My Latest Poster.....copyrighted.

COMBATTING ISIS: IS THE US LOSING A RARE OPPORTUNITY TO FOSTER A BROAD COALITION OF NATIONS IN THIS COMMON CAUSE?

ISIS has emerged in the last few years as the most dangerous enemy facing  major Western powers, as well as being a threat to Muslim nations and peoples not willing to submit to its tyrannical domination in pursuit of creating an extremist, radical Islamist caliphate in the Middle East.  Its rapid rise has astounded the West, its military leadership drawn from elements of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni army, which was disbanded by the US occupying forces when they took over Iraq in 2003.  These military careerist were turned loose without employment, were increasingly joined by other disaffected Sunnis in Iraq who were alienated by the Shiite government that the US had installed, merged with radical Sunni rebel forces in Syria fighting the Alawite Shia government of Bashar Assad, joined by other anti-western, extremist Islamic youth who might have otherwise been attracted to the now deflated al Qaeda movement, and became a major military and financial force when they were able to capture large supplies of US military weaponry, as well as oil producing areas, that the US-trained Iraqi army was unable to defend.

 ISIS's hatred of the West seems to know no bounds, and similarly shows no mercy on other Muslims who resist its overtures. It has, in effect, declared war on Western nations, especially those with any history of involvement in the Middle East, and on Muslim nations and peoples that dare stand in its way.  Its prime strategies  are to advance and conquer  areas of the Middle East, and now even  in Africa, where its reach extends, and to spread terror and fear within Western nations beyond its immediate reach through vicious attacks.  The nations of the West, the Middle East, and much of the world, have no alternative but to respond in force.

Facing such a sworn and prime enemy, a rare opportunity exists for all involved nations to join together in a broad, cooperative coalition, including even those that are not typically inclined to join together and have various issues that tend to keep them apart.  If the major forces having reason to oppose ISIS, namely Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, and other Middle Eastern, Muslim nations and sects, were providing troops on the ground; and  the US, French, Russia, the UK, and Germany were providing air support,  ground advisors, and military coordination, their power, through all working together and coordinating their efforts,  would be overwhelming.  The dynamics of multi-power politics, unfortunately, are preventing this from happening.

 A major obstacle is the US insistence that the removal of Assad in Syria continues as a co-priority of our policies, so we are continuing to support rebel groups other than ISIS fighting Assad, while at the same time launching attacks on ISIS in Syria. This puts us in opposition to the position of Russia, which is supporting Assad, has a legal military presence in Syria at the invitation of Assad, and adds to Assad's military strength, which is already the major ground force fighting ISIS in Syria.  Turkey's motivation to fight ISIS is diminished by its ongoing conflict with Kurdish populations.  Iran is desirous of fighting ISIS and has forces on the ground in Iraq, but its diplomatic battles with the US make any real coordination in their mutual efforts problematic.  The Iraqi forces are weak, appropriately reluctant to accept US boots on the ground in their land, as the majority of local populations are not only against a repetition of that, but also aware the presence of western ground forces are a major recruiting attraction for ISIS, and in keeping with ISIS's strategic plan .  And on it goes, a region so racked with a long history of western interference, and with deep sectarian and political divisions,  having difficulty uniting temporarily to defeat a common enemy.

 Since much of this immediate crisis, the rise of ISIS, was created through misdirected Western involvement,  Western nations should be a major factor in its resolution, even without  ground forces to engage ISIS in land combat. Middle Eastern nations have the most at stake with the rise of ISIS, it is necessary that they provide the ground troops to regain and hold land ISIS has overtaken.  Only local populations can hold and maintain peace on that land over time. The West cannot successfully do that, and if it tries, it diminishes the motivation of regional nations and peoples from fully engaging in that battle.   The West must, however, provide the coordination, facilitation, and air support necessary to ensure success. This is where current US policy is failing to demonstrate responsible leadership by encouraging formation of a full international coalition.

 As the major instigator of the ISIS crisis, and the nation with the most military power in the region, the primary coordination role should reside with the US, and it has resisted this role, with its priority on replacing Assad in Syria, along with its antipathy towards Russia, the major apparent reasons.  The French government, after the ISIS attack on Paris, has made it very clear, the immediate priority is on defeating ISIS, other considerations are secondary. They are in consultation with Russia to push for a broader coalition. Russia also is clear, its been attacked, it has large Muslim populations and restive adjacent peoples, extremists elements must be defeated, established governments maintained when threatened by extremists. Regime change and nation building by the West has failed elsewhere, why would Syria be any different.

