Today’s senior U.S. generals endanger the republic’s survival

Readers of this space will recall my criticisms of senior U.S. general officers who:

–Are silent when getting their Marines and soldiers killed in wars they know the president has no intention of winning.

–Are endlessly repeating the absolutely false statement “there is no military solution” to this, that, and every conflict, so as to disguise the president’s refusal to win.

–Are rewarded for their spaniel-like obedience to the president, and relentless failure in war, with promotion to high office, such as General Petraeus’s appointment as CIA Director after losing the Iraq and Afghan wars.

–Are allowed to lie and are never challenged by the media when they guarantee Americans that the U.S. military’s training of foreign armies will make them into crack fighting forces able to defend their own countries.

–Are so afraid of losing their perks, fancy uniforms — adorned now with medals/ribbons in the North Korea’s Army’s comic-opera style  — and lucrative post-career corporate directorships, that not one of them, in my memory, has resigned and told the electorate what he or she knows to be true; namely, that U.S. war-making since at least the end of the Cold War has been an expensive, bloody, and endless fraud, consistent only in always yielding defeat, wasting the lives of America’s soldier-children, never eliminating America’s enemies, and further compromising U.S. security.

Many people are angered by those who voice the clear reality that most senior U.S. general officers are merely uniformed, bureaucratic yes-men; I would have been in that group twenty years ago. Nonetheless, the evidence supporting that reality seems irrefutable.

The past few months. in fact, have seen two more remarkable examples of the willingness of senior U.S. generals to lie to the American people about the main reason their generals fail to win wars against Islamists. That reason is that the generals are either too politically correct or — worse — they actually believe the nonsense that holds Westerners are far better people than Islamists and so — even when Islamists are kicking the West’s collective behind — cannot stoop to their level and kill enough of the enemy, its civilian supporters and abettors, and destroy enough of their infrastructure to secure victory. This line of logic, played out to a conclusion, amounts to:

“We Americans and Westerners are such good people that we must allow the Islamists to kill whoever they want, invade whatever they want, bankrupt our nations, and destroy constitutional government and civil liberties in the West. And for U.S. generals, ensuring the republic’s suicide in the name of humaneness is an obligatory duty.”

The first of the two above mentioned examples comes — God help us — from a man who belongs to one of the few remaining national institution’s that knows it exists to annihilate America’s enemies and, until recent decades, reliably did so; that is, the U.S. Marine Corps. Now, though, we have a decidedly anti-victory Marine named General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., USMC, who is serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In recent congressional testimony, General Dunford acknowledged that much of the Islamic State’s (IS) economic strength, and so its military and political endurance, is derived from selling oil on the black market, and that in most cases the oil is trucked to the purchaser. This statement was not breaking news, but the words that followed it were. While Americans assumed their generals were busy destroying IS’s major income maker, General Dunford said they were not. Why?

“We assessed a majority of the truck drivers were just people trying to make a living in the region. It’s a little bit different than enemy combatant from our perspective. I don’t think in this fight we should apologize for bringing our values to the fight. I don’t think we should be killing innocent people, which would merely feed the narrative of [the Islamic State.]” (1)

Now, that must be the most idiotic statement a general — or any Marine or soldier — could make. What could be the commonsense basis for such a statement? Dunford’s words about “feeding the [IS] narrative” is simply double-talk for “we do not want to kill too many of the enemy and his supporters because we will be criticized by the media, human rights groups, Arab tyrants, the UN, and Europeans and then have to apologize.” Clearly, though, Dunford is not ashamed to bring the contemporary American elite’s valueless values to the fight, values which include joyously wallowing in defeat and failure, insisting that abstract ideals endlessly repeated can prevail over religious fervor, bravery, and bullets, and that, well, killing the enemy until he is eradicated or gives up is just too old fashioned and unsophisticated for effeminate, modern, and goody-goody Westerners.

