Obama leads his coalition of Arab tyrants into another losing, Islamist-boosting war

“The real defeatist in America is the man who says this nation cannot survive alone.” Col. Charles A. Lindbergh, 1 July 1941

“There is nothing worse than a belligerent professor.” Walter Lippman

The Founders created a republic that could survive if it was run by honest men of moderate intelligence and common sense, but not one that could survive if run by men and women who are well-educated but also ideologues and pathological liars. Hence, America today is on the verge of being done like dinner.

Since Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996, the people of the United States have elected presidents, senators, and congressmen who are neither honest not apparently very intelligent. This kind of electoral result is the chance that voters take in every republican political system, and it is a painful result that, in normal times, can be endured until a more savvy and less dishonest American emerges to win the reins of power and talk frankly and factually to the citizenry.

These are not normal times, however, and the kind of leadership we have had continuously since 1996 is leading the nation into a world war with Islam that will be among the bloodiest ever fought by this country. This war will kill and maim so many American soldiers and Marines that those already killed in Afghanistan and Iraq will form no more than a corporal’s guard for the coming dead.

And why are we getting involved into this war?

–Because two U.S. journalists and one British journalist were beheaded by IS fighters? This a national security threat to neither the U.S. nor the UK.

–Because Christians, Yazidis, and other minorities are being persecuted by IS forces? This is not a national security threat to the United States?

–Because Iraqi, Syrian, and other Sunnis are warring against Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian Shia and Alawites? This is a clear plus for U.S. national security and should be encouraged.

–Because IS forces will eventually threaten and destabilize our “allies” — most large oil producers — in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE? This is only a threat because Obama’s administration has not sprinted the final small distance to U.S. energy self sufficiency.  And, by the way, most of our Arab allies and/or their wealthy citizens are sending arms, funds, and recruits to IS, as well as paying for the intolerant religious education of youngsters — who will become future jihadis — in the United States and its English-speaking allies.

–Because IS is inspiring/funding/ordering local Islamists to attack in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia? This is a threat to those countries only because the insane leadership class  in each believes in the fatuous and debilitating myths of multiculturalism and diversity, has made it easy for foreigners who cannot or will not assimilate to enter those countries, and has refused to fully secure national borders.

–Because the fast-growing forces of militant Sunni Islam are threatening Israel? This is true, but it is not a national security threat to the United States. It is a threat only to the politicians in both U.S. parties who are on the take from AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations.

And why should we have refused to re-intervene in Iraq?

–Because IS is cutting the heads off Westerners to lure America into re-intervening. Why? Because U.S. military intervention in any Muslim country means more donations, recruits, and popular support for IS, al-Qaeda, and other like-minded organizations. U.S. intervention in the Iraq-Syria theater will, over time, make everything it is designed to stop much worse.

–Because we will lose again, and so further add to the Muslim world’s perception that the United States is finished as a superpower, is unwilling to destroy its enemies; and can, with continued patience and sacrifice, be defeated. In addition, the U.S., UK, Canadian, and Australian militaries have proven themselves — in Iraq and Afghanistan — almost completely incompetent when it comes to defeating Islamist insurgents. Until they relearn the art of killing massive numbers of their enemies and their supporters those militaries should stay home and defend borders.

–Because the recklessly lawless Barack Obama has again violated the Constitution by attacking in Syria without congressional approval. He also has created a coalition of Arab tyrannies that will appear to Sunni Muslims as a clear U.S. effort to insure the stability of the Sunni tyrants who oppress them, as well as to protect the hated Shia and Alawite dictators who rule Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

–Because we are BROKE as a nation; re-intervention will be prolonged and extraordinarily expensive; and the goal of IS and all Islamist groups vis. the United States is to complete its economic ruin.

–Because Obama and the national government will further shred the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of “protecting Americans” from the Islamist enemies Washington is constantly motivating — through military intervention — to kill them and their soldier-children.

