Now is the time for a quick U.S. de-intervention in Yemen

Winston Churchill once said that the Lord always looks after drunks and the United States of America. And though we hardly deserve it, Providence may have again stepped into the breach and given the United States a second chance to take advantage of a hard, murderous, but very real opportunity in the Middle East.

The overthrow of the Yemeni government sets the stage for a Sunni-vs-Shia conflagration on the Arab Peninsula. The late Yemeni regime is a zero loss to the United States. What President Obama once described as a vital regional ally – media pundits are now echoing this lie – was nothing more than a Arab strong man and his gang who ruled the Yemeni capital of Sana and almost nothing else, men who generously agreed to take hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military equipment, cash, training, and who knows what else. In return, the Yemeni regime allowed what it could not stop in any event: U.S. drone and Special Forces’ attacks that violated Yemeni sovereignty. Silence was the Yemeni regime’s main contribution as Obama’s vital regional ally, and now with that government gone, and none ready to take its place, the attacks can continue because there is no sovereign government to object to them.

What good such attacks would do is another matter. They have killed some important Yemen-based Islamist leaders and may have destroyed some arms caches, but the fact is that Al-Qaeda-on-the-Arab-Peninsula (AQAP) is stronger than ever before. The U.S. attacks in Yemen – as well as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere – amount to nothing more than make-Americans-feel-good tactical victories that, as always, leave the strategic advantage and momentum with the Islamists.

Today’s reality in Yemen again demonstrates the extraordinary fecklessness of the U.S. government, both U.S. political parties, U.S. and NATO generals, and their EU sidekicks. Expensive support from all of them brought no stability to Yemen; U.S. and NATO-country military training did not create a force that could defend the regime; and Special Forces’ and CIA pin-prick attacks and drone strikes did nothing to slow the enemies’ growth. In addition, two Islamist insurgent organizations – the Houthis and AQAP — have grown larger, stronger, and better armed since the United States and Europe started supporting and publicly praising the Yemeni regime, while simultaneously lying to Americans and Europeans about how our now-deceased key regional ally was beginning to pull its own weight and was a shining example of the success of U.S. and Western policy.

There is, however, one bright spot in this otherwise dismal story. The arrival of the Shia Houthi insurgents as a potent rival of the Sunni AQAP gives the United States another — even if unmerited — chance to step back and watch the marvelously positive impact a regional Shia-Sunni sectarian war would have on U.S. national security. Such a war would hurt the U.S. economy a bit because Obama, Cuomo, and their deeply anti-American party have blocked U.S. energy self-sufficiency, but otherwise there is nothing but upside for the United States.

–First, in Yemen, as in Syria and Iraq before Obama intervened and hurt U.S. interests, all the people that U.S. governments have for forty-five years identified as “enemies” would be killing and maiming each other. In addition, Saudi Arabia would aid AQAP and Iran would aid the Houthis, so the benefactors of al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Lebanese Hizballah, Bashir al-Asad’s Syria, Iraq’s Shia militias, and the Houthi fighters would be drawing each others blood and spending wastefully. While all of this lethal mayhem is proceeding, the United States could simply watch and “officially regret” a religious war that has been in the making for a millennium, and which, with a little luck, will bleed each side white and move the United States a bit off the Islamists’ bull’s eye.

–Second, the United States should withdraw all of its personnel and moveable physical assets from what the Obama called the Yemen success story. This should be done, of course, because we do not want our personnel to have to fight their way out with the help of the U.S. Marines. But more important, Washington could use Yemen as the opportunity to begin a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, and thereby begin to sap the Sunni Islamists motivation to attack America. We could publicly say that our withdrawal is evidence of America’s granite-like support for self-determination – a lie, our governing elite loathes the idea for Americans or anyone else – but Obama’s arrogance will need some noble-sounding reason to abandon his now in-flames success story.

–Third, Washington should build on a successful de-intervention in Yemen by beginning the same process in the Syria-Iraq theater. Obama and the Europeans clearly have no intention of defeating the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda there – and U.S. generals clearly have no talent whatsoever in training Muslim armies, witness Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. – and so whatever funding, weapons, and lives that are expended there amount to pure waste. Once U.S. forces leave, the road will be open for a resumption of the Sunni-Shia religious war in the Levant and Iraq that was perking along and expanding nicely until Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron saw themselves as the second coming and launched their avenging if always war-losing angels to save “innocent foreigners” at the expense of decreasing the security of their own nations and citizens. Who knows, two quick de-interventions might cause everyday Americans to press their bipartisan governing elite to abandon the knee-jerk, ruinous, and war-causing habit of intervening in countries where no life-and-death U.S. interest is at stake, as well as to reestablish the tradition of quickly and utterly annihilating those few enemies who pose a genuine threat to U.S. national security.

