Jay Reding.com

Karl Rove has an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal on how Republicans can offer a compelling solution to the nation’s healthcare woes. His solution is to put more control in the hands of consumers through Healthcare Savings Accounts combined with low-cost catastrophic insurance that is portable from job to job.

It’s the right plan for American workers. The current system is completely idiotic — there’s no good reason why health benefits should be tied to your employer. It hurts small businesses, the unemployed, and drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone. The first step in restoring sanity to the nation’s healthcare system is to decouple heath benefits from employment. Employers don’t buy food, they don’t buy transportation, and we wouldn’t expect to live in corporate-owned housing. The healthcare system in America is a throwback to the days of the company store, and that needs to change.

The Hillarycare solution is the same solution that’s failing in Canada and Britain. Because we have a larger, more diverse population, the rate of failure in the United States would be even faster. The inevitable result of a socialized single-payer system is the rationing of health care, the loss of consumer choice, and a system that costs more and more money. There is no such thing as “free” health care — and like anything else, the more intermediaries that exist between payor and payee, the higher the cost.

Mr. Rove is correct: what we need is a system that offers people choices. A combination of MSAs and tax benefits can cover the small stuff — routine doctor’s visits, preventative healthcare, and other minor medical issues. For catastrophic coverage, programs like AFLAC already provide low-cost catastrophic care insurance. Allowing for better risk pooling will keep those premiums low and ensure that Americans can be protected from more serious issues. The more control people have over healthcare, the more options they have and the more incentives the system has for keeping the quality high and the costs low.

We have a competitive marketplace for life insurance, for annuities, for car insurance, and for just about everything else. The cost of those products hasn’t seen the sort of dramatic inflation that healthcare has. The reason why healthcare in this country is so expensive isn’t because we have a free-market system, it’s because we don’t have a free-market system.

The GOP has to stake their claim on this issue. The principles of a sane free-market system are the best principles for America. We can ensure that every American has access to affordable and quality healthcare without creating yet another stifling bureaucracy. In fact, that’s the only way that Americans can get access to quality, affordable healthcare. However, the GOP will lose unless they’re willing to put up a fight against the special interests who want to keep the current system in place. The pro-worker side lost the Social Security fight specifically because they never bothered to counter the inaccurate and misinformed attacks being thrown out by the side wanting to keep the statist status quo.

When conservatives stand on their principles, they tend to win. When conservatives run away from their principles, they tend to lose. America needs leadership willing to stand up for the right principles. If the current crop of GOP candidates are unwilling to do so, we could end up with a socialized system of healthcare that will result in thousands of needless deaths and a healthcare system that will end up like the collapsing Canadian and British systems — except we’ll get their faster and with more devastation in our wake. The American people deserve better than that, and if the GOP leaves the field to the advocates of socialized medicine, they’ll have betrayed both their principles and their constituents.

Michael Totten has yet another amazing piece taking a firsthand look at the Anbar Awakening from the former AQI “capital” of Ramadi. What he finds is a dramatically different story from the media narrative of an Iraq that is damned to civil war and constant terrorism. What happened in Ramadi was not an accident — it took both the brutality of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the steadfastness of American and Iraqi forces to take Ramadi from one of the worst places in Iraq — or in the world for that matter — and turn it into a city that is slowly becoming livable again.

Why is this war worth it? Totten quotes one American soldier’s answer:

This place has made an amazing turnaround,” he said. “Everyone knew about Ramadi. It was another Fallujah, but it was worse than Fallujah. I did not want to come here. I was supposed to have an easy deployment in Karbala. Most guys coming out here were looking forward to combat. Not me. I had already done it. If you told me a few months ago what it would be like now I wouldn’t believe it. A little while ago we went to a soccer game. Lieutenant Tierney put it together. They have sixteen soccer teams now. We bought them uniforms, balls, water for the field, everything. They had a huge opening ceremony. Hundreds of people were there. It was incredible. Just incredible. It was a real storybook turnaround. This is why we fight. This is why what we do is worth doing. This is what makes the sacrifices, like Lieutenant Hightower having metal enter his body, worthwhile.”

Lieutenant Hightower was standing right next to us when Lieutenant Welch said that. He was hit with an IED a few months ago. Pieces of shrapnel tore up his leg. He nodded at what Lieutenant Welch said, agreeing that getting “blown up,” as Welch put it, was worth it.

“That is the most encouraging thing,” he said, “seeing American Soldiers at soccer games at a stadium that recently was used as a graveyard.”