–Because we live in North America and our enemy has neither the naval nor air power to reach us. We also have the capability to incinerate them and their supporters if they find a way to hurt us badly at home. The Islamist enemy’s threat at the moment stems largely from the refusal of America’s bipartisan elite to control the nation’s borders and its willingness to tolerate the entry of enormous numbers of illegal aliens about whose location and intentions we are ignorant. (NB: If another major attack occurs in the United States, it should provoke not only the eradication of the enemy and its supporters, but also something akin to drum-head courts-martial for politicians who have served in the national government since 9/11 and opposed border control. The trials should be conducted with a substantial number of gallows and, as Willie Nelson would say, “all the rope in Texas” standing by and ready to promptly execute the sentences imposed.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama-vs-Islamic State: Here comes more debt, more death, and another lost war

“Will you never look at the facts rather than at those who put them to you?” Titus Livy

“You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war. War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” General William T. Sherman

The sheer incompetence and ignorance of so much of the American media is appalling, and Livy’s damning question, noted above, ought to be asked by all Americans of their country’s journalists.

We have heard endlessly from U.S. officials, generals, and politicians from  both parties that “there is no military solution” to the war the Islamists are waging on the United States. This is, of course, the purest nonsense. There is always a military solution if someone, some group, or some nation-state attacks you. The question should never be, “Is there a military solution to this problem,” it should always to be, “Is this problem a legitimate threat to genuine U.S. national interests that requires war?” (NB: The IS beheading of two journalists, or fifty for that matter, poses no threat to genuine U.S. national interests.) If the answer to the second question is yes, then military solutions are available, and not to use them is plainly a case of criminal negligence by the president, the congress, and the U.S. general officers corps. Why, then, have we almost never heard a journalists ask one of these charlatans why there is no military solution?

Last week Americans heard a refinement of the “there is no military solution to the Islamist problem” mantra from the admiral who is a public spokesman for the Pentagon. This wise fellow told a gathering of journalists something akin to, “We are fighting an ideology, and military power cannot defeat an ideology.” Again, at least as far as I have been able to tell, not a single one of the brilliant journalists present asked a question that challenged this admiral’s rank piece of stupidity. One must conclude that neither the admiral nor the journalists have ever heard of an ideology called National Socialism — Nazism for short — that was utterly defeated by the military power of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain. And, closer to home, did the just-mentioned gathering of geniuses ever hear of the American Civil War wherein fellows named Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan used unrelenting military force to annihilate the purveyors of an ideology whose pillars were secession and the right of people to own other human beings? Perhaps the admiral and all his auditors were educated at Ivy League schools. That would explain a lot.

On Wednesday, Americans are to hear President Obama’s 3-year strategy for dealing with the Islamic State (IS) (NB: Five will get you ten that IS will be” contained” in time for Obama to pretend we won before the 2016 election.) My guess is that we will hear some form of the phrase “there is no military solution to this problem,” and again it will be a lie. The Islamic State is right up the U.S. military’s ally. While our politician-palsied military is not worth a tinker’s damn in fighting the mujahedin on the ground, we have in IS an organization that holds a large array of physical assets that can be more or less permanently destroyed from the air. In Iraq and Syria, IS controls oil and gas fields and refineries; cotton and flour mills; power plants and dams producing electricity; and other industrial and agricultural facilities. All of these produce substantial profits for IS operations, and Obama, Kerry, McCain, Cameron and other NATO leaders have all portrayed the current wealth and significant money-making potential of IS as the chief reason we in the West need to be afraid of this particular brand of mujahedin. If this assertion is true, then the supposedly non-existent “military solution” is immediately — and quite obviously — at hand.

So listen to Obama when he speaks and if you do not hear that his strategy is the simple one of having U.S. air power — with or without our vaunted allies — annihilate the profit-making physical assets of IS, as well as whatever IS personnel and civilians who are in the way, you will know that Obama and the Republicans again do not intend to win the war they are getting us into, and that more debt will be accrued and more of our military men and women will be killed and maimed for nothing. It will also mean that Obama and our bipartisan political elite are not seeking to destroy IS, but rather to appear to be doing something about IS while ensuring they do not alienate America’s makers of prosthetic devices or raise the ire of the effete Europeans, the clueless U.S. media, and those so badly educated that they cannot grasp that war means killing the enemy until he is eradicated or gives up.

