Some History On George Washington And The Foundation of Our Nation

 

Washington, Caesar & Lessons Unlearned from History

(Research Notes gathered by L.L Brunk)

Octavian Augustus Caesar and George Washington are both remembered as leaders who helped create a kind of Golden age for their homelands; Rome and America. What did these leaders do right, and when did things start going wrong? What lessons can we learn from the past to help fix the problems we have in our nation in the present?

Both George Washington and Augustus Caesar improved their nations so much so that there successors saw them as something more than the standard, but as legendary symbols who provided the foundation the future was built upon. These two leaders’ seemed to understand that every decision they made was vital, and needed to be made with precision; as if they realized the responsibility for future generations was resting on their shoulders. They were fully competent and impressively balanced during their prime. We have to examine their examples; we have to study the foundation of their leadership so as to inspire future generations in America. The evidence is overwhelming; that today our leaders have not been able to provide for their people like Augustus and Washington were able to provide for theirs. The best way to solve the problem is to go to the root of the problem. Before we go to the root of the problem in America we need to go back to our origins and take note of what we did right. Many of the mistakes made today are not to be blamed on America as an entity; surely you can’t blame the values our nation was built upon. (This is like blaming an entire culture, race, or religion simply because an individual from that group has committed a murder or rape; nothing is that simple in life regardless of what people may believe today. You can’t point the finger at any one group of people, just like during WWII you couldn’t blame all Germans because of the actions of Hitler and those who followed his ideology.) The mistakes made today by many of our leaders in America was because of a lack of common sense. They lacked the lessons they should have learned from the history of democracy and the history of our nation. Many Americans’ in these last couple generations are lacking an education on our American History and the History of Democracy, and because of this they are unable to properly address the problems we have in our nation today; (this is us getting to the “root” of the problem.) Many mistakes that were made by recent leaders were made because they forgot to follow the examples of the great leaders before; you will not make the same mistakes. You can become symbols who will be able to provide the foundation which your children’s future will be built upon.

Key points will be shared here today in this post with emphasis on these two great leaders; Augustus Caesar and George Washington, and the foundation they helped prepare for their nations.

*Many consider Augustus to be Rome's greatest emperor; his policies certainly extended the Empire's life span and initiated the celebrated Pax Romana or Pax Augusta. He was intelligent, decisive, and a shrewd politician. His *legacy proved more enduring than any other Emperor of Rome. The city of Rome was utterly transformed under Augustus, with Rome's first institutionalized police force, fire fighting force, and the establishment of the municipal prefect as a permanent office. A praefectus vigilum, or "Prefect of the Watch" was put in charge of the vigiles, Rome's fire brigade and police. With Rome's civil wars at an end, Augustus was also able to *create a standing army for the Roman Empire, fixed at a size of 28 legions of about 170,000 soldiers. With his finances securing the maintenance of roads throughout Italy, Augustus also installed an official courier system of relay stations overseen by a military officer known as the praefectus vehiculorum. His extensive building of roads throughout Italy also allowed Rome's armies to march swiftly and at an unprecedented pace across the country. In the year 6 Augustus established the aerarium militare, donating 170 million sesterces to the new military treasury that provided for both active and retired soldiers.

The World Book Encyclopedia gives Augustus high praise. He was a peaceful ruler who went to war only when it was absolutely necessary. He initiated a time of peace that lasted 200 years. And on a historically religious note he had an indirect part in helping another king to be born in Bethlehem; one many would call the Prince of peace and the King of Kings. The World Book Encyclopedia gives this account of the achievements of Augustus: “He restored pace and order after 100 years of civil war. He maintained honest government, a sound currency system, and free trade among the provinces. He developed an efficient postal system, improved harbors and established colonies. An elaborate highway system connecting the most remote parts of the empire was built during his reign.”(Lonnie Branham Article.)

Although the most powerful individual in the Roman Empire, *Augustus wished to embody the spirit of Republican virtue and norms. He also wanted to relate to and connect with the concerns of the plebs and lay people. He achieved this through various means of generosity and a cutting back of lavish excess. In the year 29 BC, Augustus paid 400 sesterces each to 250,000 citizens, 1,000 sesterces each to 120,000 veterans in the colonies, and spent 700 million sesterces in purchasing land for his soldiers to settle upon. He also restored 82 different temples to display his care for the Roman pantheon of deities. *In 28 BC, he melted down 80 silver statues erected in his likeness and in honor of him, an attempt of his to appear frugal and modest.

