Trump embraces America First, gives the republic a chance to survive and its foes apoplexy

Trump’s 27 April 2016 speech on foreign policy is not perfect; indeed, parts of it merit strong criticism. But Trump has now said to the American people what no one, save Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, has been willing to say since 1945. That is, the U.S. government exists for only two reasons: (a) to pursue and defend the republic’s genuine national security interests and to wage war only as a last resort, and then slay without mercy those who dared attack them, and (b) to protect and advance the well-being, jobs, liberties, unity, and prosperity of American citizens. In short, Trump seems to believe — as did the Founders — that if the U.S. national government does not make the furtherance of America’s interests its first and absolute priority, it has, to paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, no possible reason to exist, and its citizens, in turn, have every possible justification, and the unavoidable moral and legal responsibility to themselves and their posterity, to ruthlessly destroy it and replace it with one that can be relied on to always act only on their behalf and in their interests.

Now, we can all sit back and calmly listen to the howling condescension, rabid charges of racism and xenophobia, and loud blubbering about “abandoning America’s democratic values” that will be directed at Trump by the Neoconservatives, the internationalists, the media, the Israel Firsters, the Saudi and other Arab tyrants, the effete and freeloading Europeans, the theory-palsied Ivy Leaguers, the felons and felons-to-be, like Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, and the endless procession of thieves and murderers who masquerade as African and other Third World presidents and prime ministers.

As Trump faces the storm being brewed by these dregs of America and the world, I hope he feels no obligation to respond to the violent and denigrating attacks of his critics. The main obligation Trump now has is the quite onerous one he voluntarily assumed. That is, to never stop talking to his fellow citizens about his determination to prove that the absolute responsibility of their national government is to their well-being and the republic’s survival, peace, and prosperity, and that the welfare, political systems, religions, wars, civil rights, sexual inclinations, attitudes toward women, defense, and survival of foreign states and peoples are none of America’s concern and will never elicit its intervention.

Trump obliquely quoted John Quincy Adams in his speech, but should have quoted him directly and at bit of length. On 4 July 1821, Adams said, in the same speech that Trump drew from, that those who challenge or damn the idea of what is now known as “America First” should always remember that

America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. … Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

This is the true meaning of “America First”, and it seems to be the meaning with which Mr. Trump intends to imbue the content of his foreign policy. I, for one, am eager for him succeed in this republic-preserving task. He will do so, however, only if he reeducates Americans about what and why the Founders intended the substance of U.S. foreign policy to be, and how well that policy of non-interventionism and neutrality served American interests for nearly a century and a half.

Mr. Trump, then, has a splendid if daunting opportunity to kindle the just barely burning flame of non-intervention and neutrality into a steady fire that will liberate America from its status as the world’s doormat; Americans from paying for the wars of others with their taxes and children’s lives; and the current citizenry and its posterity from the unnecessary interventionist wars that have made the office of the U.S. president into the home of spendthrift and civil liberty-negating tyrants.

Finally, God bless you, Mr. Buchanan and Dr. Paul, for making sure Mr. Trump had this opportunity, and God rest you, Colonel Lindbergh, for manfully opposing, at devastating personal cost, the same kinds of blackguard interventionists who are now attacking Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy stance.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Jewish-American Neocon demands collective punishment for Trump’s supporters

Well, if collective punishment for Palestinians, and Muslims generally, is acceptable, why not for pro-Trump Americans?

America’s flagship voice of disloyalty, Israel-First, and Neoconservatism — Commentary Magazine — has unleashed one of its key staff Gauleiters, a man named Herr Garbriel Schoenfeld, to demand that all Americans supporting Donald Trump be held “accountable” for disagreeing with their Israel-First superiors.

Herr Schoenfeld characterizes Trump as “this creature from the cesspool” and Trump’s voters as losers who are “beleaguered economically” and have been left behind by “globalization” and “de-industrialization”. (NB: The only U.S. human cesspools I know are the three found in meetings of the writers, editors, publishers, and owners of Commentary, Weekly Standard, and the post-W.F. Buckley National Review. I strongly suspect Trump is not invited to those events, and so he could not have come from America’s only known human cesspools. Mr. Schoenfeld, of course, swims in that stinking pool among his fellow champions of the republic’s demise.)