None of the foregoing should be construed as an endorsement of a U.S.-led war against the IS organization; as long as Washington keeps intervening in the Muslim world, U.S. borders are open, and we are aligned with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and any Shia-dominated Iraqi regime America will be virtually undefended no matter how many mujahedin we kill. And anything more or less than the campaign of annihilation-from-the-air against the targets noted above, means that Obama and both parties are sending the U.S. military not to defend genuine U.S. national interests, but to do the bidding of foreigners and to lose another war, an event that will further motivate Muslims to join and fund IS, al-Qaeda, and other militant groups.

Because under Obama and Bush the United States has been deliberately impotent in the military sense — only fools think America has used its full military power against the Islamists — our best defense at the moment is to do everything we can to encourage but not become involved in the emerging Sunni-Shia sectarian war in the Arab world, and especially that part of it occurring in Syria and Iraq. We must delight in seeing the two Muslim sects tear each other’s guts out, and pray that it long continues. This will give American voters a short window to search for and elect candidates who know that: (a) bipartisan U.S. interventionism and democracy crusading have gotten us into this mess in the Islamic world; (b) that genuine U.S. national interests are few in number, are material matters not abstractions like freedom and women’s rights, and are rarely threatened, so few U.S. wars are necessary; and (c) that when forced to fight, as General Sherman explained, America and mercy are best served by the overwhelming application of lethal force to eradicate the enemy and his supporters in the shortest possible time.

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

America First and survival or an endless losing war with Islam?

“Those Americans who refuse to plunge blindly into the maelstrom of European or Asiatic politics are not defeatist or neurotic. They are giving evidence of sanity, not cowardice, of adult thinking as distinguished from infantilism. They intend to preserve and defend the Republic. America is not to be Rome or Britain. It is to be America.” Gore Vidal, 2004

Last Wednesday afternoon (27 August 2014), Fox’s Neil Cavuto hosted a former senior U.S. government official on the subject of Iraq’s Islamic State organization. For my money, Mr. Cavuto has one of the most informative programs on Fox or any other network, but on this occasion the guest provided no light and only added to our national muddle by describing the Islamist fighters and their leaders as frustrated, angry, and under privileged youth who are in essence brain-washed by cynical Islamist leaders to join the jihad. Sound familiar? Well it ought to. U.S. politicians from both parties and most of the U.S. and Western media have been spewing this nonsense since the early 1990s. Mr. Cavuto’s guest than piped in with the usual mantra that the war against the Islamists cannot be won militarily but only by an ideological confrontation with them that will show young Muslim males how much more pure, noble, and well-meaning America is than are those he called “Islamo-Facists.”

I am not using Mr. Cavuto’s guest’s name because it is irrelevant. The guest could have been almost any American politician, pundit, general, admiral, or senior civil servant and the words would have been nearly identical, and surely identically wrong. This bipartisan U.S. political elite is simply too arrogant, authoritarian, and ill-educated in the discipline of history to craft and conduct a foreign policy that will protect U.S. national security. They leave Americans no choice but to search out and elect men and women who will champion U.S. neutrality and refuse to intervene in matters that are none of America’s concern. In that regard, let us hope Senator Paul gets his meandering policy views straightened out so that he can get squared away with the many millions of his dad’s supporters who are eager to support him.

To begin, we cannot win an “ideological confrontation” with the Islamists. We have already tried that — though Mr. Cavuto’s guest said we had not — and it was an utter failure. The Islamists simply will not buy what Washington’s hucksters present as an alternative to their beliefs and agenda. The Islamists are fighting a religious war against what they deem to be authoritarian regimes that both oppressively rule much of the Arab world — recall Iraq’s Maliki was an elected Shia tyrant and our foreign policy gurus now want to ally America with Syria’s Asaad and the tyrants of Jordan and the Gulf states — and prevent the unity and religious orthodoxy that the Islamists believes Allah demands. Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making , but they have been in the field fighting since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular, more geographically dispersed, or as well-armed as it is today — 35 years later. Our political elite needs to get a grip on this reality. These men are not fighting for money, fame, or upcoming mid-term elections. They are fighting for their faith and for freedom and self-determination as they define it. And they believe Allah is smiling on their efforts, having allowed them to humiliate and defeat superpowers in Iraq and twice Afghanistan.

And what points, pray tell, could we argue that would drive the Islamists away from these beliefs and perceptions? Should we tell them of the glories of secularism when it is legislatively imposed on a once believing and pious American nation? The glories of a democracy that is controlled from start to finish by money and foreign lobbies? The desirability of making women equal to men by giving them the “right” to kill other human beings? The inspiring reality of a lawless president and attorney general bent on destroying the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments? By offering to share with them the world’s biggest and wealthiest pornography industry? By showing them the uselessness of a government that has wasted all of its citizens resources and now wants to tax them even more? By urging them to abandon faith in God and begin to call their religious leaders “life coaches” as the U.S. military apparently intends to rename their chaplains? If this is what we are trying to sell men fighting for their faith, we are well and truly licked before we start.

So we need to trash the idea of an ideological confrontation that we can win. What to do? Begin by understanding that today’s worldwide Islamist movement would not have been born, or once born gelled, or once gelled steadily grown without unrelenting U.S. and Western intervention in the the Muslim world. Moscow started it by invading Afghanistan in 1979 and then Washington, Britain, France, Germany, and the UN picked up the dictatorial Soviet baton by installing a regime in Kabul that all but excluded the men who had fought for 15 years and finally defeated the Red Army and the Afghan communists. Having watched the mujahedin beat the Soviets, the Muslim world then saw the West intervene to deny the Afghans the fruits of the victory Allah had given them. That Western intervention, by the way, facilitated the rise and then the victory of the Taleban, the organization that is about to accept another Allah-provided victory over the hapless and averse-to-killing-our-enemies U.S. and NATO militaries.

Although Afghanistan is the poster boy for the disasters that always accompany U.S.-led interventions in the Muslim world that are conducted by American presidents who have no intention of winning the wars they start, the list of self-defeating U.S. interventions continues to grow and now also includes:

–The 2003 invasion of Iraq and its famous surge, which, respectively, allowed the flow of mujahedin from South Asia to the Levant and trained the military backbone of the Islamic State.

–The U.S.-backed Ethiopian military intervention in Somalia that destroyed the Islamic Courts regime and opened a path for the rise of al-Shabab and propelled the Islamization of East Africa.

–The U.S.-led Western rejection of the fairly elected Hamas government, ending for all Muslims any belief in the American and European democracy mongers who endlessly preach that the results of “free and fair” elections are final and must be respected by all.

–The U.S.-led Western support for the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, which — along with Saddam’s overthrow — created a destabilized political environment in which Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities are now being casually slaughtered.

–U.S. support for the removal of a fairly elected Islamist government in Egypt via a military coup, followed by U.S. and Western silence as Egypt’s new military dictator stamps out what Obama and others call “universal Western values.”

–U.S. support for the mujahedin’s effort to oust Asaad’s regime in Syria, which yielded the forces that are now known as the Islamic State

–The Washington-led Western destruction of of Qadhafi’s Libya, which is now delivering oil-rich Libya to the Islamists, and whose looted arsenals and prisons — with those of Egypt and Tunisia — have supplied mujahedin around the world with enormous stocks of modern weaponry and a substantial augmentation of veteran combat leaders, bomb-makers, and money handlers.

