Petition to the White House - "Conduct A Robust Peacemaking Strategy in Syria"

We believe the best outcome in Syria is a peace through a political settlement between the warring parties. To force such settlement, we petition that the U.S. government conduct a Robust Peacemaking Strategy using its military and political resources.

The Robust Peacemaking Strategy is based on the following points:

1.  The warring parties will not settle if they still think they can win on the battlefields.
2.  Nor will they settle if they fear of losing a civil war that veers towards sectarianism.
3.  The current territory under control by the government forces, the moderate rebel forces, and the Islamist groups more or less represents stalemate.
4. The "Peacemaking" part of the Strategy dictates that this stalemate be maintained. Without hope of winning nor fear of losing, the parties will cease to see war as the solution. When war becomes pointless, what is left is a political settlement.
5. The "Robust" part of the Strategy is to use the U.S. military might and political resources to enforce  the stalemate in the battlefields and give Peacemaking the opportunity to be realized

To enforce stalemate, we recommend:

1. The U.S. shall use its military and political resources to level out any advantage one warring group has over the other
2.  For the government forces, one of its advantages is the air force. The U.S. shall implement a you-use-it-you-lose-it no-fly policy. The government force is allowed to keep its air force but not to use it. Upon detection of a Syrian air attack, the U.S. will destroy the related Syrian air force infrastructure.
3.  For the moderate rebel forces, the U.S. shall send unlimited small arms for the fighters, and limited anti-tank weaponry to counter the government forces' advantage in armor.
4.  The U.S. shall actively monitor the battlefields using its satellites and drone resources. The U.S. shall make clear to all warring parties about the consequence of shooting at its drones: the U.S will destroy the shooting party's anti-aircraft and heavy weaponry. 
5.  The U.S. shall display the satellite/drone monitoring and subsequent analysis information on the Internet, as close in real time as possible. If the attacker knows that its enemy may know its plan, it will think twice about attacking. This transparency will not prevent small-scale skirmishes, but can deter any large-scale attack that can destabilize the stalemate.
6.  The U.S. shall implement Internet over the battlefields, and allows all warring parties to access the above information.
7.  The U.S. shall send chemical-detection monitoring devices to the battlefields. These devices can report back their findings using the battlefield Internet above. The moderate rebel forces are required to set up these devices as part of their arm shipment.
8.  Any party that uses chemical weapons shall have its artillery and other chemical-weapon-delivery resources targeted by the U.S. military.
9.  The U.S. shall use covert actions to limit the Islamist groups. It should be conceivable to have the government forces and the moderate rebel forces in a covert coalition against the Islamist groups, through U.S. facilitation.
10.  The U.S. shall work with the Arabic states and the European Union to maintain the moderate rebel forces so that they can neither win nor lose.
11.  The U.S. shall work with Russia to maintain the government forces, so that they can neither win nor lose.
12.  The U.S. shall approach Iran and Hezbollah to offer the Islamist groups a say in the eventual power-sharing government.

In conclusion, we believe that the Syrian conflict should not be resolved with a winner and other losers, since such resolution is unpredictable and can be detrimental to the U.S. interests; that the resolution of the conflict should come from a political settlement between the warring parties; that to force such settlement, there must be a stalemate in the battlefields; that only the U.S. can lead a world-wide coalition to enforce such a stalemate; that to lead such coalition, the Obama administration has to drop its "leading from behind" policy and conduct the Robust Peacemaking Strategy using all the military might and political influence of the sole world power.

Morphism Way, A Philosophy For A Complicated World

We, as humans, tend to make life complicated as we try to make things simple. We have either black or white, good or evil, rich or poor, straight or gay, pro choice or pro life, pro gun or anti gun, territory owned by this country or that country. Such clear-cut demarcation makes things look simple to understand, but complicates when we try to get a consensual resolution. There is a cliff that separates the two extremes, a chasm that is hard to cross. 

 Let's now replace the sudden demarcation by a gradual change where one extreme morphs into the other extreme. Between black and white, there is a multitude of shades of grey. The recognition of gradualism is the first tenet of the Morphism Way.

 The second tenet of the Morphism Way is the acceptance of a point in that gradual morphing process as the basis for conflict resolution. Instead of forcing either black or white, we will pick a shade of grey that all the parties can accept to live with.

The Conservative Consumption Economy

The Conservative Consumption economy gives the consumers the financial means to consume so that the producers feel confident to produce. There are two principles under this economic model. The first one is the emphasis of consumption over production. The second one is the source of the money that allows consumption to happen.

Current major economic models have a bias on production. This is the "Field of Dreams" of economics - if you produce, people will buy it. This may be correct for the longest time when human and physical resources are scarce, but not any more. Nowadays the increase in productivity, the discovery of ever new resources and the ability to offshore makes production an easier task. Not only we can produce a lot, but  used-to-be-third-world countries like China, can also produce a lot. The problem ceases to be the production side. The problem now is to find enough consumers to consume all that production. When we cannot find these consumers, producers are wary to produce. They sit on their money instead of investing. They do not hire workers, or worst, lay them off. This makes consumers leery to spend -- and the vicious cycle reinforces itself. Now if we can find enough consumers, the cycle reverses and becomes virtuous. When more people buy, producers invest and hire to produce more. The emphasis on consumption to drive the economy is the first principle of the Conservative Consumption economic model.

In order to consumer, consumers must have the money. There are only two ways for a typical consumer to get money --- they earn it or they borrow it. (Let's not count inheritance, gambling gains, stealing, and other untypical means.) In past decades, consumers borrow a lot. This allows them to consume a lot, which translates to a booming economy, and validates the first principle of the Conservative Consumption model. Eventually the Pied Piper comes a calling, and consumers cannot borrow any more. This is the current doldrums state of our economy. Any plan to help the producers (via tax cuts or regulations) will not help. Producers, as a general group, have lots of money sitting idle. They only need consumers.

If we cannot let consumers borrow more, we need to let them keep more of their earning. We do not necessarily advocate consumers to earn more since that may be inflationary, but to keep more of what they earn. Come to think of it, you can only spend the money you have in your pocket. This is where the government steps in. Our current tax system favors the production side, with investment gains being taxed at a lower rate than earned income. We should make them balanced, or even favor the consumption side by lowering the income tax and raising the investment tax. This puts more money into consumers to spend. Since this is earned money and not borrowed money, the consumers are financially conservative. The focus on earned money instead of borrowed money to support the consumption is the second principle of the Conservative Consumption economic model.

We mentioned above one way to implement the second principle is to raise the capital gains tax so that it is at least the same as income tax. If we can lower the income tax, then as a whole, the government does not tax more -- it is just a tax re-balancing to meet the structural change of the economy where consumers are more in demand than producers. This is not a soak-the-rich scheme since we do not raise marginal tax rates. If somebody is successful and earn more, we should not penalize success by taxing more. This does not mean that the "rich" will not pay more. If somebody mostly earns via passive investments instead of active income, their tax on the capital tax gains will be more. At the extreme case, we may have progressive tiers of capital tax gains, like we currently have for income taxes. From the perception of a common man on the street, the raising of the production-side tax and lowering of the consumption-side tax solves the "fairness" issue where the "Buffetts" are taxed at lower tax rate then their "secretaries".

Another way to implement the second principle is for the government, not to step in, but to step out. Any money that the consumers earn is shared with the government. The bigger the government, the more it needs to take. This reduces the money that the consumers keep, and thus reduces the money the consumers can spend. Unless a government can earn its own money via a different mean (such as by nationalizing industries), it should minimizes itself in order to minimize its take.

Currently we debate about supply-side economics and government-spending economics. Both miss the point of the current economy, since they either emphasize the production side or take away the money available to consumers. What the economy needs help now is on the consumption side, not production; and not consumptions based on borrowed money, but consumption based on earned money. And this is the Conservative Consumption economic model.

"McCain Is For Jobs"

Senator McCain, please repeat this, "McCain Is For Jobs". Please repeat it. Again, please. And again. And again until the campaign is over.

Yesterday I went to http://www.johnmccain.com/ and saw "Country First". With the economy as the top concern of American voters, this patriotic message does not resonate. The recent polls say so. The McCain/Palin ticket is losing ground because the economy is worsening.

I went to the Economy section of the web site. There are a lot of sensible proposals there. Then I browsed away and did not remember what the key points were. In the age of one-liner images, where "BMW is the ultimate driving machine", what is John McCain?

I heard Senator McCain in all three debates. I saw a few McCain TV ads. I like the man, genuinely decent and patriotic. But still, from all the McCain messages, what is John McCain?

Then I heard Sen. Obama and saw his TV ads. I instantly know what John McCain is. John McCain is Bush. (I like President Bush, I voted for him twice, I don't agree with the Iraq invasion, but I expect history to be nice to him.)

Senator McCain,

Your opponent has defined you. So what are you? What is John McCain?

"McCain Is For Jobs", that's what you are.

Senator McCain, you have said it. But you said it buried among other things. And you did not say it often enough. With only a few weeks left before election, you now say "McCain Is For Jobs", only and always. Along with you, anyone that supports you, say it!

When Sen. Obama attacks you with the "giving billions to the Exxon companies", you don't stay silent. This looks bad, as if you were robbing the poor for the rich. Instead, counter punch! First you agree, then you explain. Corporations create the highest paid jobs in America. You want them to be competitive in the world. You want high-paying jobs to stay in America. Not only that, you want more such jobs. That is why you voted to give tax credits to the corporations so they can do research, invest and expand. They keep the jobs here and hire more. You voted as you did, because John McCain Is For Jobs, for the high paying jobs for America.

When Sen. Obama boasts that his tax program will give money to more people than your program will be, you punch through his class-warfare/income-distribution (CWID or see-weed) scheme. Yes, that scheme may reduce tax for more people, but everyone gets a one-time tax credit. Once they spend it, it's gone. That money, it is a see-weed mirage. Now, let everyone look at your program. Your program helps the small businesses, the ones that create the most jobs in America. When one has a job, money keeps coming. Not a one time see-weed thing, but month after stable month. Your tax program does not give to the rich, it gives to the ones that produce jobs for America. And in America, it happens that those who work hard for their businesses, creating jobs along the way, are rewarded with higher income. You want them to keep creating more jobs. And you want more Americans to join their rank. You believe in the true American spirit, not some see-weed socialist scheme. You introduce your tax program, because John McCain Is For Jobs, for more jobs to more Americans.

When the media asks you about the current mortgage meltdown, you will talk about the short-term gap fixes to stabilize the crisis. Then you mention the cure, which is jobs for America. Jobs give people recurring incomes to pay the recurring mortgages and avoid foreclosures. Your healthcare proposal frees workers to find better jobs since it is not tied to employers. You will talk about your program to help the un-employed retrained for new positions (through low-cost loans or credit to the hiring companies). In this time of high economical anxiety, a job is soothing. And John McCain Is For Jobs, one job for each willing American.

Then there is your energy-independent plan. Sen. Obama has a similar plan. The difference I can see is that you are hot for nuclear energy and Sen. Obama is lukewarm at best. This big difference does not seem to catch on with Americans. So you need to change -- not with the plan but with your delivery of it. Instead of generalities (energy independence in 10 years! More jobs! - which Sen. Obama also says), pull out a Ross Perot. Bring out the charts. Show the job growth in each of the category, from nuclear to bio fuels. Tabulate salary expectations of these jobs. I just read about openings for technicians servicing the windmills go begging because schools do not train them fast enough. Get these numbers and mention them to the American public. You cannot save the horse-buggy jobs of the past, but you can paint a more vivid job picture of the future. Show to Americans that you can lead them there, that John McCain Is For Jobs, the jobs of the future, bright and tall.

Senator McCain,

For high paying jobs, for more job growth, for a job for each willing American, and for jobs of the future, John McCain Is For Jobs. And that should be your only message to the American people.


See also:
http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.mccainblogette.com/
blogs4mccain.com
mccain.blogsforvictory.com
michaelschuyler.blogspot.com
arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com
nh4mccain.blogspot.com