Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Cain Leaves Rails in Newspaper Interview

Monday, November 14th, 2011

What Can You Say When Words Fail You?

It was too good to last.  While the personal attacks against Herman Cain were based on unsubstantiated allegations, I knew his real problem would eventually come up:  He does a decent ten-second sound-bite, but I think his depth of understanding on issues has always been lacking.  There have been signs all along, such as his lack of knowledge on the issue of a “right of return” claimed by Palestineans, his dearth of knowledge on some of the entitlements-related issues as demonstrated by the Cain-Gingrich debate, and now he’s really blown it with some very odd responses to questions about Libya in a sit-down interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  I do like Herman Cain, and I think he’s a genuine and sincere American who believes in a message of optimism, but the fact is that he doesn’t know the issues.  Cain’s reliance on his life’s experience in business has come down to this:  He’s inspiring and motivating, but it does not qualify him to be the President.

I say this with some sadness, because I firmly believe we need a candidate with his optimistic view of America’s potential, but I also know that in the real world we face, that alone will not salvage our position.  If he gets this  confused over our foreign policy on Libya, it’s going to be a problem.  He seems to have gotten confused about the question, his rehearsed answer, or some combination of the two.  To his credit, he gets back on track but he seemed to be stalling a bit in trying to do so, suggesting he was trying to remember what his position has been rather than responding directly to the question.  Again, I’m not bashing Herman Cain, but giving you my best assessment of his knowledge.  It may be that he would be able to stumble in this fashion through foreign policy crises that may arise, but that’s not really the scenario in which you want your President learning the foreign policy ropes.

I also realize that Cain says he likes to have full information before making a decision, and that’s laudable, but the truth is that a President must frequently make decisions despite sometimes sizable gaps in the available information.  Some of those situations will be time-critical, and a President will be forced to try to fill in the blanks with best guesses from advisers, but also from his own accumulated knowledge and experience.   Herman Cain has a great deal of wisdom and experience in some matters, and virtually none in others.  Foreign policy is one of these, and the truth of the Presidency is that foreign policy is arguably the most important concern of every President, whether the occupant of the Oval Office recognizes this fact or not.  If defending the country is the primary purpose of the federal government, then foreign policy must be among our top priorities for our nominee.

This lack of detailed knowledge becomes readily apparent when placed alongside Newt Gingrich, another technocrat with long experience as a policy wonk, but it’s more than that.  I have had concerns about Cain from the moment he first ran into the “right to return” flap.  Even at that, I’d still take a Herman Cain over a Mitt Romney, but the truth is that there are better options than either, in my view.  This particular instance with Cain comes at a bad time, because the latest round of polling seems to indicate his personal favorability has slipped in light of an admittedly dubious batch of allegations about his personal conduct.  A bit reminiscent of Perry’s mental slippage of last week, this moment may provide the final downward impetus to seal Cain’s fate.  Honestly, it’s too bad because he may very well be innocent of all the wretched allegations leveled at him, but in politics, it is so difficult to over come perceptions that when combined with this episode, may turn out to have been an insurmountable obstacle to his campaign.  Then again, people have counted Cain out before, and he’s survived.  Whether he can win the nomination with his clear lack of knowledge may be another matter.

You can watch the video clip from the interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel below:

Advertisements

FLASH: Hot Mic Catches Obama and Sarkozy Bashing Netanyahu

Monday, November 7th, 2011
Wimp and Shrimp Bash Netanyahu

In a shocking story that demonstrates how terribly contemptuous Barack Obama is towards Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Ynet News published the text of the discussion between Obama and Sarkozy at the G20 meeting. H/T Drudge for digging up the story:

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

This is perfect.  It’s precisely what you’d expect from this president whose policies have demonstrated an enmity toward Israel, but toward Netanyahu particularly.  It’s disgusting.  Sarkozy has been a questionable character all along, and now Obama complains that he has to deal with Netanyahu daily.  Of course, given the way Netanyahu educated Obama at a joint press conference earlier this year, I suppose I can understand why Obama can’t stand him.  Netanyahu schooled Obama, unflinchingly.

Al-Qaeda Flag Flies Over Libya

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Over Libya

As I reported over the weekend on what was published in a story on The National Patriot by Craig Andersen, there was an al-Qaeda flag hoisted into the air over the courthouse in Benghazi, where Libya’s revolution – its contribution to so-called “Arab Spring” – was launched.  Now, the Daily Mail Online has picked up the story, complete with more photographs, but none of this was was unexpected.  We have known since early this year that al-Qaeda was present in Libya, and allied with the revolution.  With the disappearance of many shoulder-fired air-to-air missiles from Libyan depots, this raised more warning flags as it became clear that we were again siding with people who will ultimately oppose us.  It has prompted the question about Obama’s incompetence or complicity in aiding our enemies.

We shouldn’t be surprised to now discover the flag of al-Qaeda flying over Libya as that “liberated” nation slides under the control of Sharia, trading one tyrant for another form of despotism.  This has been the trouble with the entire “Arab Spring” all along:  It’s not going to improve conditions for anyone in the region except terrorists and Islamists.   This has been the general trend of our foreign policy under Barack Obama, and it seems that his Middle-eastern apology tour that started with his speech in Cairo in 2009 is now culminating in a foreign policy disaster the ultimate consequences of which may not be known for some time.

This is why a man of Obama’s mysterious past should never be permitted to occupy the White House.  His ascension from back-bencher in the state Senate of Illinois to the US Senate to the presidency is a study in meteoric rises, considering this man was a professional rabble-rouser just a few years ago.  His foreign policy with respect to the Islamic world has been comprised largely of surrender, despite his go-ahead of the killing of bin Laden, and what we now know is that he seems to have an affinity for the Islamic world that is almost unseemly in this time of war against so many Islamic nations where terrorism has prevailed.  To see the al-Qaeda flag flying over any part of Libya merely punctuates his incapacity for dealing honestly with the problems of the Muslim world.

If it were only Obama, one could dismiss all of this, but the State Department, headed by another Soros flunky, Hillary Clinton, was part of this mess too.  The whole US Department of State has taken on the appearance of a political operation that is trying to walk a fine line between the geopolitical objectives of George Soros, and the expediencies of US domestic politics.  To most Americans, this is a frightening situation, and with good reason:  We have a country treading economic water, while abroad, our enemies are gaining strength and being propped up by our own foreign policy, and at our considerable expense.  When you permit thousands of shoulder-fire missiles to get into the hands of terrorists, you must be called to account.  The Obama administration is conducting our foreign policy as if it were itself a foreign agent, and the dangers it poses are going to manifest eventually.  It’s time we prepare ourselves for those coming disasters.

US Embassy in Sarajevo Attacked by Gunman

Friday, October 28th, 2011

Islamist Gunman Toting AK-47 in Bosnian Capital

Details are sketchy at this time, but BusinessInsider is reporting that the US Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia, has come under attack by a lone gunman. BBC is reporting that the gunman was an Islamist. According to BBC:

“The person who fired an automatic weapon was wounded and arrested during the police operation,” police spokesman Irfan Nefic told BHT television.

Business Insider’s report includes video.  The shooter’s name is Mevlid Jasarevic according to Yahoo News, although there are no details about any other injuries at this time.  Drudge is carrying all the stories as they become available.

Unholy Alliance Between Church and State

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Unholy Alliance Between Church and State

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church and I understand its teachings, but I cannot accept this outrageous proposition by Pope Benedict for a new Central World Bank.  In my view, he can take his statist proposition and burn with it in the lake of fire.  This is a sinful proposal, because it arrogantly ignores that which the church teaches about free will.  One of the things about which I have long been at odds with the Catholic Church has been its preaching of “social justice” via social policies of governments.  This perhaps applies salve to those who feel some guilt in what wealth they have earned, but more frequently, it provides a moral escape hatch for those who produce nothing while demanding that others pay their way.

This is the source of a great rift in the church, greater even than questions over issues of abortion, homosexuality, and pedophilia among priests.  This is a matter of what the church teaches its people at a fundamental level, and Pope Benedict’s proposal is one that should cause mortal shame in the Vatican.  That institution has been collecting and sitting on vast wealth for nearly the entire period of its existence, and the fact that it wants so-called “social justice” at the point of a gun is the last piece you need to understand how morally bankrupt the Church has become.  In the days of John Paul II’s early years, he fought with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher against the tyranny of communism.  For me, the Catholic Church is now officially dead, because through this proposal, Pope Benedict XVI is joining the church in Communism.

There are  no good works one can accomplish if one practices evil in order to carry them out.  This proposition on the part of the Pope is something that must be confronted, and I intend to do so.  There is a reason the Church has lost credibility, and when you see that they have extended into the world of politics and governance to the extent this proposal portends, you can know that the institution of the Church is in serious trouble.  So desperate is the Church to fill its coffers from the world’s poor that it now relies upon a proposal to enslave them.  In this instance, the Vatican is actually demanding global taxes on financial transactions.   WHAT?

If you think it is bad when government involves itself in the realm of religion, imagine what it is when religion takes over governance on a claim of moral authority over people and nations who may not subscribe to its claim of authority.  Every protestant who ever had doubts about the Catholic church have just had them confirmed in this  proposal.  Of all the abominable hypocrisies put forward in this proposal, here, I think is the most stunning of all:

“In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,”(emphasis added)

Here you have the ultimate in hypocrisy:  An institution that has hoarded the wealth of ages while continuing to collect wealth from even the poorest of its flock actually bothers to address the question of “collective greed?”  What can be more greedy than a Church hierarchy that occupies a palace in a nation established for its own propagation and preservation?  What?  What is greater greed than this? Pope Benedict should be ashamed to attach his name to any of this, and indeed, Catholics should recoil in horror.  Here is the ugly reality of the nature of these actions by the Church: It  is now collaborating with the devils of socialism and communism.