–Flamboyant U.S. support for three Israeli wars in the Levant and the very public resupply of Israeli forces with U.S.-made ordnance to be used to kill Palestinians. (NB: The Israelis, of course, have every right to kill as many Palestinians fighters and civilians as they believe their national security requires, but what does America gain by publicly aligning itself with Israeli military actions that kill hundreds of Palestinian kids and are deemed by a billion-plus Muslims — including those young American Muslim men who now fight in the Islamic State’s ranks — as just as barbarous as Americans deem the beheading of Mr. Doyle? By the way, Mr. Doyle’s demise has worked exactly as the Islamic State intended. It wanted the U.S. government to re-intervene in Iraq on the side of those the Sunni world sees as heretical Shia. Using the decapitation of Mr. Doyle as a lure did the trick nicely, making Pavlov’s Obama-Kerry-McCain-Graham dog respond as desired.)

–U.S. support for the French invasion of Mali and Washington’s simultaneous establishment of drone bases in Niger, which provided Malian Islamists and other Islamists across northern and central Africa with a Western military intervention that they have used as their foil in promoting unity among diverse Islamist groupings as well as a spur to their recruitment and fund-raising operations.

There are other examples but the foregoing are enough to provide even aspiring-to-be-Fascist Neoconservatives with an understanding of why so many Muslims — militant, moderate, and nominal — perceive the United States and its allies as being determined to determine how (or if?) Muslims will live, organize their societies, conduct elections, interpret their religion, and supinely refuse to oppose the imposition by military force of what Obama, McCain, Cameron, Netanyahu, et al describe with straight faces as “Western values.” The examples likewise are sufficient to show that the above-named interventions have been costly failures that have left local, regional, and international Islamist forces stronger than when the interventions began.  Finally, a close and thoughtful look at the above list will strongly suggest that if Washington refrained from all of the interventions America’s national security would be far less threatened, and everyday life, economics, and social affairs inside the United States would have been unaffected no matter how the overseas problem worked itself out.

So what do Americans do? As in August, 1996, when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, we have only two choices:

–1.) To continue to maintain the status quo in our foreign polices in the Muslim world — meaning steadily intervening and backing tyranny there — and thereby motivate ever greater numbers of Muslims to join the war now being waged by Islamist forces against the United States, its European allies and Israel, and its favorite tyrants in the Islamic world. If these policies and interventions are essential to genuine U.S. national security interests, they, of course, must be maintained and perhaps strengthened and expanded. If national security requires the eternal maintenance of this status quo, it will also mean an endless, increasingly widespread, and unprecedentedly bloody war with Islam. It will also require a massively costly rearmament effort by the U.S. government and the immediate reintroduction of conscription. The Islamist enemy we witlessly motivate has long been too large, talented, and religiously dedicated to be defeated by killing or capturing one jihadi at a time with drones, Special Forces, rendition/interrogation, and thundering but toothless threats that the Islamists will face justice. We are far past facing terrorists. Rather, we are in the midst of fighting an international insurgency, and we are on the way to a world war that the United States will have to fight at home and abroad if the foreign-policy status quo is retained.

–2.)  Or, we can seek America’s survival;

–By closing our borders and strictly enforcing exiting immigration laws;

–By moving to the energy self-sufficiency that plainly is within our reach;

–By bidding the Saudis and the Israelis farewell, henceforth letting them find their own destiny, and further insulating America from their malignant influence by terminating the Saudis’ ability to direct the religious education of young Muslims in the United States and forcing AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups to register as what they are, agents of a foreign power;

–By creating a military that can, after a formal Congressional declaration of war and without “coalition partners,” respond with the utmost barbarity — perhaps as Huns, as Kaiser Wilhelm II once recommended to his magnificent army — against the Islamists and their civilian supporters if they dare attack America or its genuine interests;

–By withdrawing from NATO and letting the arrogantly effeminate, U.S.-resource draining, and militarily feckless Europeans deal with the Russians over the war that the EU’s democracy crusading in Ukraine has yielded.

Such a neutral and non-interventionist policy would be historically appropriate for Americans, would strengthen our national security, and would give our genius political leaders time to do something useful, like solving a genuine national security problem by organizing the construction of a transportation system that can get the water to California that has long been desperately needed  for crop irrigation.