This is just the start of Schoenfeld’s barely disguised wish — apparently shared by the editors, publishers, and owners at the New York Daily News, which printed his essay — to visit some kind of a holocaust on Americans holding views not approved by Israel-First. The following is from the Gauleiter’s diktat. It calls for the collective punishment of pro-Trump, legal , and loyal U.S. citizens — perhaps bulldozing their homes or smothering them with pillows, a la another nation’s security service? – who refuse to repent and intend to vote other than as demanded by Israel First.

“Yet however much Trump voters have grievances, this does not absolve any one of them of personal responsibility for their political choice. We are not only speaking here of those who engage in violence or shout vicious chants at Trump rallies, or the innumerable others who spew anti-Semitic and racist bile across the Internet.

All Trump voters can and should be held to account for embracing a candidate whose character is so dubious, and whose plans for the country — among them, singling out a religious group for a ban on an entry to the United States — amount to an assault on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Followers of notorious dictators of the past also no doubt had legitimate grievances, yet this hardly spares them from the condemnation history has rightly heaped on them.

It is particularly rich to attack critics of Trump supporters as “condescending intellectual snots” — [Dennis] Saffran’s words — when Trump himself flagrantly treats his acolytes with condescension and contempt. He has exulted in their low attainments, declaring after his victory in one primary that “I love the poorly educated.” Remarking on his disciples’ mindless loyalty, he has said that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Ave. and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

As a practical matter, Republican political candidates may need to court Trump voters. As a moral matter, the rest of us should not close our eyes to the fact that those who pine for a strongman, and who would have us all follow Trump into the abyss, are in the best case willfully ignorant, and in the worst case knowingly endorsing a dangerous demagogue.”

If you read this Goebbels-esque quote again slowly, you may hear a chorus quietly singing behind the Gauleiter as he writes the words and feels the pain caused by those who disagree with his genius, the whole story of which he surely must be jotting down in a diary likely to be entitled “My Struggle”. I could not tell if the words were being sung in German, English, or Hebrew, but the melodies seem to sound very much like “Die Wacht am Rhine” and “Das Panzerlied”. Which tune, do you suppose, would go better with the physical punishment Schoenfeld apparently wants inflicted on all “Trump voters [who] can and should be held to account”? (2) One wonders what Schoenfeld knows about the activities of his Neocon and Israel-First friends — perhaps on the Internet or at rallies? – that are meant to identify Trump voters. Whatever they are up to, Schoenfeld writes with certainty that the ballots of pro-Trump voters will not be secret, so they “can” be identified and “held to account“.

What the Gauleiter is suffering so much angst over is not, of course, Mr. Trump, but rather his and his kind’s growing awareness that Trump appeals to many Americans of all races who work for a living, raise families, pay for their kids’ schooling, are good, community-minded citizens, and who deeply resent that they are the half of Americans who pay income tax to support the idleness of the other half of their eternally freeloading fellow citizens. Herr Schoenfeld and his disloyal associates are even more alarmed to be learning that these same Americans hate having their exorbitant taxes, and often their soldier-children’s lives, given to worthless-to-America foreign entities — which also are often America’s enemies — including Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Arab tyrannies, any number of the thieving tyrants who govern in Africa, and the galaxy of tax-eating/wasting international organizations.

People like Schoenfeld, the Neocons, most senior Democrats and Republicans, and the Israel-Firsters have no patience with the temerity of those they snidely look down on as left-behind and under-educated Americans. How dare this ignorant American rabble, think Schoenfeld and his stern gang of fellow haters, challenge their au courant and Ivy League-educated betters?

Well, whether or not Schoenfeld and his gang like what they are hearing, the American citizens they hate are demanding that their voices and votes be heard and counted, and that their taxes be used not to support domestic slackers, illegal aliens, and war-causing foreigners, but to rebuild the republic’s infrastructure, feed the 25-percent of American kids who are hungry, find shelter for the homeless, control borders and end illegal immigration, and begin reducing the ever-growing national debt, much of which is the product of the bipartisan U.S. governing elite forever giving away their tax payments — and with them their kids’ future economic welfare and the nation’s security  — to slackers at home and utterly expendable nations and organizations abroad.