The most disturbing part of this proposal by the Vatican was the appeal for a “Global Authority.”  Yes, the Vatican just asked for a one-world government to oversee currency, banking, and apparently, taxation.  I will never submit to this, and I hereby denounce the Vatican, this Pope, and all the hypocrisies for which they have chosen to stand.  The church and the Pope are supposed to be spiritual leaders, but this is direct involvement in the lives of all men through government’s tentacles, and it’s an astonishing rejection of the pursuit of liberty Pope John Paul II had undertaken in the 1980s.  My complaint here is not with Catholics, but with the institution that claims to lead them.  This proposal is not born of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but of foolish old men in the Vatican who have forgotten what it is they are to do, and have become too comfortable in their museum-like  surroundings.  The Vatican is no longer the seat of the greatest Christian church on the planet, but a jewel-encrusted mausoleum that has entombed its principles beneath a stone lid of politics and corruption.  Once, the Catholic Church stood against tyranny, but as we now see all too clearly, the Vatican has gotten in bed with it.

European Union Headed For Collapse?

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Beginning of the End?

In the UK’s Parliament, David Cameron is trying to stave off a revolt of the conservative party, as at least 60 members are aboard with the idea of putting up a referendum on leaving the EU.  As a way to head them off, Cameron is hoping to exact some EU treaty re-writes that will return some autonomy to the UK in the matters of social laws and employment.  At the moment, he doesn’t seem to be making any headway, and a revolt against his proposal seems likely.  At the same time, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has told Cameron that he’s sick of the UK telling the rest of the EU what to do, since the British “hate the Euro.”  If you haven’t figured out what’s at the root of all of this, let me help to explain:  The EU is on the brink of complete and utter destruction, and the Eurozone is likely to fails, since neither Greece(immediately) nor Italy(just over the horizon) seem likely to stave off default on their sovereign debt.  Yesterday, I related to you the story of Angela Merkel of Germany chastising Italy over its debt-to-GDP ratio, as she’s looking over the immediate horizon and can see the trouble brewing in Italy, but now France has joined in the pressuring of Italy.  The EU is in deep trouble just now and it looks like the beginning of the end.

Some see this as empowering the US, but any such bubble will be short-lived, as while power in Europe is likely to become decentralized in the short run, in the US, a collapse of our markets and our banking system may not be too far away as I reported Saturday and Sunday.  Our current state of economic and financial affairs leverages strongly against any lasting leadership role, because we’re in debt very nearly on par with Italy, and if we fold, the rest of the world will follow.  The problem at the moment for the US is that we’ve stuck our necks out on behalf of the Europeans via the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund to an extent that we are now firmly tied to their fate.  If they fall, so will we, but the question remains: How far, and how fast?

If we had wise political leadership, they would demand that we stop sticking our neck out on behalf of the Eurozone.  Yes, if they fail, it will hurt us too, but the more we increase our stake, the greater our eventual losses, and the greater the damage will be here at home.  If the EU winds up dissolving at some future date, it will be a potential boon to American economic might, but in the short run, it will have dire effects on our capital markets.  The point to be understood is that I can’t imagine a way that Europe fetches this one from the fire, as the UK’s reluctance signals.  If the British do not wish to stick their necks out, I can’t imagine a reason on Earth that we should be so-inclined.

Domestically, we have weak leadership in the only House in government that would be able to stop any of our further involvement. John Boehner’s not going to stick his neck out in opposing what’s being done with the European derivatives from the Bank of America and JP Morgan, just as he wouldn’t stick his neck out over the debt ceiling negotiations.  In the end, Boehner will capitulate to the Democrats just as he did in July, and much like David Cameron is having to do with members of Parliament in London, Boehner will be trying to herd his members in Washington DC who can see the elections of 2012 directly in front of them, and know they cannot support these kinds of deals any longer.

What all of this is likely to mean on Wall Street at the open on Monday is anybody’s guess, but one thing’s for certain: The volatility we’ve been seeing these last several months is likely to continue, and one of these days very soon may be the worst day on Wall Street in 80 years.  I’m not trying to instill fear or panic, but I want you to know what’s going on in the world around you.  With Europe on the brink, the Middle East ablaze, and our own nation in a severe downturn, it’s only natural to wonder when the bubble will burst.  Washington has been trying to conceal all of this from you for so long that I think they may have forgotten it’s fake.  You can’t support the markets with direct injections of cash as was done through TARP, the bail-outs, and QE2 without eventually arriving at the day when it all goes belly-up.  Having been linked to Europe so thoroughly, we are more vulnerable than ever. Our political leaders have neither the competence nor the will to extricate our nation from the grip of a global calamity.  In the case of at least one individual, I believe it’s being engineered.  Prepare, ladies and gentlemen, prepare.

Update: Caliphate a’Coming; None Dare Call It Treason

Sunday, October 23rd, 2011

Coincidence?

Further evidence has begun to mount on Sunday that the “Arab Spring” is merely the prologue to a Sharia Winter. In Tunisia, where all of this really got started earlier this year, Islamists are poised to sweep the elections. It gets better, as in Libya, their new transitional leader says Sharia will rule the country.  If that’s not enough, over in Iran, there are now Occupy Wall Street protests.  As I told you yesterday, this entire movement has the look and feel of an Obama/Soros operation.  Considering the systematic destruction of our national economy, our global influence, military readiness, and the complete breakdown of our society that is unfolding under Obama, we must  wonder what we shall do if these people succeed.

To win, they needed to take down America, and they’re well on their way, and at the top of it all, Barack Obama stands with George Soros’ hand up his backside. In what could only be considered a more modern iteration of the book None Dare Call it Treason, this country is being wiped out, and I think it’s time we say so.

What has been the purpose of all of this coordination between the leftists groups from America participating in the Gaza Flotilla, or in the Tahrir Square revolution?  What could be the meaning of poking Israel in the eye with the entire September threat of a move by Palestineans for Statehood?  I realize that even three years ago, this kind of talk would have gotten somebody branded a conspiracist, but let’s be honest shall we?  I believe coincidences exist, and that correlation isn’t necessarily causation, but this is frankly too much to accept on that basis.  We have all known for a long time, those who paid any attention, that America was the last best hope for freedom anywhere on Earth.  We are now watching it wrecked.  It’s not accidental. There’s a reason the Dodd-Frank financial reform act permits certain facts to be kept secret from the American people.

Ordinary people like me are now turning to me and asking “what shall we do?”  As one of my loyal readers comments, it’s like from the movie 300:  “What can we do?”  I have heard a fair number of oaths muttered under the breath of those who have their own solemn answer to the question, but I suppose I have always wondered at what point the American people simply say: “Enough!”  What recourse remains?  Your President and his party have spit on this country fearlessly for three years.  They’re supporting our enemies both at home and abroad.  Will you call Congress and demand he be impeached?  What will that accomplish?  Would the Senate act? Even if it did, what then?  Biden?  Do you think that useful idiot would do any better or different?

No, I think you’d better prepare to live as slaves.  Your masters will be the Occu-Pests, and your children will struggle the length of their stunted lives in support of them and their Marxist agenda.  This way, you risk nothing.  Let me be brutally honest with you: Some of you haven’t had the intestinal fortitude to face up to friends and family and congregation and neighbor and even state what it is that is transpiring, for fear of ridicule.  I know, because I get the e-mails.  I have writers telling me: “I don’t even bother with the kids, they are so busy living their lives and watching garbage on TV that they think Jon Stewart is news.”  I have grown people who should be the object of respect and reverence in their communities telling me: “Well, you can’t say that in public because somebody will think you’re nuts.”  What courage will we have when it comes down to it if now, when we could speak, we instead cower and say nothing?

On the other side of this, I get e-mails from people who tell me how somebody who loved them re-directed them in their thinking as a result of long, heartfelt and frank discussions about what we now face. One young lady wrote to tell me:

“My dad was always pestering me to follow the news. I have a five-month-old baby and a toddler, and I just don’t have the time.  My husband works two jobs, and right now, daycare costs more than any job I could get, so I just stay home with my kids.  He sent me a link to your story about “Downgraded America” and I read it.  I was really bothered by it, but I didn’t know what to think. My dad, you know, he’s always sending me this scary political stuff. Then I went back and read some of your other stories. I talked with my husband about one because he’s interested in some of this stuff, but he doesn’t have time.  He looked at me and said “Yea, that’s what’s happening.” The look on his face was like he was letting me in on a secret that I should have known. I am going to learn more about this, and I’m going to talk with some of my friends. None of them are very political. Neither was I, but I have my babies to think about, and I can’t afford not to know what’s going on….”

Ladies and gentlemen, if we’re to stand any chance at all, we can’t have any more secrets, and we can’t fear to state what is.  It’s Sunday. It’s a day to repair for the week ahead.  It’s a moment of pause before we re-enter the storm.  Use it to good purpose.  Prepare the ones you love.

The Last Moments of Gadhafi’s Miserable Life

Sunday, October 23rd, 2011

No longer Threatening

Isn’t it strange?  Even in death, we’re still trying to figure out how to spell this guy’s name.  I’ve seen so many spellings of it over the years that I have basically given up trying to figure out which had been correct. Can you imagine being a brutal dictator notorious around the globe, and yet nobody can settle on the spelling of your name in media? Thirty years in the news, and still nobody seems to know for sure.  You’d be miserable too.  Of course, that wasn’t nearly all that made this man miserable, but whether you choose to spell his name Gadhafi, Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Kadhafi, or any of the dozens of other spellings, it doesn’t change the picture: He’s now dead, and he’s in a meat locker.

One of the questions that has arisen in the aftermath of his death is the manner in which he was killed.  As you can imagine, various human rights groups are pointing to the alleged tragedy of the way in which he was killed. Certainly, it was a brutal undertaking, and while none have found video of the moment he was shot to death, there is this disturbing video of the moments leading up to it.  The video is disturbingly graphic, but I think it demonstrates the point of human rights groups:

As you can see from this video, the former dictator was summarily executed and brutalized.  I realize that nobody is going to shed any tears over him, but I think this does rightly cause one to wonder about what form of government the mob depicted in this video will be able to form.  I know that Gaddafi probably had a hand in or directed the deaths of some of their comrades, their relatives, and their neighbors, and it would seem to offer an excuse, but the truth is that the don’t have much patience for our protracted system of justice in the West, with our endless appeals, our temporary stay orders, and our expensive system of capital punishment, so instead, they finished him right then, right there.   Do we in the West have cause to complain?