As Mr. Reagan use to say, America’s national government is often more the problem than the solution, and nowhere is this more true than in the foreign-policy realm where Washington and the leaders of both political parties are the most dangerous enemies of our country’s national security. In the Republic’s early years, John Adams warned that the revolutionary regime in France presented an unprecedented threat to the world. “I know of no government ancient or modern,” Adams wrote, “that ever betrayed so universal and decided a contempt of the people of all nations, as the present rulers of France. They have manifested a settled opinion that the people have neither sense or integrity in any country, and they have acted accordingly.”  My guess is that Mr. Adams never imagined that his words could be used today by simply replacing “the present rulers of France’s” with “the present rulers of America and their vassals in Western Europe.”

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

Obama, Democrats, Republicans, and NATO: Still playing the Islamists’ foil

“But when we err with our eyes wide open and involve ourselves in great tribulations through sheer lack of judgment, then everyone agrees we have no one to blame but ourselves.  It follows therefore if a people’s failures are due … to their own folly, then all men of sense will blame and reproach them.” Polybius

Listening to President Obama speak of Iraq on 18 August 2014 underscores the point made above by Polybius, and it also validates the brilliant diplomat George F. Kennan’s argument that America is virtually incapable of conducting an effective foreign policy because of our leaders’ minimal knowledge of how the world works and the dominance of domestic considerations on the policies they pursue overseas.  In Obama’s short statement on Iraq both of these negative factors were clearly evident.

–Obama — as well as his lieutenants, the leaders of both parties, and much of the media — continue to call the Sunni Islamic State (IS) organization a “terrorist group.” In the 25-plus years since al-Qaeda initiated what has become a worldwide armed Islamist movement, U.S. leaders have never once tried to explain to Americans that we are fighting a growing international insurgency that can never be defeated by using counter-terrorism tactics such as Special Forces raids, drone and aircraft strikes, and capture and interrogation operations. If you use these tools to kill the insurgents one at a time you end up where we are today; that is, with a nice and well-publicized body count but also with an enormously bigger threat than we faced in 2001. Indeed, Americans ought to be told that there are indications that the IS insurgents are evolving into what the great guerrilla-war theorist Mao Tse Tung called the final stage of insurgency, the point at which elements of the insurgent forces begin to transition into units that are battle-hardened, well trained and led, well armed, and resemble conventional force units.

–Obama, McCain, Graham, Hillary Clinton, and much of the media continue to talk the absolute rot of building an “inclusive government” in Iraq in the place of Maliki’s regime. This is not going to happen in the lifespan of any of our leaders, nor even in the lifespan of their children. Despite impressive educations, these men and women seemed to have missed the class where the teacher described the intense, violent, evergreen, and millennium-plus-long hatred of Sunnis for Shias, and vice versa. The current bout of this sectarian war is occurring because George W. Bush sought to make Iraq safe for democracy and instead opened the doors there to slaughter, anarchy, sectarian civil war, and regional destabilization. The current IS offensive is only the most recent and bloody episode of a civil war that began in March, 2003. The post-Maliki government and the Kurds may extort more money and weapons from the United States and its equally brain-dead allies, but there will be no peace and no inclusive government. When the West pulls the plug on another lost war in Iraq — and it will — the Sunnis will have more reason than ever to kill Shias who begged for help from the hated and perceived-to-be-Christian Americans and Europeans to kill Sunnis.

–Obama and the above named leaders likewise seem to believe they have an “Iraq problem,” when that country is nothing more than one part of a world war now being waged against the United States and its allies by the vastly bigger, post-9/11 Islamist movement. Obama, Bush McCain, Graham, Clinton, and others in both parties too numerous to count have yet to begin to tell the truth to Americans about the size, motivation, and intentions of the growing Islamist enemy they face. But, at the same time, they are following an interventionist foreign policy that supports Israel, the Saudi tyranny, and Iraq’s Iran-allied Shia dictatorship and so cultivates Sunni enemies for America around the world. Because most politicians in both parties are owned by either the Fifth Column of Israel Firsters or by the combined policy of the Saudis and U.S. arms and oil companies to “take care” of their political and federal civil service friends after they retire, Americans can expect no truth from their political leaders. What they can expect, however, is that those leaders, by abiding by wishes of their disloyal domestic and foreign paymasters, will ensure our that Islamist enemy keeps growing and killing U.S. civilians and military personnel.