Gauleiter Schoenfeld, et al. ought to listen intently to what Mr. Trump and his supporters are saying. And they should keep in mind that however much they dislike what they now hear, they will like much less what they will hear if they, the rest of the arrogant and corrupt governing elite, and the media block Mr. Trump from getting the nomination by procedural tricks, delegate stealing, the denial of citizen voting, election-night misinformation, media lies, or simple bribes. I would suggest that if Mr. Trump is defeated in that manner, the angry words Herr Schoenfeld and his fellow Brownshirts will hear are nearly certain to be accompanied by the lilting, but subtly ominous strains of “The Chambering of Rounds Concerto in F.U. Major”.

 

 

Endnotes:

–1.) New York Daily News, 9 April 2016

–2.) My bolding and italics.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

General Petreaus, too, is willing to kill the republic with endless, unnecessary war

American should surely keep praising U.S. Marines and soldiers for defending the republic, even if they are risking their lives in unnecessary wars their presidents never intend to win. It is, however, long past time to begin damning — and perhaps god-damning — almost every general officer who wears a uniform or pontificates as a retired military expert in the media. All media outlets have these retirees and they are all treated with effusive praise, as if they were honest, able, and winning generals, like America’s great 18th and 19th century generals Washington, Greene, Jackson, Scott, Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Lee, Longstreet, and Johnston. All of these men obeyed civilian leaders who ordered them to win wars, and they fought to win and did whatever it took to do so. Most, too, had the honor and humanity to be either fair-minded and non-vindictive winners or gentlemanly and reconciliation-seeking losers.

In the 20th century, too — until 1945 — U.S. generals and admirals were ordered to secure victory over America’s enemy and did so no matter what price in blood and material destruction had to be inflicted on the enemy. For performing their duty, men like MacArthur, Eisenhower, Nimitz, Patton, Bradley, Marshall, and a small number of  less well known but peerless Marine generals fully deserve the praise that has been given them by Americans.

The foregoing men merited — and still merit– genuine praise and respect from the citizenry for winning wars or doing their best to win. Americans, until 1945, actually knew there was a vast and plainly crucial difference between winning and losing, and they abhorred losing and losers.

Today, however, most U.S. general officers are complete strangers to victory, and so deserve exactly the kind of pro-forma, vomit-inducing adulation that is mindlessly mouthed by citizens, the media, and politicians in both parties. Why praise generals — like General Petraeus, for example — who silently do the bidding of cowardly presidents who do not intend to win the wars they start? These are generals who lead young men and women to their deaths or maiming knowing their lives are to be wasted in unconstitutional wars, started, therefore, by tyrants, and which are irrelevant to genuine U.S. national interests. The politicians know that the generals value their perks — while in service and afterwards — more than anything else, and can be counted on to further betray their troops by saying lofty and patriotic words, and perhaps shed a tear, over the coffins of the dead. Their performance is meant to assure the media and grieving families that the lives of the dead were well spent and, by doing so, delay a bit longer the arrival of that happy day when the U.S. political elite will be made to pay a hopefully merciless and lethal piper for their unnecessary and illegal interventionist wars.

As for General Petraeus, he is now, after a period of exile, petitioning to rejoin the “death to the republic” crowd of elite, U.S.-citizen war lovers. His petition is found in a piece he wrote for the Washington Post of 15 April 2016, apparently to loudly broadcast that he can be relied on to endorse war-causing interventionism as the first and only U.S. foreign-policy option. In his essay, Petraeus urges all Americans to think about the U.S. war with Islam as one that the republic and its citizens are morally and patriotically obliged to fund and fight forever. The General regards himself as a man of “big ideas”, and in the essay lays out the following five for Americans to live by until they and their republic expire from an endless interventionist war against an Islamist enemy that is motivated to attack Americans by the U.S. government’s long record  of relentless and war-causing intervention in the Muslim world.

–Big Idea, No. 1: “Ungoverned spaces … stretching from West Africa through the Middle East and into Central Asia” are exploited by Islamists for sanctuary, establishing territorial control, and launching attacks.

–Comment: No shit, Sherlock. And pray tell us, maestro, shall we invade, occupy, nation-build, annex, or offer statehood in all of those places?

–Big Idea, No. 2: Islamist fighters will attack in regions far from where they live and/or based.

–Comment: See comment for Big Idea No. 1.

–Big Idea, No. 3: If the United States does not lead the war on the mujahedin no one else will.

–Comment: So what. Our republic is located in North America. It has at least three thousand miles of oceanic buffer on its east and west coasts. The Islamists have no navy and no air power. If the law was obeyed and our borders controlled, the only domestic threat the Islamists could pose to America would be all but eliminated. In addition, there are 27 supine, child-like, and American taxpayer-pampered European nations who are NATO members. If they do not want to pony up the men, money, and blood needed to defend themselves and the shreds and tatters of a civilization they have nearly destroyed, it is their decision. Let them grow up and make a decision. They can fight and defeat their enemies, or they can keep their money and multiculturalism and get sized-up for thobes, burqas, and sandals. The decision is up to them, and if they fight, so is the fight. Americans need do nothing but observe.

–Big Idea, No. 4: (a) “Precision [air] strikes and special operations raids” will not win the war with Islam. (b) Others nations — that is, apparently, Sunni Arab States and NATO members — must provide the necessary conventional ground forces, but they will need “considerable help from the U.S.-led coalition” — which means of course the money and soldier-children of U.S. taxpayers.

–Comment: For (a) see the comments above for Big Ideas, No. 1 and No. 2. For the absolutely certain results of (b) readers need only recall the enormous successes of the two U.S.-led and similarly constituted interventionist coalitions that General Petraeus commanded all the way to disaster, defeat, and deeper debt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

–Big Idea, No. 5: Americans will have to support the war for “sustained periods”; the war will be an “ultramarathon”; and the war will require the participation of the U.S. military and “other (U.S.G.) departments and agencies”. (NB: Presumably to assist U.S. interventionist, regime-changing, and nation-building operations.)

–Comment: This could be stated more clearly. General Petraeus might have said: “We in the governing and interventionist elite are smarter than all other Americans. And though our 20-year war on Islam so far has been an utter failure, we will govern in a manner that forces the citizenry to adhere to our failed 20-year-old strategy and, as well, forces it to spend and bleed profusely for however long it takes for the mujahedin to win. Remember, war, wonderful, endless, always losing war, is the only option, so obey your betters, pay your taxes, and shut up.”

–The General’s summation for Big Ideas No.’s 1-5: “The Long War is going to be an ultra-marathon, and it is time we recognized that. But we and our partners have the ability to respond in a thoughtful, prudent manner, informed by the big ideas that I have described. Nothing less will prove adequate.”

–Comment: Did you get this stale, republic-killing statement from the works of (a) George W. Bush; (b) Hillary Clinton; (c) Barack Obama; (d) Senators Graham and McCain; (e) Dick Cheney; or (f) one of the tens of thousands of other Neocons and Israel Firsters for whom it is a war-loving, Israel-protecting mantra? Personally, I tend to think it came from P.T. Barnum, as it does nothing more than describe each of the General’s fellow U.S. citizens as one of the suckers who Barnum said is born every minute.

Overall, General, your essay is not much to write home about; it might not even pass muster as a high-school thesis. Indeed, it is staggering to recognize that, with all your experience in this escalating religious war, you actually have said nothing in the essay that has not been chanted by interventionists and Neocons since bin Laden declared war in 1996. Apparently you have not noticed that the big ideas you offer are old and discredited ones. All have been tried, none have worked. As a result, the U.S. military is exhausted and Obama-shrunk, and the enemy is more potent, skilled, and dispersed than ever.

Nor have you realized that while your ideas were being applied by the last three presidents, they have — because they keep America intervening in the Muslim world to protect Israel and Arab tyrannies — helped the Islamist forces grow from a few hundreds to many tens of thousands, and the latter are now governing territory and populations and not hiding in caves. Nonetheless, it just may be that your essay displays enough forelock-tugging obsequiousness to the interventionist elite to rehabilitate you and increase your earning potential among that sorry, amoral, arrogant, and republic-killing bunch. If they welcome you back, it would be quite an achievement, and it will only have cost you whatever remains of your reputation for honesty and integrity.

But if your petition does not pan out, General, consider going to the nearest grammar school, finding a blackboard, and writing what ought to be America’s 2nd Golden Rule four or five hundred times — “Only neutrality and non-intervention, and a strong military to facilitate them, can preserve the republic and its citizens’ liberties.” That statement is not original, but it would at long last put you in the company of an elite with which it is worth associating. You may have heard of it, General. That elite is usually termed the Founding Fathers.

 

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

As did the Founders, Trump urges a foreign policy of abstention not intervention

Well, the usual gang of foreign policy geniuses is now on hand and hysterically warning of approaching doom. Max Boot, Andrea Mitchell, General Michael Hayden, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Steve Clemons, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lindsey Graham, John Podhoretz, Hillary Clinton, Christiane Amanpour, every Israel-First pundit (NB: Which is pretty much all of them), and dozens of other prominent and all-knowing figures have damned Donald Trump’s foreign policy ideas as a plan to destroy America by putting America’s interests first.

One’s initial reaction to such a unity of views among America’s lordly bipartisan class of foreign policy wise persons has to be that Mr. Trump is, joyously and loudly, that rarest of rarities in post-Reagan America, namely, a man who, with Dr. Paul and Senator Paul, cares about – yes, you guessed it – America first, last, and always.

Nothing else could be so upsetting to these pointy headed citizens of the world, nor more dangerous to their ability to pontificate worthless foreign-policy advice to a citizenry they consider an unintelligent rabble, while raking in millions of dollars by offering always predictable and always wrong advice to the national government. Indeed, the last time Americans saw such unity among these foreign policy wizards was in 2011, when they unanimously guaranteed that the Arab Spring would produce enduring democracy in the Arab world, as well as the quick end of al-Qaeda, other Islamist insurgent organizations, and Islamism generally.

Think, for a moment, about the disasters these arrogant mandarins of a nuanced, complex, and too-sophisticated-for-voters interventionist foreign policy have brought America in the last thirty years.

–Their advice has yielded one-man government in the United States, the repeated initiation of unnecessary wars, the losing of all necessary and unnecessary wars, and the willful shredding of the U.S. Constitution.

–Their sage advice has gotten thousands of U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed for nothing; kept the United States mired in treaties and “arrangements” that commit American kids to fight and die for such eminently expendable places and organizations as Latvia, Thailand, Israel, Iraq, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, Albania, Turkey, the UN, NATO, and dozens of others; and ensured that Americans will pay dearly for the pleasure of having to defend the interests of those irrelevant places and organizations, even when not a single genuine U.S. interest is at stake.

–In free trade deals, their economic insights have been – with free trade’s lethal companions, foreign aid and unregulated immigration — the main source of the national government-caused income disparity in America; their free-trade fanaticism has cost working Americans many billions of dollars and millions of blue-collar jobs; they have destroyed the middle class and the manufacturing-based employment road that leads to the middle class; they have championed the building of roads, damns, irrigation systems, hydro-electric facilities, hospitals, airports, nation-wide telecommunications systems, and internet networks for foreigners while letting America’s infrastructure rot; and they have, with utterly cruel irony, urged the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars to help secure the borders of foreign nations — Turkey and Tunisia most recently — while the U.S. border is wide open to recurring waves of the earth’s scum.

Imagine, then, the self-righteous gall of the above-noted group of always wrong foreign policy gurus to claim that Mr. Trump and the people who agree with him are a grave threat to U.S. survival. Why? Because they hold the always pertinent and always correct Lindberghian idea that America must come first, and, if it does not, the clearly incompetent and disloyal bipartisan governing elite and their advisers, men and women who aspire to world citizens (Soros-ians?) not Americans, must be sacked or in some other manner dispatched with haste to oblivion.

If you read the transcripts of Trump’s interviews with the New York Times and the Washington Post it seems clear that those who asked Trump questions could not grasp the fact that absolutely nothing is more important in a president than having a person who never, ever deviates from an America First foreign policy. America’s security, prosperity, and survival must be the national government’s first priority and nothing else – especially the interests of expendable foreign nations – should even come close to that priority.