Because multiple second chances to redress errors, as Churchill said, come only to drunks and the United States, Obama’s Washington ought not to miss the Yemen opportunity to do something that would contribute to rather than erode U.S. national security. Relentless interventionism and open borders have, respectively, earned America a war with an increasing portion of the Muslim world and allowed our Islamist enemies into the United States undetected. A de-interventionist foreign policy and closing the southern U.S. border would head the United States toward a much more effective and Americans-protecting foreign policy summed up in the time-honored and commonsense phrase “America First.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Paris: The cost of Western leaders’ deceit and interventionism will only grow

“We are gathered here tonight because we believe in an independent destiny for America. … An independent destiny for America means … that our soldiers will not have to fight everybody in the world who prefers some other system of life to ours.” Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, 23 May 1941

Media commentary on the well-planned, professionally executed, and completely successful mujahedin operation in Paris is really quite quaint. Listened to closely, the ponderously somber pundits will have you thinking that it is September, 2001, rather than January, 2015. The canned, 15-year old comments and questions flow freely: “Horrific attack kills 12 innocents”; “the attackers have nothing to do with Islam”; “how are the young men radicalized?”; “an attack on freedom”; “Muslims must condemn the attacks”; “we are not at war with Islam”; “why this senseless violence?”; and, of course, the maddeningly absurd and irrelevant “we will bring them to justice”.

Fortunately, just before this tripe put listeners to sleep, the prize jackass of the week trotted on stage in the person of Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper.
“The fact of the matter is this, ladies and gentlemen,” Mr. Harper told a small audience, “The international jihadist movement has declared war.” Here, then, is one of the main reasons why the West has gotten its collective behind so regularly kicked, humiliated, and defeated since 2001. An important NATO leader, Mr. Harper seems not to know — even though the fine Canadian army along with all NATO militaries were defeated in Afghanistan — that the jihadists declared war on the United States and its vassals in August, 1996. Harper’s ignorance is important because it reminds all Westerners how hard it will be to survive the war the Islamists are waging against them when their leaders are just beginning to think there might be a war at hand fifteen years after the enemy began to fight it in earnest.

The inane gabfest over the Paris attacks will end in a few days and nothing much will change — at least for the Islamists. Western leaders will continuing to thunder about the rule of law, the peacefulness of Islam, the protection of freedom of the press, but will scurry to avoid doing anything that will destroy the enemy in numbers that have any strategic impact whatsoever. They will savor and gloat over the fact that it only took 90,000 French police and military personnel to kill three Islamist shooters. They held an impromptu summit of senior officials to condemn terrorism and have set another, both will promise “unity and future action.” And they will publicly beg the Arab tyrants to do the dirty work they are too embarrassed or cowardly to let their own military and intelligence services do. And, of course, the public purse will be robbed by the whores who masquerade as social science professors. The will descend on Western capitals armed with quack answers about how to solve “the Islamic radicalization of youth,” and legislators will give them gobs of tax dollars just so they appear to be doing something. The sum of all of this will be what it has been since 2001: motion without movement.

The substantive post-Paris changes from Western leaders will come when they inevitably enhance the war they are already waging against their own people and their peoples’ civil liberties, rather than by ordering the hugely expensive Western militaries to annihilate the Islamists, their civilian supporters and funders, and whatever infrastructure they possess. Because it is so utterly unfashionable to kill in the necessary numbers those who are killing you, perpetual adolescents like Obama, Harper, Cameron, Hollande, Merkel, and their colleagues will increase surveillance of their own civilians, their communications, and their bank accounts; make international air travel more intrusive and arduous; and work overtime to silence and/or penalize those citizens who speak the simple, irrefutable fact that an increasing part of Islam is at war with the West, and that that war is motivated not by Western lifestyles but by what Western governments do in the Muslim world — be it invading Muslim countries, coddling Israel, or championing those who blaspheme the Prophet.

