The Iowa caucuses are the official start of the Republican primary season. For months we’ve had the chance to meet the candidates through a series of televised debates. The press has boiled the choice down to Mitt Romney or the non-Romney candidate du jour.

Michele Bachmann started strong with her Iowa Straw Poll win but was soon upstaged when the governor of Texas threw his ten-gallon hat into the ring. But, oops, it turns out Rick Perry is all hat and no cattle. Everyone wanted to like Herman Cain but it seems his libido got in the way of his good judgment.  Libertarian-leaning Ron Paul will make you love him with one answer and be terrified of him with the next. Newt Gingrich, who has been a brilliant debater, surged when Cain suspended his campaign and Perry self-destructed. But, alas, Mr. Gingrich’s past relationships — marital infidelities and Fannie & Freddie — left voters wondering about the strength of his character. Rick Santorum, a solid debater and tenacious, was rewarded with a timely surge just before the caucuses but is probably too conservative for independent voters in the general election. Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China and governor of Utah, is popular with independents but has barely made a blip on the primary screen. (Mr. Huntsman’s inability to gain any traction is unfortunate; he has bold ideas and a pragmatic sensibility.) This leaves Mitt Romney as the most viable choice to top the republican ticket.

Mr. Romney has shown intelligence and deftness time and time again on the debate floor and is squeaky clean in his personal life, yet America hesitates and Mr. Romney’s poll numbers stay constant but somewhat anemic. Some say the hesitation is due to a weak Republican field. I don’t think so. Every person running has helped define the type of leader that America needs, and voters have been paying attention — the many debates have been widely watched.  If voters have been slow to fall in love with Romney it may be  because they are a little “gun -shy” after electing Mr. Obama — another great debater from Harvard Law, but unable thus far to get America back on track.

What separates Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney as leaders? In a word: Experience. Mr. Obama was a community organizer, briefly a state legislator, and even more briefly a U.S. Senator before becoming President. Mr. Romney graduated from Harvard with a law degree and a business degree, went to work for a management consulting company, later co-founded and ran a private equity investment firm, took over the financially troubled 2002 Olympic games turning them into a success, and from 2003 until 2007 was the republican governor of the very “blue” state of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney has been demonized for making a lot of money but if you look closely at his resume you will notice that he has also been very successful in crisis management.

So, why is this election so important? Where do I start? Unemployment is incredibly high, Europe is going broke and America is not far behind. Almost half of every dollar we borrow goes to pay the interest on our debt. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare) are unsustainable and will either go broke or break our children and grandchildren if they aren’t reformed. There is an Arab revolution taking place. Iran is run by a crazy man that will soon have a nuclear weapon and North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, just lost their long-time dictator and the country is now being run by his son that we know nothing about. We are nearing crisis mode.

In the mid-term elections Republican candidates led by Tea Party types were wildly successful, Obama dug in his heels, became divisive, resorted to class warfare and America suffers.

Mr. Romney will never be loved by the far left or the far right and the press doesn’t find him exciting. There are however, plenty of people who appreciate his success in working with a democratic legislature (as a republican governor!) to move his state forward, and his business background that allows him to seek solutions to problems without letting ideology get in the way. Mr. Romney is not a dreamer he’s a doer. He’s not a cool uncle that will give you a beer and take you to a concert — he’s the dad that will make you take your medicine (and it’s not going to taste good) but you will feel better the next day, not hungover.

Here’s a look at the candidates:

MICHELLE BACHMANN — The only woman in the field, Ms. Bachmann had to answer a question at the debate about a statement she made regarding wives being submissive to their husbands. Apparently, this is how Ms. Bachmann decided to become a tax account — something she wasn’t keen on but her husband thought she should do. Ms. Bachmann is not only a tax lawyer, she is also the mother of five children and 23 foster children, was a state legislator, and is currently a congresswoman and presidential candidate — there is nothing about her that makes me think submissive. However, when she tried to explain the statement away by saying that to her and her husband, submissive means respect, I wanted to laugh. This, along with some strong rhetoric on gays, has put Ms. Bachmann in an uncompromising social conservative corner. She’s considered a top tier candidate but I don’t see any subtlety, just enthusiastic talking points. Although she won the straw poll I don’t think she stands a chance against Rick Perry, another social conservative, but with executive experience and a lot of Texas swagger.

HERMAN CAIN — A successful businessman with tons of charisma, but no political experience. Americans may be tired of career politicians, but when it comes to the presidency, they generally won’t vote for someone with no political experience . I am hoping that Mr. Cain will bring his common-sense business approach to California — I’ll volunteer to run his gubernatorial campaign. Cain in 202o?

NEWT GINGRICH –I’m always impressed by just how smart Mr. Gingrich is (in an IQ sort of way). I just can’t get past the extra-marital affairs, and his Tiffany affair. It just seems to me if someone wants to appeal to conservatives they should not have repeated affairs, and if they want to make decisions about fiscal policy they should not owe Tiffany and Co. a half a million dollars. We want intelligent politicians, but it’s imperative that we make sure they have good common sense too. And, wouldn’t it be nice if they could lead by example?

JON HUNTSMAN — Some say that his service as ambassador to China for the Obama administration is a negative. I disagree. We need a president that can bring democrats and republicans together. I liked his answers at the debate — he’s in favor of a flat tax and he recognizes that cyber warfare is a threat that we have to take very seriously — not only for national security but for financial security. His experience with the Chinese could prove to be very valuable over the next eight years. Mr. Huntsman could attract the independent vote in the general election with his moderate stance on social issues, but the primary will be tough. The problem with Mr. Huntsman is that no one knows who he is. He doesn’t command attention, and with America and the world in a mess of troubles, we need a strong leader. Mr. Huntsman has the experience and proven record to add substance to the debate. It will behoove the process to have Mr. Huntsman become a strong candidate.  Make no mistake, the White House fears Romney and Huntsman more than anyone else in the field.

RON PAUL — Everything Mr. Paul says makes perfect sense to me.  Like Keynesian economics, Mr. Paul’s Libertarian viewpoint is perfectly sound in theory; however, in the real world we have to keep an eye on Iran and we probably shouldn’t completely dismantle the Fed. There is no hesitation from Mr. Paul when he is asked a question — he knows exactly where he stands and he sees no reason to politicize his answer. He doesn’t have much of a chance of winning, but this Texan is a straight shooter and he keeps us all thinking.

TIM PAWLENTY — Mr. Pawlenty dropped out of the race after a “whooping” at the debate and a third place finish in the straw poll. Mr. Pawlenty is a nice man but if Michelle Bachmann could take him down just imagine what Rick Perry would have done with him. He was smart to get out when he did.

RICK PERRY — Mr. Perry did not perform in the debate — he announced two days after, but he still managed to steal the show. Mr. Perry is an evangelical Christian conservative in the same vein as Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Pawlenty, and Mr. Santorum, but with a jobs-creating track record as governor of Texas. For Mr. Perry, the “T” in Texas stands for testosterone, and there is no one in this race that can “out Texas” him, and, he will eviscerate anyone who tries. His Texas “talk” will help him in the primary, but it could be the end of him in the general election — it sounds an awful lot like George W. Bush.

MITT ROMNEY — Mr. Romney has appeared in two of the three republican debates — winning both on substance if not on charisma. As the nominal front runner, Mr. Romney has taken hits from all sides and has done a remarkable job of staying calm, cool, and keeping his responses above the fray. Romney has run a successful business, he took over the Salt Lake City Olympics when it was in crisis and turned it into a financial success, and he was the republican governor of the very “blue” state of Massachusetts for four years. Not a bad resume’ considering America needs jobs, is in a financial crisis with its debt, and is suffering from gridlock due to partisan politics.

RICK SANTORUM– Mr. Santorum was passionate and aggressive during the debate. But, the bottom line is he had to raise his hand to get a question  and he couldn’t win his last senatorial race. One of my son’s friends posted on Facebook: “When Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the presidential race I was disappointed cause I was worried we lost the best worst candidate, thank god for Rick Santorum.”  Kind of sums it up.

BARACK OBAMA  –  His health-care bill spawned the Tea Party and his move to the middle on the Bush tax cuts and the debt-ceiling debate have enraged the left. His approval rating is a dismal 24% and yet he has no challenge from the left– AMAZING!  While Mr. Obama is well educated and has a strong vision for America (not that we all agree with it),  his lack of experience has led to a dearth of leadership. Although his approval rating is at a historic low, he is still well liked personally; ultimately, the economy will make or break him.