The newspapers’ questioners of Trump seemed to think that free trade, NATO, stability in the Middle East, open borders, environmentalism, Israel, spreading democracy, and military and humanitarian interventions abroad are the carved-in-stone tenets of a new secular religion that is designed to replace the Christian faith that they, their employers, and the Democratic Party yearn to destroy. Trump could have been speaking with Churchillian eloquence – which he was not – and the interviewers would have remained where they were throughout the interviews, without a single contact point with either reality or the fairly uncomplicated requirements of an effective U.S. foreign policy.

In his foreign-policy interviews and other statements – even the nauseating, pro-forma boiler plate he fed to a huge crowd of disloyal, Trump-hating, and demanding-to-be-pandered-to AIPAC’ers — Trump, as is his wont, came back to first principles, namely:

–U.S. foreign policy must do only three things: (a) ensure the nation’s survival; (b) protect the Constitution and thereby liberty at home; and (c) take every possible opportunity to exploit the advantages provided by North America’s geographical remoteness and natural-resource wealth.

–America fights wars only to defend its own relatively few genuine national interests or to destroy imminent threats to the republic. It must never be in the business of fighting wars for nations, peoples, or groups that are irrelevant, trouble-making, and therefore dangerous to the protection or pursuit of genuine U.S. interests.

–There are very few reasons for America to go to war. If America must go to war, it goes to war to destroy its enemy as quickly and utterly as possible. The sole mercy in war is the speedy and catastrophic defeat of the enemy, his supporters and sympathizers, and his infrastructure.

–U.S. foreign policy and wars must never be based on abstract ideas, such as freedom, human rights, democracy and women’s rights. Wars fought for abstract ideas are the province of those who are the infamous forerunners of today’s Neoconservatives and Democrats, Robespierre, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

–U.S. foreign policy can only be successful if it is based on such tangible things as peace, equitable trading arrangements, freedom of the seas, and access to natural resources. The ability to successfully pursue these interests is dependent on ample financial resources and little debt; overwhelming and flexible military power — especially naval power – to defend the republic’s neutrality; consistent and manly national leadership built on the principle of America First; and the maximum possible degree of domestic social cohesion, effective internal security, and affection for the national government.  (NB: Trump, in the recent interviews, clearly recognizes that at this time U.S. foreign policy cannot depend on any of these indispensable resources. His interviewers just as clearly did not understand their central relevance to an effective foreign policy.)

There are things in Trump’s foreign policy statements that are objectionable. The idea, for example, that the United States will keep bases overseas in NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere if the host governments pay the costs. This, of course, does nothing more than keep the United States locked into participating in wars that others start or that are irrelevant to U.S. interests. Likewise, while the idea of withdrawing from NATO and letting the other alliance members do with it as they please is the correct stance for the United States, Trump’s undefined plan to replace NATO with “something new” is surely a path back to a “something” that will recommit America to automatic war for another country’s interests and reestablish American taxpayers and their children as those who will, respectively, pay and die endlessly to defend Europeans who find it too troublesome and expensive to defend themselves.

But Trump, in his foreign policy planning, is catching on to a basic and unchanging  truth, which is that the most effective, least expensive, and most liberty-at-home conserving U.S. foreign policy is one that emphasizes international abstention far more often than overseas intervention. The Founders knew this, as did America’s only world-class diplomats – Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and George F. Kennan – and its finest aviator, Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh.

Trump also seems to know this truth, and if can he publicly articulate his position with greater clarity, precision, and frequency he will draw the clearest possible distinction between himself and the other presidential candidates, namely, Ted Cruz, that newly Bushified, war-loving lapdog of the corrupt Republican elite, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton — three people desperate to find wars for a bankrupt, militarily exhausted America to fight — and Senator Sanders, who forgets to tell the mobs of child-like millennials before which he preens that socialism always leads to economic disaster, domestic oppression, and war — foreign, civil, or both.