It makes me wonder what would happen if the thugs down at Occupy Wall Street were able to put their hands on some of those millionaires and billionaires for whom they express vociferous hatred.  Would the outcome be much different?  Isn’t this the implied threat of their mobs?  What all of this makes plain to me, as it should to you, is that our “civilized society” is only ever a hair’s breadth from anarchy and chaos.  All you need to see to know that this is true is a bit of video from the early morning door opening at a major retailer on “Black Friday” as they rush in to grab whatever they can.  Primitive behaviors come much more easily to people than most of us wish to acknowledge.

This is why when news of his death first came out, my posting on the matter focused not on his death, his history, or all of the despicable acts of his life, but instead on the potential blow-back we will now face as a result of the manner of his removal.  We can become wild, thuggish brutes, or we can choose to think.  I believe it is in the latter that our humanity lies.  I believe that’s what separates us from the rest.  Otherwise, we’re not much better than a feeding frenzy in a shark tank.  I don’t feel any sympathy for Gadhafi, but I worry for the country, the people of which think nothing of street justice handed down brutally, and I fear for a nation that stands on brink of similar chaos.

Barack Obama: Making The Arab World Safe for a Caliphate

Saturday, October 22nd, 2011

A New Grand Caliphate?

Everybody assumes that Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that we would be withdrawing the remainder of our troops from Iraq by year’s end is simply the result of calculated domestic political strategy aimed at his base.  While I am certain he will go to the well for support wherever he can find it, and has no problem using our foreign policy as a tool of his domestic political operation, I’ve begun to wonder whether this isn’t simply symptomatic of his continuing war against the West.  Barack Obama has demonstrated a strong affinity for the Muslim world, beginning particularly with his trip to Cairo early in his presidency.

There have been a string of policies that lend themselves to the notion that he’s clearing the way in the region for something else.  Glenn Beck has talked about it, but was summarily dismissed by the media as a conspiracy kook.  I realize that lately, in discussing these issues, I run the same risk, but the problem is that I see what I see and I know what I know, and these things are leading me to a single conclusion that I cannot rationalize away in any other fashion: Barack Obama is making the Arab world safe for the establishment of a caliphate.

He is systematically participating in the removal of the more secular rulers in the region.  The entire Arab Spring movement has been fomented and assisted by our State Department, under Obama, and the number of Muslim Brotherhood connections to the White House is disconcerting at the very least.  In Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, and Libya, we have seen the beginnings of this overthrow of more secular leadership in these countries.  In each case, we were assured that this was a good thing, and that it heralded the start of democracy in the region.  Even Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard was fooled, and he mocked Beck for the notion that this was anything that could lead to a wider transformation of the region.   Now we know better, as the events at Tahrir Square in Cairo can now be seen quite clearly in hindsight as the beginning of something ugly.

Also note that when the people of Iran began to rise up against Ahmedinejad, and were subsequently brutally oppressed, the Obama administration sat on its hands and did nothing.  This odd departure from what seems an otherwise consistent policy of overthrowing tyrants in the region stands out because it was the one movement we’ve seen that was actually motivated by a desire for greater democratization.  Those who were murdered by the brutal thugs in Iran actually sought greater political liberty and a more western notion of self-governance, and yet this is the one place where the Obama administration did nothing.

In Pakistan too, Obama is trying to undermine the government, and while there exists plenty of evidence that there is an element of enmity toward the US in that government, it is not those elements against which Obama is directing our national efforts.  Instead, he seems to be directing things against those in Pakistan who have helped to keep those elements in check.  In short, he seems to be going after the wrong people – from the point of view of US interests and by Western standards.  Now, they’ve openly expressed the proposition that we should have talks with the militants.

He is assisting in undermining Israel.  He is assisting in undermining  moderate rulers all over the Middle East.  He clearly doesn’t like the Emirates’ leadership, and he’s fomenting rebellion against them.  Even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is feeling the heat, and with each passing day, our more stable trading partners in the area are being undermined.  In Turkey, the face and nature of government has changed dramatically in favor of a more theocratic and radicalized position, all with the apparent blessings of the US.  Why?  That certainly won’t serve the interests of the American people.

In Iraq, a premature withdrawal only helps to guarantee that Iran’s influence in the post-Saddam Iraq will increase.  We may even see a move by the Iranians to capture control of Iraq, not by aggressive warfare as we saw in the 1980s, but by quiet insurrection as the Shi’a Muslims who dominate that country supplant the numerically inferior Sunnis.  With America out of Iraq, there would soon be no further justification to our presence in Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or in any of the Persian Gulf states.  This will leave the entire region open to easier consolidation under a single flag.

When viewed in this way, one must arrive at the question about motives.  It’s clear that this progression of events does not serve the interests of the United States or its people, and it will actually reverse the course of liberalization that we had hoped to see when Iraqis celebrated the purple ink that marked their first free elections.  Obama’s foreign policy now threatens to wipe all of that away, and what we will see in its place is the spread of theocratic governance dominated by Iran.  In effect, Obama’s “Arab Spring” may be well on its way to spreading the revolution that ousted the Shah and brought the Ayatollahs to power.

I believe this is the key to understanding who is Barack Obama, and what are his motives.  Obama is clearing the way for the establishment of a regional Caliphate that will stretch from the Mediterranean to the borders of India.  Even in Europe,the Islamic world has gained several footholds.  They are coming to dominate the populations of Central Europe, and everywhere you look, there is unrest and a complete lack of assimilation into the cultures of the host countries. You need only to examine Britain, France, and Germany to learn how well that is progressing.  The American people may one day soon awake to a world in which their influence has been devastated as their economy has been systematically wrecked, while a new or re-born Caliphate arises in the  Middle East, where Israel has been wiped from existence, and a purge of non-Muslims has been accomplished.  Even now, you can look at the plight of Coptic Christians who are fleeing Egypt for a clue as to what the future that Barack Obama is building will hold.

Destroying the political, economic, and military might of the United States is the only way this can be accomplished.  If you don’t realize that this very agenda is now being undertaken by Barack Obama, you haven’t been paying close enough attention.  We’re being robbed blind, we’re having the seeds of civil unrest sewn into the fabric of our own society, and the American people have been so demoralized that they cannot see the dangers looming in the wider forest, so consumed are they with the misery of their own trees.  This country is in mortal danger, and Barack Obama and those who operate under the umbrella of his influence have put us in this position.  We had thought it was merely because he was a misguided leftist, but the signs are right in front of our eyes that he’s something more terrible.  Make what you will of it, and damn me as a conspiracy kook, but the dangers are real, and the threat is growing, and Barack Obama stands as the key to all of it.

Gaddafi Dead, But What Will Be The Blowback?

Friday, October 21st, 2011

He Will Not Be Missed - But His Missiles May

I was stationed in Germany at the time of the Pan Am 103 downing over Lockerbie, Scotland.  When my own family flew back to the US a couple weeks ahead of me just a year later, it was on the flight that had replaced it.  It could just as well have been my family on that plane.  I am satisfied that the thug is gone, and my only sorrow in the matter is that it has taken so long to rid the world of him, but with the Obama having made a mess of Libya, what will we say when the blow-back arrives?  For those of you who haven’t noticed, there’s something seriously wrong with a foreign policy that precipitates a coup d’etats in another country without considering first what would happen to weapons of value to terrorists when a number of the ostensible rebels have been linked to al-Qaeda.

I want you to consider with our porous southern border what would happen if these terrorists were able to smuggle a dozen of these missiles into the US.  Imagine them smuggling them into position around our airports and knocking down airliners for sport and terror.  Imagine them taking up position in Israel to attack their airliners.  Imagine any of these scenarios, and realize that this one failure on the part of the Obama administration could lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans, or Israelis, or frankly anybody else, and you begin to understand that while it may be good for the world that Gaddafi is gone, and none of us will shed a tear over his final exit, the absurdity and irresponsibility of this operation cannot be over-estimated in its potential costs in lives and the security of the American people, and indeed, peace-loving people everywhere.

While we can all be thankful that this thug has been eliminated from the face of the Earth, we should nevertheless worry what will now happen as a result of the Obama administration’s bungling.  Remember, the Obama crowd helped facilitate this entire coup d’etats on the basis of Samantha Power’s theory of Right To Protect(R2P.)  More, Obama is carrying out something much more important on behalf of the Muslim brotherhood, and indeed all the most militant Islamists in the region:  He is getting rid of the “un-pure” thugs like Gaddafi and Mubarak, and even bin Laden.  The most radical Islamists never liked any of these militaristic dictators either, as they view them as oppressors of Muslims who are operating from a secular basis.  They were all happy to see Saddam go, for instance, and they’ll be happy to get rid of the House of Saud in the Kingdom of Arabia, just as they will ultimately be happy to rid themselves of the Emirs  elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, or the King in Jordan.

None of these are/were religious leaders or strict adherents of Islam although all of them talked it up.  They are using US military might(the vast part of NATO) to clean out the dictators in advance of the rebirth of their caliphate.  This calls into question all of Obama’s motives, but more importantly, it leaves open the very serious question about the thinking that went into our assistance in precipitating the Libyan coup d’etats in the first place.  When those shoulder-fired missiles begin to show up in concert with the downing of airliners, they will probably tell us it hadn’t been due to missiles, despite thousands of witnesses to the contrary.  They’ll blame it on faulty wiring in a fuel tank or some such nonsense.  I think we’ve been here before.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I’ve already said, we can be happy Gaddafi is gone.  What we should worry about is the way in which this entire operation has been handled, and the fact that we now have no idea where dangerous weapons have gone in the midst of all the turmoil.  You can bet they went somewhere, and you can imagine the kinds of people who would want such weapons, and for what they might use them.  As Barack Obama continues his campaign of making the Islamic world safe for the rebirth of a grand Caliphate, we are right to ask the questions as to his motives, but also with respect to his gross negligence in not seeing to it that these weapons didn’t fall into the wrong hands.  Or was it negligence at all?  One can only wonder.