So, General Dunford, those poor little fellows who drive IS oil tankers are just doing so to make a buck for their families, are they? Well guess what, Sir, so were Hitler’s railroad engineers, machinists, steel workers, coal miners, chemists, welders, carpenters, assembly-line mechanics, civilian doctors, tool-and-die makers, and many other civilians who worked in innumerable additional professions. Without them there would have been no Wehrmacht, no Nazi regime, no food distribution, no concentration camps, no ammunition, aircraft, submarines or tanks, and no six years of war. Ditto for those of the Japanese emperor’s boys who worked in the same professions and were indispensable to building Hirohito’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, a project that brought in its wake the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, and a four-year Pacific War which — you may recall, General Dunford — cost the lives of 19,733 Marines and wounded or maimed 67,207 more. (2)

Now, there was no shortage of moronic, Obama-like abstract idealism and foreign-policy goals bleated out between 1939 and 1945 by Roosevelt, Churchill, and many others — the Four Freedoms, the UN Charter, everything Eleanor Roosevelt said, etc.  But the war was won by speedily applying massive amounts of indiscriminate military violence with the clear intention of producing however many enemy dead were necessary to end the war. It was too bad for those guys who drove Hitler’s trains, produced his electricity, built his airfields, and dug his coal just to “make a living”, but Allied military forces killed them in droves because their deaths sapped German power, material endurance, and so shortened the war. The Japanese civilians just trying to “make a living” by laboring to support their Emperor’s barbarity were treated no differently; they died in huge numbers.

By not doing what your predecessors did, General Dunford — and by being arrogantly proud of not doing it — you and your senior general-officer colleagues have turned what should have been a two-or-three year war into a 20-year conflict which has strengthened the enemy and has no end in sight, In doing so, Sir, you have wasted the lives and limbs of thousands of the Marines and soldiers under your command. Well done, Sir.

The other of the two examples noted above came from U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. This genius told reporters that the United States was “bound by the laws of armed conflict,” when asked why carpet bombing would not be effective against IS. MacFarland then added the required, politically correct mantra: “We’re the United States of America. We have a set of guiding principles. Indiscriminate bombing, where we don’t care if we’re killing innocents or combatants, is just inconsistent with our values. Right now we have the moral high ground, and I think that’s where we need to stay.” (4) No reporter, of course, had the wit to ask MacFarland if his words meant that Russia and China could be confident the United States would not respond in kind to a nuclear attack by either on America. If I recall correctly, nuclear arms surely will cause a quite considerable level of indiscriminate killing.

Again, MacFarland, like Dunford, is saying that we Americans and Westerners are so much better people than you Islamists — and implicitly far better people than Roosevelt, Churchill, George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, and the above-noted dead and wounded Marines — that we cannot fight you as we fought our other enemies until 1945.

We would rather commit national suicide, the two generals are saying, by slavishly and foolishly obeying the “laws of armed conflict” and our “guiding principles” and so fight an endless, unnecessary, and irrelevant-to-America religious war that eventually will cost Americans all they have built over the centuries in North America rather annihilate those who would kill us. (NB: The “guiding principles” the generals refer to are:  (a) relentless, war-causing interventionism (see, the Islamic world); (b) unnecessary, always lost wars (see Iraq, Libya, and now Syria); (c) arrogant crusading for imposing democracy/feminism on foreigners (see Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc.); and (d) reinstalling and/or protecting tyranny in the Muslim world (see Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Algeria, etc. )

As far as MacFarland’s lunatic remark about holding the “moral high ground”, a very good friend of mine, and a former Special Forces’ medic, once said the only high ground worth holding was the high ground that afforded you the best field of fire for killing the enemy. He was and is right.

What all this adds up to is that America today is plagued by a thoroughly incompetent and republic-killing assortment of politicians and generals who love to beat the war drum and then lose the usually unnecessary war they drum up. Because it seems we are unlikely, in the near term, to find a new, more common-sense batch of either, I would urge Americans to find a man who promises to follow the guidance of the greatest of their countrymen — George Washington — by recreating and then adhering to an America-First foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention, while simultaneously rebuilding the U.S. military and appointing general officers who will utterly and speedily destroy any enemy that dares attack us or threatens our vital national interests. As General Washington knew and said, neutrality, non-intervention, dominant military strength, and the cultivation of an international belief that the latter would be used mercilessly if needed for national survival are the best possible guards against having to wage any war but one for national survival.

As I was drafting this piece, the news came out that Senator Rand Paul had withdrawn from the field of Republican presidential candidates. Unsurprisingly, the always-wrong Washington Post entitled its story about Senator Paul’s withdrawal, “The rise of the Islamic State doomed Rand Paul’s presidential chances”.(4)

Let me say that I greatly respect and am a partisan of Senator Paul, but I believe that what doomed his candidacy was not the rise of the Islamic State. Rather, Senator Paul’s chances were crippled when he decided to downplay an irrefutable lesson he learned at his sainted Dad’s knee, as well as from his own strong commonsense; namely, he did not publicly hammer home, with brutal clarity, the fact that the bipartisan, war-causing, democracy/feminism-mongering, and tyranny-supporting interventionism of both U.S. political parties has been and is the central motivating force behind the rise and durability of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, as well as the Muslim world’s growing antipathy toward the United States.

Senator Paul’s reluctance to deliver this admittedly hard-to-hear message seemed — to me at least — to limit his campaign’s dynamism and appeal, which is, I think, both a tragedy for America and an almost sure guarantee that more U.S. Marines and soldiers soon will plowed under and maimed by more unnecessary military interventionism abroad.

 

___________

–1.) http://www.stripes.com/news/us-adjusting-tactics-to-intensify-air-war-against-islamic-state-1.381470

–2.) http://www.usmarinesbirthplace.com/US-Marine-Corps-Casualties.html

–3.) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ted-cruz-carpetbombing-us-general-reacts-218528#ixzz3z0zGmYDV

–4.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/03/how-the-rise-of-isis-killed-rand-pauls-presidential-chances/

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Addendum: National Review adds luster to Trump’s candidacy

I believe this is the first time I have added an addendum to an already published article. But the National Review’s decision to devote an entire issue to attacking Mr. Trump underscores the point I was striving to make in my original article. That point was that the Republican establishment has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism and is fully owned and operated by three groups of people: Interventionists, Neoconservatives, and Israel-Firsters. (NB: These three terms may well be synonyms.)

These three groups are all terrified that, if elected, Trump:

–Will root out the graft, corruption, and waste that they — with the Democratic establishment — have made an acceptable lifestyle for anyone who is in any way involved with the national government. Both establishments are terrified that if Trump is elected they will no longer be “above the law” and will be investigated for their financial dealings, as well as for their criminal negligence in failing to protect and defend the republic.

–Will be a non-interventionist and so will refuse to ask for a declaration of war unless the United States is attacked, or America’s genuine, life-or-death national interests are indisputably at immediate risk. If Trump is elected, they fear, there will be no more foreign-policy goals that are airy and always fatal abstractions; that is, there will be no more dead and maimed Marines and soldiers in foreign wars fought — and always lost — for freedom, democracy, human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, or any other abstract idea that should never have any place in the republic’s foreign policy.

–Will not tolerate the insane bromide that all nations have a “right to exist” as the basis for U.S. foreign policy. Trump, based on what he has said, knows that this idea is a nonsense. Indeed, Trump seems to be running for president because he recognizes the fact that no nation — including the United States — has a right to exist, and that the Republican and Democratic establishments have driven America to the verge of economic collapse, military exhaustion, the tyranny of one-man rule, demographic suicide, bloody civil unrest, and disunion. The National Review and the Republican and Democratic establishments seem not to care about these things, but they are ready to kill the United States so long as they can maintain the mad and ahistorical fiction that all nations have a “right to exist”, a lie which they really apply to only one nation, and then only so they can keep raking in massive financial and media contributions from disloyal U.S.-citizens and their organizations.

