Car Keys and Learners' Permits

As usual, Senator Thompson nails it:

.....international terrorism; powerful nation states on a quest for hegemony, whether close to home or further afield and with a willingness to squelch freedom anytime the opportunity arises; less stable and no less dangerous countries with nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; an alliance of democratic nations of questionable resolve and a debate at home over our future role in the world with a political party happy to create the impression of diminished resolve with little concern for the long term damage such an impression may cause.

Under these circumstances the old title “leader of the free world” takes on renewed meaning. He will have to guide the body politic at home toward resolution and in all likelihood engender resolve in a new alliance of democratic nations to deal with this broad array of challenges. In short it will require someone with experience and the courage to put his nation’s long term interest above his own.

I suppose it’s obvious where I’m going with this. This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call.

While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

It wasn’t that difficult for John McCain. For him Georgia was another little-known part of the world, whose leaders and history he is familiar with. And long before this Georgian crisis, he’s had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq.

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.

He who holds the Lightning, survives.....

The Geek with a .45 has a superb essay on the nature of international politics, why big "L" libertarianism fails, and the essence of national survival.

It starts:

So, here’s the Excruciating Truth:

Whether America remains free and prosperous will be determined by whoever controls The Lightning; which is some critical portion of war suitable energy resources.

And it damned well better be us.

More:

Without oil, our ability to conduct warfare is limited to within 20 miles of our largest naval rifles, and wherever we can trudge on foot or animal drawn cart. No oil means we essentially roll ourselves back to war as practiced in 1890 or so, albeit with better guns. Yes, it’s true that in 1890, or 1850, for that matter, we had an effective energy source for manufacturing and other predicates of war, and even trains to get supplies to the staging areas, but trains were not driven into battle. Guns were carried to battle by men on foot, wagon, and horseback.

So, to reiterate: the choice is war as fought with petrochemicals and machines, or horses and carts.

While we’re talking about The Lightning, let’s make another thing absolutely clear: merely possessing The Lightning in no way ensures that America will remain prosperous and free. We can certainly be our own undoing. Possessing The Lightning simply prevents another party from making that decision for us, with or without our consent.

This is simple, inescapable truth: the party who can make war can prevail over the party who cannot at will.

The entire essay will have you thinking. If you disagree with it, (not the Ron Paul/Guiliani thing, the actual ideas...)please comment. There may be a pop quiz soon.

Update: To all Libertarian purists: From the comments at Geekwitha.45 - thebastidge:
Let me say it again: more liberty is inherently better than less liberty, but you must work within the practical constraints of empirical results. To this end, one should strive for liberty, just as one should strive for virtue, accepting that failure to achieve absolute liberty is no more a failure than falling somewhat short of absolute virtue.