Center is the new Right: GOP should nominate Romney

The ideological and radical Obama administration has become a common nightmare, sadly, in line with my expectations. The evidence was there before the election, but I couldn't even convince my retired parents that in addition to economic malaise Obama would impose while Congress is controlled entirely by the Democrats, but social programs, such as Medicare, on which they rely, would actually get cut not strengthened. Enlarging the nanny state Obama administration would certainly mean 'more' social entitlements, but for those who had difficulty imagining why 'more means worse' for social programs the administration spent two years pushing through Obamacare to demonstrate.  
It is time for Americans to stop being dupes, and question leadership that pulls bait-and-switch tactics. Obama decried in one TV interview that it is easy to be cynical about the government, suggesting we should elevate ourselves above such prejudice to succeed. It is difficult to imagine administration more cynical than Obama's with its 'subversive' leadership style.

Obama got a huge surge of popularity during the 2008 bank crisis in US, was seen as a better steward of the economy than McCain. Obama promised to make the economy a priority, then pushed through Obamacare, and sold it a key structural reform for the economy, although major implementation of occurs only during 2013-14. And over 2000 organizations that supported Obama have received waivers from Obamacare. 

There are only two explanations for the disparity between immediacy of economic pain and its tenuous long-term solution through reform of health-care - 15% of annual GPD of US. Either the brilliant salesman Obama assembled a team to equal his inexperience and incompetence, and failed to comprehend that healthcare reform could not have any positive effect - economically or politically during his first term. Or did the Obama administration decide to cash in during two years of total controlled of the administrative and executive branches and pulled a bait-and-switch to push through a pipe-dream from the top of the radical liberal agenda? During this time the British government-sponsored universal that was finally admitted as failure (no mean feat, which took a long time and cost a lot of live) and was being abandoned the only explanation for this behavior is radical ideology.

Charles Krauthammer, a talented syndicated columnist who writes for Washington Post and is known for his insightful, if mildly phrased descriptions, characterzed Obama's administrative style as 'subversive'. Subversive, is an apt description, but it is also a euphemism for 'based on lies and misrepresentations', although it has the benefit of brevity.

I remember watching the town-hall meeting with candidate McCain in 2008 when a middle-aged black man got a microphone and pleaded with McCain to challenge Obama's vague, collectivist program of reform: "Take it to him", the man said impassionedly.

We are in need of someone who can take Obama to task for his assumptions, actions and results. I felt obliged to provide a strong example of Obama's duplicity before asserting the obvious truth - that the administration it is a travesty and needs to be challenged most strongly. The corruption of government and society under this administration will take a long time to repair, and many of the people who perpetrated this 'social experiment' on the American people need to be questioned. Recently, Eric Holder has been shown to have misled Congress about his knowledge of the infamous ATF's 'Fast and Furious' gun-running operation, but is getting away with it.

Corruption flourishes it it is not prosecuted.

On Bill Clinton's last day in office assistant attorney general, Eric Holder, issued over 150 pardons including one for a convicted financier Mark Rich, whose wife made a very generous donation to Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. George W. Bush clearly had great regard for the office of the presidency, and possibly because of that respect he did not investigate Eric Holder. Clearly, that was a mistake, because of Holder's amorality thinly disguised by boring legalese.

Despite merits of holding the Obama administration to account to the full extent of the law, the way of confrontation may not be in the best interest of US. The economic problems are more pressing, than those of political corruption. Both short- and long-term goals can be fulfilled by an administration that restores the economy and faith in public officials through honest governance. The exposure and trial of perpetrators should not be neglected, but should remain secondary goals.

Excessive zeal in repealing Obamacare, and reversing all the policies of the Obama administration, could contribute to an ideological divide separating the country. By unilaterally implementing a reckless, radical agenda and seeking to redistribute ('spreading') the wealth the Obama administration opened up deep divisions. Reversing these policies could exacerbate the political polarization, and make compromise less, not more likely.