 US policy remains, unfortunately, highly conflicted, and is frustratingly, potentially tragically, inviting conflict among the nations that should be working together against ISIS. When Russia made the decisive move to actively enter the fray in Syria, seemingly outmaneuvering the months of equivocation and hesitancy of US policy, the US response was far from welcoming a new, major force into the battle against ISIS.  Instead, a reference was made suggesting that our coalition was much better than that of Russia and Syria. Hardly words to lay the ground work needed for two nations, who have many reasons to better learn, through experience, how to work together for a beneficial common purpose, to begin that process.

 Is it too late to reverse the process, to model more cooperative efforts in a cause that desperately needs it and in a region that has long suffered from its absence?  One certainly hopes not, but the prospects are not encouraging.  The US would need to alter its stance, and provide more creative leadership. The most vocal voices in the US are currently reactive, conservative, fear-dominated.  When threat and fear are paramount in the  political thinking of leadership, it has a very constrictive effect on the vision inherent in policies.  The call for change would have to be loud and clear, and arise from citizen involvement in pushing for more enlightened policies. It is tragic when opportunities for cooperation on tasks  as vital as the defeat of ISIS, and potentially life-saving as the avoidance of major warfare, are not fully acted upon and carried out to fruition.

AMERICA'S OBESSION WITH TRUMP: A RUDE WAKE UP CALL FOR US ALL

For the past three month's America's news media and its viewing and listening audience has been fed a non-stop diet of Donald Trump.  He was first seen only as a passing fancy, someone who the public would quickly see through and fall out of contention as a Republican candidate for president.  The GOP establishment certainly hoped this would be the case, and the media laid in waiting to chart his expected downfall.  The Trump name has always been a financial and media creation, in real estate, in business, in reality show entertainment, and, now, how would it fare in politics?  Certainly not here too, the public is too smart, too shrewd, too selective for that!  How wrong the experts, and most of the concerned public, has been!?

What is responsible for Trump's continued, in fact, growing popularity among potential Republican voters?  And how should the general public's mounting fascination with him be viewed?  Certainly the media's virtual nonstop attention to him since the campaigning began has played a significant role.  Trump knows how to play the media beautifully, drawing attention to himself and away from others. The public seems fascinated by his sheer gall, his crassness, his crudeness, arrogance, and insults. He has given new meaning to the term "Teflon Candidate", comments and behaviors that would destroy other potential candidates if made by them, are seen, when coming from him, as a refreshing breath of his selective, candid, unique perspective--political correctness is overrated anyway, isn't it?  The 16 other GOP contenders for the presidency are getting a mere pittance of attention from the media compared to that granted Trump, and most of that attention is focused on his style, his passing comments, his crude putdowns, not on the details of any substantive ideas he is adding to the campaign.  The nation is faced with numerous serious issues that demand in depth, substantive discussion and resolution, this has been virtually totally lacking in the Republican campaigning so far, as the focus on Mr. Trump has diverted attention to the admittedly unique but politically trivial aspects of Trump's personal style.  Politics is in danger of becoming another of his media reality shows, much more entertainment than substance, with the nation's real issues left to dangle in the overblown hot air and periodic laughs.

The media's preoccupation, however, doesn't do justice to the underlying reasons for his continued popularity.  That the three leading candidates in the GOP field are all considered anti-GOP establishment candidates carries a powerful message of how angry Republican voters are with the leadership of their party.  Congress's approval rating has never been lower, both chambers are under Republican control, their intent to stonewall Obama on most issues has failed miserably in the public's view, Obama's approval rating is over three times that of the Congress that has consistently tried to block his every move.  No one has captured that anger, and that desire to "make America great again" better than Trump, and all the mainstream Republican contenders that were expected to be the frontrunners are left with single digits in the polls, floundering in his dust.

Even considering this very legitimate anger of many concerned voters, and how they may be attracted to a non-establishment, untraditional candidate, it is still surprising that so many are drawn to apparently support a man like Donald Trump.  His overt egotism, his non-stop bragging, his focus on the superficial, his lack of depth, his petulance, his crassness, his tendency to immediately polarize and put-down, his lack of empathy, and total absence of any experience in affairs of state, or dealing with conflict situations with anything other than bullying, force, and pressure.  Is this really the kind of leader a significant number of Americans would choose to have?  Has our American psyche, our current civic and cultural state, sunk that much in recent years?  Candidates are a media creation as well as a political creation.  Much of what is on TV and in our media models some of the behaviors and attitudes Trump demonstrates.  If his apparent popularity is a reflection of on-going changes in our national character, it is, to be sure, a rude wake up call for those who want more for our nation, and expect better from our leaders.  Will the wake up call be answered by an informed, sensible public?  Much is at stake, lets hope so!