In many ways, the Islamists are the Western leaders’ best friends in that they give them credible reasons to progressively eliminate civil liberties and continue building the authoritarian states many of them seem to desire. Obama, in particular, is likely to take advantage of the Paris attacks to further savage the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution. And it will not be long before Obama and his pro-tyranny sidekicks in both parties undertake a renewed campaign to gut the 2nd Amendment, probably claiming that the national government needs to control all arms so that domestic Islamists — or those who come in across the open southern border — cannot assemble an arsenal to use in attacks.

[NB: For two reasons, I think that seldom in American history has it been more important for every American to be armed, and armed with as deadly a weapon (or weapons) as possible. First, as the Paris attack shows, the cowardly refusal of the French and all other NATO regimes to militarily eradicate the Islamists abroad wherever they can be found means more and more attacks in NATO countries. The attacks will occur not because of George W. Bush's nonsensical argument that if we do not kill them overseas we will have to fight them at home -- those who attack at home will have been residents most or all of their lives -- but because Washington and its NATO partners have deliberately lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Young Muslims believe Allah has given Islam victory in both places, and, as Osama bin Laden predicted, they are following the strong horse. American citizens need weapons to provide the protection against domestic Islamists for themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods that the national government deems unimportant. Second, if Obama sends his Islam-loving multicultural thugs to unconstitutionally do an inventory of privately held weapons or even to take the guns of law-abiding Americans they merit a heartily discouraging welcome from well-armed Americans.]

There really is not much more to say about the Paris attacks except that Western leaders and their acolytes in the media and churches will keep lying to their public about the Islamist issue.  When you hear those lies and the asinine comments and questions mentioned in the first paragraph, there are five simple facts to keep in mind as a defense against the lethal deceit that dominates the current public debate.

–1.) An increasing portion of the Islamic world is waging war against the West; most of the Islamists who are fighting are adherents of the Salafi sect of Sunni Islam, which is a small but growing, martially inclined, and admired sect that has declared a defensive jihad against the U.S.-led West. On the basis of these facts, it is suicidal madness to pretend that the West is not engaged in a religious war.

–2.) The reformation that the West is urging on the Muslim world is already underway, but it is not a reformation that will be to Western liking. The message delivered by Osama bin Laden and his successors that the most basic relationship in Islam is between the individual Muslim and Allah without an intermediary is obviously gaining ground across the Muslim world. Part of this success is due to the example of bin Laden and the victorious mujahedin, but most of it is due to the recognition by Muslims that the religious scholars who work for Arab governments are on the take, and that they will deliver religious decisions in whatever form their tyrant-employer desires so as not to lose the wealth, position, and status and they have won by selling out their faith.  In this aspect, the current Islamic Reformation mirrors in content and violence the Protestant Reformation that occurred in the West.

–3.) Most of those mujahedin who attack inside Western countries will be residents of those countries. Responsibility for facilitating this phenomena lies strictly with Western governments that for forty years have championed the immigration of foreigners who never intend to assimilate, and who in some cases mean to harm the nation to which they have immigrated. This intent to harm clearly increases with each generation that is born in the country of immigration. This sort of society-killing multiculturalism has been worsened and made unmanageable by the open borders specialized in by the U.S. and the European Community governments.

–4.) The worldwide Islamist insurgency that the West confronts is not susceptible to defeat by a combination of law enforcement methods, Special Forces, and intelligence operations, or by a coalition of Western nations and Arab tyrannies. The first three tools might have been decisive in the late 1990s, but President Clinton refused to use them and let the Islamist problem strengthen and mature. It is now much, much too late to successfully employ these methods as war winners because the enemy is simply too numerous, well-armed, and geographically dispersed; using them today, as I have said before, is like trying to destroy the Wehrmacht one man at a time. The last-mentioned coalition is, on its face, a huge and cynical joke. The West is looking for others to do their war fighting, and the Arab tyrants will not risk internal revolution by seriously injuring the mujahedin, who are fueled by money, volunteers, and prayers from the tyrannies. Indeed, the Saudis and their Gulf partners are experts in the exact opposite of the kind of coalition being called for by the West. In the case of Iraq, the West has on three occasions provided blond, blue-eyed slave soldiers to protect the tyrants by fighting and dying there, while the tyrants have kicked in a few bucks and continued their debauchery while joining the mujahedin in laughing at the fools in Washington, London, Berlin, and Paris.

