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

General Hayden on why the Constitution is optional and America always loses wars

General Michael Hayden is a man I respect and admire, but one with whom I disagree on several issues. Some are ephemera, but two that do matter are defending and abiding by the Constitution and answering the question “Why does America wage war?” In a recent television interview with Bill Maher, General Hayden words were described as follows by the New York Times:

[General] Hayden cited Trump’s pledge to kill family members as being among his most troubling campaign statements.

“That never even occurred to you, right?” [Bill] Maher asked.

“God, no!” Hayden replied. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“That’s quite a statement, sir,” Maher said.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

Now recall that General Hayden approved of and ran NSA’s domestic collection programs that unquestionably violated — one might say shattered — the 4th Amendment. The supporters of that program argue that such collection is the only way to keep America safe; that is to say, it seems to me, the national government wages electronic war against all Americans, curtails their civil liberties, but still cannot stop domestic attacks such as those at Fort Hood, Garland, Texas, and San Bernardino. This seems a somewhat specious argument.

A much better and more truthful — though politically unacceptable — position would be simply to state that if senior U.S. military officers were to disobey an order from Mr. Trump to “kill anything that moved and anything that stood on the field of battle with the Islamists” they would only be continuing their unconstitutional behavior.

The U.S. military has not once balked at waging unconstitutional wars since the surrender of Imperial Japan. Every one of those wars has been unconstitutional, and in almost every one of them America has been defeated. Now, there are those who will argue that congressional resolutions allowing post-1945 presidents to use military force at their discretion are equivalent to the formal, congressional declaration of wars that are mandated by the Constitution, and which are the sole prerogative of the Congress. But they would be wrong.

The power to declare war, you see, was assigned in the Founders’ constitution only to the Congress, and that power can never be delegated onward to others in the other branches the national government — especially not to the chief executive. The Founders’ knew that vesting that power in one man, either directly through the constitution’s words or via the process of illegal delegation existing today, would transform the president into a tyrant — not unlike King George III or Louis XIV — by empowering one man to decide why, when, and where to take the republic to war. From President Truman’s unconstitutional decision to go to war in Korea, to Lyndon Johnson’s unconstitutional and personal war in Vietnam, to George W. Bush’s unconstitutional and disastrous invasion of Iraq, to Barack Obama’s equivalent and unconstitutional madness in destroying Qaddafi’s regime, all have been illegal wars and yet the senior generals of the U.S. military have never flinched at waging them without the sanction irrefutably mandated by the Constitution.

Let us, however, leave this issue aside for the moment and move on to General Hayden’s explanation that waging war to protect the United States and annihilate the enemy — as did FDR, Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, and Nimitz — “would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.” What General Hayden is acknowledging with these words is the reality that since 1945 the Congress and U.S. presidents have progressively neutered America’s ability to win wars by an equally unconstitutional and destructive delegation of power to groups of foreign nations.

Now, there is no doubt that the president and senate are empowered by the Constitution to conclude treaties with another nation or nations if such treaties serve the interests of the United States and do not violate U.S. sovereignty or jeopardize America’s independence of action. But there is no sane manner in which the constitution’s treaty-making power can be said to delegate to those two entities the prerogative to reduce America’s ability to defend itself and defeat enemies if attacked, which is always the primary task of this republic’s government. And yet that is precisely what has been done by presidents and Congress since 1945 in deliberate acts that have negated much of America’s sovereign independence on the issue of war. Two examples will suffice.

NATO: While this treaty may have made sense in the late 1940s, it ceased to do so after the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated that while a confrontation between the United States and the USSR might well commence looking like a conventional-arms event, it would inevitably and probably quite quickly become a nuclear war. As this reality dawned on the world, the rest of NATO began spending less on their military, more on social services and the EU nightmare then aborning, and depending on diplomacy and the Anglo-American nuclear deterrent to keep the peace.

The United States thus became Europe’s sole defender and was, in essence, enslaved by the willingness of U.S. leaders to go to war automatically if any other NATO country was attacked. This reality deprived the United States of its independence of action and its sovereignty in foreign affairs in that Congress’s constitutional responsibility to declare war was negated because an attack on a NATO member put America at war automatically. It also contributed — obviously and massively — to the growth of the U.S. president’s unilateral war-making power, starting him down the road to the tyrant he is today.