THE GOP'S TOP 10 TO DO LIST: NO WONDER CONGRESS IS SO UNPOPULAR!

Ever wonder why the approval rating of Congress has been at an all-time low in recent years. Ranging in the high teens to low twenties, it has been consistently less than half the approval rating of the President.  No knowledgeable person has any doubt that the nation has serious problems, and that they are not being dealt with by our elected leadership with the effectiveness and urgency that they require.  It is clear the public holds Congress much more responsible for this than the President, if their approval ratings are any measure of this.  In looking at the actions of Congress since Obama's election, and in listening to the constant statements of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, a pattern emerges, in clear focus, that sheds light on Congress's historic low ratings. McConnell and Boehner may not agree with the following depiction of their To Do List, but with a nod to David Letterman's genius, this is one only partially tongue in cheek rendition of their Top Ten List during the Obama presidency so far.

1.  Block everything Obama proposes, the good things included.
2.  Raise Defense Department and NSA spending, cut everything else, especially for human and
     social services.
3.  Invite Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, without consulting the President and as an
     indication of disrespect.
4.  Beat the drums to start another foreign war, with boots on the ground from more American
     families.
5.  Role back hard won civil rights, in the name of national security.
6.  Curtail privacy rights, except of course for corporations.
7.  Ban environmental, climate change concerns and legislation, as an infringement on economic
     liberty and corporate profit-making potential.
8.  Vote Congress a raise.
9.  Declare Congress on a well-deserved vacation.
10. Blame the Democrats for the collapsing and dire State of the Nation.

Any wonder why Congress is as unpopular as it now is? Or why Obama has gotten so much gray hair during the past seven years?  The list may be a slight exaggeration, but only slight. To many Americans, it does reflect the essence of what they see as having taken place, to the detriment of all of us.

IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY: OUR BEST CHANCE 1) TO BEGIN A TRUE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS AND 2) TO FINALLY REJECT THE POLICIES AND PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT US THE DISASTROUS IRAQI WAR

-For the past 12 years our policies in the Middle East have brought us nothing but failure, frustration, loss of life, treasure, and international status. The Bush-Cheney administration promoted the neoconservative concepts advanced by the right-wing think tanks that our initial successes in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan could serve as a springboard into invading and overthrowing the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq, establish a government there more favorable to our interests and those of Israel, and from there go on to "democratize" other Middle Eastern governments. We were, after all, beginning the century as the world's sole superpower, with absolutely unmatched military strength, and we had mobilized much of the world's support following al Qaeda's attacks on our homeland on 9/11.  The voices raised at home and abroad that this undertaking would be a calamitous overreach and unleash endless Islamic sectarian rivalry as well as further hatred of Western influences were totally ignored and ridiculed. The past 12 years have proven the fallacy of the war-initiators expectations, and the proof of the concerns of those cautioning restraint. Disaffected Sunnis have formed ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and their strength is spreading, Iraq is torn between Kurds, Shia's, and Sunnis, Syria is torn with civil war, Afghanistan is searching for a resolution, needing our continued support but also needing to make accommodations with the Taliban which continues to control many regions.  Pakistan is torn between supporting Western influences but also placating the elements of its population which lend support to extremist Muslim factions. Turkey is becoming allied with us in fighting ISIS, but also is engaged against the Kurds, which are our allies in the fighting in Syria and Iraq. And Iran, while vowing enmity to our ally Israel, is aiding Iraq and Syria in its fight against ISIS, and is also willing to assist in our efforts against ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist elements.  In this highly complex, conflicted region with so many cross-currents of rivalry and hatred, there are certainly no easy solutions, but one thing should be clear from the history of the past 12 years, any resolution will not be imposed primarily by western powers and through the mere application of their military might. This is where the Iran Nuclear Treaty negotiated between Iran and the five major western powers imposing sanctions on Iran's nuclear development provides a valuable opening-- to not only ensure that Iran's nuclear development is clearly limited to peaceful, energy-providing applications, which should be the right of any advanced nation, but also to begin to create some bridges allowing Iran to become more engaged with the West in finding other ways to reduce the myriad areas of conflict and tension that are racking the region. 

