Renegade Judges, Unchecked Regulators and Presidential Decrees

Many observers feel the US Federal Government is not working very well.  The article liked below wants a more parliamentary form for choosing the President.  I think the article misdiagnoses the problem. First off, it's too hard to get rid of federal judges, who have life tenure. Once judges decided to rule on the basis of what they wanted the law to be, rather than what the law is, the law gradually became chaos and nobody could know what the next ruling would bring. If there was an easy way to get rid of judges who rule based on what they want rather than what the law says, we could at least address the problem. Second, administrative agencies have become a law unto themselves from which there is no effective appeal. This flows from the fact that the courts generally defer to regulatory agencies, and Congress has no right of review. The result is that the EPA can determine that when you exhale, the CO2 you emit is a pollutant. If Congress preserved a right to repeal any regulation without presidential consent, it would help a lot. Since the polite fiction is that Congress is delegating its legislative power to the regulatory agencies, it should fly, but only if the first problem is fixed. Finally, we get to the President ruling by decree. If the first two problems were fixed, the President would not be able to rule by decree. The courts would rule against him and the regulations that implemented the decrees could be repealed without Presidential consent. Unfortunately, I am not sure that we can get anywhere close to a solution right now. It's likely we have slipped too far into Presidential rule by decree backed by unchecked regulatory agencies and courts ruling based on the outcomes they want, rather than the law as it is. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388132/two-cheers-constitution-day-f-h-buckley

If Barry REALLY Meant to Destroy ISIS

Barry the Magnificent's plan to control all Syrian air strike targets from the White House gave me the sense that I had heard this one before. Didn't LBJ pick bombing targets in Vietnam? Yup, and it didn't turn out so well. I also remember Vietnam Era commanders commenting during Iraqi Freedom expressing jealousy of the Iraq War commanders' ability to bomb whatever military target they wanted without having to get White House clearance. It's clear our Dear Leader doesn't really want to destroy ISIS. The Smartest President Ever just wants to get through the 2014 election and turn out his pacifist base without enraging low information voters who want ISIS creamed. If the Prevaricator in Chief really wanted to destroy ISIS, there's a formula for that now. "ISIS, if you like your territory, you can keep your territory."  Or even more threatening, he could say, "ISIS, if you like your lives, you can keep your lives."    In a comment on the above, Chasseur responded, "if he really REALLY wanted to destroy them .. he'd just become their President."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388384/jihadi-logic-charles-krauthammer#comment-1596462074

On further review, I have to add the following:
If Democrat administrations should continue for a hundred years, the explanation for all problems encountered will still be "Bush did it."

Time to Arm the Kurdish Peshmerga

The Kurdish Peshmerga is a light infantry force.  They don't have a lot of artillery, tanks or heavy antitank weapons.  They were supposed to get these things from the central government in Baghdad.  The US gave the arms to the Maliki government, but the Maliki government kept all of them in politically reliable Shiite units lead by commanders chosen for political reliability rather than military competence.  Maliki gave the Kurds nothing and the secular Sunnis nothing.  Then the all-Shiite Maliki army ran away and left all of their tanks, artillery and ammunition for ISIS to use on the Kurds and Sunnis.  The Kurds will fight, but they had to retreat from their positions protecting the Yazidis because they ran out of ammo, according to what I heard on CNN on 5 August 2014.  The Kurdish Regional Government has been begging for weapons for months.  However, the State Department refuses to give the Kurds any armaments directly.  Everything has to be approved by Baghdad, which is to say Iran.  Iran has Kurdish provinces that have rebelled in the past so don't expect the Maliki government to approve any weapons for the Pesmerga.  The administration is worried that the Kurds might declare their independence from Iraq.  To borrow a phrase, at this point, what difference does it make?  The Peshmerga are the only possible army that can defeat ISIS.  They need to have the same kind of weapons that the Maliki government's incompetence gave to ISIS.   Dithering at this point will just give ISIS enough time to get all of the Peshmurga killed.  That would be one heck of a legacy for the Smartest President Ever, Hillary the Inevitable and Swift Boat Johnny.  I guess that because the Kurds are pro American and pro Israel that the administration can't possibly support them.  Perhaps the State department has already told the Kurds, "If you like your country, you can keep your country, period.”  

On Thursday night, 5 August 2014, CNN interviewed a retired US general and a former Undersecretary of Defense.  They were in "violent agreement" (their words) that the Kurds were not getting any arms from the US as of that time.  They also said that an emergency effort of 72 hours could make a big difference in the level of arms and ammo the Peshmerga would have to use.  I agree with other commentary that the US would need an airfield in Kurdistan  to land supplies and as a base for air support, but I think the Kurds would welcome that.  I also think the Saudis would probably help pay for construction.  If all of this ticks off the Turks, I think we will need a new airbase anyway to replace Incerlik.  The Kurds are very motivated to learn to use any new equipment they get quickly.  The wolf is at their door.  

This is NOT a New Iraq War

Just as it depended on what the definition of "is" is, now it depends on what the definition of "war" is and even what the definition of "Iraq" is. The attacks against ISIS are not "war" but instead "explosive kinetic action of an air origin." And they are occurring in the "Kurdish regions of the Middle East" which include not just pieces of Iraq, but also pieces of Syria. As a result, this is not a return to war in Iraq, but "explosive kinetic action of an air origin in the Kurdish regions of the Middle East." That's totally different! (Snark)