After the demise of the USSR, moreover, President George H.W. Bush, instead of asking Congress to authorize America’s withdrawal from the NATO Treaty — thereby demonstrating the wisdom always attributed to him — proved terribly unwise and opened the door to NATO’s expansion to its current twenty-eight states, with two or more nations now on the edge of membership. As this expansion continued, Europe’s unilateral disarmament accelerated and today has left the United States on the hook to defend 27 militarily feeble countries with which — save, perhaps, for Britain and Canada — it has so little in common that they cannot be considered worth the loss of an American life or dollar. Indeed, why should the United States defend 27 countries that will not spend enough to defend themselves, and are willing to let the Islamic State (IS) send hundreds of its fighters to Europe disguised as migrants and do nothing to prevent IS’s consolidation in parts of Libya?

Imagine, if you will, sitting here in North America and seeing the current Turkey-vs-Russia confrontation turn into a shooting war in which America’s NATO membership would force it to charge off to the aid of Turkey and its Islamic State ally. There would be no presidential request for a declaration of war, no congressional vote on a declaration of war, and no public debate over whether America should fight or wish a pox on both combatants. Indeed, nothing would occur except America being launched — like a mindless automaton — into a great war based on a treaty obligation that probably was unwise when Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, and certainly is nothing less than suicidal today. And if NATO is not bad enough, recall that the national government would act in the same manner if Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, or South Korea were attacked in any serious way. These obligations — like illegal immigration — make an absolute mockery of any claim that America is an independent and sovereign nation that controls its own fate.

“The international laws of armed conflict”: As noted above, these are the laws that General Hayden argues make it impossible to annihilate America’s enemies in the manner FDR, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Nimitz employed in annihilating Germany and Imperial Japan. To all appearances, he also believes that it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to be so legally hamstrung by its association with foreigners that it consistently is being defeated by Islamist forces that have no air cover and little in the way of mechanized forces. This seems an odd position for any U.S. military officer charged with defending the republic and destroying the enemies who attack it.

The question, of course, is why would U.S. politicians, statesmen, and generals enter into such legal arrangements knowing full well that — like NATO and other international pacts — they undermine U.S. sovereignty by constraining the national government’s independence to choose to respond to those who attack the republic in the most lethal, destructive, and decisive manner possible.

The question posed above — “Why does America wage war?” — can be answered quite simply: America fights only to defend itself and to utterly defeat the enemy so that the fight will not have to be resumed at a later date. It also fights in a manner characterized by commonsense; that is, once the enemy attacks America, he, his patrons, and his supporters have voluntarily surrendered any right to expect the United States to regard them as fellow human beings rather than classifying them for what they are: masses of soon-to-be-dead belligerents.

This may sound a bit harsh, but a casual review of the way the world has worked since 1945 will show that the United States, some of the other NATO states, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are about the only ones who have followed General Hayden’s “international laws of armed conflict”. Such a review also will show that those countries have lost almost every war they have engaged in, and that some of those wars — Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan — took decades before they were finally lost.

Why? Because the enemy did not follow — indeed, they laughed at and denigrated — the “international laws of armed conflict”, and were eager to kill as many of its opponents as necessary, with whatever means came to hand. The “international laws of armed conflict”, in short, are the products of well-educated but foolish theorists who believe that men today are different and better human beings than they were in Caesar’s and Hitler’s time, and that they can be further perfected. Well, they are not better and they can never be perfected. It is best to accept that as a hard but accurate and intellectually emancipating fact. It is more than safe to assume that the world always has been and always will be a place where you will be killed if you do not kill those who want to kill you.

So what to do? Well, first, the next president — if he is an adult, which leaves aside most the candidates — ought to find a few other constitutionally obedient and nationalist adults and begin to review NATO and other pacts, treaties, agreements, and emotional attachments that will automatically trigger the entry of America into unnecessary wars. (NB: Unnecessary wars are those in which America is not attacked first or has no severe threat to preempt. If its own genuine national security interests are not concerned, America ought never to go to war to save or serve either abstract ideas – freedom, democracy, human or women’s rights, etc. — or the interests of others, be they foreign nations, peoples, or the favorites of domestic U.S. lobbies.) Traditionally, most of these arrangements require a year’s notice of the intention to withdraw. There is nothing more important to U.S. national security than to start the withdrawal clock ticking on NATO and all other arrangements requiring America to go to war in any manner but that which the Constitution prescribes, and national sovereignty and independence demands.

Second, the next president’s team ought to begin the process of cordially withdrawing the United States from international legal arrangements — General Hayden’s “international laws of armed conflict” — that limit the national government’s independence to decide to annihilate any enemy that attacks the United States by using any or all of the resources it commands. Although it may require a clear demonstration or two, once those who want, or think they want, to be America’s enemies come to believe that America will wage war in a manner that features everything but mercy, they will have second thoughts. And if they are not wise enough to decide not to attack, not to worry, they and theirs soon will be dead among smoking ruins.

