, thus the Reagan success with the fabled Reagan Democrats, in other words the over taxed over looked middle class, tough on Foreign Policy, moderate on social issues and very pro USA. When looking at Reagan you have to go beyond the spin, yes there are some fundamental values that are not open to debate, small government, low taxes, a strong defence, also allowing individuals to follow the American dream. The above is strategy, but we are talking about tactics, Reagan could be tough in talks from Democrats to the USSR, but he was open to pragmatic talks on how to reach his goals, he was willing to compromise up to a point, as long as the policy was kept on his road. Thus lets recall some simple facts, Reagan was elected in 1980, he smashed Carter, in that first term he equalled LBJ on his management of Congress, he built up the military, cut taxes, used the US military to show that Vietnam was in the past. Thus from the economic recession at the start of the 80's we saw a economic boom that lasted for over a decade. In his re-election in 1984 Reagan destroyed the political career of Walter Mondale, the VP to Carter. In total Reagan took 49 states and 525 Electoral College votes, no one so far has beaten that, in the second term we saw the end of the cold war, Reagan and Gorbachev found that they could deal, thus USSR started to leave Afghanistan in 1988. On the political front Reagan saw his VP, Bush 41 become his successor in 1989, Bill Clinton's VP, Al Gore could not manage in 2000 that due to the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over his affair. After Reagan left office we saw the Republicans take over Congress following the principals of Reagan, the question one has to ask will Obama even win a second term in 2012, Obama has shown the PR skills of Reagan but has not learnt the message of Reagan was also important in making Reagan a beloved President.

Terror in Baghdad - Iraq

BBC News: Reports on massive terror attack in Baghdad. a high death total is expected, initial reports seem to place the blame on Al Qaeda. This is a reminder folks that Al Qaeda is not just in Pakistan, they are also a threat to the West in Iraq. As Iraq has new elections next year we can expect more attacks, as in Afghanistan the Taliban/Al Qaeda know that democratic elections are a threat to their existence, it shows that there is a different path for the people of the region. The Afghan and Iraqi elections are also a challenge to the Obama Administration, as Obama dithers about Afghanistan he can not afford to lose Iraq. The Bush surge worked, Iraq on the whole has gone off the news wires, the terrorists will now start to hit targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. This the time for Obama to show some backbone in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan President Obama should send the extra troops requested by General McChrystal and in Iraq Obama should offer to start talks for keeping the US in Iraq post 2011. Obama can not afford Afghanistan or Iraq, either loss would undermine the West and would allow the terrorists to win in the long term.

Iraq Elections 2010

The New York Times: Interesting Op - Ed article by Thomas Friedman, how important Iraq still is to American Foreign Policy, Friedman writes the following on Iraq, " Six years after the U.S. invasion, Iraq continues to unnerve and tantalize. " As Mr Friedman points out of if Obama can make Iraq work this could be more important than Afghanistan, as a working Arab Democracy would be a major threat to Iran. It would be ironic if the only foreign policy success for Obama would be Iraq, he ran against the Bush surge when he was running for President but so far has kept the troops in Iraq and is following the agreement between Bush 43 and the Iraqi government for the withdraw of American combat troops by 2010 and all US forces by 2011. But lets get real here folks, if Iran goes nuclear then Iraq might ask the USA to keep military bases in Iraq, or of course Israel could hit Iran and then Iran would attack US bases in Iraq. Thus the USA is not out of the woods yet in Iraq.

The Reality of Afghanistan

The Sunday Times: Reports on the challenges facing the West in Afghanistan, from the poverty of the people to the Tribal Warlords that control the people. If you want to know why VIEWS is ambivalent about Afghanistan read this article, it shows why the West cant win in the long run, it would take to long and cost to much of its treasure and manpower, but if we lose Afghanistan we could lose Pakistan, and the loss of a nuclear armed Pakistan to the Taliban would make the loss of Vietnam look like happy hour at the local. Also Iran would see that the Obama Administration was weak and go nuclear, as stated this would force Israel to take action, its quite a vicious circle when it comes to Afghanistan, that is why the British Empire on the whole kept is nose out, we had been burned to many times in the badlands of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, then it was of course British India, the Jewel of the Crown. Read of the Day.

Afghanistan Front News

MOD: Has released the name of the soldier killed last Thursday, the soldier was " Corporal James Oakland of the Royal Military Police " Our thoughts are with Corporal Oakland's family.