Learning diplomacy the hard way...

Fareed had another riveting show on Sunday. Of particular interest was his interview with former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Paul O'Neill. Although representing different political factions, these two men agreed on all major points and on 90% of how to achieve them. Very interestingly, O'Neill seriously put forward the notion that a form of VAT should replace our current tax system. Some refer to this as the Fair Tax which is a tax on consumption rather than income. It has phenomenal potential including the capacity to dramatically aid in correcting our current budget deficit.

The down side is that there are far too many vested interests in our current tax system to allow the Fair Tax to be legislated into law. Such legislation would mean the redundancy of thousands of Internal Revenue Service workers, tax lawyers, income tax filing assistance firms, and tax preparation software designers. It would also work against companies that, because of current tax loopholes, pay little or no personal or corporate taxes. The collective power of these would-be victims is far too great to expect any common sense relief from our burdensome and incomprehensible tax system.

The ultimate victims of the tax code and the incapacity of Washington to take sensible corrective measures are the American people. The prevailing moribund political atmosphere offers no hope for change albeit hope and change loomed large in O's campaign priorities. I doubt, however, that O is for Ogre. The man is complex, introspective and concerned, but at the same time vain, remote and vindictive. Neither he, nor any of his current lineup of republican competitors have sufficient power to do much of anything constructive.

So, we the people continue to watch petrol prices climb, to remain anxious over the future of health care costs, and to be both confused and perplexed over the falling dollar, rising inflation, lagging growth and serious joblessness.

The situation is Syria is not looking good. I am sure we will not intervene and for the same reasons why we did not intervene in Egypt. After having taken on Iraq, we hopefully learned that a liberation effort on our part will most probably be viewed as an invasion by the Syrians.

I see Syria, Egypt and Iraq as the most formidable Arab countries owing to their long history in forming and ruling the Muslim world. Saudi is a latecomer and Yemen is too remote from the Levant to be of much consequence, even though it has considerable historical significance. Libya and the rest of the Maghreb are too tribal in nature and too mixed with non-Arab blood to be of major consequence.

We, of course, have no coherent policy regarding the Middle East and as such, we remain free to do, or not do, whatever pleases us. It certainly does not please us to take on Syria, although we would be ecstatic to see the back of Bashar al-Asad. He and his Alawites are unpopular among other Arab countries, especially Sunni-dominated states. I mention this because the vast majority of Americans are totally unaware of the divisions within Islam and their significance with respect to internal Arab relations. Moreover, I seriously doubt that even our esteemed leaders understand these differences and their implications.

The Brits were far superior to the Yanks in playing Arab diplomatic games, at least in the past. I would hope that Dave has the good sense to take advice from those seniors who know the countries involved, their religious differences, their tribes and their idiosyncrasies. It would appear to me that O and Lady Hillary have not had such good sense and are having to learn diplomacy the hard way.