For once, then, foreign policy seems set to play a key role in a U.S. presidential election. Trump already has convinced much of the electorate – the part not seeking free stuff or to live off others’ labor and taxes — that he can undo Obama’s economic disaster. He also has a chance to speak to and win over voters to his positions on foreign policy, positions that would serve their economic and security interests, protect their liberties, and halt the infernal burden of having their taxes used to pay, not for deficit reduction or America’s many dire domestic needs, but to protect other peoples’ interests, fight other peoples’ wars, and line the pockets of corrupt Third World elites. Common sense – a synonym for America First — has a chance to win in this fall’s election, and, at the moment, Trump has cornered the market on common sense, hands down.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

After Brussels, Westerners face two deadly enemies — the Islamists and their governments

For twenty years now I have been arguing the obvious: namely, that as early as 1997, the Islamist problem was too big and too lethal for any U.S. intelligence service or law-enforcement agency to defeat. At that time, I suggested to my superiors at CIA that we either get permission to kill Osama bin Laden immediately — and thereby probably shatter or at least drastically weaken a still-developing al-Qaeda — or inform the president that he was facing a quickly growing Islamist enemy that would soon not only would require conventional forces to eradicate, but could not be defeated by any other force or combination of forces. I also said that to believe that the Islamist movement was either limited in its capacity to grow in numbers and spread geographically or was unrelated to the faith of Islam could not be substantiated by fact or logic, and that to tell the American people that was so would be a knowing, and its own right, a lethal lie. This, I hasten to add, took no brilliance to see. It was clear as day in 1997; it is — I think — just as clear today.

Let me say here very directly that whatever the Belgian police and intelligence services are doing in the aftermath of the attacks in Brussels, and whatever assistance is being rendered to them by the United States and their EU partners, will not have the slightest impact whatsoever on the security of Belgium, the EU, the United States, Canada — or farther afield — Australia or New Zealand. Now, the Belgian authorities may well apprehend, indict, try, and convict each and every one of the still living mujahedin who were involved in the Brussels operation. And good for them if they do. But it will do nothing to lessen the Islamists’ military capabilities, destroy their abundant, migrant-expanded networks in the West, or significantly attrit their manpower. Although Western governments have acted — and spoken — for the past twenty years as if killing or capturing the Islamists one at a time was emblematic of pushing the mujahedin ever closer to defeat, it never did and never will make any strategic difference. As I have said many times before, trying to destroy the Islamist movement by killing or incarcerating its members one by one — whether in 1997 or 2016 — would be the same as if the Americans, British, and Soviets had tried to annihilate the Hitler’s Wehrmacht and SS and Hirohito’s Imperial Army and Navy by killing one of their personnel at a time. Only a madman — or a deliberate, dastardly lair — would tell the public that it could.

What the aftermath of the Brussels attack requires is popular recognition that the Belgian and Western intelligence and police services — no matter how successful they are — will have not the slightest impact on the strategic reality that the West, is now, and for at least a decade past, being beaten to death by the Islamists. They have defeated our armies in two wars, they have spread worldwide, they have — despite the lying if condescendingly soothing words of Obama, Biden, McCain, Cameron, Hollande, Clinton,  Cruz, the treason that calls itself Neo-Conservative, etc. — very successfully changed the way we live, whether in regard to worrying about where children go for social events, where vacations should be taken,  or the all too obvious reality that the civil liberties of Westerners are being incrementally abrogated by their rulers in the name of security; that is, by elected men and women who know that the West is bleeding to death at the hands of Islamist fighters and, even more, by their own voluntary pacts with the six horses of the West’s coming apocalypse: diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness, interventionism, irreligion, and open borders.

Since Brussels, Americans and Europeans have been buffeted by the media’s usual race to distract their audiences from the death sentence their leaders have signed for them. Reporters have been doing their usual breathless pieces on the tracking and capturing of the mujahedin involved in the attack, as if successful cops-and-robbers procedures have even the remotest chance of winning the West’s war with Islam. Expert guests have appeared declaring that almost all Muslims are peaceful followers of the religion of peace, and adding that anyone who questions this increasingly questionable position is a racist, a xenophobe, or an ignoramus. Assorted retired generals and admirals have crawled out of their corporate boardrooms and smugly asserted that if only we would deliver more airstrikes, arm more Kurds, train more of the famous moderate Islamist insurgents, or deploy more Special Forces the war would be won lickety split. And, as always, there has been the usual crowd of greedy academics who arrogantly guaranteed that, with their own great brains and a few hundred million dollars in taxpayer money, they would deradicalize the entire Muslim world and instruct them on how to interpret the Koran. If this sounds familiar, it is because the media have presented the same package of rank nonsense after nearly very post-9/11 Islamist attack.