Iran's population is one of the best educated, young, fastest-growing in the region. While its clerical leadership is old and still imbued with considerable hatred over the past history of western involvement and interference in their nation, the younger elected leaders have shown more desire for reasonable negotiations with the west.  The nuclear treaty provides a valuable opportunity to test this out, it is a potential win-win situation for both sides. Yet, in the United States and in Israel, the same forces that brought us the failure of the Iraqi War are campaigning with all their vigor, money, and might to defeat it. Blind to the fact that most of the rest of the world will be eliminating the sanctions even if we don't, further isolating us and demonstrating our reduced world influence, these same voices present the same tired but loud fear-mongering arguments. A "mushroom cloud" lies ahead, anything but more sanctions and military threats indicates "weakness", real leaders don't negotiate, they draw the line and impose their will. John Bolton would be ready to launch a surgical strike now, to knock out Iran's nuclear capability, regardless of the regional and worldwide consequences.  Dick Cheney would still argue for the same type of policies that have failed in the Iraq War he encouraged us into, with virtual guarantees of success. Most Republican senators are falling in line opposing the treaty, being ready to defeat anything the Obama administration attempts to accomplish. AIPAC and other conservative Jewish lobbying groups are campaigning against it, and may influence some Democratic senators. A number of more liberal Jewish organizations in the US are vigorously lobbying for the treaty's approval, but they lack the political influence and donor money of AIPAC. It will be a tough battle, our Congress may vote it down, but, regardless of the outcome, the Obama administration, other western powers, and Iran all deserve credit for putting it forward. It would be a continuation of the US's 12 years of tragic involvement in the Middle East, if the same old trigger-happy, violence-prone, war hawk voices of the past are again listened to and lead to our turning our backs on a valuable step towards a more enlightened Middle Eastern policy.

OUR NATION'S FAILING MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM: DO OUR POLITICANS REALLY CARE?

For years our media has been consumed with tragic stories of mass shootings and other horrific crimes committed not by hardened criminals but by emotionally disturbed individuals who have fallen through the ever-widening gaps that exist in our nation's mental health system. Since the onset of Reaganomics in California, when as Govenor he was able to initiate the dismantling of the state-operated hospitals for the mentally and emotionally-disabled here, there has been a nation-wide pattern of closing, under-funding, and otherwise weakening what had previously been one of the world's premier mental health systems. We now almost daily read about the results of our failing mental health system. Shootings committed by the person next door that neighbors may have thought to be a little strange but no real problem, only his or her family or closest friends knew of the emotional or behavioral problems that were problematic but resistant to any treatment attempts;  homeless people, often reduced to begging on the streets, the majority of which have emotional disturbances but lack the capacity or resources to find effective help; jails and prisons which are increasingly housing people whose emotional needs were paramount in triggering legal infractions but found no accessible avenues for dealing with those needs short of breaking the law; veterans returning from combat experiences anyone would have difficulty accepting, finding the drugs and therapy the VA offered to deal with their PTSD being delayed, inadequate, and poorly monitored and sustained; and young people in urban areas leaving high school poorly prepared for being productive, being unemployed or underemployed, depressed over the lack of positive options, alienated, often prone to affiliating with gangs or other dead-end avenues. The systematic decline in our mental health system has been going on for at least 35 years, beginning slowly at first, accelerating rapidly during more recent years.  The results are all too obvious, but do our political leaders REALLY care? If they do, where is the evidence?  With each tragedy they are quick to express their sorrow and dismay, but has ANY effective action resulted?  Mental hospitals are still closed, jails are increasing housing mentally disturbed people, not hardened criminals, community mental health services are still being underfunded, services denied or referred to privately-funded clinics for those with the ability to pay.  The visible efforts are all in the direction of providing more security within our communities in the attempt to prevent the tragedies, but the real cause, the increasing incidence of people developing serious mental and emotional problems that are not being attended to effectively in the early stages and as they grow in severity, is being ignored. A  "perfect storm" is created by the ready availability of guns, including assault weapons, in our nation combined with the acceleration in the number of emotional disturbed individuals on the streets of our communities. Since politicians have been unwilling or unable to restrict the easy access to guns, the remaining option is to deal more proactively with the emotionally distraught.   Families are typically not able to deal with the emotional concerns of their loved ones, it becomes a community and a societal problem. Politicians  closed the hospitals, reduced funding for services and half-way houses offering therapeutic treatment, eliminated the early warning network that is essential to effective intervention.   They have the power to restore the needed system.  But where are they? It is, after all, a problem that obviously effects all of us, just as much as the foreign threats our politicians are so quick to address with ready funding and manpower. Isn't it time our leaders express more than sympathy and regret? One would hope so.  Enough of the kind words, time for action!