Herman Cain Can’t Hide His Unpreparedness

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

Oh Herman, Say It Ain't So

In talking to Wolf Blitzed, Blitzed asked Cain if he would negotiate away the detainees at Guantanamo in trade for the life of an American soldier.  You can watch the video yourself.  If this is the best he can do on foreign policy, I’m afraid I can’t support him.  I realize he was trying his best to avoid being tricked into saying anything negative or contradictory about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but a President simply must be faster on his feet. In a moment when Cain should have recognized he was out of his element, stopped, and thought the question through, he permitted himself to say something senseless: “I could make that call.”  The US simply cannot afford to negotiate with terrorists, and this”call” by Cain would turn Khalid Sheikh Mohammed loose again if this had been a real decision.

Here’s the video:

Who Else Will Do It?

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

Must We Fall?

I have become perplexed at the willingness of some of my fellow Americans to simply abandon leadership in the world.  I am by no means advocating that our nation must stand in the position of the world’s policeman, and I certainly don’t hold with the idea that our troops should be employed in farcical “nation-building” pursuits, but it is still a dangerous world, and we still have vital interests all over its surface, leading me to wonder: If Americans won’t lead the world, who will? If we walk away and leave a vacuum in our wake, who is going to fill it?  I believe the current campaign of a contrived decline of the United States has been fostered and fomented by a foreign interest in alignment with a domestic threat to demoralize the American people and to remove them as an obstacle to a greater struggle for world domination.  If the American people fall for the proposition that our decline is inevitable, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I reject that proposition, and it’s my intention to oppose those who would easily accept such a premise on the basis that to do so is not merely a national surrender, but also an act of individual suicide.  To whom shall we now turn?   There are no others remaining to fight this battle. If we will not stand for liberty, who else will do it?

This nation was established by those who were willing to risk everything for the proposition that mankind should be free of the yoke of tyrannical empires, and that with wisdom, a good and moral people could rule themselves.  Now, barely more than two-and-one-third centuries later, the nation they had established seems on the verge of complete collapse.  With a poverty of elected leadership, the American nation has become fractured and its people splintered into factional politics that divides us and exploits the resultant weaknesses.  The wounds of our divisions are at once superficial and deep.  Most of us speak in the same language and of the same concepts, but at times it seems as though we’re referencing different dictionaries and lexicons.

Our prosperity in material wealth has followed our global influence.  Many regard the twentieth as the “American Century,” because our nation attained unrivaled heights precisely because we led the world, not into war as some historians would relate it, but into production on a scale never seen before in the history of mankind.  It was our productive capacity and our desire for material wealth that propelled the U.S. to previously unknown heights.  Now, in what most acknowledge to be the American decline, we have lost our productive will and we are stagnating because of it.  More, government now controls so many aspects of our national production of goods and services, in one way or another, that its constant mis-allocation of resources has created a tidal wave of squandered assets and wasted efforts that threatens to destroy the remaining functional engines in our staggering economy.

Of all the material necessities that provided our wealth, none had been more important than energy.  As a vast and productive nation, few things contributed more to our success than a relatively inexpensive stream of energy from various sources.  Anybody who studies the economic conditions in the U.S. in the last forty years must conclude without much intensive study that as energy prices have gone, so too has the general economy performed.  Twice, at least, in the last forty years, we have permitted our nation to become subject to the arbitrary threats posed by foreign despots who control much of the globe’s easily accessible energy stores.  Twice, we have slid into depression-like conditions, and the recoveries from the first was long and difficult.  If we are to have any hope to reclaim our position as the world’s leader in production, we must first find a way to fuel our economy.  Part of the solution will lie in developing the resources we already possess.  If we are to rescue this nation, we must use every energy resource at our disposal that makes economic sense.  To do less is to commit an act of national suicide.

Our current president is in the process of making energy more expensive, as he promised he would, and we naturally find that at the first hint that our economy might recover, energy prices begin to climb until they become the largest drag on a re-start of growth.  We sputter along for a time, but the soaring prices have their effect: The economy returns to a failing condition.  This permits the prices for energy to decline, but once it hits bottom, the engine of our prosperity attempts to re-fire, and as it coughs and sputters to life, prices in energy begin again to climb.  This begins the whole messy cycle over again, and yet not many in government seem able to grasp this simple concept.  We have been starved of the fuel of our prior prosperity, and like an engine with fouled injectors, we’re starving for half the mixture that will allow us to run at full speed.  There’s just enough fuel making it into the engine to keep it barely running at idle, but as the throttle begins to open, there simply isn’t the fuel to accelerate the engine, and it coughs, sputters, and dies.

The other crisis that is slowly destroying us is a horrible combination of irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies.  What must exist for an economy like ours to thrive is the formation of capital in an environment of stable money.  The dollar is being weakened intentionally by the actions of the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Government is hampering the formation of capital through its never-ending tinkering with the tax code, and its general hostility to the accumulation of wealth.  One could scarcely imagine a script by which to more easily undermine the country, but alas, there is more bad news.

The government’s fiscal policy is weakening our currency in concert with the inflationary policy at the Federal Reserve.  Our government is spending money at such a rate that it’s inconceivable.  We are now amassing debt in inflation-adjusted dollars that exceed the worst of our wartime borrowing during WWII.  What are we getting for our money?  We are getting nothing as the government pushes billions into boondoggles like Solyndra that go bankrupt and stiff us with the bill.  Perhaps worst of all, we now have a colossal dependent-class that lives in a subsidized permanent poverty.  This too has become a drag on our economy to the extent that sixty-five cents of every dollar spent by government goes to pay monthly benefits to individuals  under the auspices of some program or other.

We are in such a dire state that there is but one remaining alternative to save this country from collapse, and it lies with you to do it.  You, the producers of this country, must become the leaders.  You will need to say “no” to government at every turn, not just where it pinches others, but also where it may prick you.  When government proposes another program or function be added to the long list it already fails to administer, you must say “No.”  When demagogues propose “Jobs bills” that are nothing more or less than another spending binge in disguise, you must say “No.”  When local, state, or federal institutions of government propose more spending, you must say “No.”  At every turn, they must hear it from you. They must read it in their email, and in their web-browsing.  They must see this answer at every turn, but still, you have told them, and now they raise armies of thugs against you who must also be told “No.”  “No” to violence.  “No” to pleas for charity in the form of a threat or a demand.  “No” to further predations against your liberties. In every way, and at every turn you can exert your energies, you must tell them “No,” and mean it.

If we are to save the country, we will need for it to survive until a new election when you can tell them “No” in a different way, and when you get that opportunity, you will have a choice to say to “yes” to their sickening status quo, or “No,” but if you choose the latter you must mean it.  You must select elected officials who have demonstrated the willingness to say “No” in good times as well as bad.  At the local level, you must become engaged. On the state and national levels, you must be heard clearly. Refuse attempts to placate you with temporary benefits for which your children will pay.

If we who know the meaning and the value of America will not stand and fight for it, who will?  If we who know that freedom cannot coexist with statism of any variety fear to make that argument, to whom are we surrendering the country?  Many will say that it’s an “extremist’s position” to advocate on behalf of liberty, but to what end do their voices lead us?  America is a nation in decline primarily because we have accepted that proposition.  We’ve accepted the growth of government as a primary fact of our existence, in part because it’s what we have seen through the courses of our lives, but mainly because we’ve permitted ourselves to swallow that bankrupt theory that security can be purchased with a surrender of liberties.

Our founders knew that had always been a lie.  For those among us who need reminders, let them look at what happens when Israel has tried to trade land for peace and security.  Have they gotten any more of either?   Our nation is in decline because we permit it, and because we countenance sloth and indifference not merely in the wider culture, but too often, in our own lives.  The hopeful development is that for once, this may be changing.  For the first time in decades, it seems some number of Americans are waking up to all of this, and it is an opportunity we dare not squander.   It’s no longer as simple as pretending that we can avoid the disaster, each on our own, if we let America fall.  It will come down to us.  If we don’t take up this fight, none will.  There is nobody else left to do it.

Putting Us Over a Barrel…of Oil

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

America to Capitulate?

In a story that will in one manner or another have a terrible potential cost to the US, President Obama’s naive foreign policy is leading us to another potential disaster.  We are being offered a choice in not-so-veiled terms by our Saudi allies in the Middle East: Veto the Palestinean State in support of Israel, and potentially lose an ally, or withhold that veto and promote our alliance with Saudi Arabia while effectively abandoning Israel.  What all of this is doing is to set the stage to excuse Obama for withholding the veto in the name of our oil purchases from the Kingdom.  This gives the “blood-for-oil” narrative of the left a whole new meaning.  The question is this, since Obama is no friend either to Israel or to the American people:  Which does he care about less? The security of the people of Israel, or the energy consumers in this country?

There are two important things to be taken from this story, and they are that the dependence of the United States on so much foreign oil subjects us to this sort of economic blackmail, and that we have an administration which has led us to this position either by design or through wretched incompetence.

The Obama administration has done a great deal of long-term damage to the ability of oil producers in the US to develop new oil resources here.  Its reliance on “green energy” programs has left us in a condition in which we have put far too much good money in pursuit of an ineffective technology, seemingly for the sake of crony-capitalist motives, while acting to destroy our ability to power our own nation.  Coal-fired power plants are being shut down on the basis of almost entirely phony environmental concerns, no nuclear plants are being built due to the catastrophe at Fukashima, Japan, and our own oil and gas resources are being left untapped in the Earth, once again due to environmental regulations that make it impossible or nearly so to reclaim those assets from our own ground.  Meanwhile, foolish ventures like wind-farms, where people like T. Boone Pickens has lost billions thus far, are subsidized by tax-payers.  Solar energy companies like Solyndra are bankrolled, and what we have at the end of it all is a more indebted, less secure, less energy-independent nation. This makes us ripe for whatever the thugs and tyrants in the Middle East or Central America may wish to do to us with respect to the oil supply.