*The longevity of Augustus' reign and its legacy to the Roman world should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success. As Tacitus wrote, the younger generations alive in AD 14 had never known any form of government other than the Principate. Had Augustus died earlier (in 23 BC, for instance), matters might have turned out differently. Augustus' own experience, his patience, his tact, and his political acumen also played their valuable parts. He directed the future of the Empire down many lasting paths, from the existence of a standing professional army stationed at or near the frontiers, to the dynastic principle so often employed in the imperial succession, to the embellishment of the capital at the emperor's expense. Augustus' ultimate legacy was the peace and prosperity the Empire enjoyed for the next two centuries under the system he initiated. His memory was enshrined in the political ethos of the Imperial age as a paradigm of the good emperor.

In summary what Augustus Caesar did as a leader for his nation worked. We are examining him and seeking to learn from the choices he made because many of the choices our leaders are making today are not working. The care for the Roman citizens started to decline not long after Augustus Caesar’s reign. The Emperors’ that followed him seemed to grow progressively more selfish for the most part, while the public became increasingly ignorant. The future Emperor’s were the main cause of the eventual fall of the empire, for their responsibility as leaders. Their greed, arrogance, and a lack of consideration for the valuable lessons Augustus taught and was a living example of; led to the destruction of the Roman Empire, which was a rather slow death… and the Dark Ages followed.

*(Some historians say the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by those who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in A.D. 1453.)

///

Our founding father, (which many call him for good reason); George Washington, helped form our present definition of democracy through the personal decisions he made as a leader. The most important choices he made were with the nation and its people in mind more than himself as an individual; starting with his decision to not be a King.

Now we will share some interesting history about this great man that many should know, but many don’t.

George Washington was not a member of any political party and he hoped that they would not be formed, fearing conflict that would undermine republicanism.

The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. *Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment, to avoid setting a precedent whereby the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals who could serve without any salary. The president,* aware that everything he did set a precedent, attended carefully to the pomp and ceremony of office, making sure that the titles and trappings were suitably republican and never emulated European royal courts. To that end, he preferred the title "Mr. President" to the more majestic names suggested.

On November 25, the British evacuated New York City, and Washington and the governor took possession. At Fraunces Tavern on December 4, Washington formally bade his officers’ farewell and on December 23, 1783, he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief. Historian Gordon Wood concludes that the greatest act in his life was his resignation as commander of the armies—an act that stunned aristocratic Europe. King George III called Washington "the greatest character of the age" because of this.

“It is the right of the people to alter the government to meet their needs; it should only be done through constitutional amendments.”

George Washington

*The right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. (Augustus, like Washington, kept the people happy, so that they would never have reason to rebel.) Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

It was also cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges against King George III. As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights.

Washington argues that violent takeovers by the government should be avoided at all costs and that it is in fact the duty of every member of the republic to follow the constitution, and submit to the laws of the constitutional government until it is constitutionally amended by the majority of the American people.

Drafted primarily by Washington himself, with help from Hamilton, his letter gives advice on the necessity and importance of national union, the value of the Constitution and the rule of law, the evils of political parties, and the proper virtues of a republican people. He called morality "a necessary spring of popular government". He said, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

One of the most referenced parts of Washington's letter was his strong support of the importance of religion and morality in not only promoting private and public happiness, but also in promoting the political prosperity of the nation. He argues that religious principles promote the protection of property, reputation, and life that are the foundations of justice. Washington goes so far as to say that the nation's morality cannot be maintained without religion and, since morality is necessary in popularly elected governments, religion is vital in maintaining the popularly elected government of the United States. He writes:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. *

(Augustus understood the importance of his people’s religious principles as well, which is why he rebuilt many temples, and helped revive the people’s faith in their deities. When people believe in something greater than themselves they are more likely to have moral values. Augustus acted in a pious manner in the eyes of the people of Rome and he encouraged the Roman citizens to be pious.)

Washington warned the people that political factions who seek to obstruct the execution of the laws created by the government, or prevent the constitutional branches from enacting the powers provided them by the constitution may claim to be working in the interest of answering popular demands or solving pressing problems, but their true intentions are to take the power from the people and place it in the hands of unjust men.