“For unless treaties are mutually beneficial to the parties,” George Washington wrote to Gouverneur Morris on 28 July 1791, “it is vain to hope for a continuance of them beyond the moment when the one which conceives itself over reached is in a situation to break off the connection.” The United States has long since reached the point where it has far “over reached” in making binding and automatic war commitments, and is now in “a situation to break off the connection[s]”, especially in terms of NATO, other treaties or agreements denying America freedom of action, and many of the “international laws of armed conflict”.

There is nothing selfish or ignoble about such actions. Indeed, they would halt America’ slide toward tyrannical one-man war making and restore what our post-1945 politicians, statesmen, and generals have unconstitutionally given away. And they would again allow the national government to reassert in fact, rather than in knowingly false rhetoric, that America truly is an independent and sovereign republic in the conduct of foreign affairs, that it fights only to defend itself, and that the only liberty that matters to it is that which exists — and is meant to be expanded — within the confines of this republic.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

WELL DONE MR. TRUMP!!! Israel-First, Neocons to join Hillary, all America’s enemies in one party

The disloyal Israel-First/Neoconservative (IF/NC) crowd seems to be having a collective and hopefully fatal seizure over Mr. Trump’s pledge to be strictly even-handed and neutral in the ongoing war between Israel and the Arabs — a war both sides clearly intend to fight to the death.

Now, many past presidential candidates have said much the same thing, but they have always added that silly, ahistorical mantra that the United States will defend Israel’s “right to exist”. But Trump did not add that mantra of the brain-dead, and so has markedly distressed the Israel-Firsters and Neocons. Indeed, they always have opposed Trump because, it seems, they sense that he will always put America first and let those individuals, nations, and groups irrelevant to the republic’s security and economic prosperity swing in the wind. I think — or at least hope — they are right.

What makes the current Israel First/Neocon seizure so hearteningly severe are not only Trump’s words and apparent America-First foreign policy inclinations, but the fact that he is getting so very many votes. “Could it possibly be,” ponder the likes of Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Michael Bloomberg, Peter King, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Michael Chertoff, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Bolton, “that Americans are not genuinely happy, proud, and eager to have their fellow citizens and soldier-children dying uselessly in wars motivated in large part by the U.S. interventionism we advocate and by America’s subservience to a country that does nothing but degrade the republic’s security and drain its treasury?” “Could it be,” the IF/NC’ers are wondering, “that Trump and the increasing number of voters supporting him know that we Israel-Firsters and Neocons have played them for fools, corrupted their political system and media, and done our best to keep their kids dying in wars meant to serve a foreign nation’s interests at the cost of their own?” Well, it is too soon to tell, but the words of the Israel Firsters and Neocons and their fierce hatred of Trump surely suggest that they fear their war-causing disloyalty has been identified and — at long last — their jig is about up.

Facing the next-to-last last ditch, the disloyal are nearly frantic in their support for Senator Marco Rubio. And why not? Rubio is a thorough-going IF/NC, and — as he has little money of his own — is on the payroll, according to the media, of two pro-Israel, Jewish-American billionaires. Rubio also has denounced the Founders’ approach to foreign policy, expressing his belief that the IF/NC approach to U.S. foreign policy — that is, America at war everywhere, all the time, to protect Israel — is superior to John Quincy Adams’ republic-preserving advice that the United States must never go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.”

But Rubio, after his Super Tuesday shellacking, is circling the drain until the Florida primary sends him barreling toward the sewer, and the Neocons and Israel Firsters, as Jacob Heilbrunn has written in the National Interest, have only one place to go, and that is to Hillary Clinton, who already has few of both detestable species on her team, but, the media says, only one pro-Israel, Jewish-American billionaire.

Mr. Heilbrunn’s excellent article notes that the IF/NC was originally based in the Democratic Party and so in a sense would be going home if they side with Clinton. That they were once aligned with the Democrats is clearly true, but being aligned with is much different than being part of, and I would argue that the IF/NC have never been anything but a one-issue party of their own.

Their party — best identified as the Disloyal Party or perhaps just as Copperheads — has never had any goal other than protecting the interests of Israel and keeping the United States steadily involved in the Israel-Arab war by promoting and purchasing a U.S. foreign policy that results in wars to install “democracy” abroad, but which are, in reality, only wars that are intended to annihilate Israel’s enemies, while unnecessarily making Israel’s enemies America’s. Can any clear thinking person really believe, for example, that “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” is anything but an IF/NC tool for fomenting war against Muslims in order to protect what they describe as “the only democracy” in the Middle East?

The use of the democracy angle by the IF/NC crowd is amply demonstrated in a recent article by one of its leading lights, Max Boot, titled “The GOP’s Apologists for Tyrants”. In this piece, Mr. Boot denounces Republican presidential candidates Trump, Cruz, and Kasich for “their support for dictators” and their clear lack of enthusiasm for unnecessary overseas democracy mongering and interventionist wars. Mr. Boot lauds the usual Copperhead line and insists that overthrowing Saddam, Gaddafi, and others was the correct thing to do. The only problem, he says, is that the U.S. government did not go far enough in waging those useless and massively counterproductive wars. Only the Israel First-owned Marco Rubio, Boot declares, refuses to “embrace genocidal tyrants”, which means the Copperheads were betting that they could count on Rubio for more war.

Well, Mr. Boot, no, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are not seeking to “embrace genocidal tyrants”, but rather are looking out for America first. They know that neither Saddam nor Gaddafi was ever a serious national-security threat to the United States; indeed, both were key and extraordinarily lethal allies — and ones we did not have to pay — in the war against the Islamists.

Saddam kept Iraq’s door locked tight and so prevented the Islamists located east of Iraq from moving westward in large numbers, and he made the Iranians little more than marginal players in the Levant. How are things looking in that area now, Mr. Boot? Gaddafi kept the Islamists at bay in much of North Africa and murdered or incarcerated every Islamist that Libya’s military and security services could get their hands on, but IF/NC wanted a pro-democracy war in Libya and got it. How are affairs in the Maghreb going these days, Mr. Boot?

And do not forget, Mr. Boot, that you and your IF/NC sidekicks insisted that the U.S. government go democracy mongering in the Middle East in the name of the Arab Spring, and then you supported the military coup in Egypt that destroyed a democratically elected regime. Now, Mr. Boot, how is all of that working out? Finally, what about that clever IF/NC plan to build a new, pro-Western democracy in Afghanistan, how is that doing? Could you check on the progress of democracy there and get back to me?

What I think Mr. Trump is saying, Mr. Boot, is that it is too bad/so sad that there are murderous dictators loose in the world, but as long as they pose no life-and-death threat to the United States there is no reason for America to militarily intervene and give them — as the saying goes — the boot. After all, if the dictators are not killing Americans and/or threatening genuine U.S. national interests, who cares? Humans are hard-wired for war, so let them fight. The U.S. government exists only to defend the republic, its commerce, and its citizens and their liberties; it is under precisely zero obligation — legal, moral, or one dreamed up by disloyal U.S. citizens — to defend any set of foreigners against the murderous machinations of the dictators who rule them or the enemies who threaten them.

The wars that disloyal IF/NC Copperheads like you champion, Mr. Boot, have invariably been greatly counterproductive for U.S. national security, the national debt, and, especially, for those you and your colleagues care the least about; namely, the parents, wives, husbands, and children who suffered the loss or maiming of their loved ones in the military while they were fighting in the unnecessary wars you and your kind demand that America fight for only one reason, to make the world safe for Israel.

So, Mr. Boot, if you and the rest of your wretched and disloyal IF/NC associates want to go to the Democratic Party and side with IF/NC’er Hillary Clinton, please go immediately and trumpet your departure from the roof tops. After all, what could be more appropriate than today’s Copperheads — a kind of snake that sneaks and strikes without warning — joining the Democratic Party, the original incubator and home of the Civil War’s Copperheads? In the decade before that war, Massachusetts’s Senator Charles Sumner was speaking when he saw one of his pro-slavery foes enter the Senate Chamber and walk toward his seat. Sumner stopped and asked, I paraphrase here, the other senators to witness that a slug was slithering across the chamber’s floor looking for a chair to adhere to. For the Republican Party, the movement of the entire IF/NC crowd to the Democratic Party would be a Godsend, a veritable slithering slug migration that would find no shortage of fellow slugs waiting for them in Hillary’s camp, and there probably would be enough chairs for all of them to adhere to.

There is, then, nothing that could strengthen the Republican Party more and attract more voters to its side than to be shed of you, Mr. Boot, and your disloyal fellow Copperheads. Be gone, good riddance, and praise God for cutting out the festering IF/NC malignancy from the Republican Party so that it can once again stand for something more than endless war and Israel First.

 

 

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 8 Comments