Today the United States government cannot be said to be back on square one — which is dated August, 1996, the date bin Ladin declared war on America — but only because it has never moved from it. Eighteen years into our war with the Islamists, the U.S. government has given no public sign that it has the slightest awareness of what its enemies are fighting for and why, and so it has developed no strategy with which to prevail against them. The policies and actions of Republican and Democratic administrations have yielded a few tactical victories, but, overall, they have produced strategic disasters: The anti-U.S. jihad is now self-perpetuating; U.S. military forces have lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the U.S. treasury is bankrupt; our senior political leaders have only lies to tell the citizenry about the Islamists’ motivation; and  the Islamist movement has grown spectacularly in geographic reach, trained and eager-to-be-trained manpower, and sophisticated armaments. The hard but indisputable truth is that America’s strategic position in the Middle East, its political influence there, and its military effectiveness have deteriorated massively since 9/11.

Our Islamist enemies know this and are turning it to their advantage. Even now they are playing with us. The beheading of the American journalist is a good example. After the killing, the Islamists demanded that Obama stop U.S. air attacks in Iraq. Not only did the Islamist leaders know that Obama would not stop the strikes, they did not want him to. As always, the Islamists could not possibly acquire a better recruiting and fundraising tool for use in the international Sunni community than a U.S-led Western intervention in a Muslim country, especially one that is perceived as an intervention to attack enemies of Israel and to keep the hated Shia in power.

The Islamists believe — and history is on their side here — that they will benefit in the long-run from the current U.S. intervention in Iraq, and will benefit even more if the size of the intervention increases.  They are confident — and should be — that neither Obama nor any other Western leader intends to annihilate the IS forces and so absolutely nothing suits their purposes better than to have another chance to drive the doomed-to-defeat-by-U.S.-politicians American military forces out of Iraq. And Obama and other Western leaders again seem set to do their best to exceed the Islamists’ requirements.

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

U.S.-UK re-intervention in Iraq: Getting it lethally wrong twice

“A country without a memory is a country of madmen.” George Santayana, 1906

The truly amazing thing about America’s interventionist elite is that they never, ever learn from their always egregious errors and half-baked plans. President Obama’s decision to re-intervene militarily in Iraq to “protect” the Azidi and Christian minorities will do nothing more than delay their doom. Neither he nor the British prime minister — old me-too Cameron, the U.S. lap dog — have the slightest intention of defeating the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and its allies, which would require the aerial slaughter and and boots-on-the ground demolishing of the mujahedin and that portion of the population that supports them. Both men are too sensitive, sophisticated, and well-educated to engage in such blue-collar nonsense as “winning a war” and so they will do a little military diddling and make sure the now-doomed Azidis and Christians go to their graves with full bellies.

What has not seemed to cross the mind of American and British interventionists is that Iraq’s Azidis and Christians are in their present terminal fix because the United States and the UK started the unnecessary Western invasion of Iraq, removed Saddam Hussain’s effective if brutal government, and installed a Shia tyranny. Under Saddam, the Azidis and the Christians had, to be sure, a tough row to hoe, but Saddam’s security forces kept their torment to a moderate level. We removed Saddam and all bets were off. The Shias now merrily kill Sunnis, and vice versa, and they both murder Iraq’s now unprotected — thanks to President Bush and Prime Minister Blair — religious minorities.

To a greater or lesser extent, the same thing is occurring in Afghanistan (Targets: Shia and Sufis); Pakistan (Targets: Shia, Sufis, and Christians); Syria (Target: Christians) and Egypt (Target: Coptic Christians). In each of these countries the religious minorities are suffering to a greater extent than previously because of U.S.-led interventions which were undertaken either without any intention of utterly defeating the Sunni Islamist malefactors — as in Afghanistan — or with what seems to be a near-complete ignorance of the country’s internal political dynamics, as in Syria, Pakistan, and Egypt. As always, America’s bipartisan interventionists proved to be military dilettantes and historically unlearned — not knowing Mubarak did what he could to protect Egypt’s Copts — thereby ensuring disaster for those they claimed to be helping.

