Basic Knowledge About Java

Although Java programming language was introduced back in 1995, it is still widely used all over world. This software is particularly popular thanks to its simplicity. Moreover, Java helps to power different applications.

That is the reason why every educated person working in an IT industry should know the basics of this programming language. If you have never worked with similar asset, it will be good to start from the basics. Read information from https://explainjava.com/java-interview-questions/ for general understanding what you need to know to get a Java developer job.

How to use Java applications for business purposes

Java enables a user to power multiple applications for business purposes. Today, at the time of electronic commerce boom, such IT products are particularly needed. There are two main types of hardware that you can power the applications with Java:

  • Computers. Web applications are particularly useful for businesses. They enable functioning of online auctions. They also are indispensable to use in online commerce. That is the reason why businesses employ professionals who power respective web applications with Java.

  • Mobile devices. The programming language enables professionals to create the mobile applications. Today, we can hardly manage our daily tasks without them. People actively use Google Play or App Store. The sales mechanism using mobile applications is extremely important for small and large businesses alike.

Not only mentioned IT products that can be developed with this programming language. However, they are the most popular ones. Thanks to such software as Java online commerce will develop even greater than ever. Until 2021, global retail sales are expected to grow up to 17,5%. That is quite an impressive number.\

What is a Development Kit?

Java Development Kit is a necessary kit for every person who works with this programming language. The kit contains the necessary tools to code successfully. You will have a different one for each of the Java platforms editions. There are several of them:

  • Standard edition;

  • Enterprise edition;

  • Micro editions.

Here are the basic elements that are included into the kit:

  • appletviewer. With the program, you can also power the applets. For this purpose you should use appletviewer;

  • extcheck. That is the tool that will help you to detect the file conflicts;

  • JConsole. It will be needed to monitor and manage Java Virtual Machine;

  • policytool. It will help you to indicate the permissions, that are available for codes from various sources.

The kit also contains other important elements. They will help you to power the IT product you wish successfully.

Learning to work with Java is not that hard, but you have to understand what mechanisms Java employs. For IT programmers coding with it will be easier, but virtually every person can learn to work with Java.

Rebuttal of Joe Cirincione’s newest lies about nukes and landmines

The leftist DefenseOne website has published a new treasonous, leftist, pro-unilateral-disarmament screed by unrepentant traitor Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, an organization that campaigns for America’s unilateral disarmament. Therein, Cirincione hails Obama’s decision to unilaterally forego the production or development of landmines (a crucial step on the Left’s road to disarming the US unilaterally) and claims it is proof that the world can be rid of the supposed “scourge” of landmines, chemical weapons, and nukes.

He falsely claims that:

As the world’s preeminent military power and an international leader in human rights and democracy, public commitments by the United States influence militaries around the world. Even though the United States has far to go, this measured step strengthens the international norms against horrific weapons, like landmines, poison gas and nuclear weapons, which arbitrarily kill civilians. Children, families and nations will be safer without these weapons.”

All of his claims, as always, are blatant lies, plain and simple. Here’s why.

Firstly, contrary to Cirincione’s utterly false claims, America’s “commitments” and unilateral disarmament gestures influence and impress NO ONE around the world. If the US disarms itself unilaterally, or gives up on any part of its arsenal, nobody else will follow suit – because nobody else is suicidal enough. (Except Ukraine, which is now paying a deadly price for disarming itself unilaterally in 1994.)

No country that has evil designs and plans, and no terrorist group, is ever going to abide by any arms control treaties, nor be influenced by America’s unilateral disarmament gestures. On the contrary, they will only use such an opportunity to threaten or evne attack America and its allies.

Here’s proof: Barack Obama has cut America’s nuclear stockpile and ICBM fleet unilaterally, is disabling missile tubes on US Navy ballistic missile subs, is delaying all crucial nuclear modernization programs, and has unilaterally scrapped the nuclear-capable version of the Tomahawk cruise missile. Not one other nation has reciprocated – all other nuclear powers are modernizing, and in most cases also growing, their nuclear arsenals.

I repeat: unilateral disarmament gestures by the US impress and influence NOBODY in the world.

Evil countries, regimes, and terrorist groups do not abide by arms control treaties – they routinely VIOLATE them, thus gaining an advantage over those foolish nations, like the US, which slavishly and suicidally adhere to such treaties.

Secondly, American landmines and nuclear weapons are important tools in America’s military arsenal. Nukes are, in fact, America’s only defense and life insurance against the deadliest threats in this world – hostile nations armed with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or with ballistic missiles. Threats that, absent America’s nuclear deterrent, would literally destroy the entire US within an hour.

As for landmines, they are a crucial part of the .Army’s arsenal. As House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon has stated:

Irresponsible land mine use by other countries has come at a high humanitarian price, but America isn’t part of that problem.  Indeed, we do more than any other country to clean up these irresponsible weapons.  General Dempsey has long declared the responsible land mines we use are an ‘important tool in the arsenal of the Armed Forces of the United States.’”

Which brings me to my next point: disarming America unilaterally, whether completely or by “just” scrapping its nukes and landmines, will do absolutely nothing to rid the world of these weapons. This is for two reasons. Firstly, as stated above, rogue, outlaw nations, regimes, and terrorist organizations do not abide by  any “arms control treaties” or “international norms.” They violate them routinely and shamelessly. Adhering to treaties that America’s adversaries do not comply with is suicidal and will only invite aggression against the US.

Secondly, these weapons – particularly nuclear arms – are so attractive to countries around the world that no nuclear power (other than Ukraine and Belarus after the USSR’s collapse) has ever renounced its atomic arsenal – and in the last few decades, several new countries have joined the nuclear club, with more countries working – and racing – to acquire such weapons.

In 1968, when the utterly failed and useless “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” was signed, only five countries had nuclear weapons, the original five nuclear powers: the US, the USSR, Britain, France and China. Within the next 6 years, Israel and India joined the nuclear club. The end of the Cold War hardly marked the end of the nuclear club’s expansion: Pakistan joined the club in 1998, North Korea in 2006, and now, Iran and Saudi Arabia are racing to join the nuclear club, too. Both of them will likely obtain nuclear weapons within the next few years.

This is not surprising, given that Iran and Saudi Arabia are fierce rivals, indeed enemies, vying for supremacy in the Muslim world. If one of them obtains nuclear weapons, the other one cannot afford not to have them – especially since Saudi Arabia no longer trusts Washington’s nuclear deterrence guarantees while watching the Obama administration disarm itself unilaterally.

Meanwhile, existing club members Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. In fact, State Department officials say Russia is rapidly growing its arsenal to achieve nuclear superiority over, rather than just retain parity with, the US.

This is confirmed by Russia’s incessant nuclear saber-rattling ongoing since 2007 and repeated nuclear threats against the US and its allies, as well as its violations of every arms control treaty it has signed (including the INF and New START treaties). (Remember what I just said above about arms control treaties being useless?)

China (which has at least 1,600, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear weapons) is also rapidly building up its arsenal of both warheads and delivery systems. It has recently begun deploying the DF-41 mobile ICBM capable of carrying 10 warheads to the CONUS. Which means just one Chinese DF-41 missile, with 10 warheads, can destroy 10 different targets throughout the CONUS (the missile’s range is 12,000 kms). As the WantChinaTimes newspaper remarks, this means China could destroy Washington, New York, and Los Angeles with just one DF-41 missile – and that missile is just one of the many nuclear delivery systems China possesses.

Besides Russia and China, every other nuclear power in the world – except Barack Obama’s America – is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and many nuclear powers are expanding them. India, for example, has just commissioned its first-ever ballistic missile submarine, marking the birth of its nuclear triad. Israel has tested and is now deploying the Jericho-III ICBM with a range of over 10,000 kms. North Korea deployed a new, road-mobile ICBM (supplied by China) called the KN-08 two years ago. France is investing in new delivery systems that will prolong its nuclear arsenal’s lifetime into the 2060s.

Meanwhile, America’s allies around the world – from Poland to Persian Gulf states to South Korea to Japan – are very worried about their security, as they watch the Obama administration disarm the US unilaterally and thus deprive them of the US nuclear umbrella. They know they cannot afford to bet their security, and indeed their very survival, on Obama’s and Cirincione’s fantasies of “a world without nuclear weapons” – especially when the world is moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Many of them, especially, South Korea and Japan, will eventually build their own atomic arsenals if Obama continues to cut America’s arsenal unilaterally. Already, 66% of South Koreans want their country to do so, and Japan has recently built a facility permitting it to produce enough fissile material for 3,600 nuclear warheads in a matter of months, if need be.