–Will begin to give working, blue-collar, law abiding, and tax-paying Americans and their families — those of all races, creeds, educational achievements, and political views — renewed confidence that their opinions, material ambitions, and religious liberty matter most in governing the republic and providing for its survival, and that the age of government by elitist, Ivy League-educated, pro-authoritarian, always wrong “experts” is going to be ended. They also fear that Trump will start to re-teach the citizenry the Founders’ key bequest to Americans, which is that ensuring the survival of so fragile a commodity as liberty at home is unending and full-time work for all Americans, and that unnecessary interventions and wars abroad in the name of that commodity will only yield lost wars, no new republics, U.S. bankruptcy, and less liberty in the United States.

Mr. Trump hopefully is correct that the National Review is a “dying” magazine, but, before it succumbs, he ought to send its editors a thank-you note for publishing their anti-Trump issue, which can do him nothing but good with the mass of Americans who are working — or want to work — and who passionately care about the future well-being of their families, country, and liberty. Trump might also say a prayer that more agents of foreign powers — like the National Review — get off the dime and publish anti-Trump issues. What are you waiting for Commentary, Weekly Standard, Foreign Affairs, New York Times, etc., etc., etc.?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Is there an America-First enemy of interventionism among the presidential candidates?

“All this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will.” Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791-92

Even in the midst of his destabilizing intoxication with the French Revolution’s madness, Thomas Paine still was able to peer into the future and accurately describe the state of the U.S. government and the republic’s political system in 2016. And no truer words could be spoken about contemporary America’s foreign-policy disaster than Paine’s point that the “defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will.”

In his recent State of the Union address, for example, President Obama asserted that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Islamist movement do not pose an existential threat to the United States. Obama would have been 100-percent correct — if he had been speaking when al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996.

The reason that the Islamists are now, without question, an existential threat lies in the war-causing interventionism of the past four presidents and their administrations, as well as their cowardly refusal to win the wars they started. Of the four, Obama stands out for special condemnation, as no single Muslim could have done more to promote the confidence, geographic spread, and numerical growth of the Islamist movement. It is these national government actions that have motivated and nurtured the Islamists, and they will remain and grow further as an existential threat to the United States until the citizenry elects a president who puts America first by calling a halt to unnecessary overseas interventionism, and engages in wars only when America is attacked or narrowly defined U.S. national interests are at clear and indisputable risk.

I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves.

–(a) The United States can break the Islamic State’s back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls in Syria and Iraq, and — and if we wait much longer — probably Libya. After doing this, the U.S. government can withdraw all of  its military assets from the region, announce that U.S. forces are not coming back to save anyone’s bacon, and advise the sixty-plus other countries in Obama’s coalition to align with the Saudi coalition and destroy the remaining Islamists. Because the Saudis and their coalition support most of the non-IS Islamists — and probably some of the IS ones — this scenario will quickly lead to a regional Sunni-Shia war in which our enemies will merrily kill each other until well after the cows come home.

–(b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war. As this savagery evolves, Americans must do all that is necessary to secure the republic’s position in North America — close borders, deport all illegal aliens, temporarily stop all immigration, etc.

Again, this is not a complicated problem: the United States must utterly destroy the Islamist enemy and then leave the region, or the United States must leave the region and end its unnecessary, war-causing, and always ineffective interventionism and let the Islamists take on their main enemies, Muslim tyrants, Israel, and the Shia.

For twenty-five years, however, the U.S. government has done neither. It has waged war in a half-way (half-assed?) manner and lost two wars, an exercise in foreign-and-military futility that has succeeded in enriching an environment in the Islamic world that is intensely anti-U.S. government, yielding enormous growth in the Islamist movement, and convincing many millions of Muslims that the mujahedin can win because their success so far demonstrates Allah’s approval of their efforts.

