Cuba Libre... More than just a drink.

The Cuba Libre - a drink that has both political and social meanings.  

As I write this, President Obama is about to visit Cuba - the first American President to visit in approximately 90 years.  Much has changed in both countries, and in the drink since then, As a result, many angry words have separated these two countries - countries that should have been friends for most of the past 60 years.

One can not say for sure that the original drink was made with Coca Cola according to the linked article.  But by the 1940's, a Rum and Coke was what was understood to be a Cuba Libre.  During this time, Ernest Hemingway was becoming a native of both Florida and Cuba, being well known for being a patron of El Floridita.  Fast forward a few years, and we have the Cuban Revolution - where Castro threw out the corrupt Batista regime (as well as the American mob), and sided with the Soviets in the time of the Cold War.  As a result, the American public became brainwashed to see Cuba as an enemy nation.

During the early stages of Castro's rule, he nationalized virtually all of Cuba's industry, and did not compensate their owners (mostly American) for the taking of their property. (Bacardi's holdings were affected.  Luckily, they had enough resources to relocate their brand and production to Puerto Rico.) A large wave of people fled Cuba, coming to the US, and many of them settled in Florida - distorting the politics of the state for generations to come. Not only did we have an important group of business leaders who had a bug up their collective ass regarding Cuba, but we had a vocal group of people making sure that we couldn't easily make peace with the Castro regime.

Let's look at some complications that caused us problems: 

1. Bay of Pigs fiasco
2. Cuban Missile Crisis
3. Cuban Trade Embargo
4. Kennedy Assassination

Each issue on its own wouldn't be that bad.  But when the net effect of all of them are put together, it's easy to see how we'd be unable to have official relationships between our countries for 50+ years.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco made it possible for Castro to use his revolution as a potent symbol to encourage support for his regime against the will of the USA. The Cuban Missile Crisis allowed the US and USSR to deescalate tensions, preventing a war (that Castro wanted). The Cuban Embargo which prevented commerce between the two nations didn't help but to further separate the two nations from each other. Most people don't know this, but Kennedy was working on ways to get rid of the embargo before he was killed. Sadly, the one person who could have reversed this pattern of animosity between nations wasn't around to fix things - and as a result, we had an extra 50+ years of separation.

It's amazing how much flak Obama received for starting the process of normalizing relations between our two countries.  Unlike North Korea, Cuba has not developed nuclear weapons, nor has it developed intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Yet, until recently, I could legally spend money in the DPRK, and not in Cuba.  This is ludicrous!  I'm glad that I'm seeing positive changes occur in my lifetime....

But I will close out with a thought I had about 20 years ago, and wish I could have made true.  When my dad was cleaning out my grandmother's apartment, he found a bottle of Bacardi Rum that was labeled "Product of Cuba".  (I wish I could have saved that bottle and its contents.)  A few years later, the CEO of Coca Cola was a Cuban emigre. A couple of my co-workers were Cuban exiles.  A perfect thing to do would have been to bring in this bottle of rum, have a fresh bottle of Coke near my desk, and bring these two men over on New Years Eve to wish them a Happy New Year, and a free Cuba, all with true Cuba Libres in our hands.....

Thoughts about dismantling the Military-Industrial Complex

When I first planned to write this week's entry, my original topic choice was Saudi Arabia's decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran following riots sparked by the Saudi execution of a Shiite cleric. (This may be covered in a future entry.)  While reading the Sunday newspaper, a better topic came to mind: the economics of dismantling part of the US Military-Industrial complex.

- - - - - -

In a recent NY Times opinion page article, the author discusses how the Death Star may have been a project that was too big to fail, and how the rebellion may not have been well received because of the economic chaos that ensued after its destruction.  Given how much of our economy depends on the military to keep it afloat, do we suffer from the same problem that the fictional galactic empire may have suffered with?

Let's say that we use a reported figure of $718,000,000,000 for current US Military spending and attempt to cut that in half, and spend $359,000,000,000 on domestic projects such as rebuilding our roads, providing health care, educating people and shoring up Social Security.  What would happen if the budget were cut quickly, without a proper transition?

First, what would happen to the displaced top secret technology workers?  How would they find employment?  What fields would they work in?  This is not a spurious question.  The US had to address this concern at the end of the Cold War. Yet, our "defense" spending is higher than ever. The USSR had even greater problems, as it lost the Cold War and had no plan to reintegrate the displaced workers into a civilian economy.  In fact, the "West" was more than willing to pay displaced Soviet scientists NOT to sell their services to a rogue country.  Can you imagine what costs would exist for transitioning some of these workers to the civilian economy?

Next, America operates in a much more transparent economic environment than most countries. How would we use the newly freed funds? (Approximately $1,200 per US Citizen.)  In theory, that could pay much of the cost for giving every citizen subsidized health insurance.  But that money would be just as needed for education, infrastructure renewal, etc....  How would the funds be divided?  And if an equitable division could be arranged, then where would we get the new, trained, skilled workers? It might make sense to do a gradual transition, if only to train the workers we need in the fields we plan to staff with new workers.

- - - - - -

We must preserve our old skill sets.  Although we do not need to build new B-52 bombers, they must be maintained.  (Note: Planned replacements for these old workhorses have been built, but still do not have the ruggedness of this "ancient" plane.  We may actually need to build replacements, albeit fitted with modern technology at some point in the future.)  But, how do we preserve the skills to make nuclear weapons?  What about germ and chemical warfare? We can't afford to be blind sided by some rogue state that decides to use these weapons - we must know how to deploy them and to defend ourselves against them.  Moving forward is a bitch.  But forgetting the lessons of our past is even worse.  It saddened me when many Americans looked at China's putting a man in space as old news - a "been there, done that" attitude.  They are doing it with NEW technology.  We have forgotten how to do it with OLD technology. And the workers who built that technology for us are dying off without proper replacements....