In Iraq, Obama’s feckless intervention will do three things. First, it may slow the advance of ISI forces as they try to avoid exposing key assets to U.S. air strikes and lie low until the U.S. and Britain again depart. Second, it will increase the anti-minority rancor of the ISI fighters due to the sharp but not crippling losses they will suffer from U.S. airstrikes. When Obama and his fellow bipartisan interventionists call it quits — say, if there are American casualties — the mujahedin will conduct a pretty thorough cleansing of the country’s minority sects. Third, Obama and the interventionists are positioning the United States to again appear to the Muslim world as being militarily impotent and lacking in courage. This will cause Muslims all over the planet to again reflect that Allah must be genuinely pleased with the work of the  ISI, Al-Qaeda, and myriad other Sunni Islamist insurgent groups if they can consistently defeat the strongest and most technologically proficient Western militaries. After all, Muslim believers are sure that victory in jihad can only come from Allah, and no victory would come if He was not pleased with the Islamist combatants fighting in His name.

If this was not bad enough, there also is a chance for worse. What if U.S.-UK military intervention barely slows the progress of the ISI fighters, the minorities continue to get murdered at the same or higher pace, and all of this is covered by the media for the public in both countries and the rest of the world. In such a situation, Obama’s action in Iraq will be seen for what it is: another in a long-series of U.S.-led interventions in the Muslim world that has given added strength and momentum to the Islamist movement — remember Libya and U.S. support for the military coup in Egypt? At that point, Obama, with mid-term elections 90 days off, will recognize how foolish, inexperienced, and weak he looks as a leader and for tactical political reasons — don’t give the national security issue back to the Republicans — and his own wounded ego may well decide to expand rather than end his intervention in Iraq.

In danger politically and again exposed as an incompetent, Obama might well intensify the air bombardment and begin arming what he will tell Americans are the democracy-loving “good Iraqis,” the Kurds and Shia. The increased air war would be a loser from the word go, as the only time in history that air power won anything was when two B-29s dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. And the Kurds and Shia have no record of doing anything effective against the ISI except whining for more and better U.S./Western weaponry and then abandoning it to the enemy on the battlefield or in arsenals as soon as contact is made with ISI units. There is no reason to think this would not happen again, only this time — if Obama arms them — ISI will reap a harvest of much better weaponry than it has previously picked up from the good Iraqis as they flee battle.

Then what? Well, there are only two options. In the first, Obama could deploy the U.S. ground forces he and Bush have wrecked through over deployment and their refusal to win wars, and which Obama has cut to the bone in terms of budget and manpower. In such a move, Obama, his party, and the Republican interventionists would again send U.S. soldiers and Marines to war as targets rather than killers; we would soon hear from Obama and his pliant generals the claim that “there is no military solution in Iraq”; and shortly after that Obama would announce our re-departure from Iraq, marking the third U.S. surrender to the Islamist movement in less than a decade. This is the bipartisan interventionists’ much tried and always successful method of bankrupting the United States, killing America’s soldier-children, and growing the international Islamist movement to unprecedented size and geographical reach.

The second option is to immediately stop throwing young lives and good money after bad. It is too bad that the Azidis and Christians in Iraq are going to be butchered, but their approaching demise was set in motion by the unnecessary war the Bush administration and the pro-Israel neoconservatives started in Iraq in 2003, and by Obama’s decision to surrender to the Iraqi Islamists by giving a date-certain for U.S. withdrawal-without-victory from Iraq. Surely enough American lives, limbs, and money have been wasted in Iraq already. Why waste more of each in a certain-to-fail re-intervention designed to make the humiliated U.S. bipartisan interventionists feel better about themselves for having tried to save the Iraqi minorities they have so blithely consigned to death over the past decade?

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