In the end, that’s also how successful counterinsurgencies are won. We have to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the way to do that is to work with the locals. The reason why we can’t fight this war from Okinawa is because troops a world away can’t build soccer stadiums. They can’t provide the people with services. They can’t do the things necessary to ensure that people like the citizens of Ramadi don’t end up forced to side with al-Qaeda for their mere survival.

The argument goes that it’s really the Iraqis who are responsible for the turnaround in al-Anbar, not the “surge.” In fact, that’s not at all untrue. The Anbar Awakening wasn’t something planned by the US military — it was an organic uprising of Iraqi Sunnis who had enough of al-Qaeda. At the same time, the US has been an instrumental part of that success — the Iraqis drove al-Qaeda out, and we’ve been stomping on them as they flee. It is an example of what we’ve needed for this whole war: a partnership between Iraqi and America standing against terrorism and tyranny.

AQI will try to take back Ramadi. They will fail. They’ve lost the people, and ultimately, they’ve lost the war. There have been minor swings of fortune throughout this conflict, but never something this fundamentally profound. Counter-insurgency wars are won when the people decisively swing to one side — an insurgent force cannot survive without broad popular support. AQI has lost that support, irretrievably.

Even better, this new “Awakening” movement is spreading. There is word that Shi’ite tribal leaders are also joining forces with the US to combat Iranian influences. The idea that sectarianism was stronger than nationalism in Iraq was never true. Iraqi Sunnis and Shi’ites were not all that different for most of Iraq’s history. Most Iraqi tribes were mixed Sunni-Shi’ite. Most Iraqi families were as well. The sectarian violence was being caused by the few, not the many. Now that the conditions are changing, Iraqi unity is shining through.

To be honest, I’m proud of what our Iraqi allies have achieved. Their government is still dysfunctional, sectarian, and nearly worthless. They still have a long way to go in terms of political and social development. At the same time, would you or I have the strength to resist al-Qaeda after years of brutal oppression? Before we start criticizing the people of Iraq, we should at least try to take a few steps in their shoes and realize just how profound their struggle has been.

In solidarity with our Iraqi allies, we will defeat terrorism. Iraq will be free, strong, and proud. The murderers and the savages of al-Qaeda will go into Iraq and find their grave. Iraq will struggle, but it will develop from a weakly federal system based on compromises to a government that can provide for its common defense. It took us over 80 years — Iraq has had only 4. At that point in our political development, we were still a nation divided along sectarian lines living in a weakly federal system under the Articles of Confederation. We learned, and so will they.

The Iraq War is largely viewed as a mistake in the polls. Looking at the pictures of those Iraqi children, knowing what their lives would be like had the US and the Iraqis not stood against the barbarians who were systematically raping Ramadi to death, it’s hard to make the argument that it wasn’t worth it. If there is to be a free Middle East, it will start in places like Ramadi, and if there is to be a Middle East that continues to be rife with conflict and death, it too will start in Ramadi. The choices we make now will have effects far larger than the next election — they will decide what kind of future those children and ours live in. We owe it to the future not to leave the world to the barbarians, but to free men and women. That is why we fight in Iraq, and that is why we must not give up until the enemy can be defeated.

Philip Klein in The American Spectator takes a look at Rudy’s aggressive baiting of Hillary Clinton and wonders if he isn’t the one to go after the Hillary juggernaut. Something tells me that Rudy is relishing the possibility of a rematch with Hillary — one that he’ll be able to see through. (In the 2000 NY Senate race, Giuliani dropped out due to a bout with prostate cancer.) Giuliani’s ad in The New York Times was a gutsy move, one that put him on the offensive against the Clinton machine while at the same time reminding everyone that Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War when it was popular — which forced the Clinton camp to try to spin its way out of its most difficult logical conundrum once again.

There’s a reason why Giuliani is at the top of the GOP match, and his performance during the aftermath of September 11 is only one facet of it. Giuliani exudes a sense of leadership and tenacity in a way that no other politician in the race does. It’s his single biggest asset. The American people could see Giuliani taking on the Iranians and the corrupt Washington establishment with equal verve. Contrast that to Hillary Clinton, who now has 8 years of Senatorial waffling to explain as well as a well-deserved reputation for being someone whose ambition drives her to say whatever she thinks will get her elected.

Neither Rudy nor Hillary are shoo-ins for the nomination — at least not yet. However, unless there’s a dramatic shift in the Presidential winds, the smart money is on a Rudy-Hillary matchup in 2008. Fred Thompson’s slow start even after his lengthy wind-up isn’t helping him. Barack Obama isn’t yet posing the kind of challenge to Hillary that can keep her from double-digit leads. There’s always room for an upset in American politics, but the tea leaves don’t show anything like that happening.

A Giuliani-Clinton campaign would be a clash of the political titans — but in the end, America needs real leadership. Mayor Giuliani has executive experience, he has a strong anti-corruption record, and he says what he believes, even when it’s less than politically expedient to do so. Hillary Clinton is a political chameleon who is intensely ambitious and deeply disciplined — but ultimately her ambition is to get into power, not to serve her country. No doubt such a hypothetical matchup would be close — but knowing Rudy’s tenacity, he’s the candidate who is in the strongest position to take down the Hillary machine.

The Times has a fascinating look at the possibility that Israel took out a Syrian nuclear facility last week. Evidence is coming to light which suggests that the Israelis bombed and destroyed a facility containing nuclear materials purchased from North Korea by the Syrian government:

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

This story seems quite plausible. We know that Israeli jets did enter northern Syria — which is something that they wouldn’t do just for kicks. Israel has satellite reconnaissance capabilities, which makes the flight being an intelligence mission unlikely. The scattered pieces of intelligence suggest that the Israels mounted a daring raid deep into Syrian territory, defeated Syria’s significant anti-air defense networks, and made it out again without incident. The fact that the Syrians have been so slow to respond in any significant way suggests that what Israel destroyed was not something that the Syrians have any interested in advertising that they had.

It seems likely, based on available intelligence, that the connection between the arrival of a ship from North Korea in a Syrian port and the later Israeli raid is more than mere coincidence. It suggests that the North Koreans are actively proliferating nuclear materials or possibly even completed warheads. It also suggests that the US, Israel, and others are aware of this and are acting to prevent that proliferation.

There is a new nuclear arms race going on with both Iran and Syria looking to gain nuclear weapons. This raid is a sign that the US, Israel, and others are not going to let this happen. The problem is that all it takes is for one warhead to make it to its destination undetected for their to be a very real probability of a nuclear Middle East. This is a problem that will not go away, and all options — including military force — should be on the table to deal with it.

The assassination of Sunni tribal leader Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha has led to a declarations of revenge by Iraqi Sunnis rather than the intimidation that al-Qaeda intended. By killing the Sunni leader, al-Qaeda in Iraq appears to have burned their last bridge with Iraq’s Sunni community:

“We will take our revenge,” the mourners chanted along the 10 kilometer, or six mile, route to Sattar’s family cemetery, many of them crying. “We will continue the march of Abu Risha.”

Sattar was buried one year after he organized 25 Sunni Arab clans under the umbrella of the Anbar Awakening Council, an alliance against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, to drive terrorists from sanctuaries where they had flourished after the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Al Qaeda’s front in Iraq took responsibility in a Web statement Friday for the slaying of Sattar. “Allah enabled your brothers … to track down and assassinate the imam of infidelity and apostasy … one of the dogs of Bush,” said the statement by the Islamic State of Iraq. It described the murder as a “heroic operation that took over a month to prepare.”

Wisely, the Iraqi government is using this opportunity to develop inroads with the Sunni community by holding an investigation into the death of Shiek Sattar. The sectarian divisions in Iraq are being covered up by a universal hatred of AQI — the one force that is commonly against all sides, Sunni, Shi’a, and even American.

What has always needed to happen is for their to be a grass-roots nationalism that transcends Iraq’s sectarian divisions. It is quite possible that AQI has just created just such a phenomenon. By taking such an action, it has ensured that the Sunni population views them as an enemy rather than an ally — meaning that the progress made by Iraqis and US forces in places like al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salah-al-Din will only continue.

In terms of geopolitical strategy, getting rid of al-Qaeda in Iraq is priority number one for the United States. To see Iraq as a place where terrorism has little to no purchase is the key objective of this conflict. Yes, a democratic Iraq remains crucial, but democratic development is something that can happen organically without the need for a significant US presence in Iraq. If the Iraqis can push groups like al-Qaeda out, there is little need for a significant US troop presence in the country.

This is the first time since al-Qaeda began their campaign to create a civil war in Iraq that there is a “light at the end of the tunnel” for US forces. The sectarian conflict in Iraq was largely the product of a conscious al-Qaeda strategy, kicked off by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The worst thing that can happen is for the Iraqi people to united against al-Qaeda — which seems to be happening.

The events of this week could signal a significant shift in the Iraq conflict, and a major case of blowback for al-Qaeda in Iraq. AQI’s failed attempt to intimidate the Sunnis into accepting their rule has driven a massive wedge between the Sunni population and AQI — one that could well prove fatal for AQI’s ambition of using Iraq as the germ of a new Islamic caliphate.