Most wars result from at least one side overestimating its chances of success and one or more of the sides not having a clear "endgame."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a clear goal, which can be discerned from his own statements and actions, and from discussions with those who know him well. It is to leave as his legacy the re-establishment of the Russian Empire.

The Russian Empire existed from 1721, when Peter the Great proclaimed it, until its collapse in 1917. At its high point in 1866, the Russian Empire included all of modern-day Russia plus Alaska, Finland, the Baltic nations, much of present-day Poland, parts of other Eastern European countries, the Central Asia "Stans," part of Mongolia, and the shores of the Caspian Sea.

Mr. Putin, a master of strategy and timing, sees that he has a 2-year window of opportunity to grab or control much of the former Russian Empire. He correctly sees President Obama as weak and indecisive, and hence unwilling to stand in his way -- giving him a window before Americans likely elect a stronger president.

And he must start in Ukraine.  Here is why.

It has become obvious that US action against Iran has dramatically sped up recently.

The US Navy has a second carrier group now in the Persian Gulf, overwhelmingly intimidating military power on Iran's doorstep. 

At last, Bush has authorized US forces to hunt down and kill or capture Iranian operatives in Iraq.

The White House is targeting Iranian financial assets throughout the world.

So, finally we are going faster - but towards what?  Is the US goal a democratic revolution effecting genuine regime change, with all the mullah terror masters out of power?  No - not if the State Department has its wish.

Our Foggy Bottom Pinstripes are doing everything they can to prevent genuine regime change in Iran.  What they want instead is a palace coup, the seizure of the government by different forces within the government, not outside it.

Here's how it's going to come down.

In his speech on September 11 announcing that the US would commence limited operations against Islamic State, US President Barack Hussein Obama insisted, "ISIL, [i.e. ISIS or Islamic State] is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Moslem." 

To be sure, it is hard to see how any human faith can countenance IS's actions. For the past several months, on a daily basis, new videos appear of IS fighters proudly, openly and wantonly committing crimes against humanity. This week for instance, a video emerged of an IS slave market in Raqqah, Syria, where women and girls are sold as sex slaves to IS fighters. 

Despite the glaring contradiction between divinity and monstrosity, the fact is that IS justifies every single one of its atrocities with verses from the Koran.

IS referred to its sex slave market in Raqqah for instance as the "Booty Market... for what your right hands possess."
The phrase "what your right hands possess" is a Koranic verse (4:3) that permits the sexual enslavement of women and girls by Moslem men.

By contrast to what he says about IS, throughout his tenure in office, Obama has gone out of his way to mainstream Moslem extremists. This has taken the form of granting senior appointments to people aligned with the Moslem Brotherhood. Further, Obama has befriended radical Islamic leaders who openly support terrorism, including Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

How are we to explain this seeming anomaly?

Have you noticed that many political candidates, when running for office, claim they are going to make government less corrupt, irrational, incompetent and burdensome? Yet after they are elected, it only gets more so.

Politicians like to speak in broad, general terms rather than lay out specific things that they can and will do. If voters demand more specifics, though, they will get them.

The following are four specific measures that most members of Congress should be able to support because, once explained, the benefits are obvious.

*Let's start by asking:  Do you think you should be able rely on Internal Revenue Service guidance when preparing your taxes? This would seem to be a no-brainer - an obvious "yes."  However...