–5.) The bipartisan, interventionist foreign policy of the United States is today, as it was when bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, the main motivator — along with the West’s relentless military fecklessness — of the Islamist insurgency. Washington’s steady support for Arab tyrannies and the re-installation of one in Egypt; its unnecessary, corrupt, and dead Americans-causing relationship with Israel; and its willingness to invade Muslim countries at the drop of a hat make Washington — next to Allah — the only indispensable ally of the mujahedin. This reality all but ensures the inevitable demise of Western liberties. Western leaders are too cowardly to kill the Islamists and their supporters in the extraordinary numbers that now will be necessary to achieve victory, and yet they will continue to intervene militarily and culturally in the Muslim world and so motivate ever greater number of mujahedin to join the fight. Given this combination, Western leaders, in the name of defense, will crackdown on the liberties of their own citizens while the Islamist grow ever stronger.

When reviewing the five facts above, and knowing that each of them is fully substantiated in public, not secret sources, one can only conclude that Western leaders are pursuing their own political agendas, following the dictates of ruinous theories like multiculturalism, diversity, and uncontrolled borders and immigration, and hold in contempt the clear national interests of the nations they were chosen to govern. “Which is more blameworthy,” George Washington asked a correspondent in 1790, “those who see and steadily pursue their interest, or those who cannot see, or seeing will not act wisely?” The West today, sadly, is dangerously afflicted with both men and women in governing positions who – unless they are stupid — can easily see their nation’s interests but “will not act wisely.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who’s dumber – Marc Grayson or LINKEDIN?

I had not intended to follow up on my last piece about MARC GRAYSON and his knowing conduct of a fraudulent LINKEDIN site, but the message that LINKEDIN sent to GRAYSON in an effort to try to help him continue perpetrating his fraud, pasted in below, is really priceless. I wonder how many such frauds are being conducted and assisted — hopefully unknowingly — by those who administer this service?

LinkedIn

Hi marc,
We noticed someone just tried to sign in to your LinkedIn account from a location you haven’t used before, so we want to make sure it’s really you.
If you did try to sign in:
Please use this verification code to complete your sign in: 080687
If you didn’t try to sign in, be sure to change your password by clicking the link below.
Thanks for helping us keep your account secure.
The LinkedIn Team
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

On Guantanamo: Those who knowingly sow dragon’s teeth ought to be killed by the harvest

“Then, behold, Pallas, the hero’s guardian approaches, sinking down through the upper air, and orders him to turn the earth and sow the dragon’s teeth, destined to generate a people. He obeys, and opening the furrows with a slice of his plough, sows the teeth in the ground, as human seed. Then, almost beyond belief, the cultivated earth begins to move, and first spear points appear among the furrows, next helmets nodding their painted crests, then chests and shoulders spring up, and arms weighed down with spears, and the field is thick with the round shields of warriors.” Metamorphoses, Book III: 95-114

With the unfolding of the Obama-Holder policy of restoring veteran Islamist insurgent fighters and future leaders to the forces of al-Qaeda and the growing array of America’s Islamist enemies — so far, 5 to Qatar, 4 to Uruguay, and 5 to Kazakhstan — it is worth repeating that the United States is engaged in a religious war with an increasing portion of the Muslim world. Obama’s release of Guantanamo prisoners again highlights the fact that the U.S. bipartisan political elite has not grasped this fact and so the national government continues to feed the manpower and motivation of America’s enemies.

The al-Qaeda training handbook — which is now the basic handbook for the growing Islamist movement — stresses the religious nature of the war each insurgent is waging against the United States and its European and Arab-tyrant allies. In this struggle, each fighter is taught that he can serve Allah in three ways: (a) he can fight the enemy on the battlefield and survive to continue fighting; (b) he can face the enemy on the battlefield and be killed, having prayed beforehand that Allah will accept him as paradise-bound martyr; and (c) he can fight the enemy in battle and be captured and continue to wage jihad from prison. The fighters are instructed that each these results pleases Allah and therefore it is good for them — and for all Muslims – to embrace whichever one comes down the road, and if it is (a) or (c) that arrives, he must keep fighting.