Newt Gingrich has a lot of positive traits and accomplishments, which I respect, however tempting he is as a counterweight to Obama, and he could well become a very polarizing influence. 'Contract with America' is a fine example of transparent, accountable government that we need and want. In addition to Newt's accomplishments as a conservative politician he is thoughtful man - a historian - who learns from past experience, rather than gambling that he can overcome historical precedents through sheer power of personal charisma, as the Obama administration has done. Nevertheless, Newt is not well suited for the top of the GOP ticket. For all his brilliance, he can be erratic, and undisciplined. Historically, he reminds me of Erich Ludendorff, whose brilliant tactics drove back the demoralized Russians in 1917, but was known to be temperamental and cracked under the pressure of the last German offensives on the Western front in 1918. That was why it was good he had a stable, if unimaginative superior, von Hindenburg. Ludendorff’s breakdown was the reason his unimaginably dull superior was elected chancellor.

Newt Gingrich is an 'idea' mean, and would make a fine VP. Nominating him for the top of the GOP ticket could result in an erratic, polarizing presidency that spends too much time on rectification of old wrongs, or simply on politics, and neglects to fix the economy, which requires short-term measures, in addition to long-term reduction of regulatory burden, abolishing Obamacare, etc.

The alternative is to nominate a centrist, and an outsider with financial acumen - Mitt Romney.

Romney was the last person I wanted to see nominated before the alternatives were clear. In light of the remaining contenders for GOP nomination, he is the best way forward. Mitt Romney has flimsy conservative credentials, but Obama's radical left-wing policies can be effectively countered by a centrist. After the pendulum of government swung so far to the left, it is natural for it to rebound with equal force in the opposite direction; however it is neither necessary nor desirable to push so violently for a reversal. If GOP could demonstrate itself capable of competent centrist governance, it would entrench its political prominence by bringing the center under the big tent, and benefit the party more than more a more radical change of direction.

Despite Gingrich's success in working with Democrats in the past, dismantling Obamacare without emotional prejudice may be beyond him, after over 30 years in Washington, D.C. Romney appears to stand a chance of bringing the two sides together.

While Romney was the governor of Massachusetts he installed a state-wide program that is very similar in spirit to Obamacare. There are cogent distinctions to be made between mandatory imposition of healthcare coverage at the Federal and State levels, however, the opposition appears to be more interested in 'total war' on the Obama administration and its radical ideology. I sympathize; vengeance is a joy to the soul, and jailing some of officials who doled out the 'Stimulus' cash to their buddies would really help to discourage corruption in the future. We need long prison sentences though, because the Chicago apparatchiks that are running the show are notoriously bold, and it takes a lot to discourage their corruption. The 6.5-year prison sentence of George Ryan, the governor of Illinois who preceded Blagojevich, did not discourage the latter from trying to sell his executive power to appoint a successor for Senate seat vacated by Obama. After denying any wrong-doing, and claiming to be a victim of political witch-hunt for years, Blago pleaded mercy at the sentencing after being convicted on 18 counts. The judge gave Blago 14 years - let us hope would-be governors of Illinois are impressed by that number.

Outcomes such as sentencing of Blago are very healthy for a democracy, however, the president must focus on the economy first, and justice second. Romney is likely to focus the economy and be less polarizing than Newt while still dismantling Obamacare.

Iran threatens closing straits of Hormuz

This is not WW3; this is only a test. Still, the closing of the straits of Hormuz, through which 1/3 or world's crude passes daily, for a 'training exercise' is serious saber rattling. Iran's energy minister told Al Jazeera last month that Tehran could use oil as a political tool in the event of any future conflict over its nuclear program.

                                                 Are these nutcases covering up their chuckles, 

                                         as they contemplate plunging millions into abyss of a war? 

Iranian leadership is a breed apart. They reinforce their rightful image of a mad dog that attacks anything in sight when the announced today: "If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure." Not only is this a psychopathic projection of aggression, it also reflects illusions of grandeur and narcissistic tendencies of the fatal kind.

Only one strategy will work in dealing with Iran: regime change.

Terror in Belgium came from Pakistan

Something horrific and historical just happened in  Liege, Belgium. It seems to have been a Mumbai-style attack on a courthouse, the bastion of secular authority, orchestrated from Pakistan.

In this courthouse parents of Pakistani descent were found guilty in an honor killing. That warranted an attack with grenades and small arms. Fortunately, there are only several died, but scores are wounded. One's thoughts naturally turn to the wounded, the senseless loss of life, and the brazenness of attack. There is very important fact beneath the carnage today; the link between this attack and the honor killing case was communicated initially to the Karachi Post in Pakistan.

That means the masterminds behind this attack are in Pakistan. This is as a Mumbai-style attack in the heart of EU organized by Pakistani terrorists with government connections.

The connections between the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, and the Taliban, as well as several Al Qaeda off-shoots are well known. Today's attack signifies nothing short of the willingness of some elements of ISI to project power into Europe through murderous proxies.

Notice how this inconvenient fact has been totally swept under the rug. Best not to think about such unpleasantness

Russian spring update

The leader of Russian liberal party "Yabloko" (meaning, apple) Gregory Evlinski on Bolotnaya (Swamp Square) on December 10th.

'Yabloko' failed to get enough votes to get into Duma in the last  (fraudulent) elections. It is scheduled to hold a 10K+ demonstration on December 17th. The initial target venue was to be the Pushkin Square, but it looks like it’s back to the swamp for the would be revolutionaries. This demonstration, too, will be help on the Swamp Square, as is the reason for this change is the same as last - too many people are signed up .

It looks like all revolutionary roads in Russia lead to the swamp.

The good side is that this demonstration should help to keep up the pressure on the government, and the motivation of the opposition. The next scheduled demonstration was originally scheduled for December 24th, so there will be demonstrations in the swamp square for 3 straight weekends. Woohoo! I hope it works out, despite the inauspicious symbolism.

Suicide Pact, Exhibit A

UN is holding climate talks in South Africa to attempt to craft a treat to take over after the Kyoto protocol is finished.

Actually, the Kyoto protocol has been finished for a long time, but the politicians have refused to admit it. Kyoto protocol, one of Bill Clinton’s signature 'achievements', encouraged nations to reduce anthropogenic pollution, especially CO2 emissions. So far, so good.

The Kyoto protocol was ratified in 2005. After nearly decade of discussions, who actually implemented the protocol? Not Canada, they just announced a formal withdrawal, citing the inconvenient truth:
"We are invoking Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,” Peter Kent said outside the House of Commons. ”This decision formalizes what we’ve said since 2006, that we will not implement the Kyoto Protocol.”

Canada signed Kyoto in the late 1990s, but neither the current Conservative government nor their Liberal predecessors met targets. Kent says the move saves Canada $14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets."

The full gems in the official statements by the Canadian government:

It is now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change; instead, it is an impediment.

Here's the bottom line accounting to Canadian accounting:

To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of:
o Either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads.

o Or, closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.

The cost of not taking this type of radical and irresponsible action?

The loss of thousands of jobs or the transfer of $14 BILLION from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1600 from every Canadian family — with no impact on emissions or the environment.

The Canadian government admitted Kyoto is worse than useless and ineffective mechanism to control pollution, and merely results in vast transfers of wealth. They called implementing Kyoto "a radical and irresponsible action' (my emphasis).
In addition to the political costs, the science is junk. Here are four reasons:
1. Climategate. Emails from Climate Change researchers have revealed a disturbing amount of data manipulation and collusion. These emails are available online, and known as Climategate I and II, and greatly undermine not merely the scientific foundations, but the very credibility of the process.

2. CO2 irrelevance. Several recent studies have demonstrated that not only is CO2 a very ineffective primary factor, but even as a secondary factor its effects are so small, as to be in the noise level - too small to measure any consistent effect. Specifically, 95% percent of greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, and less than 5% comes from CO2. Small increases in CO2 levels did not lead to excess greenhouse heating (primary effect) or increase in amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (secondary effect). Extremely high levels of CO2 may have a stronger effect, but anthropogenic increases of CO2 are utterly insignificant. The studies suggested a revealing alternative to explain heating and cooling - the activity of the Sun. I see excessive focus on people as a manifestation of the same self-absorption that impelled people to cling to the geocentric view of the world, despite evidence to the contrary. The sun is heating the plant, much more than cars or factories. It was a useful question to ask, but now we know. It's not a politically convenient answer, there's far too much desire to tax people in other countries to accept it.

3. Non-uniformity. China and India are exempt from Kyoto, and its successor was not uniformly applicable either.

4. Non-compliance. Last and most damning piece of evidence, which dispels the fairy tal, is that out of the countries that ratified Kyoto only Lithuania has come close to implementing the requirements of Kyoto. Canadians have now joined Russians and Japanese in officially rejecting Kyoto. Official rejection of Kyoto is not required, however, because the law has no teeth.

Kyoto and its successor are first a foremost a means of taxation across borders. That's why it is a good thing that the UN conference appears likely to disband without saddling the West (unlike 'developing' nations which recently refused to invest in EU) with a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

Russian spring in the swamp

I wanted to add a few piquant details about the direction of Russian spring. The next gathering is not until December 24th and the media has already shifted its gaze to events gathering steam elsewhere, but not all the lessons have been drawn yet. One of the main challenges facing the opposition is its fragmented nature. The party they oppose, United Russia, is a potent embodiment of statism.

The demonstration in Moscow on December 10th was initially scheduled to take place on the prestigious Revolution Square, but was later moved by the authorities to the Swamp Square, citing legitimate concerns about inadequate capacity of the former to hold the swelling ranks of those pledging to attend on social websites.

The authorities negotiated the change with two of the leaders of fragmented opposition: Boris Nemtzov and Vladimir Rhyzakov, who agreed to the change, angering others who felt betrayed.

Nemtzov on his way to the demonstration went past Moscow's Triumphal Arch to gather demonstrators from the Revolution Square and brought them to the Swamp Square. It was an odd mixture of a Roman triumphal processing and Ivan Sussanin story - a man who promised to lead invading Poles throw a swamp, but brought them its most dire center instead. Nemtzov's name means 'from/of German' in Russian which is not a flattering connection there. I hope Nemtzov becomes an effective latter day Moses, because Russia desperately needs new leadership. It may be my angst or simply that experience teaches on to be pessimistic about freedom in Russia, but I cannot help but think of all the little odd signs.

It may be that the authorities, even Putin himself, thought it would be significant to relegate this movement to the Square of the Swamp, rather than allow them to defile the Square of Revolution, which Put must hold in high esteem, because he considers dissolution of USSR to the be greatest calamity of the 20th century. I wonder what calamities Putin has on his list. On my list greatest calamities during the last century dissolution of USSR ranks 77.

They say history repeats itself as a face, consider another connection. The previous Moses of Russia - Lenin - started his revolution with German blessing, and quickly took Russia out of WWI - look at how well that turned out. Lenin was a Ivan Sussanin in the sense of being a demagogue the plunged the country into civil war, starvation, collectivization, and all forms of repression through murder that were part of 'terror of the proletariat' from the beginning, before Stalinism took over.

It would easier to dismiss these tenuous connections as paranoia, but they are too numerous to dismiss.
Here's the translation a great section fromlenta.ru article:

"Nemtzov, chipper after his last detection on Triumphal Square, appeared on 'betrayed' Revolution Square ... collected people around him and took them to the Swamp. He was accompanied by a young leader from a wing of "Just Russia", Dimitri Gudkov. The line of people, streaming towards Lubyanka, stretched for several hundred meters".

Lubyanka was the infamous torture chamber of NKVD where people, including non-violent political dissidents disappeared never to be heard from again. Or emerged broken in body and spirit, to the extent that makes one question whether death would have been preferable. It is still an active center of operated by the newest security services FSB, recently renamed FSS. Change of names is typically a bad sign, it means the old organization played dirty, and the situation is 'cleaned' by breaking the historical connection though a change of name, in the same way as ChK became NKVD, which became KGB.

Here's another section. Do these writers intentionally put humor in their articles, or is that just a reflection of absurdity of reality?

"Suddenly to the right of Karl Marx (statue) appear a multitude of young men with imperial flags. Correspondent of 'lenta.ru' inquired with one of the flag bearers what movement he represents, but the young man replied he doesn't belong to any movement, and was handed the flag at the entrance to the meeting grounds.

A kindly man holding a bundle of wrapped up flags who was giving them out insisted that he was only giving them to "Russians" - members of a nationalist movement by the same name. In addition to "Russians", one could see representatives of "Russian social union" and "Russian mass movement" among other radical right-wingers. This tight throng adorned with a large number of colorful flags the nationalists moved in the direction of the Swamp.
After the right-wingers left, the Revolution square became quite desolate. For a time flags of communists and "Left front" still fluttered there, but soon they too streamed in the direction of the official meeting place. Leader of "Another Russia", Edward Limonov (from 'lemon' in Russian) remained as a last curiosity left in the Revolution square at the foot of the monument (to Karl Marx), surrounded, as always by a tight right of grim young men."

"... In addition to the usual slogans, the holler 'We're not going to the swamp!' - limonians (followers of Limonov) totally refused to protest on the Swamp Square."

"'Cosmonauts' (Russian special security forces 'Omon' dressed in its winter garb) periodically gathered into detachments and marched in various directions from their buses, but in the end nobody was detained on the Revolution square. Limonov summarized the situation: 'My revolution was stolen!' got in his car and drove home. The only remains of the demonstrators on the Revolution square were scattered papers, police and the statue of Karl Marx."

There are a few gems in the above, which I wanted to point out before continuing with the rest of the article.
The first paragraph is probably the most revealing: Russians want change. One of the most popular songs during the demonstration was an old song by (deceased) Victor Tzoy "We await change". What change will they get? A young man enters the Revolution Square is handed an anachronistic imperial flag, and he marches with it without hesitation! One is tempted to say that the contempt of Russian leaders for intellectual capacity of their people is justified. It is worth pointing out that since the entire Russian family was executed on Lenin's orders, the return of the empire has been rendered impractical. That these ideas are seriously entertained by some people is only a sign of the vacancy in their hearts, the nihilism of contemporary Russia. Unable to forge a just civil union based on logic and brotherhood, they harken back to the old tsarist days, when the society was based on the belief of divine right of tsars - basically the mystification of religion, let's call it 'grace.' Maybe grace as a foundation of a society is preferable is the society consists of brainless sheep that pick up and march with any flag that they are given.

Other notable things are: the humorous contrast of Karl Marx overlooking the latest attempted revolution. The left-wingers were left on the Revolution square alone for a time, sterile and insulated from criticism are the original October revolutionaries, who hijacked the nascent Russian democracy and instituted the dictatorship of 'Bolsheviks' ('majority' in Russian, who actually were not very numerous). We know how well that turned out. The would-be Lenin, Limonov, threw in the towel declaring 'his' revolution to be stolen. Do we need any more evidence to disqualify him from leading anything political? Such conceit is very dangerous in leaders. It's amazing he didn't have the presence of mind to pick his words in a better way, but they are consistent with his actions. 'My way or the highway', same intolerance for dissent was present in October revolutionaries in 1917.

I have condensed the remaining story below, and added some observations.

The start of the meeting on Swamp Square was delayed, as more participants streamed from the Revolution Square. In addition to Russian songs the crowds played Queen's "I want to break free". The meeting was opened by a colorful individual, the author of a web hit "Our nut-house is voting for Putin". A number of serious leaders all expressed the same demand: annulment of fraudulent results.

I wish them luck. He’s the kind of hollow promises given to demonstrators by the representative of United Russia, Andrei Isaev, that his party will 'hear' the protesters in the swamp. Just like Syrians in similar situations he also moved to cast aspersion on the legitimacy of protests: If you simply want to express your mistrust, you protest to what happened - do it, but do not let yourself to become 'pawns' in the hands of those who want to destroy our country'.

Medvedev recently made it clear that any anomalies that occurred were too small to jeopardize fairness of the results.

That's an amusing statement considering some regions famously reported 146% turnout, and Putin had to punt when he was asked the uncomfortable question of plausibility of 99.5% favorable vote in Chechnya, whose capital Grozny was leveled by Russia forces during a decade long suppression of a separatist movement. Putin and his crony stood by 99+% results. What should be clear to any serious observer is that the thinnest and most implausible veneer of decency and lawfulness suffices in Russia. Or at least it has for a long time. There is a misbalance between force and lies. The current regime will either fall because of its corruption or stand if it is able to ratchet up force. It cannot survive on lies alone, however, Russians are experts in modern, non-lethal repression. It may not be enough given the level of frustration of the public, however, the tactics of opposition, makes as much difference as its potential. Divide and conquer, said the Romans. Can opposition be unified?

Some opposition leaders proclaimed that United Russia has pulled off a miracle by unifying the opposition. I see too much daylight between the leaders, however.

The correspondent of lenta.ru asked some young people 'Why did you come here?', and 'What next?'

The answers were because the students didn't know anyone who voted for United Russia, but didn't have an answer to the second question.

It looks like it is amateur reformists against the professional security forces of the state, media, and even the law. This arrangement of forces is not favorable to the opposition. In a similar situation a hundred years ago Lenin called for professional revolutionaries. Of course, power corrupts, and it would be unfortunate to repeat aspects of Soviet history, but while this connection calls for caution, it does not invalidate the need for full time political operatives in the opposition.

The form that Russian repression is going to that is that taught to them by Mongol overlords centuries ago, and formulated by Stalin in a motto "No man, no problem". The professional revolutionary elements among the opposition are a source of strength, but also the vulnerability Russian security is going to exploit. There are already plenty of cases where the leaders of various movements have been jailed. The state is in danger of overusing this key element of repression - then being jailed by the state will become a badge of honor. Khadarkovski, the leader of the dismantled oil company UKOS, has been jailed by Putin for several years, and had his sentence semi-legally increased, will eventually gain his freedom in another several years, and people like him could become unstoppable leaders of a wave that will sweep away to corrupt oligarchy that has a stranglehold on the Russian people.

Signs of economic malaise in the EU

One of the points I try to make in this blog is that the Lies that prop up mature Western democracies are coming to roost, first of all economically. I left Russia shortly after USSR fell apart. That collapse did not come about as a result of moral failures - they have been very long and depraved, but primarily for economic reasons. Cheap oil plus expensive competition with US military might under Reagan. The flip side is that countries that in many ways are moral, like US, are still subject to economic failure, as a result of corruption and over-reach.

First China, and recently the developing nations balked at investing in EU. US also is ruling it out (aside from our obligations through IMF work at least $109B).

The latest clue is from the Israeli Foreign minister. There is no reason to doubt we was not posturing, but sincerely speaking about his concerns to a domestic audience:
"One of our main efforts is to push Israeli exports to the rest of the world, because some 70 percent of Israel exports go to the developed world and we are trying to encourage exports to China, India and South America in order not to be dependent only on western nations," Steinitz stated.

Over the last two years Israeli exports to these nations have already risen by a third.

Nobody wants to invest in Europe.
Steinitz predicted that a European crash could cause a 5-10 year recession.

Tightening interdependence of EU-Britain, in absence of political unity, has been any of the causes of economic problems. It seems like reduced EU is doubling down on a proven loser of a strategy.

Do you ever read things, and wonder if the writer ever thought about what he was writing, and drew out the obvious conclusions, instead of leaving them like some over-ripe and spoilt fruit on the view?

Here's a bit from Reuters on today's push for tighter EU without Britain:

"From the German perspective, only by reforming economies, cutting social benefits and working longer would the indebted members of the euro zone and the single currency project itself emerges from the turmoil…"

Reading the following picture: Dieter is journalist working with Reuters in Darmstadt. Re-reading his comments (above), he turns and says with satisfaction: "If everyone could just be like us, ja, and work like us, ja, the world would be a better place, oder?"

It helps to have German relatives of friends to truly appreciate the above joke, but the point can be understood by considering the conceit involved. All that that we need to avoid future problems like this is for Portuguese, Italians, Spanish, and Greeks to be like ... the Germans.

What is easier to homogenize these disparate cultures and work ethics, or to manage individual exchange rates for each currency with the dollar and the yen?

If you think it's the former, Marxism is definitely for you.

Here's the preceding paragraph from the same article:

"Germany - Europe's biggest economy - was intent on changing the European Union's treaty to enshrine stricter budget discipline and penalties for countries that failed to adhere to them, to ensure there could be no repeat of the current crisis."

All these PIGS needed was strict discipline, and they will be in ordnung. Line up, schnell, macht schnell.

Because this is a young bong, I will explain my sarcasm here, this one time. Be careful what you wish for. Even if the Germans could dominate rulemaking in the new EU, do they want to find themselves in the role of enforcers and over-seers? There's already been plenty of serious talk about sending an empowered delegation from Brussels to 'manage' Greece, and possibly oversee other countries, and help them avoid sins of over-spending, or under-spending, or mis-spending. Whatever the collective requires.