Accompanying this parade of quackery was yet another iteration of the “Princess Diana Death Festival”, which — in the case of Islamist victories — is a slobberingly repulsive exercise of “showing” that you care when you really will never do anything to tell the truth or support a leader who tries to win the war. The steps in meeting this festival’s requirements include: reporters, experts, politicians, and generals thoroughly salting their statements with the terms “carnage”, “horrendous”, “cowardly attack”, “shocking tragedy”, and that all-time favorite “horrific”; well-scripted politicians calling for “more intelligence sharing”, a “cooperative anti-radicalism effort by the International Community”, and asserting that “this is not a war” and “most Muslims support the West”; candlelight vigils by the seemingly endless number of selfie-taking, drug-addled, and clearly brain-dead millennials; and the construction of soon-to-be garbage piles consisting of candles, flowers, hand-written messages, photographs, and a few people taking shifts to stand or kneel around this refuse and appear to be grieving mightily for people they did not know and only care about because their corpses allow for this mawkishly inane, media-covered ritual.

All of the foregoing is very civilized, moderate, and nauseating, and none if it is worth a horse’s ass. The Islamists started this war in 1996 and on Labor Day this year we will have just begun its third decade. Their motivation to start the war lay in three factors: (a) oppressive rule by Arab tyrants supported, protected, and kept in power by the United States and Europe; (b) repeated, U.S.-led Western military and economic interventions in the Muslim word; and (c) U.S., European, and — implicitly –Arab tyrant support, protection, and coddling of Israel. Today, the Islamists continue to be motivated by the same factors, as well as by the additional U.S.-EU political/social interventionism in the form of democracy mongering and attempts at feminization in the Muslim world that have flourished, deepened, and spread the war under Obama and Hillary Clinton. As a result of the West’s daft and self-defeating interventionist consistency, the Islamists continue to be motivated by the same factors and have continued expanding and winning the war they started. And with a touch of splendid tit-for-tat irony, they are seeing how the U.S. and the EU like military intervention, trying out their own hand at it in places like London, Madrid, Paris, Fort Hood, Washington, DC, San Bernardino, New York, and, now, Brussels.

Obviously, nothing the West has done against the Islamists has done more than deal them a few tactical defeats and provide us with a body count. Nothing currently being discussed by Western governments in public seems to hold a chance for any greater success, although they certainly will drive the West deeper into debt, further shred the social cohesion of its societies, kill many more of its civilians and soldier-children, and inevitably further constrict civil liberties and open the door wider to more tyrannical government.

The West’s lethal Islamist problem has been wrought by two factors. The first is the war the Islamist started and are waging and winning against the United States and Europe. The second is the multiple generations of clearly ill-educated theorists who have ruled the United States and Europe. These men and women have emasculated their societies, hollowed out their militaries by cutting funding, never pursuing victory, and making them a testing ground for institutionalizing sexual deviancy, and showing a vast preference for building authoritarian and so liberty-killing central governments rather than either halting their war-causing interventionism or killing the millions of Islamists and their supporters who need to be killed if they continue intervening.

For American and European citizens, then, it is increasingly difficult to identify the greater enemy, the Islamists who kill them or the self-centered, arrogant elite that rules them and allows the Islamists to kill them. How this predicament will resolve itself is hard to tell. For the most part — I have read — Europe’s citizens are unarmed and so it seems they will have to watch their societies, traditions, and history be consumed by a combination of the urban guerrilla war the Islamists have already started and the feckless policies of their unmanly governments which both fuel that war and lack the ruthlessness to win it. They will be unable to defend themselves by killing either enemy. In America, however, the 2nd Amendment — and the vastly better armed citizenry it has allowed to grow in response to Obama’s tyranny — still ensures that the citizenry can, if they so choose, defend themselves against the Islamists, the national government, or perhaps both.

 

 

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments