Horn Again 11/15/2006 10:54:02 am by Dan Krohn

	In October this blog predicted that a major world trouble spot would be the Horn of Africa. the signs continue to appear. The UN just announced that fighters form Somalia traveled to Lebanon to fight on the side of Hezbollah in the recent skirmish with Israel. In return it was said that Hezbollah provided training to Somali fighters. One hopes that the leadership of this country takes note. This willingness of Islamic extremists to travel to assist other Islamic groups in national struggles is not unique. Previously Al Qaida has sent fighters to battle the Serbs and assist rebels against Russia in Chechnya. A teacher to this blogger many years ago was fond of using the phrase, "Wishing does not make it so." Though we might want certain battles to remain local affairs, that is not the trend. It would indeed be surprising if increasing numbers of Islamic extremists did not go to Somalia and Eritrea to assist in the battle against traditionally Christian Ethiopia. What remains to be seen is the extent to which the Christian West will come to Ethiopia's aid as this situation intensifies. As previously pointed out in this blog, the Horn of Africa presents a confusing array of world interests as it can control the southern route from the Red Sea. Many oil tankers use this route to bring supplies to East Asia. So the roles of India and China ought not be overlooked.

	[comments?]

Rumsfeld's Leaving 11/09/2006 11:16:55 am by Dan Krohn

	The election results are in (or close enough to in for this entry), and the pundits are doing their analysis. Not only do we have an election to talk about, but there is the resignation (presumably requested) of Donald Rumsfeld. More later perhaps. but there is one aspect of Secretary Rumsfeld’s departure troubling. Less than a week before the election, President Bush very clearly announced that he intended to keep Rumsfeld as defense secretary through the completion of his presidential term. This announcement was issued in a way that was clearly intended to be heard. And there was no specific new issue requiring the statement. Now it is clear that when making that announcement, the president was already considering (if not decided on) Rumsfeld’s departure. President Bush has implied this clearly since the election in his statements on the change from Rumsfeld to Gates at the Defense Department. Bush has stated that he did not want Rumsfeld’s leaving to interfere with the election. This is utter nonsense. It would have made sense to me if Bush had said nothing about Rumsfeld’s pending departure or staying before the election. Again, it seemed to be a superfluous statement as he had been sticking with Rumsfeld and praising his work consistently for months. But, no, there was a loud public statement. The reason this seems nonsense is that in theory (and increasingly it appears almost only theoretical) the president is employed by the people of the United States, who make personnel decisions as to their leaders by election every couple of years. So we have an intentional misrepresentation made by an employee (the president) to his employers (the people). And few seem to care. Most seem to think this is such politics as usual as to not merit comment. This blogger disagrees. Employees should not lie to their employers, and that includes the President of the United States not lying to the people of the United States. This was not a matter of national security - it was only politics. And it should not have happened.

	[comments?]