BENCHMARK SYSTEM
FOR AFGHANISTAN

In 2001, following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, al-Qaeda and the Taliban were driven out of Kabul and into Pakistan.
At that time, as part of our effort to eliminate the religious fanatics and to gain the support of the Afghani people, we promised that we would remain for as long as it took to establish a government of freedom with Afghani sovereignty.
This is the same promise we made to the Afghanis when we wanted them to accept our aid in fighting the Soviet Union occupation in the 1970s.
Our promises in the Middle East and Islamic areas have mostly resulted in broken promises. It is therefore no wonder that we have so little credibility in matters involving Islam.
The following plan is proposed:
We establish a set of benchmarks that the Afghani government would have to meet, such as:
1. Poppy production will decrease 10% per year.
2. Draft and train a new Afghani Army division (10-12,000 men) every month. Military pay is to be guaranteed to all troops.
3. Corruption is to end immediately. Anyone taking a bribe or getting paid for services or materiel not delivered will be drafted into the Army. This will include those taking kickbacks from the first-line bribetakers.
4. Warlordism will cease immediately. Any leader not following the Rule of Law will be imprisoned or executed, depending on the severity of the violation.

Karzai and the warlords will reluctantly agree to the benchmarks and then do everything to ignore the agreements.
Upon enforcement by U.S. and allied troops of the benchmark agreements, Karzai and the warlords will demand that U.S. and allied troops pull back to support roles. In the extreme, they will demand that we leave within two years.
The U.S. will continue to train troops at an accelerated rate. Offensive actions will mainly be by drone or other indirect means.
The Karzai government will continue to negotiate with moderate Taliban and tribal leaders. Once Karzai et al. feel secure in their respective areas, they will either ask us to leave or interfere so much that we will leave on our own.
Afghanistan will partition itself according to ‘alliances of the moment.’

Estate Taxes and Estate Drones

When Welfare Reform was being debated during the Clinton Administration, many Conservatives argued, and most Liberals agreed, that giving people money without having them do anything to earn it was bad for their character and therefore bad for our society.
The calls to repeal the Estate Tax overlook this same effect on a person’s character.
If we allow people to inherit so much money that they will not have to be productive, is this good for America? Creating an entire class of estate drones is not good for anyone.
Don’t take it from me. Warren Buffett has argued the same thing.

Obama and the Rejectionists

There are a number of racists among the Obama rejectionists, but they are not the main part of the movement.
Imagine that Justice Clarence Thomas, a black Conservative, had been elected President. The racists would still not accept him. The rest of the rejectionists would accept him though probably not as enthusiastically.
On the matter of issues, the rejectionists main complaint is “We have lost control”.
Add to it that ‘Change’ is everywhere. A person, unlike all his 43 predecessors, very visibly reminds the rejectionists of that change and of what they have lost.
Frustration, coming from loss of power, combined with the fear of change results in the irrational behavior we are seeing – rejectionism.

Religious Groups and Healthcare Reform

The tenets of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths require that we look after the poor, the afflicted and the suffering.
Universal healthcare would provide coverage and relief for all three of the latter groups.
So where are the leaders of these religions in the struggle for healthcare reform? Why are they not in the forefront of the movement to ensure that everyone, no matter what their station in life, has access to good medical coverage?

Nabatean Water Project

THE NABATEAN WATER PROJECT

Nabatean Water Project: a plan to restore the Negev Desert to agricultural and pastoral productivity. The areas brought back into production, as in ancient times, would serve as a resettlement area for the excess of immigrants in Israel and allow the native people (the Bedouins) to maintain their preferred way of living.

The first step is to establish a desalination plant of 300,000,000 cubic meters per year of water at Ashdod or nearby. The plant would be funded by Saudi Arabia and maintained under their auspices. Costs of production would be underwritten by the Saudis as their contribution to peace in the Middle East.
An aqueduct would take the water to the southern Negev Desert with a branch channel to the Gaza Strip.

Most of the water would go to areas that are now marginally arable or even non-arable, as long as there is the probability that water will bring productivity. A smaller but significant amount of water would go to those areas that cannot be tilled but could reasonably become pastoral lands. The pastoral lands would include areas that could have been agricultural production for private but not commercial use. These areas would be for the Bedouins and would be perpetual and inviolable.

The branch channel to the Gaza Strip would become the main source of water for Gaza.

The Gaza Strip presently overdraws its aquifer by a substantial amount and this cannot be maintained. A new, reliable source would allow the Gaza Strip inhabitants to improve their home, sanitation, and food stock situations.

The key will be to have the inhabitants of Gaza be reliant upon this new source. If anything threatens the new source, they will act as a self-policing entity.
Any threat against the desalination plant or the delivery system will result in a stoppage of water flow.

Israel will be entitled to stop the water upon any attack from forces antagonistic to its (Israel’s) existence, launched anywhere. A missile attack or suicide bomber will thus have serious consequences for the Gaza Strip.


All aspects of this project plan will be negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations. All agreements will be in writing and public.

Once the viability of the new arable lands is established, then it will be possible to relocate those people presently in the West Bank settlements. (No new settlers will be allowed into the West Bank as of the date the project agreement is signed.) All West Bank settlements must be evacuated by the Israelis unless there is prior written agreement among the cognizant authorities.