I got a text Sunday night at 7:50 saying: “Usama bin Laden dead.  We got the bastard” It took me a few minutes to process the telegram-like text that my sister sent.  I remembered watching 9/11 unfold almost ten years ago and I said out loud, “finally.” I then immediately thought, “what now?”

I answered my own question: OBL’s death is the perfect reason to hasten our exit from Afghanistan.  Although troops are scheduled to start drawing down this summer, there has been a lot of talk about keeping the drawdown to a minimum. I hope this doesn’t happen. We should stay on schedule and start the drawdown in July, and continue quickly, leaving as few troops as possible to train Afghan forces to take over.  The timing of OBL’s death would be a terrible thing to waste.

America is spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan and Pakistan with very little to show for it (OSB’s death the exception). An article in the New York Times on Sunday reported on the difficulty and expense of building a road for the Afghans.  Costs skyrocketed because of security: America was not only paying to build the road, they had to pay Afghan tribal warlords to not shoot the people trying to build it!  Afghanistan is not amenable to our help. We are only making their corrupt government officials wealthy; we are not making ourselves safer. Yes, there are still al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but there are al-Qaeda in over sixty countries.  And, yes the Taliban will reemerge and women’s rights will be violated, but women’s rights are violated in Saudi Arabia and we aren’t sending troops there. America’s efforts to root out the Taliban and help the Afghans to a better way of life have been met with folded arms, corruption, and violence. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

It’s been reported that the Pakistani government was not told about the secret Navy S.E.A.L. operation.  This has to be because of one of two reasons: 1) The Pakistani government is not to be trusted, or, 2) The U.S. did in fact tell the Pakistani government, the Pakistani government ok’d the operation but asked to “deny” knowing.  This way the Pakistani government keeps the American dollars flowing in, but also keeps the Pakistani population happy.  Pakistanis do not like America and don’t want American troops in their country or in Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot be ridden of al-Qaeda without Pakistan’s help.  The people of Pakistan have been rioting in outrage because we killed OSB; they have no intentions of helping us. Pakistan is number three, behind Israel and Egypt in aid from the United States. Why do we throw money at duplicitous governments with populations that hate us?  You can’t buy love.

President Obama is to be commended for his handling of the OBL situation thus far.  It was a gutsy move to fly into Pakistan and take OBL.  A drone attack would have killed more people and made it harder to identify the body. The decision to bury OBL at sea with a proper Muslim burial was also the right decision. OBL was not deserving of the burial, but it shows the moderate Muslim world that we are civilized and respectful of their religion. There is no good to come from releasing the gruesome pictures to quell any conspiracy theory that OBL may yet be alive.  If people believe the crazy theories, they will believe that the pictures have been faked.

Mr. Obama, bring our troops home and put them on the borders.  Instead of building roads in Afghanistan, take the money and rebuild Detroit or Tuscaloosa. We’ve sent a message to the rest of the world that if you kill innocent Americans we will come after you, we will hunt you down, and we won’t stop until we get you. Now send the message that we are only willing to help those that are willing to help themselves.

In the news this week. Moussa Kouossa, the Libyan foreign minister, until his recent defection to Britain, says Libya is turning into “a new Somalia.”  A Libya mired in civil war would not be considered a “win” by the Obama administration, and indeed could prove to be a “distraction” for many years to come.

Libya has always looked more like a civil war than a revolution — the country is tribal and divided (Afghanistan?). I allowed myself to be optimistic after a few high-level defections from Qaddafi’s administration (including Mr. Kouossa), but now it appears that the defectors’ motives may have been trying to save their own hides for fear they would be tried for war crimes, rather than defecting to delegitimize Qaddafi and save Libya.

I was particularly bothered by a recent report from Libya in which a reporter talked about the “ragtag rebels,” saying they come out to fight after their breakfast, and they stop fighting to go home for dinner. This does not sound like people who are committed to a cause. Revolutions need people that are willing to die, and these people don’t even want to miss a meal! The Libyan Rebels, the French, and Great Britain are all looking to the U.S. to do more of the work — this should not be a surprise to anyone.

With so much global conflict, joining the Libyan cause for purely humanitarian reasons creates many challanges: Mr. Obama stated that Arab League approval was instrumental in his decision to go ahead with the no-fly zone.  Now, with hostilities between Israel and Gaza, the Arab League wants a no–fly zone over Gaza — a big problem for Obama and a good example of unintended consequences.

Egypt’s revolution, on the other hand, was organic, focused, and resolute. They were prepared to do what they had to do to free themselves.  They may have wanted U.S. help but they didn’t stand around waiting for it.  Now that Mubarak is gone, Egypt needs help to move in the right direction.  I would argue that any U.S. support should come in the form of private investment and not military intervention.  Private sector assistance should be facilitated by government encouragement — trade agreements, tax incentives and diplomacy.  Having the eyes of the world on Egypt would help keep extremist factions in check.

War is ugly whether you engage unilaterally or multilaterally, and regardless of motivation – strategic or humanitarian.  With a huge deficit problem and a populace that is war-weary, America has to be very careful where we engage. Americans hate the war in Iraq but it may turn out to be a serendipity for Mr. Bush.  A few experts have suggested that the Arab push for democracy is a result of Iraq:  They held free elections in 2005 and 2010 with huge turnouts. After the last election it took months to form a coalition, but they did it.

As American troops get ready to make their final exit from Iraq, the new Iraqi government is preparing Saddam Hussein’s old Republican Palace for an Arab League summit — the Iraqis are ready and proud to take a leadership position.  Iraq has a long way to go, but it could turn out to be a worthwhile distraction.  If they continue to work together to build a democracy they could someday be chasing Turkey as a country that makes Islam and democracy equal economic opportunity.

Libya, I fear, is a distraction that may cost Egypt that same opportunity

“As Libya turns increasingly violent, Mr. Obama should continue to champion freedom and democracy but let, in fact encourage, the Arab world to step-in to prevent any violence.  This is an inflection point: Islam is due for a revolution, an enlightenment, indeed a trip to modernity, but America can not force it, it has to come from within.”

A mere eleven days later the United States had built an impressive coalition — France and Great Britain were “leading” the charge, the Arab league was on board, and surprisingly, Russia and China had abstained, rather than objected when a resolution to enforce a no fly zone over Libya was voted on at the U.N. Security Council. On Saturday missiles flew and bombs were dropped.

Clearly, Mr. Obama does not read Qmuze.

By Monday the Arab League was backtracking, the Allies were arguing, and Putin was comparing the West to “medieval crusaders.” Obama was in South America trying to take the focus off of the United States — a well-intentioned  effort to change our world-reputation for the better, and to get would-be terrorist off our scent. Instead, his efforts came across more like a small child that plays hide and seek by covering his own face in hopes that he can’t be seen. Everyone, including the terrorists, knows that America is the country that will do the heavy lifting, spend the most money, and suffer the most blame for anything that goes wrong.

Winning has not been defined: the United Nations says the mission is humanitarian — to prevent civilian deaths; the U.S. says Qaddafi must go. (Note: If your mission is not clearly defined it becomes very difficult to have an exit stategy.) No one knows what will happen if Qaddafi barricades himself in his bunker with his billions, or if he does go, who will lead Libya.  No doubt that it would be hard to replace Qaddafi with someone more evil, but it’s important to note that Libya is tribal and there’s a good chance that civil war would continue without him.

Will the U.S. back the civilian uprisings in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen?  The Saudis feed our oil habit, our Navy’s fifth fleet is strategically located in Bahrain, and the government of Yemen has helped us fight terrorism — the U.S. government does not want to bump up against the governments of these countries. This begs the question: Can military intervention be considered humanitarian if it is applied unevenly?

My grandfather once told me a story about coming out of a movie theater to find a man beating a woman that appeared to be his wife or girlfriend.  The women writhed on the ground as the man kicked and punched her.  My grandfather pulled the man off of the woman and warned him not to touch her again. He then went over to the woman, helped her up and offered her his starched and monogrammed handkerchief.  She wiped the blood from her face, drew back and punched my grandfather  in his eye, and then walked off with the man that had beaten her.

The moral of the story: Helping the rebels in Libya fend off a madman may look like the humanitarian thing to do, but in the end, all we may have to show for our good deed is a big, black eye.