Those captured mujahedin who go to prison in the Arab world and carry on the fight from behind bars cannot reasonably expect to see freedom again, or, for that matter, find as easy-going and health-promoting a prison as the one at Guantanamo Bay. Many insurgent prisoners are executed by their Arab captors — with or without mock trials — soon after the latter are convinced that they have no more information to divulge and that they cannot be persuaded or forced to work as intelligence assets against their former Islamist brethren. Few are released from Arab prisons because the Arab world’s politicians are savvy enough to know that many would immediately go back to the battlefield and, as important, would do so with an inspiringly heroic demeanor as men who survived the brutality of, say, former-Egyptian President Mubarak’s prisons and remained both faithful to Allah and ready to resume fighting.

From the insurgent commanders’ perspective, incarcerated fighters who are released or escape are worth their weight in gold, perhaps more. Mostly combat veterans at the time of their capture, the returning mujahedin demonstrate to less experienced fighters that there can be life after capture, and these men also can be highlighted in the Islamists’ media to spur recruitment and greater monetary donations from across the Muslim world. The returnees also enjoy a certain aura of invincibility in that they have — with Allah’s favor — survived both battle and prison and so encourage other fighters to have confidence that Allah will look out for them if they remain steadfast in his cause. Readers will recall al-Qaeda leader Abu Yaha al-Libi as a man who rose to become al-Qaeda’s most effective recruiter and third or fourth in the group’s command structure — as well as its most charismatic leader, save bin Laden — after he escaped in July, 2005, from the U.S.-NATO prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, and returned to the fight and to regularly appear in the media. Abu Yaha was eventually killed by U.S. forces, but his legend remains, and that legend, to this day, is powered in part by his having survived imprisonment and escaped to fight again and die in Allah’s cause.

And if one example will not suffice, here is another. In February, 2006, a Yemeni national named Nasir al-Wuhayshi escaped with a number of other al-Qaeda fighters from a Yemeni regime prison. Al-Wuhayshi had once been one of bin Laden’s secretaries, but he was not a renowned fighter or obviously tagged for greater leadership responsibilities. After returning to the battlefield, al-Wuhayshi proved a fine fighter and rose to command all al-Qaeda forces in Yemen; he then presided over the merger of al-Qaeda’s forces in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and commanded the new Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Organization; and, in 2013, al-Wuhayshi was named by bin Laden’s successor Ayman al-Zawahiri as his deputy and second in command of all of al-Qaeda.

Oh, okay, one more example. An individual who had helped form an Islamist insurgent group to fight the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and then served as chief of its Sharia committee, was captured in 2004 but then released by U.S. forces less than a year later. This fellow’s name is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and he now leads an organization named the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which will again defeat the U.S. military and its motley coalition of Arab tyrants and effeminate Europeans.

Now, not all of the prisoners released by Obama, Holder, and their gang of Ivy League-educated international-law experts will have either the natural talent or the opportunity to mimic the stellar successes of al-Libi, al-Wuhayshi, and al-Baghdadi.  But some will, and many of the rest will be happy to settle for returning to Allah’s fight and finding joy in killing Americans and others with an AK-47, a RPG, or a car bomb; none of the Americans who will die at their hands, of course, would be in line for death if the Islamists had not been released from Guantanamo by the all-knowing anti-American ideologue, Barack Obama. The Obama-freed jihadis, moreover, will serve as a reminder to current Islamist fighters, aspiring mujahedin, and those that fund them that Allah can be served by jihadis in many ways, and that there is no downside to any of them.

Because the supine Republicans apparently will do nothing to halt Obama’s calculated readiness to sow dragon’s teeth that will eventually see Americans killed by the crop of death yielded by those he releases, one can only hope, for America’s sake, that the old adage “What goes around, comes around” proves true in the future careers of the Islamists released from Guantanamo. When — not if — one or more of the freed mujahedin attack and kill Americans, fairness would dictate that they kill those who are responsible for their release and return to the battlefield, as well as those who did nothing to stop that insane process. If such an absolutely fair scenario plays out in the next two years, Mrs. Clinton can tear-up and empathize with the Islamist attackers, but I will rejoice for my family and all Americans, as it will be clearly the case that those killed in that scenario merited death, that they always have been worth less than nothing to the United States, and that America’s national security will be far better off without them. “No punishment, in my opinion, is too great,” General Washington said in 1778, almost as if he was thinking of Barack Obama, “for the man who can build his greatness upon his country’s ruin.”


Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment