Vote for Pedro

A year or two ago, a low budget dead-pan comedy became a Cult Hit...Napoleon Dynamite. It was neither a historical documentary about the famous French General, nor had anything to do with explosives. It was a story about the mundane existence of a kind-hearted teen whose adolescent awkwardness guised a genuine good nature despite the tribulation of ordinary existence in Nowhereville. The film culminates in a electoral contest between the "in" cheerleader-type and the films anti-heroes' friend "Pedro". The low reactor "Napoleon" transforms into a comparative sensation as the advocate for his buddy Pedro whose flatline demeanor earns him the vote as the "do no harm" candidate for the student body Presidency.

It occurred to me (as I was forced to watch this film at my son's insistence)...that the film was chock full of political relevance. Much like our heroic duo in the film...Our political landscape has morphed from a morbid antithesis of idolatry into the elevation of do-the-least harm March of the Political Manikins.

The formula seems to be;

Sing your partys' psalms regardless of how inane
Avoid any PC gaffes as to err is inhumane
Find the least definitive answer to the most direct questions


The country is in sell-out mode with empty headed zombies inking the deeds;

We are too afraid of the teachers union to enact scholastic accountability
So; we have to raise the H1B visa quotas so that business can import skilled labor

We are too afraid of the potential future Hispanic vote
So; we fail to engage Border Security, even at a time of war

We are too afraid of Big Business and their need for cheap labor
So; our President fails to enforce the laws he has sworn to uphold

We are too afraid of terrorists
So; We cede our civil rights so that we can be protected by the State

We are too afraid to cut any programs, i.e. reduce SSI COLA increases or any other program
So; we pass the burden of debt to the next generation at a cool 9 trillion.

We are too afraid of China to engage the issues of consequence
So; we sentence The Republic of China to assimilation, the future of Oil to ever increasing prices, and our few remaining domestic manufacturers to a tactical disadvantage.

We are too afraid of Big Oil
So; we allow the market to be manipulated and cede any rights as consumers

we have too much self doubt to strive for a better future
So; we cowardly try to mitigate the pace of our demise

So, let's just get it over with....Vote for Pedro

IRAQ,...let's get ready to rumble

During the 50th Congressional campaign at the Cal State San Marcos forum the candidates were asked this question..."what would you do about Iraq?” Of course, keeping in mind that a U.S. Representative doesn't "direct" the war (the Executive branch does) and that each candidate was give 120 seconds to address this 4 year old issue we all came up short in our replies. So, I am going to take a few minutes more to breathe more life into my incomplete answer that evening.
MY ORIGINAL ANSWER CAN BE VIEWED HERE
http://boyerforcongress.com/boyer/press.html

History is our friend; it provides a road map for avoiding land mines (and IED's). Iraq is really more a confederation (albeit sometimes a coerced one) of 3 cultures...Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds. The Kurds control the North from the border with Turkey to North Central Iraq, The Sunni's control Central Iraq and many of these areas also are home to the secular Baathist's (less than 10% of the population...an important point to keep in mind). The Shiites control Southern and SE Iraq and are culturally tied to Iran's fundamentalists.

During Saddams reign, the Baathist’s (the 10% group) controlled the country through brutal methods and subjugated the other groups. When the Kurds or Shiites got too upidity, they got gassed, beaten, imprisoned and/or simply disappeared. Imagine you are a surviving member of this 30+ year oppression. Remember we (the USA) supported, armed and turned a blind eye to Saddam's brutality for years. He served our purpose as the punisher of Iran. The Iran-Iraq war followed the Iranan Hostage 444 day ordeal (Evil begets evil)!
The Baathist's have payback coming and we are in the way of that reckoning. Tragically and Ironically our soldiers are being used in two ways. They provide protection for the Baathist's while many of these same people partner with the insurgents to attack the U.S. armed forces who are providing the protection. The Baathist's are resisting any true unity government due to their recognition that they will be a minority party.

If the Shiites prevail (as would seem likely) their ties to Iran presents a real problem for the U.S. A merge of Iran and Iraq would put 35% of the world’s oil reserves in the hands/control of our friends in Iran. All the more reason to get off the dino juice NOW.

The best thing for all concerned (including the U.S.) is to;

ADD 200,000 troops (ours or Int'l) into Iraq (hold on, don't click off yet)....

Reposition the troops away from all urban areas and set up an effective perimeter around the country (think of the ropes around a boxing match). Secure the Iranian, Syrian and Kuwaiti borders. Our air power can project and help accomplish this mission.

Our sole role would be to eliminate anymore insurgents from OUTSIDE the country to enter. The Iraqi's would be in-charge of their destiny. We would sign a treaty with the current Iraqi government that we would intervene on their behalf to thwart any invasion (a message to the Iranians).

We would SUGGEST (and then leave it to the people of Iraq), that they consider a CONFEDERATION of 3 MAJOR STATES (names like; KURDISHSTAN, SUNNIOPIA, AND SHITELAND). This confederation would leave to the local population 95% of the governmental direction and only provide a common currency and National defense.

What would be the likely result?

1) The Iraqi's would be galvanized to act or face true civil war
2) The U.S. troops would immediately be in a safer environment with a mission they can complete with relative ease.
3) Outsider intervention would be minimized (including the agitation our presence causes in urban settings)
4) Our exit strategy would be more clearly defined (i.e. when Iraq tells us they can handle border security.
5) We could apply passive pressure on Iran (given our proximity to their border)
6)Clear exit strategy
7) A mission that is doable
8) Less U.S. deaths, faster responsibility taken by Iraqi's

I acknowledge the downside of a potential civil war, but that already is the likely scenario with or without our presence. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld can announce to Iraq...you guys can get ready to rumble if you want, we just won't play the victimized referee in the middle anymore. In short, get your sh## together.

When the people of IRAQ have to truly and without mitigation face the horror of all- out civil war, my guess is that those that are in the way of solutions will be casts aside and eventually sanity (without addition U.S. bloodshed) or at least stability will prevail.