The world is not only not an inch closer to being “free of nuclear weapons”, it is moving in exactly the OPPOSITE direction: towards MORE nuclear weapons (just not in the US) and more nuclear-armed states. More and more countries are aspiring to join the nuclear club.

Nor are chemical weapons falling out of fashion. Syria has an undeclared stock of chemical weapons, while Israel and North Korea have huge chemical arsenals of their own. In 2003, North Korea was estimated to have 2,500 metric tons of chemical weapons – all kinds of poison gases known to mankind – and the means to deliver them.

So the legacy of Barack Obama – and other advocates of disarming America unilaterally – will be a world with MORE nuclear weapons and MORE nuclear-armed states in it. Instead of achieving their supposed goal of ridding the world of nuclear and chemical weapons, their unilateral disarmament of America is only bringing about a world with MORE nuclear weapons and MORE nuclear-armed states in it.

The world is even more distant from their supposed goal of “a nuclear-free world” than it was 25 years ago.

As for Cirincione’s claim that “children, families and nations will be safer without these weapons”, that is also a blatant lie, just like everything else he writes.

American nuclear weapons do not threaten the US nor its children and families – they protect them. America’s nuclear weapons are a proven security guarantee and umbrella to the population of the US as well as over 30 allied countries.

It is Russian, Chinese, and North Korean chemical and nuclear weapons that threaten the US and its allies – but they won’t be eliminated by disarming the US. Quite the contrary.

As even Jimmy Carter’s Defense Secretary, Harold Brown, has observed, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

http://missilethreat.com/indias-nuclear-triad-finally-coming-of-age/

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/good-step-toward-ending-landmines/87463/?oref=d-river

The Christmas Video You’ve Been Waiting For: Becky Kelley – Where’s the Line to See Jesus

Becky Kelly’s amazing voice is only surpassed by the awesome message in the song. While everyone is rushing around in the spirit of Christmas, who’s actually stopping to honor it?

Merry Christmas to all our readers and I hope you find some time to honor the Lord in your busy schedules.

Walmart And CVS Caremark Walk Back Pending Pharmacy Split

  • CVS officials said the company’s pharmacy benefit management division and Walmart were splitting over a price dispute Tuesday.
  • The organizations walked back the announcement Friday.
  • The split would have meant that many people who have CVS Health drug plans would no longer be able to pick up their prescriptions at Walmart locations.

Walmart and CVS Health’s pharmacy benefit management (PBM) division said Friday they will continue to partner after resolving a pricing dispute that led CVS to announce they were splitting Tuesday.

The split would have meant that many people who have CVS Health drug plans will no longer be able to pick up their prescriptions at Walmart locations.

News of the reconciliation between Walmart and CVS Caremark, the company’s PBM division, will be a relief especially for rural patients.

“Walmart is in a lot of rural areas where there aren’t a lot of choices,” health care entrepreneur Dave Chase told The Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday. He called a potential Walmart-CVS Caremark split “troublesome for patients.”

During the dispute, Walmart maintained that CVS was trying to control where customers filled their prescriptions, according to Bloomberg. Walmart has an “unassailable” reputation for making drugs affordable, including its $4 generic prescription drug program, Chase told TheDCNF.

But CVS maintained that Walmart, which has leverage as one of the biggest pharmacy operators in the U.S., was pressing for higher reimbursements from CVS Caremark, its PBM subsidiary. CVS twisted Walmart’s arm with a relatively out-of-the-blue announcement of a pending split.

“Walmart’s requested rates would ultimately result in higher costs for our clients and consumers,” CVS Caremark President Derica Rice said in a statement Tuesday. “While we have enjoyed a long relationship with Walmart as a low cost provider in our broad national networks, based on our commitment to helping our clients and consumers manage rising pharmacy costs, we simply could not agree to their recent demands for an increase in reimbursement.”

CVS Caremark doesn’t just account for a portion of CVS revenue. It makes up most of its revenue, according to Bloomberg. More than 93 million Americans have CVS-administered prescription drug plans. The CVS-Walmart split would not have affected Medicare Part D beneficiaries or customers picking up prescriptions at Sam’s Clubs, according to the CVS statement.

PBMs like CVS Caremark often receive a bad rap because of their lack of transparency. Healthcare Finance News explains PBMs this way:

Pharmacy benefit managers are uniquely an American concept, acting as third-party administrators of prescription drug programs for commercial health plans, self-insured employer plans, Medicare Part D plans, and state government employee plans.

PBMs are often blamed for high drug prices. New Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley revealed his three-part initial plan to cut drug prices Wednesday. His plan did not include rethinking legislation surrounding PBMs, but he has discussed the need for oversight of them.

“I’ll also continue diligently pursuing oversight of both the public and private sectors of health care, including addressing health care consolidation and anticompetitive concerns, from supply chain middlemen to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to hospitals and health insurers,” the Iowa Republican said in a Jan. 9 statement.

Chase warned against using PBMs as a scapegoat for high drug prices.

“The gains are endless in the PBM arena. There are some good ones,” he told TheDCNF. “The nonprofit I run, we have folks we advise on how to do benefits right, and there are some great PBMs that are transparent and don’t have lots of hidden fees and clawbacks.”

CVS was in the news for its health care business decisions back in 2018. CVS Health finalized a $69 billion acquisition of health insurance company Aetna Nov. 28.

Chase is the co-founder of alternative health care organization Health Rosetta that connects business with health plan benefits consultants it certifies. He is also the author of the “CEO’s Guide to Restoring the American Dream” and “The Opioid Crisis Wake-up Call.”

‘I’m Not For Socialism’: GOP, Democrats Clash Over The Green New Deal On Senate Floor

  • Democrats and Republicans got into it on the Senate floor over the Green New Deal.
  • Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer chided GOP lawmakers for not offering an alternative plan.
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and GOP Senators criticized the Green New Deal’s high cost.

A rhetorical brawl of over climate change broke out on the Senate floor as Democrats chided Republicans for criticizing the Green New Deal without proposing an alternative plan.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP Senate colleagues took to the chamber’s floor to criticize the Green New Deal, ahead of a planned vote on the sweeping resolution to massively expand government control in the name of climate change.

Democrats, however, are trying to turn the tables on Republicans to side-step being tied to the Green New Deal. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer chided GOP lawmakers for not offering their own climate policies.

Schumer even interrupted Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn to ask whether he believed “climate change is real” and ask him to say what policies he’s for, instead of what he’s against.

“We know what he’s not for, what is he for?” Schumer said while Cornyn spoke on the Senate floor.

“I’m not for socialism,” Cornyn responded. “I’m not for Washington, D.C. thinking they know better than what my constituents know.”

Schumer’s plan is to make climate change a top issue in the 2020 elections while also putting pressure on Republicans to put forward their own climate policies. Schumer also plans to have Senate Democrats vote “present” when the Green New Deal comes up for a vote in the coming weeks.

Wyoming Senator John Barrasso shot back at Schumer, arguing that there is a conservative answer to the Green New Deal — innovation.

“I would point to an op-ed that I wrote for the New York Times last year,” said Barrasso, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “Perhaps the Senator from New York doesn’t read his hometown newspaper.”

Barrasso’s op-ed from December argued that innovative technologies, not heavy-handed government, were the answer to climate change. Specifically, Barrasso pointed to nuclear power and carbon capture technology, and rejected carbon taxes and more regulations.

“It’s a plan: cut carbon through innovation, not regulation,” Barrasso said. “Not new taxes, not punishing global agreements.”

GOP lawmakers also criticized the Green New Deal resolution’s estimated high cost, and the infeasibility of getting to “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years while also dramatically expanding the welfare state.

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst gave the Green New Deal her monthly “Squeal Award” for its estimated high price tag of $93 trillion over 10 years — based on a report by the right-leaning American Action Forum.

“Which is roughly $10 trillion more than the entire recorded spending of the United States government since 1789,” Ernst said on the Senate floor.

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, who introduced the Green New Deal with New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called the $93 trillion estimate a “whole bunch of bogus facts produced by the Koch brothers.”