At the same time, Barack Obama and his team of foreign policy amateurs continue to place us in a dangerous position with respect to the Middle Eastern nations that supply a healthy proportion of the oil we consume daily.  Israel is now the trunnion around which all of our concerns must turn, because they are now the only ally we have in the region, and we’ve been put into a devil of a position.  The Obama administration’s role in fomenting the “Arab Spring” is still being documented, but it seems certain there was a role, and it was not insignificant.  This alleged democracy movement seems now destined to further radicalize a region already volatile.  Now, we have the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warning us that we must choose between a Saudi ally and Israeli security.  In an article titled: “Veto a State, Lose an Ally,” he writes, in part:

“The ‘special relationship’ between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people…”

This is the nature of our predicament.  Too many years of ignoring our reliance on oil from OPEC members in the Middle East has left us in the position that we must now seemingly choose between a threat of having the energy rug pulled from beneath our feet, or abandoning Israeli security.  This amounts to a threat of war, and we are now being left to choose between supporting Israel or paying higher oil prices.  It is small wonder that OPEC has spent lobbying dollars in Washington to purchase the opposition to production of our own resources.  Dependent upon them as we now are, they can effectively force our hand in this matter.  At this late date, even if the Obama administration would be willing to cast aside all regulations, there is no way in which we can increase our available resources sufficiently to be independent of Middle Eastern oil.  In short, we’re now over a barrel in a way that seems to have been designed to ruin us.

We can all hope this is somehow delayed until we’ve had a chance for another election, to get a President and Congress willing to address our critical position, but the rapid advance of these events seems designed to make this choice too late.  We stand upon a precipice, and Barack Obama and his crew of “intellects” at the State Department are clearly making things worse.  They are intentionally offering us the choice between a crippling economic collapse and deprivation of energy that will spawn it, and the existence of our good friend and ally Israel.  What you are being offered is little different from the deal brokered by Neville Chamberlain with Hitler in his day, except that rather than abandoning the Sudetenland, this time, we’ll be abandoning the cradle of Western civilization.  The other difference is only that whereas Chamberlain’s proposition seemed to have been born of a rigid naivete, what we’re now facing from Obama’s foreign policy seems to have been designed to achieve this crippling end. While all of this goes on overseas, we now see the rise of the “Days of Rage” here at home by forces of the left.  Our nation’s over a barrel, and our enemies at home and abroad are savoring it.

Paul Supporters: Now May Be The Moment to Grow Up

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

They're Baaaack...

If you’re a Ron Paul supporter, I am trying to grab your attention.  For a change, somebody needs to do so.  I’ve listened to the childish, näive arguments of Ron Paul’s crowd for long enough.  The Republican party has listened to you and tolerated your irrational positions for long enough.  Conservatives have listened to the wistful nonsense for long enough.  The simple fact that neither you nor your chosen candidate will accept is that there are people in this world who hate without any sane rationale,  who will kill, maim, and murder without any but the most nonsensical justifications.  There are people in this world who wish to attack America or Israel for the sake of what they are, rather than what they do.  To pretend otherwise verges on self-delusion and madness.

It’s time for those of you who follow Ron Paul to recognize that the world isn’t such a friendly place. It’s not all “rainbows and unicorns,” so you might want to deal with reality for a spell. I’m flabbergasted with the ability of some Ron Paul supporters to pretend that those who oppose this country play by rules that they could endorse.

In short, it’s time to grow up.

When Ron Paul offered that if only we would withdraw from the Middle East, the Islamists would play nice, it was one of the most dangerously näive statements I’ve heard since Neville Chamberlain’s “peace for our time” foolishness.  Ron Paul fans love to point to the history of the Federal Reserve, but when it comes to the history of warfare and the conflicts between civilizations, it seems they’ve taken a pass.  Specifically, when it comes to matters of foreign policy, Ron Paul has shown a disdain and reckless disregard for the truth of our conflict with radical Islamists.

There is no peace you can make with people who want you dead, and who wish to displace you from your own territory.  The thesis Paul promotes is that we can have peace by simply leaving them be, in the hope that they will leave us be.  This is roughly akin to the idiotic premise put forward by some that you can respond to a playground bully by ignoring him, thus causing him to…what?  Stop being a bully?  This is simply unrealistic in the face of all  human experience to the contrary, because in fact, all that will ultimately stop the playground bully is a knuckle sandwich delivered by one of his would-be victims.  That’s it. That’s the only way it works in the real world.

Paul’s supporters frequently buy into his faulty proposition that if only the United States would remain clear of the Middle East, and withdraw its support of Israel, the Islamists would not have reason to hate the United States, and therefore leave us be in peace.  This is a grotesquely naive view that cannot be shoe-horned into any approximation of reality with which I’m familiar.  It cannot be.  The simple fact is that our civilization is pervasive.  The Soviets learned this as they struggled against our pop-culture, and our vast productivity, and the robust consumerism that tends to dominate a free country.  They hated our blue jeans and our rock and roll, because the young in their empire craved these things as they craved the liberty that brought them into existence.   Few things caused more heartburn in the Kremlin than the creeping of Western culture over their borders, through the airwaves, and into their black markets.   To them, it was a danger on par with our missiles and our bombers built to hold them at bay, but over the long run, they had no weapon to repel it but propaganda which few of them believed.  In much the same way, the American culture now pushes into countries via satellite and Internet and any other pipeline, and this makes the Islamic world tremble, because in the same way these things that speak freedom were a threat to the dictators in the USSR, so too are they a threat to dictators in the Middle East.  The difference is that they are also a threat to the theocratic elements there, who see government as an arm and instrument of Allah.  In the Soviet Union, they outlawed God or gods to establish a state-run monopoly over the lives and thoughts of people, but in the Islamic world, the imams and mullahs seek a similar monopoly via a unity between “church and state.”

In this sense, where the Supreme Soviet made the state God, the Islamists wish to  make God the state.  While the outward appearance of the two approaches seem dis-similar, the character and nature of the two are for all intents and purposes the same, and the results they bear forth are indistinguishable:  Death, poverty, and slavery are all such civilizations can produce.  No amount of happy talk will change this, and neither will it change the aggressive stance such cultures will of necessity take in response to our civilization.  The truth is that in the longer run, a free society of the character ours has been until recently cannot occupy the same space as the sorts of regimes characterized by unrestrained statism in any form, be they secular dictatorships or theocratic regimes.  The cultural bleed-over is the biggest threat to the statist regimes, for with all the control they exert over their people, they cannot deny to them the basic desire to have those material effects of freedom.

Ron Paul and too many of his supporters suffer under the deluded notion that assumes all people share the same basic values and desires.  This is not true of governments, and it may not even be fully true of people.  Yes, we all want food, shelter, water and the necessities of life, but how we go about getting them is a matter of distinction.  A simple example is to compare yourself with a mugger.  You both want money to purchase your life’s necessities, but only one of you is willing to engage in productive work to obtain them.  The mugger is willing to deprive you of property to fulfill his needs, and you wouldn’t permit yourself that abandonment of those values that forbid such actions(or so we would hope.)  With this small example in mind, you really need no greater, more in-depth understanding of the differences that exist among ordinary people in their morality and values to recognize that the difference in the motivations of civilizations can and do vary greatly.

Apply this to the question of foreign policy.  What does America gain from its relations with the Middle East?  We buy oil there, but little else, and in large measure, it had been we who discovered and developed the resource before they forcibly relieved us of our investments.  What do these countries gain from us? Aside from the money in payment for these resources, they obtain many things as free-riders.  No cellular phones would they have developed.  No televisions would they have invented.  Not even a single automobile have they produced.  All of these things were born of our culture and our civilization, and the freedoms we enjoy.  Their culture does not support the widespread production of material prosperity, but their leaders tell them these are all things without which they can live more happily, while said leaders enjoy them.

Those leaders pose as both the material and spiritual caretakers of their respective nations.  On this basis, they are able to mobilize large bodies of militants rapidly to almost any cause or purpose.  Yet these nations produce very little that isn’t seized by force from others in some manner.  Seizure is their primary means of subsistence, and it is this upon which they come to rely.  You can pretend to yourself that if only we will withdraw from them, they will leave us in peace, but their history and their culture offers a vision of conquests and warfare.  If you fail to understand this, you are inviting disaster.  The most certain way to overcome them is not by withdrawal, for you cannot withdraw from a pursuing attacker, but by engagement.  This engagement need not be aggressive on our part, but it must be mindful that sometimes, bullies simply need a knuckle sandwich, and we must recognize that “time-outs” will not suffice.

Neither may we permit ourselves the illusion that by abandoning our allies we may obtain a lasting peace.  Israel is in many ways the closest thing we have to an outpost in their midst.  It is the only country in the region that holds legitimate elections.  It is the only country that recognizes some form of inviolable rights of individual people.  Those in the region who seek to erase Israel from their maps consider it a threat: In their midst is a country in which production beyond bare subsistence is the norm.  In Israel, one need not be a ruler to obtain a prosperous life.   This is the threat Israel poses, and in truth, it is also the threat the US presents to the Islamists.  It is not by mere coincidence that relative prosperity in the region is in tight correlation with militancy.  Poverty and radicalism are constant cohorts; where you find one, you will frequently find the other.  People in poverty more readily turn their lives over to rulers.  Our own welfare state and its well-established relationship to at least one major party should make this clear.

What should have become clear to you by now is that our country is now under that same threat.  In fact, it is being fomented and pushed by people with much the same motives.  For the moment, we retain the power to undo it, but even if we do, we will be forced to confront the sad reality that in places like Egypt and Libya, there will be no easy reform.  It’s clear that we can no longer afford to prop up the devils of our choosing in the region in the hope that they will be less awful than others who may arise, but I also think it’s reasonable to suggest that our foreign policy will still require us to walk a fine line that supports our allies and punishes our foes.  As long as we are dependent for so much of our energy on our trade with the region, we will be compelled to find ways to make it work, but we mustn’t shy from this problem.  Pretending that absolute thugs like those now controlling Iran are anything else is a prescription for disaster.  When Ron Paul offered with a straight face that he believed Iran was interested in nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes, or that our presence in Saudi Arabia was the cause of the 9/11 attacks, he demonstrated his inability to square reality with his ideology. We can learn a good deal from Dr. Paul on the matter of economics, but his view of foreign policy is irresponsible and immature.  It is made of a childish petulance that demands in the form of a plea for a reformation of bullies it envisions no willingness to enforce.