THE OBAMA ENIGMA: MOMENTS OF ENLIGHTENED LEADERSHIP, MONTHS OF LESS IMPRESSIVE POSTURING

Barack Obama's presidency has been fascinating to observe for the dispassionate viewer, and has triggered strong and highly polarized reactions from the political partisans on both sides of the increasingly divided right-left extremes.  He has greatly disappointed his most loyal original supporters, and totally enraged those who were not inclined to support him at the outset. His brilliant oratory in campaigning, paired with his obvious intelligence and potential, undoubtedly escalated his supporters expectations of his presidency into the unrealistic realms of what was politically possible. And the overtly-declared intent of his political opponents in Congress to oppose and defeat his political endeavors and render his presidency impotent presented almost insurmountable obstacles at the outset.  Yet he has endured, struggled through battles with Congress, won reelection, and fought several battles with considerable class and fortitude. He has persisted in two highly significant endeavors, one at the beginning of his first term, when he was committed to improve health care coverage and did so with his Affordable Care Act. The second he is now engaged in, negotiating the agreement with Iran and our partners to limit, with IAEA verification, Iran's nuclear development during the forthcoming years. Both highly contentious battles, both imperfect solutions to extremely complex, difficult situations, he fought the battles impressively, against considerable odds for success, bowed to the realities of the situations, compromising with what he felt were the realities of the maximum that was possible  in the face of fierce opposition.  He deserves full credit for persisting in these battles, regardless of how much one may have wished for more. 

Obama has shown other moments of inspired, enlightened leadership. His response to the recent shooting at the Charleston Church, the genuine, heartfelt quality of his words when the nation experienced a national tragedy such as this, added to the remarkable response of the church and the Charleston community itself in turning this tragedy into a unifying event for everyone in the nation but the most hateful racists.  He has maintained grace and optimism in the face of personal insults and affronts, to his character as well as to his policies, as well as any individual could ever hope to.  On numerous key issues facing the nation, however, his leadership has fallen well short of what has been needed, and short of what his spoken words suggested he might be willing to fight for, lacking the same degree of commitment he has evidenced on the above-mentioned issues.  These issues deserve enumeration, and recognition as significant concerns that merit serious attention by the chief of state. Without any attempt to rank their importance, as most observers would agree they are all important but vary widely on which are paramount, they include 1) the environmental, human-influenced factors contributing to world-wide climate change, 2) the growing income and wealth disparity in our nation, continuing to weaken our middle and lower classes relative to the most wealthy, influencing quality of education, opportunity, national cohesiveness, and youth alienation, 3) the proliferation of violence in our society, influenced by absence of a sufficient social service and mental health network, ready availability of guns without adequate registration and control, and dwindling opportunities for accepted avenues of social advancement, 4) infrastructure redevelopment, greatly needed to improve quality of transportation, neighborhoods, and life, especially in the more impoverished communities of the country, 5) re-instituting a more fair system of taxation, one that more fully spreads the benefits of our economic system to all levels of society, and re-installing the corporate and financial regulations that have been systematically removed during the last 35 years, like Glass-Steagall, which had been effective in limiting corporate malfeasance, preventing excessive accumulation of wealth in too few hands, and ensuring against occurrences like the financial collapse of 2008, 6) correcting some of the impediments that exist within our democratic system of governance, including infringements on the voting rights of all citizens, the excessive power of money and the media in determining the outcome of elections, and the threat of predatory surveillance and violation of privacy rights, and 7) controlling our nation's reflex tendency, especially among the neocons who are still in our government and their influence over our media and our military, to believe that international disputes can most readily, and best, be resolved by use of our overwhelming military power. The last 12 years in the Middle East should have disproven that belief, but we are still militarily engaged there, with no end in sight, and Obama is proving with Iran how difficult it is to attempt to lead with diplomacy and negotiation rather than relying on threats or use of military force.  This is obviously only a partial list of significant issues. Obama has spoken with some conviction on each of them at times, but only on the health care act and the recent Iran treaty negotiations has he really followed through with sustained, vigorous effort. One is left believing that his heart is in a forward-moving direction, that he may have the audacity of hope, but that his commitment or his energy flagged on some of the key issues he has faced.  He deserves full credit for what he has accomplished, and for the obstacles he has faced with grace and courage. And he leaves his strongest supporters to deal with their feelings about the tasks left unresolved, and for leaders-to-follow to attempt to surmount.