Markey also went after Republicans for not saying “they actually believe the planet is dangerously warming, they actually agree with the U.N. scientists who say it’s an existential threat to us” and “that we, the greatest deliberative body in the world should have a robust debate.”

“It’s no surprise that Democrats are trying to duck this big green bomb,” Barrasso said.

MSNBC Continues to Push ‘Nothing to See Here’ Narrative About Libya Debacle

In the October 1 broadcast of NewsNation with Tamron Hall, a segment featuring former State Department Middle East officer Joel Rubin focused on how the Romney campaign was “trying to put all of these things in a big pot hoping that something picks up steam” concerning President Obama’s foreign policy. Yep, it’s still the same game with some in the media – which is to trivialize what can hurt the president to prevent it from becoming news.

Rubin said of Romney and his team that they were throwing a lot of things “against the wall” and seeing what “sticks.”   Rubin continued by saying that the politicization of Ambassador Steven’s death is a travesty.  And the president skipping out on intelligence briefings isn’t?  While he did say that the matter of the threat assessment is a “fair question,” Rubin also noted that Ambassador Stevens received the same briefings and knew the risks involved being stationed there.  It was a rather crude way of trivializing the president’s role in not preventing this terrorist attack.

After all, there are many legitimate policy issues that are not being discussed in the broadcast media, like how the Benghazi consulate compound was inadequately secured given its situation in an unstable country awash in weapons and Islamist militants. In aSeptember 24 CNN Security Clearance blog, Suzanne Kelly, Elise Labott, and Mike Mount reported that:

 The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.

Allowing a waiver would have been a decision made with input from Washington, Libyan officials and the ambassador, according to diplomatic security experts. 

’Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine,’ said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.

Concerning resolve, it’s been over sixteen days after that tragic attack and the FBI is nowhere near the compound due to safety concerns.

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy Magazine on September 28 quoted Cheryl Croft Bennett, the mother of slain ex-Navy SEAL Tyrone Bennett — one of the four Americans killed in the consulate on 9/11 – as saying  ” [I] don’t want to ever politicize the loss of my son in Libya, but it has been 16 days [at the time] and the FBI has yet to get to Benghazi to begin their investigation…apparently they have made it to Tripoli but haven’t been allowed to enter Benghazi. Meanwhile, the diplomatic outpost where Tyrone and [former SEAL] Glen [Doherty]died was not and is not secured.  Absolutely unacceptable.”

Bennett was apparently referring to reports by CNN and other outlets noting that the FBI team sent to investigate the Benghazi assault has yet to arrive in the city, and the consulate remains unguarded.

Rubin also comically reiterated the ultimate truth that President Obama’s foreign policy is “much more popular that any other recent president in time.”  These outlandish statements can be made since there is very little media coverage about the Libyan terrorist attack and the security missteps by the Obama administration which left the Americans there as sitting ducks.

Crossposted at Newsbusters.

Trump’s Tariffs At Work: Solar Company Plans New Factory In Georgia

 

by Jason Hopkins

A foreign solar panel company is building a manufacturing facility in the U.S., marking the latest boost in the industry since President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imported solar equipment.

The White House’s recently enacted tariffs on solar panels appear to be working. Hanwha Q Cells Korea Corporation — a Korea-based manufacturer of photovoltaic materials — will be opening a facility in Georgia, slated to be up and running by 2019, the company announced Thursday. The move will allow the company to produce and sell panels to U.S. customers without having to deal with import penalties.

“The new manufacturing fab is testament to Hanwha Q Cells Korea’s commitment to the U.S. market, in spite of the recently imposed trade barriers,” read a press release from the company.

Hanwha’s announcement came about four months after the White House imposed tariffs on imported solar cells and modules. While Trump has been characterized as a foe of renewable energy, many companies in the industry appear to be benefiting from his tariff and tax cut policies. In April, First Solar announced it was building a 1.2-gigawatt module facility in Ohio. A week beforehand, SunPower, another U.S manufacturer of solar panels, announced it was acquiring a German-owned solar panel manufacturer.

MJ Shiao, global lead for emerging technologies and renewables at Wood Mackenzie, said Trump’s tariffs appear to be driving U.S.-based solar production. Hanwha’s decision “is certainly a result of tariffs — and Section 201 seems to be the catalyst,” Shiao wrote, according to Greentech Media. However, the renewables expert stopped short of saying such a policy would trigger an American solar manufacturing renaissance.