Put simply, it’s dangerous, precisely because it returns us to an illusory pre-9/11 mindset that is sure to bring deep tragedies upon us.  Many Ron Paul supporters believe their candidate doesn’t find a fair shake, but this is simply not so.  Instead, his foreign policy prescriptions have been roundly rejected by those who would in other issues be his natural allies.  For those of you who hold fast to this position, it’s time for you to realize the nature of what is arrayed against us and man a post.  If our nation is to survive the attacks we will soon know from within as well as those from without, it’s time to grow up and leave the rainbows and unicorns behind.  Our enemies don’t believe in them as the basis for their foreign policies, and neither should you.

Obama Administration Forsaking Israel?

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Whose Side Is He On?

In what can only be considered an attempt to pressure Israel into an untenable situation, the Obama Administration is using the upcoming UN question as the means by which to pressure Israel to capitulate on territorial issues in negotiations with the Palestineans.  For all intents and purposes, the State Department is using the stick of an upcoming UN vote on Palestinean statehood to try to crowd Israel into further concessions.  We have already learned that there can be no peace to be gained from trading away territory, and Israel has paid a terrible price for past concessions in that vein, but now we’re looking at a direct threat to Israel’s existence.

The US State Department attempting to box Israel into accepting conditions it cannot survive in exchange for the US veto at the UN.  Make no mistake about it: This is a dangerous game of chicken, but if Israel yields, they’re as good as dead.  On the other hand, if they don’t yield, we’re looking at a potentially explosive situation, and the Obama administration is gambling that Israel will surrender the point to its own detriment.  I believe we Americans who understand the truth of this situation need to stand with Israel, in the name of all that is good and decent and let the Israeli government know that we understand a rogue element is now running a US foreign policy we, the American people, do not support.

Israel has a hard enough time under the best of conditions, but in this stage-managed “Arab Spring” fomented and supported by the Obama State Department, it’s clear that leftists and Islamists have joined forces to change the world in a way favorable to both.  The leftists want all of the West, and the Islamists want all of the Middle East.  The deal struck between them requires Israel’s destruction, with the world to be divided between four great empires: The West, Islam, Russia, and China.  Everybody else is to be squeezed out or absorbed.  Israel is the pawn to be yielded by the left.  It’s Israel that the left will hand over in a show of feigned surprise and shock when the Islamic world attacks.

Even now, the Obama administration is rushing to shore up its support among Jews in the United States, but I believe the bloom is off that particular rose, and there’s nothing to be recovered at this point.  Even otherwise liberal American Jews are beginning to realize that this administration is no friend of Israel, and certainly no friend of the Jewish people.  The whole situation is beginning to take on vaguely apocalyptic overtones, as Israel is being left with no choice but to consider the most strenuous forms of defense.  In short, Israel is being backed into a corner from which they will have no choice but to defend itself, and there will be a new narrative about Israel being the aggressor, as the Palestineans have tried to convey through propaganda for more than three decades.  It must be considered the most grave action of this administration should it proceed on this course, but there’s no sign they intend to be deterred from the actions already in progress.

This would be considered a dramatic foreign policy failure in any previous administration, but the truth in this instance is that these are the ends the Obama administration has been pursuing for the length of its entire existence.  Worse, the Palestineans are being incited to a level of fervor in expectation of some move to statehood that is outrageous, but their pronouncements on the subject make clear that this isn’t about some nebulous notion of “peace.”  It is a doctrine of one-sided segregation, whereby Israel will be compelled to continue accepting Palestineans, and the Palestineans will purge all Jews from the land they hope to control.

In short, what the Palestineans are promising is “ethnic cleansing,” a principle with which they’ve always agreed.  Those who seek to downplay this issue, or the importance of what’s being done by the Obama administration simply aren’t examining the facts.  For all our solemn oaths asserting “Never again,” what we’re really seeing now is the attempt to do it again, and this time, the final solution is to be final if the radical left and the Islamists are permitted to have their way.  It’s time for the American people to stand and oppose this rogue administration before it brings about World War III.  For all their talk about peace, the way in which they’re striving toward a war suggests Americans had better wake up soon.

American Leadership Surrenders: How We Lost the War

Saturday, September 10th, 2011

How Did We Forget?

It shouldn’t have been possible.  When America was attacked on 11 September, 2001, nearly three thousand Americans were slaughtered in a stunning use of passenger planes as weapons.  Our nation recoiled in horror, and for a short while, people were inclined to make war against those responsible, but within days, other voices cried we should not make of this more than it had been.  From the very beginning, we were urged by our media and our political leadership to avoid blaming all Muslims, as if Americans were unable to differentiate between our enemies and those who would be happy to live and let live.   At this moment of crisis, when our nation’s response to the attack would be formed and established, already came the drumbeat of capitulation.  Rather than name our enemy, and make total war against it as we had been promised, our government responded in a slowly retreating strategy advocated by the media.  Some will argue that since Osama bin Laden is now dead, we can declare victory and wrap up operations, but the truth is more difficult because while we indeed sent our forces to confront al Qaida abroad, we have done unsatisfactorily little to wage war against the Islamists’ advancement of Jihad here at home.

While we’ve slept, thinking our nation secured by the war we’ve been waging overseas, radical Islam is alive and well, not only in those distant theaters, but also here inside our own borders, and even more shockingly, inside the walls of western philosophical protection.  They’re using our sense of morality and decency against us.

The first of our failures lies in the unwillingness to name our enemy.  We have made every possible attempt to conceal the truth from ourselves and from others.  We’ve pointed to al Qaida and its affiliates, but we’ve permitted ourselves to pretend that if we can only defeat these, we will have won the war.  Even were we somehow able to destroy every al Qaida fighter on a single day, this war would not be over, for to pretend that al Qaida had been our only enemy is the same as the fallacy expressed by some that on 7 December, 1941, our only enemy had been the empire of Japan.  What sort of mindless, unthinking brute would suggest such a thing?  It would have ignored all rational understandings of the world as we have known it, but one can suppose we should be thankful that Hitler used the occasion to honor his pact with Japan, and declared war upon the United States, otherwise, left to the media, the American people might never have known they were at war with Germany and Italy too.

After 9/11, we should have known that the war we faced was greater and wider than one group of thugs sheltering in a desert wasteland half a world away.  Our leaders should have told us, and they should have prepared us for all the ugly truths about the nature of the war against us, and the philosophical base from which it was being waged.  We should have learned it ourselves and demanded a thorough war, but now we arrive on the eve of that event’s tenth anniversary, and still we cower and huddle in fear at the credible threats looming over us.  Our founders, and all the men from their time until the end of WWII must be turning restlessly in their graves at the spectacle of our defeat by such an enemy.  We should never have been defeated, except that the war within our own country, and inside our own philosophical struggles has found a willing ally for our enemies inside our own borders.  You wonder who that enemy might be, and it will surely pose a grave controversy to name them all, yet this nation cannot much longer endure if we do not recognize the truth of this war against it.  We stand on the brink of losing our nation, and yet we still mouth platitudes in defense of the enemies who attack it.  All of this begs the question: If a nation will not even clearly identify its enemies, does it deserve to survive?

Since so few others will take up this task, let me categorize our enemies more thoroughly.  If we are to defeat them we must know them, and if we are ever to stop the national hemorrhaging at their hands, we will be compelled by reason to know their collaborators in our midst.  We can no longer afford the timid answers to which we’ve become accustomed.  The enemies of the United States fall into two broad philosophical groups, and it is here that we must start.  The first of these enemies are comprised of the Islamists.  What you must know is that in the prevailing schools of Islamic thought around the globe, America as you have known it must be destroyed.  Israel, in any form, must be eradicated.  Their fundamental hatred of our form of government, our variety of faiths, and our customs and traditions arises from a belief in the cultural and spiritual supremacy of Islam.  The shrill collaborators in this country will point to the moderates as examples of those who do not adopt such positions, but in truth and as evidenced by facts from which we cannot escape, those “moderates” who do not wish to advance Islam’s grasp to the limits of our globe are relatively few.  We are confronted with an enemy that has been instilled from birth with a baseline, fundamental hatred of the West.  There are surely exceptions in Islam, but to pretend that they are a numerous proportion is to pronounce a death sentence upon ourselves and our children.

This category is further subdivided into four groups, and they are the militants who carry out the war, the so-called intellectuals who justify the war, the financiers who fund the war, and the adherents who are the most numerous group who for various reasons simply obey, submit, and support the war.   This last group can be considered the Islamists’ answer to ‘useful idiots’, and it is from their number that the militants are recruited.  These are also the people who have constituted the vast body of the mobs who advanced the ‘Arab spring.’  On Friday and Saturday, these “peace-loving people” invaded the Israeli embassy in Cairo.  Let us not pretend that our enemy is some tiny minority in greater Islam.  The truth is that the tiny minority in Islam consists of those relatively rare moderates who fit into none of these groups, and do no press for the advancement of Islam around the globe.

The other category into which our enemies can be divided is the collaborators.  The major media outlets are the largest and most influential part of this group who have given the Islamists cover.   They claim to care about protecting moderate Muslims, but as Pamela Geller explains on her Atlas Shrugs blog, our media have been complicit in advancing the Islamist narrative and in disguising the truth from Americans. This is the propaganda war being waged, and we’re losing it, because more often than not, our policies are shaped not by the nature of the real threats, but in response to the perceptions of Americans.  As our people have been led astray in their understanding of our enemy, they’ve leaned toward policies that pretend one can fight a war piece-meal, without the involvement and commitment of the whole American people.  While the collaborators have been singing this lullaby, the total war of the Islamists against the American people has been advancing on all fronts.  The most notable group of collaborators is the American left.  They have no love of this nation in its original form, and since they are intent upon destroying it, are only too happy to accept assistance wherever they find it.

Take care to understand that I do not here intend to say “Democrats,” for that party is composed of a broad range of people, many of whom joined the war on the side of America in its earliest days, but who have some shared sympathies with the much more virulent left, composed of radicals who want to undermine this nation at any opportunity.  The truth is that rank-and-file Democrats don’t want America destroyed.  They love the country too, although their particular views in some issues may be wrong-headed.  No, those Democrats were among the firefighters, police, and other first responders who answered the call on 9/11, and who were also victims on that day.  If I had any complaint with them, it would be only that they must watch more closely who they allow to lead them, and to which ends.  They are patriots, and to pretend otherwise is to abandon one’s wayward brothers, and this I will not do.  During my service in the Army, I knew many faithful, patriotic Democrats, but few of them were hard-core left.  Most of them came from blue-collar families, and they took a backseat to none in their love of this country.  Instead, let us focus with acute precision on the hard-core left.  These people are not friends of this country, and the only traction they’ve ever gained has been through their attempts to co-opt the Democrat party, and infiltrate and overwhelm our media and government.  They have allied themselves with the Islamists on a global scale because they adopt the same notion:  “The enemy of my enemy is my friend[for now.]” They’ll divide up the world later. First, they must destroy America.

The Islamists long ago understood what the American people have not:  Our vast military advantage makes it impossible to defeat us by open attack.  Just as the North Vietnamese and their communist cohorts used a propaganda war against us at home to thwart us overseas, the Islamists now follow that model to force our withdrawal and compliance.  We do not suffer from a lack of the ability to win this war, but the collaborators in our media and in our government have convinced us not to wage it, and we have been too willing to accept that answer in the name of our own sloth and cowardice.  Instead, we huddle waiting for the next attack, while it is our liberties we have forfeited as we allow our persons to be scanned, our children and grandmothers groped, and security checkpoints within our country to become the natural and normal order of things.  We send the willing warriors among us to far-flung battlefields where they spend their blood and their lives upon a purpose to which we at home are not thoroughly committed.  We hamper them with rules of engagement that make of them sitting ducks, while we toss around high-minded terms about not wishing to become our enemy.  At this pace, and with that attitude, we need not worry about such concepts much longer, because the enemy has gained a foothold not merely on our continent, but in our hearts and minds.

As the wilting flower of tomorrow’s official 9/11 National Commemorative Ceremony in New York begins to come into focus, we should rightly demand an accounting from our alleged leaders who chide us to silence in the name of avoiding the possibility that we would offend our enemies.  Mayor Bloomberg of New York has excluded first responders from the official memorial event, and he’s also banned clergy and prayer, lest some group be offended.  Which group do you suppose Mayor Bloomberg wishes not to offend?  Christians?  Jews?  Who?  This half-hearted, neutered ceremony signifies no victory, and it does damnably little to admit of our losses.  Instead, it is a sign of our defeat, in which our leaders admit that the West has lost, and we have capitulated in a war between civilizations, one of a growing tyranny, and the other of a diminishing liberty.  These won’t be their words, to be sure, but in the form of the memorial they have constructed, to carefully avoid offending even those who supported the perpetrators, it’s impossible to conclude they’re saying anything else.

It needn’t have been the case, but at present, it seems certain that while undermined from within, and infiltrated from without, we are now in a skulking retreat on the road to our national demise. The first step in reversing this is to tell these alleged leaders “no more.”  It’s time we join with patriots like Pamela Geller in exposing the collaborators.  The voices of those lost on 9/11 should be ringing in our ears, and with them the sounds of those brave men and women we’ve lost since, sent abroad to wage a half-hearted war in the name of a justice we’ve mostly abandoned.  The principles we have claimed to love demand it.

Sarah Palin on Libya

Friday, August 26th, 2011

Premature Celebration?

Thursday evening, Sarah Palin published a column On the Future of Libya that sets forth a foreign policy position that neither retreats to the isolationism of some libertarians, nor advances an interventionist foreign policy favored by so-called “neo-cons” preferred by the establishment wing of the GOP.  Her foreign policy prescription would best be described as fiercely American, seeking to protect the interests of our country, while lending sympathy to people seeking freedom, yet mindful that not all revolutions are created equal.  Palin advises caution, and avoiding a rush to premature notions of victory.

Mrs. Palin embraces a reasonable foreign policy that neither rushes to war, nor shrinks from it when no other rational alternative remains when the US comes under direct threat.  One could presume, were she President, that we would not rush into war on the basis of every half-baked notion of what is in the vital US interests, but to war we would go, nevertheless, but with prudence and only when we could ensure victory.

Palin advises caution with respect to the nature of those who seem poised to rule Libya, wary of people with decidedly questionable motives who have ties to terrorists and radical islamists.

“Second, we must be very concerned about the future government that will emerge to take Gaddafi’s place. History teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant. We must remember that military power ultimately resides with the rebel commanders. This should be a source of some concern. The armed opposition to Gaddafi is an outgrowth of a group called Islamic Libya Fighting Group, and some rebel commanders admit that they have Al Qaeda links. The rebel fighters are from different tribes, and they have a variety of political views. Some are Islamists, some appear to favor some sort of western democracy. We should work through diplomatic means to help those who want democracy to come out on top.”

One thing that can be gathered from this is that she’s studied the players and is quite familiar with the problems inherent in the entire intervention by NATO in Libya.  This means she’s taking foreign policy seriously, despite the tendency of some to focus almost entirely on domestic economic issues.  This makes her position as a potential candidate all the more viable, signaling a well-rounded grasp of issues that is critical to leading a country long considered the world’s leading light, until recently.  Palin also mentions the idea of “nation-building” that has been a general failure for the last half century.  She argues that US troops should never be used in Libya for these purposes:

“That said, we should not commit U.S. troops or military assets to serve as peacekeepers or perform humanitarian missions or nation-building in Libya. Our military is already over-committed and strained, and a vaguely designed mission can be the first step toward a quagmire. The internal situation does not seem stable enough for U.S. forces to operate in a purely humanitarian manner without the possibility of coming under attack. Troop deployment to Libya would mean placing America’s finest in a potentially hostile zone that is not in our vital national security interest.”

This statement is certain to be popular among our country’s reluctant warriors, who will dutifully follow orders, but do not volunteer to serve with a mind to being used for frivolous, or otherwise purely political ends.  For troops who’ve been stretched too far, this promises some relief in the form of a Palin presidency.  It clearly figures into her thinking that American sons’ and daughters’ lives should not be risked for so little.

Clearly, Palin sees a potential quagmire in Libya, and it’s this discernment that separates her foreign policy agenda from those on the interventionist edge who seem willing to engage almost anywhere, or those on the libertarian side who wouldn’t engage in any place until the US comes under direct attack at home.  Either extreme position is unsuitable for a country such as ours, that has trade interests around the world, citizens working in virtually every nation on the globe, and is usually relied upon to lead the world.  If we wish to be the leading light for freedom, we ought to take care to lead.  It’s clear that Governor Palin realizes this, but also refuses to be led or pushed into battles where the security interests of  the United States are not really at risk.

Barack Obama’s approach has been to turn over leadership to European powers in the Libyan engagement, but I think it’s perfectly clear that we should take Palin’s wise counsel to heart, and withdraw from the operation and avoid becoming embroiled in some sort of occupying or peace-keeping force.  This is the policy statement of a politician prepared to lead from the front, and that’s something our fighting men and women around the world most assuredly deserve.

Why Israel Matters

Friday, August 19th, 2011

Abandoning our Friends?

It’s become fashionable in the media to suppose that conservatives’ support for Israel is due purely to religious considerations.  The most recent talking point from the left is that American conservatives support Israel because, as Noam Chomsky asserts, the Christians who are a substantial part of the conservative movement in the country want the Jewish population of Israel to be exterminated by Armageddon.  This assertion is offered because the left really has nothing else to offer in terms of the argument other than their endless hate-filled criticisms of both Israel and Christians.  In this way, they are able to dismiss the widespread support of Israel among conservatives as the ranting of religious zealots, in much the same way they’ve tried to dismiss the Tea Party by painting them as terrorists and racists. It’s their favorite smear, and the method by which they spread their madness.

This is the same basic tactic the left adopts in all matters, but if we examine only the strategic reasons to support Israel, what we find is that we arrive at the same logical conclusion:  Support of Israel is nearly as important to the security of the United States as our routine considerations in national defense.

Israel is a tiny sliver of land, and it is surrounded by enemies that do not recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist.  Those enemies will hate Israel until every inch of ground is conquered, and every Jew on the planet is exterminated.  Don’t make any mistake about it: These same villains intend the same end for all “infidels” including Christians, or any other non-Muslims, and also no small number of their fellow Muslims.  This is a fact.  Apologists are free to claim the opposite, but they aren’t free to invent their own facts.

The current meme among members of the Washington DC intelligentsia is that if only the Israelis would yield some land, and some more, peace would sweep over the region.  This is a bald-faced lie.  It offers Washington elites the opportunity to duck out and feign ignorance later, when the radical Islamists have their way with the region.  It also enables a few people on the right, with more libertarian ideas to pretend that the problems and threats the United States faces end at the water’s edge.  These naive people are dangerous in their own right, because they typically serve as tools for those who are far more malevolent in their intentions.

Israel is our only real ally in the region, despite the claptrap to the contrary, particularly with the advent of the media-lauded “Arab Spring” that has ousted a number of autocrats who we had over the years in various ways paid for their compliance.  This too is a failed policy, because in so doing, all we managed to do is alienate the populace to a certain degree and make them vulnerable to the radical militants.  This approach doesn’t improve the situation, and there is certainly some evidence that it has worsened things, but withholding payments and assistance to thugs, even those who some would term our thugs, is not the same as turning our backs on the people of Israel.

Israel is a nation with political freedoms for its citizens that approaches our own.  No nation is perfect, but Israel is the one nation in its region that permits political dissent without ultimately resorting to firing squads.  One need only examine the ruthless behavior of Assad in Syria, or Ahmedinejad in Iran to understand what sort of butchery the region routinely produces.  Israel is the exception, and it’s of paramount importance that we recognize this fact in our dealings with the Islamic world.

Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that our current administration is determined to leave Israel alone and vulnerable, without even such support as the assurance of our vote in their favor on the UN security council.  This can have only one ultimate purpose, and that is to force Israel into permitting their country to be divided and partitioned, and ultimately destroyed.  We, the American people, who have rescued nations from tyranny around the globe, should never permit this. We, who arrived too late to prevent one holocaust, should do all we are able to prevent another, particularly when prevention merely requires standing firmly with our lone ally in the region.

The problem with abandoning Israel as some libertarians would have us do, and lately, as every leftist in the country seems inclined to do, is that rather than keeping us from war, it runs the ultimate risk of a global war from which we will not escape.  It is widely believed that Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal.  If they are attacked in any way seen as an existential threat, we can expect them to employ that arsenal, and I would not blame them in the least.  The consequences of such an exchange would almost certainly ignite a worldwide conflagration to which we would become a party, in one way or another.

That sort of war would certainly threaten Americans at home, in a thorough way, not only in terms of subjecting us to actual warfare, but also crippling our nation as oil from that region slowed to a trickle.  Whatever your particular religious beliefs may or may not be is irrelevant to this discussion.  I don’t need to be a Christian or a Jew to know that murder is wrong, and the intention of mass murder is evil.  I realize we spend some money in our budget in support of Israel, but considering the alternatives available at present, it may well be a relative pittance to us when compared to the cost in blood and treasure we would pay if the situation there destabilized further, and Israel came under direct attack [again] by one or more of their neighbors.

It makes no sense to argue that we should withhold a few billion dollars in financial support of Israel in the name of thrifty government when the potential costs of a strategically unavoidable conflict in the region would exceed those relatively modest expenditures in the first few hours alone, never mind the human tragedy that would unfold.

When a leftist like Chomsky proposes the idea that Christians seek the death of Jews in an Armageddon, he’s not only lying, but also offering a psychological confession of what it is that he intends.  One needn’t be religiously motivated to see the crucial position of Israel in US strategic national security matters.  It takes only a basic regard for the facts on the ground to realize that to abandon Israel is to substantially subject ourselves to the ravages of war.

There are many Americans who possess only vague knowledge of the conflict in and around Israel.  Many of these have become convinced of the notion that “they’ve been fighting one another for thousands of years, and it’s best for us to simply leave it be.”  If you’ve fallen for this notion, is it because you’re tired of hearing about it?  Does it look too futile ever to be solved?  Do you falsely place both parties in this struggle on a plane of moral equivalence?  What motive is served by this frivolously thoughtless notion?

In Israel, there is no moral equivalence between the two.  Those who claim to be “Palestinean” are the un-assimilated children of refugees who fled the West Bank and Gaza because they believed the Jews were going to be eradicated, and they had been told to leave in order to make it easier for the advancing armies of Islamic states to attack mercilessly.  They are those who wished to collaborate in a holocaust.  The Jews who were expelled from Arab states sought their refuge in Israel.  Israel took them in and assimilated them into their population.  Why did the Arab states not pursue the same end after the cessation of hostilities?

It is on the basis of such a naive false moral equivalence that the elites in Washington DC now urge you to turn a blind eye.  As soon as you do so, they will feel comfortable in doing so also.  When and if that occurs, the results will be horrifying.  Don’t shrink from it.  Don’t attempt to disclaim responsibility.  Too many Americans of all manner of religions have attempted to warn you, and don’t be surprised when the consequences visit these shores.  It’s inevitable.  The people of Israel seek freedom in their land.  They have in graciousness followed a fools’ errand of attempting to buy peace with a portion of their lands to no good effect, but they have learned. That approach has been approximately like offering a mugger half your wallet willingly, whose gun is at your head, and actually holding out hope he will be satisfied with the half.  Once he has it, what is to prevent him from demanding the other half, if he still holds the gun?

This is why, despite attempts over the course of human history, the lesson remains firmly, stubbornly true: You cannot negotiate with terrorists.  There is no limiting factor, because if they are willing to wipe you out for some particular purpose, the moment you yield to their terror, they will understand it as weakness, and they will be willing to wipe you out for any motive that crosses their minds.

For the sake of our own country’s security, Israel matters a great deal.  Let the leftist and Islamist thugs who are now working together claim otherwise, but to follow their advice is surely to condemn not only Israel, but also our own country, to bloody disaster.  Most of us have known of the idea contained in the affirmation and oath: “Never again.”  Did we mean it, or is that mere bravado we spout for our own self-satisfaction?

Rules of Engagement: Betraying Our Troops

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

.

As a veteran who is conscious of the extreme anguish the families of our lost service-members are feeling, like so many others, I was horrified at the news of some of our nation’s finest warriors in a helicopter crash, apparently shot down by Taliban insurgents. While we rightly cherish the memory of their names, and all they have devoted in the name of our country, let us honor them also by remembering their surviving brethren when we set forth national policy.  Currently, the commanders in Afghanistan and elsewhere are having to contend with a bitter, cruel and devious enemy which cannot be confronted with force of arms in any measure.

The number of US casualties has been on a steady and disconcerting climb over the last several months, in what can be taken as a signal of the growing threat from this nearly invincible enemy.  Our own rules of engagement may have come to be the cause of more battle casualties in Afghanistan than any other single factor.  One may wonder, given our catch-and-release policy, if the insurgents responsible for this shoot-down may have been in our custody before.  It’s a shameful reminder of why most liberals who have come of age since WWII should never be entrusted with the nation’s defenses, or at the top of the military chain of command. In this time of grief over our fallen heroes, let us dedicate a moment’s reflection to the purpose of reducing the number who will surely join them.

It’s a lesson often neglected by politicians and their advisers, when setting policy for the conduct of military operations around the globe.  Whatever we may think of the necessity of a given operation, when our warriors go into battle, we must not constrain and disarm them with rules of engagement that serve a political, rather than a military end.  Veterans of almost every war in the last century will be able to cite for you examples of such policies, however, the service-members who went to Vietnam certainly became most thoroughly familiar with the consequences of rules designed not to destroy an enemy and thereby attain victory, but to serve a political aim, not so much at the tables of diplomacy, as for the consumption of misguided politics at home.  This is the meat-grinder that has become the debate over the rules of engagement with which our troops must comply.  In Afghanistan, under the direction of President Obama, and his appointed cabinet officers, the immorality of such a policy rapidly becomes apparent.  More interested in serving the political concerns of their left-wing constituencies, policy is crafted so as to minimize political blow-back among his base  at home, while the consequences on the battlefield are measured in blood, limbs and lives.

General Petraeus was brought in to relieve General McCrystal, whose rules of engagement had begun to show weakness under a political dogma bent in an effort aimed primarily at not causing civilian casualties at any cost.  As the new commander has been in-theater for roughly a year, we should begin to assess what differences he may have made.  While I always hesitate to criticize the professional commanders in the field, I would be remiss if I didn’t examine the rules of engagement under which our forces now fight, and how politics at home are being permitted to constrain them to the detriment of our warriors.

Imagine for a moment that you’re an infantryman.  Further imagine being instructed that you cannot fire upon enemy combatants who are planting roadside bombs and IEDs in plain sight, because they do not present an imminent threat to your security.  This is the sort of nonsense that is now being inflicted upon our troops in the face of an intractable enemy made more strong by these foolish rules.  Now imagine capturing enemy combatants, knowing that the term of their incarceration will not be determined by the length of the conflict, but whether they had a gun in their hands at the time of their capture.  Apparently, the wizards who determine these policies would likewise set the sentence for criminals on the basis of how far they had heaved their weaponry immediately before surrendering to police.

This sort of nonsensical rule ensures that the insurgents are quickly returned to the fight, most within a year, to immediately re-engage against our soldiers.  General Patton was noted to have remarked that he didn’t “like to pay twice for the same real estate,” but imagine his surprise had his chain of command told him that he could only hold prisoners a short while before allowing them to rejoin their comrades behind enemy lines.  Our soldiers must now pay dearly, not merely for the same real estate, but the same prisoners, not twice but repeatedly.  Naturally, US authorities disclaim responsibility, as most of the combatants they’re capturing are turned over to Afghan authorities in short order.

There is also the self-defeating notion that we must not cause civilian casualties, at virtually any cost.  The purported motive is based on the premise that to cause civilian casualties merely strengthens the resolve of the population against us.  This hogwash is presented as part of our strategic aims, but in fact, it is another policy in service to the radical leftists who comprise our President’s political base.  It is impossible to imagine having ever successfully overcome Hitler or Hirohito had we been forced to adopt these rules.  Can you imagine flying bombers at altitude over the industrial cities of Germany and Japan, and instructing our aircrews that they must first do no harm to civilians?  While nobody looks with glee at the prospects of civilians being killed, this astonishing requirement almost guarantees an increasing number of US casualties as the enemy on the battlefield adapts and responds by hiding more frequently in and amongst the civilian populace.

This wrong-headed thinking virtually condemns more to die who might not otherwise, and it begs the question about our larger mission there.  What are we now trying to achieve, with our forces inhibited from rising in their own fully vigorous and proactive defense?  It’s an immoral waste of our troops in a meat-grinder, made worse by the fact that our current President has taken so long to set a course, and has yet to produce what could be considered strictly military objectives.  Given these rules of engagement in service to domestic political concerns, it is right and proper to question the wisdom of a chain of command that is more interested in political perceptions by way of alleged humanitarian concerns for the enemy and their captive populace, than for the lives and limbs of our own noble warriors.

It is for these reasons that I believe that future monuments to our war dead should not be constructed along or near the Mall in Washington, DC, but instead upon the White House lawn, so that future occupants will look out any window to tragic reminders of what the implementations of military actions in service to domestic political concerns have wrought.  This wrong-headed thinking, and the disaster in human terms is one more reason why Barack Obama must go, next November.  While these policies may have played no role in the loss of the helicopter and its  precious human cargo including some of our finest warriors, it should serve to remind us that there are troops in the field, that the nation is at war, and when we send them to fight, they should arrive on the field not only with the best training and technology our money can buy, but also the benefit of a wise chain of command which knows why they’ve been sent, and for what they’re fighting, unimpeded by tawdry domestic political considerations.

These sorts of policies aren’t a new enemy, but resurrected by President Obama from the historic ashes of the Johnson administration, they have new life, and new vigor, but they must be defeated.  May we all hope and pray for those who have suffered in the tragic loss of these fine warriors, along with those who have preceded them, and may we find the strength of character to elect leaders who will understand the terrible costs of war turned to the purpose of domestic politics.  The families demand it.  The honored dead demand it, but most of all, our consciences should demand it.