So we need to keep part of the Military-Industrial complex in place, no matter what peace advocates want. The only to have peace (and I cite Sun Tsu) is to be prepared for war well enough so that others will avoid battle with you.  How might this peace be obtained? 

First, we need to get the Military-Industrial complex into making civilian goods again.  Instead of making limited use "Mil-Spec" electronics, they should develop trusted civilian sources for ruggedized technology - and use that for new military uses.  Instead of using 30 year old chip design, make sure that backward compatible design (with both hardware and software) be incorporated into all Military electronics, so that upgrades can be cost effective. However, this is only one area of improvement.  We must resist the idea of over designing products.  Yes, we want to keep our troops safe. But are $350,000,000 fighter jets the answer, when cheaper solutions can be found?  Why should fighter jets be all-purpose? There is no good reason that the Air Force and Navy must have compatible jets - they just need to have as many interchangeable "off the shelf" parts as humanly possible, so that customization for each service can be done as cheaply as possible.

Next, we must provide for the threats of the 21st century.  And many of them will be electronic.  We need to protect our businesses from foreign hacking, and we do a piss poor job of that.  Luckily, our businesses do a better job (from what I can tell) protecting themselves than our government does. Heck, when North Korea has the implicit protection/cooperation of China to hack our systems, then we have problems.  (See: Bureau 121 - Shenyang China.) What is our government doing to protect us?  Not that much - it is focused on keeping the old military technology alive.  If we are to make this transition, we also need to provide more profitable opportunities for businesses in the Military-Industrial complex, and this is an area that will help American civilians and the profits of the Military-Industrial complex.

- - - - - -

Hopefully, whoever we elect on Election Day 2016 will be wise enough to see this opportunity to make America strong again.  We no longer need to be "Great".  But we do need to take care of our own needs as a society, and not just the needs of one sector of that society....

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

It's not just what you know, but how and when you use that knowledge.

Not many people have seen an Enigma machine close up - but I have. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but not as amazing as the fact that we cracked the code AND knew enough not to use all the knowledge we had, lest we clue the enemy in to the fact that their codes were broken.

- - - - - -

During WW2, one of the biggest clandestine goals of British intelligence was to break the German Enigma codes. Every day, the Germans would change the rotors and give the Enigmas new settings to code and decode messages. The Allied forces could not break these codes until Alan Turing figured out the weaknesses of what the Germans were doing. 

After the codes were broken, what next? One had a good idea of what the enemy knew, but could they prevent disasters? Often, NO! Unless there was a plausible way to explain why a troop movement was changed, why a convoy was rerouted, why some action was not taken, the Allies had to accept the known attack to come.

Today, we are in a similar war - but against many powers. Ars Technica describes what one division of the NSA is likely to have done in infecting systems around the world, so that America has a technical edge which might be used militarily.  

- - - - - -

In the past, America has tapped Soviet (now Russian) cables connecting the mainland to Vladivostok to keep tabs on the fleet stationed there. But the Soviets were able to plant a bug in the American Embassy in Moscow - inside the Great Seal given to us as a gift. And the Chinese are known to have their electronic spies as well. All the major nations are playing this game, and they have likely evolved a form of "rules of engagement" for use when dealing with each other. But this doesn't apply to nations that aren't top tier powers. Nor does this apply to non-national powers, such as Palestine (not yet a nation) or ISIS.

As civilians, none of us (for all practical purposes) have any clue to what is going on behind the scenes. We do not know for sure how successful the STUXNET virus was in attacking Iran's Uranium enrichment program, but it likely set Iran back by a year or two. Even more interesting is North Korea's military programs - could they have been compromised by malware hidden in the hard drives they bought from outside the country? (I'd bet that China may playing a role here, as they have gotten weary of keeping this dysfunctional regime afloat.)

- - - - - -

Much of the time, information like this never makes it to the history books. Alan Turing's accomplishments were kept Top Secret by the British for a couple of generations. Once classified as Top Secret, few governments ever bother to reclassify information which no longer needs to be kept secret. Yet, some secrets are kept by hiding them in plain sight. Leon Theremin was reportedly kidnapped from the United States in the 1930's (there is information that says he left for tax reasons), and after a stint in the gulag, then working for the KGB, ended up at the Moscow Conservatory of music (building Theremins and other musical instruments) before becoming a professor of Physics at Moscow State University.

- - - - - -

There are people who want our president to go to war against ISIS, putting boots on the ground.  Are we ready to have our children come back from the war in body bags (or worse)? I doubt it. Years ago, President Kennedy contacted the pilots flying spy planes over Cuba and gave them orders (with explanations) to NOT report any hostile fire from the ground while flying their missions. Many planes came back perforated - and the pilots claimed they hit birds and other things. This gave the president the room he needed to talk peace. But it was not only an American who prevented the Third World War - there was a Soviet Officer, Vasili Arkhipov, who kept his submarine from launching nuclear missiles while the submarine he was on was being attacked by American depth charges. Hard Liners in both countries wanted war - thankfully, that war never happened. Are we ready for yet another "Forever War", because we're seeing extreme inhumanity from an enemy? Or, are there other things we can do (or are being done) that can limit the scope of the war?

Right now, we do not have all the facts, and we are being manipulated by the media. We have to watch out how the media is being manipulated - when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death, none of America's Left and Centrist media provided links to see this murder. Only the Right wing media provided links to view the murder, as it is trying to stir up the will for Americans to endure yet another war. In fact, politicians are already saying we should resort to nukes, and kill ruthlessly. Wouldn't it make more sense to get more information before another rush to war?