Breaking: Mueller Submits Trump-Russia Collusion Report To Justice Department

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report of the Russia investigation to Attorney General William Barr, numerous news outlets are reporting.

Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima first broke the news on Twitter.

The House Judiciary Committee and a spokesman for Mueller’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Check back for updates.

Watch: Wingsuit flyers BASE jump into a plane in mid-air

French wingsuit flyers recently completed an unbelievable stunt following a B.A.S.E. jump from the top of the Jungfrau mountain in Switzerland. Fred Fugen and Vince Reffet, known as the Soul Flyers, caught up with and flew into a plane in mid-air.  As part of their project A Door in the Sky, which they had spent several months training for by completing more than 100 test flights in Empuriabrava in Spain, the duo B.A.S.E jumped from the top of the Jungfrau, one of Europe’s highest mountains, and flew into a Pilatus Porter light aircraft in mid-air. Now that’s a different way to catch a flight.

The Iraqi Question

 

With the supposed conclusion in hostilities in Iraq, Frederick Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, and Kimberly Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War, have outlined that we risk losing Iraq and how our early departure has not only seen an influx of sectarian violence, but an incremental rise in activity from Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ).  This is part of a series of columns the couple have written concerning American policy in the region.  However, with the Middle East and much of North Africa erupting in a fury of anti-American protest and Mitt Romney slamming the president’s foreign policy – I’m sure we’ll see the Iraqi question present itself in the  upcoming presidential debates.

In terms of nation-building, Iraq is better than Afghanistan.  It has an existing infrastructure, most of the population is literate, and the people view Nouri al-Maliki as a legitimate leader.  Unlike Afghanistan – which has no infrastructure, a hopelessly corrupt government, and a population that is mostly illiterate.  An aspect that has impeded security forces/national army training.  Concerning corruption, we all know Karzai was stuffing ballots in the ’09 elections, but in the rural regions it’s overtly seen via the Afghan police forces.  The incidents of jailing without cause, beatings, sexual assault, drug peddling, and bribery are commonplace.  It’s a public relations nightmare since the police, in any country, are the intermediators between the government and the general population.  Given what has been done by the Afghan police – we shouldn’t be surprised that we’re not winning the hearts and minds of the people.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are tribal societies, which will always be a point on contention concerning fostering political cooperation, but tensions in Iraq seemed to have been temporarily ameliorated during the Sunni Awakening.  This coincided with 100,000 new recruits of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) being deployed into the field, which were able to bring Mosul, Sadr City, and Basra under government control.  Some of the ISF operations were executed with limited American ground support, with the exception of air cover and logistical information.

Basra was key since it’s Iraq’s only port.  It needs to be under government control. Mosul served as a critical nexus point for foreign fighters pouring into the country and housed a financial network that assisted the insurgency.  Sadr City contained weapons caches and the radical islamist elements, the Mahdi Army, needed to be rooted out.  It wasn’t easy.  Some 1,000 units of the fled during the Basra fight, but the ISF prevailed.  In the spirit of “clear, hold, and build,” Maliki announced a $100 million dollar reconstruction project for Mosul.

That was reported in the summer of 2008.  Iraq and met all but one of its benchmarks and George W. Bush’s surge – which was opposed by then-Senator Obama – was justified.  As Kagan wrote, ”the results have been dramatic. Enemy attacks fell from an average of 40 per day in the first week of May to between four and six per day in the following two weeks. Coalition forces have captured or killed the al-Qaeda emirs of Mosul, Southeast Mosul, Ninewah Province and much of their networks.”  Romney could say that with continued cooperation with the Maliki administration, a stronger Iraq could have emerged.

Now, Kagan, along with his wife Kimberly, penned another column in the current edition of The National Review that points out al-Qaeda’s resurgence in our absence.  this development running concurrently with Iran always watching and sectarian violence rising.

Violence is slowly rising again in Iraq. Measuring it precisely has always been difficult, and the end of intelligence-collection and -reporting by American military forces makes the task even harder. Nevertheless, two independent open-source databases show a significant increase in Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence since the departure of American forces in December 2011. Data from the Iraq Body Count website puts the number of average monthly security incidents from January through July (the last full month for which data are posted) at 369, compared with 328 for the same period in 2011 — an increase of 12.5 percent. And Olive Group, a private security firm that publishes detailed statistics of weekly violence in Iraq, reports that there were more than 120 security incidents per week for eight of 14 weeks from mid-June to the beginning of September. Incidents had exceeded 120 per week only three times in the previous 25 weeks (from December 2011 to mid-June 2012).

Additionally, “AQI’s front organization, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), has increased notably in the past few months, according to a report recently released by Sam Wyer at the Institute for the Study of War. Wyer found that ISI attacks killed at least 115 people in 20 cities in Iraq on July 23. A second wave of attacks, on August 16, killed more than 100 people in 19 cities. A third wave hit 18 cities on September 9, again killing more than 100.”

Concerning the resurgence of AIQ, Kagan wrote:

The resurrection of al-Qaeda [AQI] in Iraq is a consequence of America’s failure to negotiate a long-term military partnership of the kind that was envisioned when the Strategic Partnership Agreement was signed in 2008. U.S. enablers — combat troops in small numbers combined with the precision-strike capabilities of American aircraft and special forces — could have continued, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, to keep the pressure on AQI. Their presence would also have sustained pressure on Maliki to keep Shiite militias in check.

Instead, the Iraqi political accommodation began to collapse as soon as American military forces departed. Maliki ordered Iraqi security forces to surround Hashemi’s compound on December 15 — the day that the Pentagon declared an official end to its mission. Maliki could not have done this had American trainers and advisers remained in Baghdad. Fears of a Sunni coup or a Shiite dictatorship could have been mitigated by the continued presence of American military forces, which all sides saw as impartial.

However, as the Syrian bloodbath continues, it should be noted that our withdrawal has prevented the Iraqis from protecting their airspace.  As such, “Iraq’s skies are a critical lifeline for the vicious regime of Bashar Assad, to whom the Iranian military is flying supplies, weapons, and advisers as he kills thousands of his own people in a desperate attempt to retain control of Syria. Iraq does not have air-defense systems. It does not have air-to-air fighters. Iranian aircraft that wish to pass through Iraqi airspace have only to do so, and the most Baghdad can do is lodge a protest.”

Mitt Romney could say that Obama’s withdrawal has been complicit in prolonging the bloodshed in Syria– as American fighters could have heavily curbed the amount of munitions and supplies that are propping up Assad.  While Obama may hit back and say that the Maliki administration demanded certain things which would have hindered American capabilities:

Michael Gordon paints a different picture in a recent New York Times article excerpted from The Endgame. As he explains it, the Obama administration did not begin negotiations for the extension of a military presence until June 2011, despite the well-known challenges of securing rapid deals in Iraq. The administration claims that it could not start negotiations before then because the Iraqi government had not yet been formed. But Gordon demonstrates how much the delay in the formation of that government resulted from the total failure of the Obama administration’s efforts to broker a political deal in Baghdad.

The president rarely injected himself into the negotiations and did next to nothing to, as Kagan put it, to smooth over tensions in the process.  Besides, the June 2011 announcement and an October meeting that same year – where Obama told Maliki we were out of there – the president remained in his ivory tower.  A low point in the annals American leadership.

The main point of contention in the talks was that “Obama wanted the Iraqi parliament to ratify whatever agreement was reached, despite the fact that Maliki had requested an executive agreement that would not be subject to legislative approval, and the lead U.S. negotiator, Brett McGurk, had recommended taking this approach. Maliki offered an executive agreement several times, Gordon notes, but the Obama administration stuck to its original demand.”

Kagan alludes that this intransigence was most likely due to the fact that Obama wanted out of the war and, unlike Gitmo, was going to honor the promise  to exit to appease the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party.  It’s intransigence that has cost lives.

While I don’t consider myself a neoconservative and consider their agenda a grand exercise in the overreach of American power –  we cannot deny the fact that a re-entrenchment of AIQ and the country being turned into an Iranian satellite would be disastrous.  While Iraq proved itself to have the potential to defend its territorial integrity, they’re still weaker than their ever belligerent neighbor to the east.  Forget Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Kagan wrote back in February of 2010 that”Iranian armed forces [have] violated Iraqi sovereignty on at least two occasions in 2009—U.S. forces shot down an Iranian drone in Iraqi territory in March 2009, and Iranian troops ostentatiously seized an Iraqi oil well in December 2009 as the Iraqis completed a round of international oil bids.”  The Obama administration did little, if anything, to forcefully counter these incursions.

Concerning Tehran’s politicking in Iraq, “Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Chairman of the Assembly of Experts Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, worked doggedly in 2009 to rebuild the coalition of the three major Iraqi Shiite parties that had run in 2005 as a bloc. That effort failed when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to join.”  Furthermore, ” the Iranians then actively but unsuccessfully lobbied for Iraq’s parliament to pass a closed-list election law in October 2009 in which the people could not choose particular candidates, seeking to increase their control of political parties and thus electoral outcomes.”  That’s not to say they’ve stopped trying to undermine the political leadership of Iraq. As we all know, Iran has the most to gain from a weak Iraq and that’s exactly what we gave them when we left prematurely.

As I mentioned above, I find nation-bulding to be a massive waste of American political and military resources.  As George Will noted, nations are organic entities that require generations to form.  The notion that American troops can accelerate the maturation process is absurd.  Yes, American troops provided a buffer that enabled socioeconomic development, but sectarian division remains deeply entrenched and the other obstacles inhibiting Iraq from developing into a strong state are going to be solve by the people – not American marines.  There is something to be said about keeping Hussein in power.  He kept Al-Qaeda out of his country and provided a counterbalance to Iran.  Yes, I’m for the pragmatic accommodation of dictators IF they serve our interests abroad.

However, given our situation, Iraq is more suitable for a favorable outcome in these nation building ventures than Afghanistan, but we should consider cutting down on these social engineering projects for the future.  Nevertheless, we cannot re-debate the past and we shouldn’t reignite the stale and sterile argument of why we invaded in March of 2003.  We went in – albeit on faulty intelligence – and we irresponsibly exited, leaving the country as ”an outlet for Iranian goods skirting sanctions. It is a launching pad for Iranian-backed terrorist groups looking for ‘plausible deniability.’ It is a critical line of communication between Tehran and its once-solid proxy in Damascus. It is again becoming a safe haven for one of the most lethal and determined al-Qaeda franchises in the world. That franchise, in fact, is now projecting terrorist operations into Syria in a way it was never before able to do. And Iraq is in danger once again of becoming a failed state.”  That’s the issue. Mr. President, is this ending the war responsibly as you’ve said – ad nauseum – during the 2008 campaign?

Geopolitically, Iran has always been close to Israel via Hezbollah since 1982 , but the weakening of Iraq via our exit has placed them closer.  Furthermore, the president has done nothing to curb Iranian encroachment other than offering some words of condemnation and threatening military action to prevent its nuclear capability.  That’s a rather effete response, which partially explains Netanyahu’s hesitancy to trust Obama.  I don’t blame him.

When foreign policy is discussed in the presidential debates, which will be featured on Oct. 11, 16, and 22, Mitt Romney needs to hit hard on the areas outlined by Kagan and others who’ve analyzed the tremendous vulnerability we have opened ourselves to by leaving Iraq.  Obama may have successfully placated the anti-war left of his coalition, but the potential consequences of leaving without an agreed security pact may see us re-invading the country, or at least sending in special forces, to rid ourselves of the re-entrenched Al-Qaeda elements.   In all, Kagan wrote that “it is essential for the U.S. to prevent al-Qaeda in Iraq from establishing a firm base from which to conduct and support terrorist activities throughout the region. It is equally important to prevent Iran from using Iraq as a staging area from which its militias can attack American interests and those of our regional allies. It is impossible to develop a strategy to contain Iran if Iraq is committed to a policy of supporting Tehran.”

This development, coupled with the Benghazi fiasco, are good points for Romney to highlight the lack of seriousness that is inherent in President Obama’s foreign policy.  He’s skipped almost half of his intelligence briefings and flew off to Vegas for a fundraiser one day after the Libyan attacks.  Are these the trademarks of a commander-in-chief?  Given that Romney has overtaken the president on the issue of  handling terrorism, the debates would be a good opportunity to expand on that claim.