Given America’s limited options and with time to make a choice running short, the 2016 presidential election is acutely important because it may be the last chance for Americans to make the choice described above before getting sucked into catastrophe in the Middle East. Sadly, only one of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates seems to offer anything other than more of the same war-causing measures. Let’s have a look.

–Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby. She and Obama are responsible for the Libyan invasion, which in a year or so will produce the same kind of problems — and perhaps worse — as those produced by the Hillary-supported, George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. She also seems to be a chronic liar, an influence peddler, and an enemy of U.S. national security.

–Bottom Line: President Hillary Clinton = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, continued open borders, and the potential spectacle of a sitting president and perhaps her husband being convicted and imprisoned for an array of crimes.

–Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley: These two characters provide the 2016 campaign with a reliable and more than ample supply of the putrid-and-nation killing breath of warmed-over 20th century socialism and communism. Perhaps forgetting how those creeds bred authoritarianism (anyone recall National Socialism in Germany?), one-party rule, the mass murder of dissenters, and the destruction of the economies of Eastern Europe, Central and South America, much of Africa, Russia, India, and China, Sanders and O’Malley represent an enormous step backwards in their effort to make today’s America into the Eastern Europe of the 1950s. Neither seems as corrupt or criminally inclined as Mrs. Clinton, but they offer nothing except a Bolshevik-made blueprint that ensures minority rule and America’s demise. Sanders, in particular, can never be permitted to assume the presidency. But on foreign policy they both are establishment Democrats, they want to make the rest of the world democratic, feminist, and secular and that can only be done — despite Sanders’ claim that he prefers diplomacy — with more and more war.

–Bottom Line: President Sanders or President O’Malley = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, a weaker military, more minority rule, deeper debt, more taxes, less liberty, continued open borders, and more presidential diktats.

–Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an “outsider” in this bunch, they are all members — actual or aspiring — of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of  Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bush’s deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the “New World Order”.

–Bottom Line: President Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Kasich, or Bush = More of the same from the Republican establishment; that is, more “America must lead” prattle, more war, more dead Marines and soldiers, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, and continued open borders.

–Rand Paul: This is the best and most specific conservative candidate on a combination of issues, including the debt, the Federal Reserve, the return of constitutional governing, reducing tax rates, right to life, and protecting the 2nd and 4th Amendments. On foreign policy, however, his website’s softly spoken statements suggest complete support for Israel — which means endless war with Islam — and the continuation of U.S. alliances, apparently meaning an array of Sunni tyrannies on the Arab Peninsula and in the Middle Wast and NATO and its expansionism — which means endless war with Islam and possibly unnecessary conflict with Russia. Perhaps most troubling, the website does not seem to have a discussion of the vital importance of reestablishing a U.S. foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention; indeed, I could not find those words on the website .

–Bottom Line: President Paul = More of the same Republican interventionist foreign policy and so more war, debt, taxes, dead Marines and soldiers, and precious little time to work for the return to constitutional government.

–Donald Trump: This candidate has given few details about his views on foreign policy, save that he will be tougher on Mexico and China, will deport all illegal aliens and close the border, and will stop making the kind of free trade agreements that kill U.S. manufacturing and so the ability of lower-income Americans to move into the middle class. He also suggested that if America is forced to go to war to defend itself he will use U.S. military forces to annihilate the enemy. He has given no indication that he would intervene abroad unnecessarily or launch offensive wars, like those in Iraq and Libya. All of this sounds good, but he must speak more clearly and with conviction if he wants voters to believe that he will — unlike his Republican and Democratic competitors — make foreign-policy decisions solely on the basis of what is best for America’s relatively few and never abstract national interests. What is most intriguing and encouraging about Trump is that he is not politically correct, he is admirable in his ready combativeness, he speaks like an American not an effete and clueless Ivy-League theoretician, and he is making enemies of America’s most dangerous internal enemies. On the last point, watch Fox’s Brett Baier and his usually excellent “Special Report” each evening and there you will see George Will and Charles Krauthammer twist every question posed to them in a way that permits them to defame and pour vitriol on Trump. And then listen to one of the Grand Masters of disloyal Israel-First-ism, Bill Kristol, who has long passed the apoplectic stage in his hatred of Trump and his staying power in polls of Republican voters. Finally, look at the large number of former U.S. general officers who have endorsed Jeb Bush. These men and their still serving colleagues have lost every war America has fought since VJ Day in 1945, and not one has shown any qualms about getting their young Marines and soldiers killed or maimed in wars they know their president does not intend to win. Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, America’s worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration.

–Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

On the Congress and Israel: The 4th Amendment does not shield near-treasonous behavior

In almost all cases, those who oppose the national government’s universal surveillance of U.S. citizens are correct. It is unconstitutional because it violates the 4th Amendment, undermines the 1st Amendment, and is only necessary because the national government has put the United States in a lose/lose situation. It will not stop the U.S.-led overseas military, political, and cultural interventions that motivate the Islamists to attack Americans, but it will not use the U.S. military to its fullest potential to destroy the enemy it has motivated to kill Americans. So long as this status quo continues, the civil liberties of Americans will be incrementally abridged and perhaps ultimately eliminated. That is simply the unavoidable result of prolonged and unnecessary wars, and the executive branch’s aggrandizement of power that inevitably accompanies such wars.

There is, however, one focus for surveillance that is absolutely necessary, constitutional, and ought to be demanded by all citizens. That is the surveillance of U.S. elected officials who travel to Israel or any other foreign country to develop plans with foreign leaders to undermine any sitting president of the United States. The 4th Amendment clearly was not meant to assure privacy rights for those who publicly demonstrate a flamboyant and war-worsening disloyalty to the nation.

It must be clear by now that I carry no brief for Obama. But the travel of nearly one hundred members of the Senate and House from both parties to Israel in summer, 2015, to privately collude with Netanyahu, the Israeli government, and other Israeli leaders against Obama’s useless Iran deal must not be accepted as “politics as usual”. Those elected representatives, in my opinion, were publicly engaged in giving what the Constitution describes as “aid and comfort” to the enemy, which Israel clearly is so long as one of its principle goals is to keep the United States involved in its eternal war with Islam, a war in which America has no genuine national-security interest at stake and yet is bleeding the republic to death.

So, in regard to this kind of surveillance, I believe it is an entirely appropriate and constitutional to monitor U.S. senators and congressmen — and their staffers — who travel abroad to privately meet with and seek support from foreign governments for their opposition to a sitting U.S. president and, ultimately, to win political advantage for themselves. Indeed, I would support surveillance against the same representatives and staffers when they privately meet with Netanyahu or any other foreign leader in the United States, if that meeting had not been ordered or approved in advance by the White House and the State Department.

In all cases of such surveillance, the verbatim transcripts of the conversations should be made available for publication on a non-partisan website, perhaps the one belonging to the League of Women Voters or a similar organization. We could start with the transcripts of the conversations of the senior Republican and the senior Democrat who traveled to meet Netanyahu in Israel on the Iran deal and plot with him against their own president and nation.

It is immensely important that all citizens know whatever it is possible to know about their elected representatives’ deliberate and too often successful efforts to secure foreign assistance — and probably foreign funding — to influence political/diplomatic decisions, public opinion, and national elections in the United States. On the face of it, moreover, there seems to be no option but to conclude that this sort of behavior by leading members of both parties and pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC comes pretty close to the Constitution’s definition of treason, as well as displaying an appalling willingness to compromise America’s independence of action for partisan political gain.

If that is not the case, the immediate publication of the above-mentioned transcripts ought to be demanded and welcomed by the senators and congressman who traveled to Israel in 2015.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Why is the American republic fighting to impose tyranny at Ramadi?