He urged the people in his day to give the government time to realize its full potential, and only amend the constitution after thorough time and thought have proven that it is truly necessary, instead of simply making changes based upon opinions and hypotheses of the moment.

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole.* (Augustus gave a silent warning to the republic in his day with his Army, and he made it clear that he served the will of the people before the will of those seated in the senate).

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also *argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents. (Augustus experienced something like this with those in the Roman Republic Senate, when some of the senators killed Julius Caesar on the senate floor).

Moreover, Washington makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual."

*(Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a singular "despot", an individual. (Augustus created the illusion that he was the Consul and not an Emperor for many years of his reign and he acted with humility when it came to many of the decisions he made. But unlike Washington he did recognize what he was, and was thus in support of Despotism.)

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

*Information on Political Parties:

(Political parties are funded by contributions from party members, individuals and organizations which share their political ideas or who stand to benefit from their activities or governmental public funding. Political parties and factions, especially those in government, are lobbied vigorously by organizations, businesses and special interest groups such as trades unions. Money and gifts to a party, or its members, may be offered as incentives.

The Elite Party:

An elite party is a political party consisting of members of the societal elite, particularly members of parliament, who agree to co-operate politically in the spirit of principles and goals.

Elite parties form as groupings of elite members particularly in situations where an individual politician's political standing can be secured without the support of large populations. An elite party can form internally in the parliament and its political power is derived from that of its individual members. Elite parties have practically no extra-parliamentary structure and a generally more flexible than mass parties. The central role of independent, powerful individuals implies that their structure is often loose and that their policy may be internally disputed due to disagreements between individual members. As Duverger states, in elite parties "the members of Parliament play a key role".)

“Washington argues that the American Government needs to ensure that "the diffusion of knowledge" throughout the United States is a primary goal, since the government has been created to enforce the opinion of the people and as a result the opinion of the people should be informed and knowledgeable.

Washington provides strong support for a balanced federal budget, arguing that the nation's credit is an important source of strength and security. He urges the American people to preserve the national credit by avoiding war, avoiding unnecessary borrowing, and paying off any national debt accumulated in times of war as quickly as possible in times of peace so that future generations do not have to take on the financial burdens that others have taken on themselves. Despite his warnings to avoid taking on debt, Washington does state his belief that sometimes it is necessary to spend money to prevent dangers or wars that will in the end cost more if not properly prepared for. At these times, argues Washington, it is necessary, although unpleasant, for the people to cooperate by paying taxes created to cover these precautionary expenses. (Augustus and taxes: Luke 2:1, “And it came to pass in these days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that the entire world should be taxed.” To do this all had to go to their hometown and register for the census. In obedience to the command of Augustus, Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem and shortly after they arrived the Virgin birth of Jesus took place.)

Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation. *(Augustus would probably just conquer the land and gain the resources needed in this manner). He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy. Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. *(Augustus made alliances early on in his career, but he also learned early that they were more troublesome then valuable.)Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people. *(No one influenced Rome during the reign of Augustus Caesar; Rome influenced the world.)

Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who will seek to influence the American people and government. He makes a point to say that he believes both nations who may be considered friendly as well as nations considered enemies will try to influence the government to do their will and it will only be "real patriots" who ignore popular opinion and resist the influence of friendly nations to seek what is best for their own country. (Later in Rome’s history Islam and Christianity (outside influences) had a role in the Empire falling; these influences were not an issue during the reign of Augustus, and neither during the reign of Washington did outside influences prevail.)

Washington argues that the country should avoid permanent alliance with all foreign nations, although temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary.

Washington concluded his letter by saying he did not expect the advice he had given to make any great impression upon the people, or to change the course of American politics, he did hope that the people will remember to try to moderate political parties, be suspicious of foreign influence, and to be wary of false patriotism. (Augustus final words were proved to be much more visionary the Washington, and he showed less humility; on his deathbed, Augustus boasted "I found a Rome of bricks; I leave to you one of marble".)

To this day, Washington's Farewell Address is considered to be one of the most important documents in American history.

///

Troubles with Alliances Today; Consequences of the Outside Influences Washington warned against:

Then there was… the NATO alliance…

(The Following Information gathered from World Encyclopedia, Fox News, CNN, and Yahoo News)

It would not be until the signing of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which formed NATO that the United States would again enter into a permanent military alliance with any foreign nation.

The United States established diplomatic relations with Pakistan on October 20, 1947. The relationship since then was based primarily on U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan.

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act states that the U.S. will not provide assistance to nations whose governments significantly violate human rights.

In 1981, Pakistan and the United States agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. With U.S. assistance – in the largest covert operation in history – Pakistan armed and supplied anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan, eventually defeating the Soviets, who withdrew in 1988.

Prior to the September 11 attacks in 2001, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were key supporters of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as part of their "strategic depth" objective vis-a-vis India, Iran, and Russia.

After 9/11, Pakistan, led by General Pervez Musharraf, reversed course as they were under pressure from the United States and joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support.

In return for their support, Pakistan had sanctions lifted and has received about $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001, primarily military. In June 2004, President George W. Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, making it eligible, among other things, to purchase advanced American military technology.

With President Obama coming into office, the U.S. is expected to triple non-military aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion per year over 10 years, and to tie military aid to progress in the fight against militants. The purpose of the aid is to help strengthen the relatively new democratic government led by President Zardari and to help strengthen civil institutions and the general economy in Pakistan, and to put in place an aid program that is broader in scope than just supporting Pakistan's military.

In the 1980s, Pakistan agreed to pay $658 million for 28 F-16 fighter jets from the United States; however the American congress froze the deal citing objections to Pakistani nuclear ambitions. Under the terms of the American cancellation, they kept both the money and the planes, leading to angry claims of theft by Pakistanis

The stage was set for a very tumultuous situation; the 1990s was an era of intense upheaval in Pakistan. Pakistan found itself in a state of extremely high insecurity as tensions mounted with India and Afghanistan’s infighting continued. Pakistan’s alliance with the U.S. was strained due to factors such as its support for the Taliban and public distancing of the Pakistani government from the U.S.

Latest development is the statement of Admiral Mike Mullen who blamed that Pakistani spy agency ISI has links with Haqqani Network; a dangerous group belongs to Afghan Taliban.

The CIA had long suspected Osama Bin Laden of hiding in Pakistan. India and U.S. have time to time accused Pakistan of giving safe-haven to the Taliban. However, Pakistan has denied these accusations repeatedly.

The Raymond Davis affair substantially deteriorated Pakistan-U.S. relations in early 2011. The attack on U.S. Embassy and at NATO headquarters in Kabul was blamed on the Haqqani network operating under Paksitan's spy agency, the ISI. Pakistan reacted by recalling its finance minister who was on a visit to the U.N. Pakistan also tried to strengthen the relationship with China and Saudi Arabia to counter the U.S threat. The Chinese government advised Pakistan against any such commitment that may put China's relationship with U.S and India in jeopardy. U.S reissued the warning urging Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network or the U.S will take on the threat unilaterally. Islamic groups in Pakistan issued a fatwa proclaiming Jihad against the U.S and claimed that U.S should not be called a Superpower since the title belonged to Allah. This was followed by Pakistan threatening the U.S with retaliation, if the U.S went ahead with unilateral action against the Haqqani network.

Osama bin Laden, then head of the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, shortly after 1 a.m. local time by a United States special forces military unit. The operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, was ordered by United States President Barack Obama and carried out in a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operation by a team of United States Navy SEALs from the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (also known as DEVGRU or informally by its former name, SEAL Team Six) of the Joint Special Operations Command, with support from CIA operatives on the ground. The raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was launched from Afghanistan. After the raid, U.S. forces took bin Laden's body to Afghanistan for identification, then buried it at sea within 24 hours of his death.

Al-Qaeda confirmed the death on May 6 with posts made on militant websites, vowing to avenge the killing. Bin Laden's killing was generally favorably received by U.S. public opinion; was welcomed by the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and a large number of governments; but was condemned by some, including Fidel Castro of Cuba and Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip. Legal and ethical aspects of the killing, such as his not being taken alive despite being unarmed, were questioned by others, including Amnesty International.

According to Obama administration officials, U.S. officials did not share information about the raid with the government of Pakistan until it was over. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen called Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani at about 3 a.m. local time to inform him of the Abbottabad Operation.

According to the Pakistani foreign ministry, the operation was conducted entirely by the U.S. forces. Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) officials said they were also present at what they called a joint operation; President Asif Ali Zardari flatly denied this. Pakistan's foreign secretary Salman Bashir later confirmed that Pakistani military had scrambled F-16s after they became aware of the attack but that they reached the compound after American helicopters had left.

Allegations against Pakistan:

Numerous allegations were made that the government of Pakistan had shielded Bin Laden. Critics cited the very close proximity of bin Laden's heavily fortified compound to the Pakistan Military Academy. The U.S. chose to not notify Pakistani authorities before the operation, and the double standards of Pakistan regarding the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. U.S. government files, leaked by Wikileaks, disclosed that American diplomats had been told that Pakistani security services were tipping off bin Laden every time U.S. forces approached. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), also helped smuggle al-Qaeda militants into Afghanistan to fight NATO troops. According to the leaked files, in December 2009, the government of Tajikistan had also told U.S. officials that many in Pakistan were aware of bin Laden's whereabouts.

Leon Panetta said the CIA had ruled out involving Pakistan in the operation, because it feared that "any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets." However, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that "cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding". Obama echoed her sentiments. John O. Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism advisor, said that it was inconceivable that bin Laden did not have support from within Pakistan. He further stated: "People have been referring to this as hiding in plain sight. We are looking at how he was able to hide out there for so long." …in an interview to Time magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated that U.S. officials did not alert Pakistani counterparts to the raid because they feared the terrorist leader would be warned.

"It was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets."	”
—CIA Chief Leon Panetta

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) also helped smuggle al Qaeda militants into Afghanistan to fight NATO troops. According to the leaked files, in December 2009, the government of Tajikistan had told U.S. officials that many in Pakistan were aware of bin Laden's whereabouts.

The CIA Director Leon Panetta stated that Pakistan was "either involved or incompetent."

John O. Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism advisor, said that it was inconceivable that bin Laden did not have support from within Pakistan. He further stated: "People have been referring to this as hiding in plain sight. We are looking at how he was able to hide out there for so long." Senator Dianne Feinstein said that "it's hard for me to understand how the Pakistanis ... would not know what was going on inside the compound", and that top Pakistan officials may be "walking both sides of the street." Senator Lindsey Graham questioned, "How could [bin Laden] be in such a compound without being noticed?" raising suspicions that Pakistan was either uncommitted in the fight against Islamist militants or was actively sheltering them while pledging to fight them. A Pakistani intelligence official said that they had passed on raw phone tap data to U.S. that led to the operation, but had failed to analyze this data themselves. Carl Levin who is chairman United States Senate Committee on Armed Services stated that he believes Pakistani officials knew the location of bin Laden and had "no doubt" they also know the location of other senior al-Qaeda operatives. He said Pakistan's intelligence and army have "got a lot of explaining to do," given that bin Laden was holed up in such a large house with surrounding buildings, the fact that its residents took the unusual step of burning their garbage and avoiding any trash collection. He further stated, "It's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside of that." After the raid, the U.S. asked that Pakistan identify its top intelligence operatives as it tried to establish if any of them had contact with bin Laden in the last few years.

WikiLeaks had revealed that a US diplomatic dispatch told the Americans that "many" inside Pakistan knew where bin Laden was. The document stated that "In Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden wasn't an invisible man, and many knew his whereabouts in North Waziristan, but whenever security forces attempted a raid on his hideouts, the enemy received warning of their approach from sources in the security forces."

“	"Bin Laden was the ‘Golden Goose’ that the army had kept under its watch but which, to its chagrin, has now been stolen from under its nose. Until then, the thinking had been to trade in the Goose at the right time for the right price, either in the form of dollars or political concessions"	”
—Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistani nuclear physicist, essayist and political-defence analyst, in The Express Tribune

Military aid from the United States

Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally as part of the War on Terrorism. A leading recipient of U.S. military aid, Pakistan will expect to receive approximately $20 billion since 2001.

A Kind of Conclusion

All of the tools are there for us in the lessons from history, and these great leaders of the past helped show us the way, so let’s start a new foundation today based off of a model that's proven to work. Let’s take what was done right by figures like Augustus and Washington, and then strive to do even better. Let’s avoid making the same mistakes as our more recent leaders…

*Corruption Perceptions: Since 1995, Transparency International (TI) publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) annually ranking countries "by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys." The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit." As of 2010^[update], the CPI ranks 178 countries "on a scale from 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)."

The 2010 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 10 independent institutions.

The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.