“The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies. When a mast falls overboard, you do not try to save a rope here and a spar there in memory of their former utility. You cut away the hamper altogether. It should be the same with policy, but it is not so. We cling to the shred of an old policy after it has been torn to pieces, and to the shadow of the shred after the rag itself has been torn away.”  Lord Salisbury, 1877

 

If or when Ramadi is recaptured from the Islamic State (IS) by the Iraqi regime’s Shia-dominated military forces, which are being supported by U.S. air power, the United States will have scored another telling and self-inflicted defeat, one delivered by its national government’s interventionist foreign policy.

–If Ramadi is taken, most Islamic State forces and ordnance will have been removed from the city. Most of the fighters and weapons belonging to Ramadi’s IS garrison will survive to fight another day. As always, the Islamist insurgents are not going to fight for Ramadi or any other city to the last man and last bullet. They will leave, mend their wounded, bring in reinforcements, and attack in another place where the world can watch the entire Ramadi cycle repeat itself.

–If Ramadi falls, the United States will have facilitated the return of a Sunni city to the U.S.-EU fathered and supported Shia tyranny in Baghdad and its Iranian masters. That regime will pick up in Ramadi where it left off; that is, slaughtering Sunnis in the city and its environs. The reliability of media reporting about Ramadi and its population is uneven, but reading it leaves the impression that Ramadi’s Sunnis dislike and fear IS, but prefer its rule to the return of the murderous Shia regime. (NB: This impression is common when reading about most Sunni areas held by IS.)

–In a strategic sense, the U.S.-manufactured re-Shiafication of Ramadi will provide the Sunni world with more irrefutable proof that the United States has definitely and aggressively taken the Shia side in the evolving regional Shia-Sunni war. The upshot will be (a) more would-be mujahedin joining IS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamist groups from places like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Africa, Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan, India, Egypt, the EU, the U.S., and Canada; (b) another possible reason for IS and al-Qaeda to discuss ending their confrontation, at least until Western intervention is defeated; and (c) a bit of additional glue the Saudis can use in building their so called “Anti-IS Sunni Coalition”, which is actually the strongest signal so far that Riyadh is preparing to fight not IS and al-Qaeda, but the anti-Shia war that IS and its most reliable allies — the Obama, Cameron, Hollande, and Putin administrations — have triggered.

There is no need for the United States to be in the midst of the mess in the Syria-Iraq theater, let alone to be fighting to restore a Shia tyranny. All of the parties in the Ramadi fight have long been defined by the U.S. bipartisan governing elite as America’s enemies, and they are now fighting and murdering each other with an intensifying and lethal sort of gay abandon. All America needs to do is stand clear, not take sides, and control its borders. But the Obama administration — like its Republican predecessor — is as dumb as stone about what is going on in Iraq, Syria, and the Islamic world as a whole. If it was not ignorant, it would not be assisting the Iraqi Shias to retake the Sunni city of Ramadi — which, if accomplished, will not improve U.S. security a jot — and thereby make the United States appear culpable for the bloody retribution the Shia will exact from the city’s Sunni community.

Unnecessary foreign military interventionism historically has been one of the gravedigger’s main tools for burying republics. Obama, G.W. Bush, and the Clintons have all been unable or unwilling to stop digging. Each champions the putrefying “dead carcass” of U.S. military/political/cultural intervention overseas, and, by doing so, they together have put the republic near to death’s door, suffering unending and always losing wars abroad, as well as bankruptcy and increasing national-government authoritarianism at home.

Given Lord Salisbury’s advice, it seems clear that it is long past time for Americans to refuse to “cling to the shred of an old [interventionist] policy after it has been torn to pieces,” and to likewise refuse to support any politician that  advocates the continuation of the “shadow of the shred” of that policy as a panacea for the troubles of the United States in the Islamic world. The only policies that will even begin to solve those problems are neutrality and non-intervention.

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