For causing America’s Afghan defeat … indict President Obama

In looking at the trade President Obama made of five senior Taleban political, intelligence, and military officials for the return of a U.S. Army deserter, Sgt. Bergdahl, one is struck most forcefully, I think, by Obama and his lieutenants’ uncaring attitude toward U.S. national security.

The five returned Taleban leaders will significantly assist Mullah Omar’s organization in destroying the Afghan government the U.S. and NATO installed in Afghanistan. That destruction may take a while — all events in Afghanistan take much longer than anticipated — but it will occur, and Afghanistan will become not what it was on 10 September 2001, but something much worse, a state governed by a government that is deeply Islamic, one which is supported by Pakistan and all of America’s allies in the Gulf, and, most important, one that will believe Allah has given it complete victory over the world’s only superpower. From the backwoods, unsophisticated, and almost medieval regime it was in 2001, the Taleban organization that will return to power in Afghanistan will be living, visible proof for all Muslims that Osama bin Laden was correct: The Americans are cowardly paper tigers; that they are so effete that they could not tolerate the loss of less than 200 lives a year; and that the trust of the mujahedin in Allah and their own efforts on His behalf were more than enough to defeat the greatest power in history.

And when the Taleban regime returns to power, it will make Afghanistan a much bigger base than it ever was before in which Islamist fighters from the world over can train, get to know each other, and plan attacks against the United States, its allies, Israel, and the Arab tyrannies. The Taleban and the Islamists they host will be sure that U.S. ground forces will never return, and they will know that the forces Washington may use against them — drones, Special Forces, and CIA covert operations — have already shown themselves utterly unable to stall the growth, spread, and effectiveness of Islamist forces, let alone win a war. The deadly pin-pricks Washington may apply against the new Taleban regime and their Islamist guests will certainly will be a lethal nuisance to them, but they will not slow the growing power and numbers of the mujahedin, and they will remind all Muslims that the world’s greatest power is not manly enough to defend itself in any meaningful way.

The foregoing scenario is not, of course, inevitable, nothing in human affairs is inevitable. Still, it is more than likely to occur, and if it does it will be a long-term national security disaster for the United States. At the moment there seems to be nothing we can do militarily to prevent this event, so the next best option is for Americans to accept that we have suffered a humiliating and comprehensive political-military defeat in Afghanistan and to bring to account those responsible for it, starting — and perhaps ending — with Barack Obama.

How to do this? Well, first, impeachment is out of the question. The Congress is completely unable and unwilling to do anything to protect the American people from what has become the everyday-lawlessness of Obama and Eric Holder. An impeachment proceeding would immediately be identified by the Democrats and their slaves in the mainstream media as an effort by the nasty, racist Republicans to unseat the noble Black man who aspires to help all citizens by becoming America’s first, post-1776 monarch. Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats’ various colonies of automatons — Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. — a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war.

So forget impeachment and, in an odd way, even be grateful that Obama was twice elected to the presidency. His two terms have proven to all Americans that a Black president can be just as big a liar, just as big a child in foreign policy, just as big an incompetent, just as big a pawn of Wall Street, and just as big a demagogue as any White president.

How, then, to proceed against Obama? One way would be for would-be prosecutors to look at Article III, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution. That short section reads: “Treason against the United States, shall consist in only levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

It would, I think, be quite hard, though not impossible, to prove that Obama waged war against the United States. To wage war against America, Obama would have to have some semblance of manliness — he has none — and he would need one of those guns he hates. Indeed, any fair-minded jury looking at a man like Obama could only conclude that he was fit to wage war only against those who cannot defend themselves, like unborn Americans and U.S. soldiers, Marines, and intelligence officers sworn to defend the Constitution.

But treason, as the U.S. Constitution states, can also consist of a citizen of the United States “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” This is the clause that could allow a patriotic prosecutor to help Americans and their wounded country by bringing Obama to book. Consider the following of Obama’s actions — and they are his and his alone — which irrefutably have given aid and comfort to America’s Islamist enemies, and each of which has the constitutionally requisite “two Witnesses to the same overt Act.”

–1.) Ending the CIA’s rendition program and enhanced interrogations with nothing to replace them, thereby partially blinding the U.S. Intelligence Community and allowing the mujahedin to operate more securely and with more aggressiveness.

–2.) Initiating the unconstitutional war that destroyed Qadhafi’s Libyan regime, an important ally in the war against al-Qaeda, and which facilitated the growth of Islamist militancy across the North African region and into Sub-Saharan Africa.

–3.) Authorizing rules-of-engagement for our soldiers and Marines that made them more targets than killers, costing many unnecessary American deaths and leaving countless mujahedin alive to attack us another day.

–4.) Almost completely ending drone strikes since mid-December, 2013, allowing the Taleban, al-Qaeda and their allies time to safely regroup, refit, and meet to plan next steps.

–5.) Giving the Taleban and its allies, in 2010, a promise that most U.S.-NATO forces would be withdrawn without victory by the end of 2014, thereby declaring America’s acceptance of defeat by its Islamist enemies.

–6.) Giving the Taleban and its allies, in 2014. a guarantee that there would be only 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and only 1,000 by the end of 2016, thereby reconfirming his 2010 pledge to Mullah Omar that he would facilitate America’s defeat.

–7.) Returning to the Taleban five senior leaders who will substantively contribute to the Taleban’s destruction of all America and NATO has endeavored to accomplish in Afghanistan since 2001.

Each of the foregoing actions clearly presented a gift of “aid and comfort” to our Islamist enemies. There can be no quibbling on that score. There also can be no credible argument that Obama took the actions with good intentions and never thought that they would produce such intensely damaging “unanticipated consequences” for the United States. The negative impact of each of the foregoing actions on U.S. national security was completely predictable before it was taken, and Obama certainly was warned of that fact by U.S. intelligence officers. Should Obama, under oath, argue that the consequences of the actions were not predictable, he would simply add perjury to his troubles.

In his still invaluable Farewell Address (1796), George Washington warned his countrymen always to be on their “[g]uard against the postures of pretended patriotism.” In my lifetime, no U.S. president has been more of a sham patriot than Barack Obama, a man with zero respect for the U.S. Constitution and a man always ready to flout the law with his “phone and pen.” The charge against Obama of giving aid and comfort to our Islamist enemies is an open and shut case. The question for Americans now, I suppose, is whether there is a prosecutor in the country who is ready to do the right thing for our republic, or do all U.S. lawyers and law professors share Obama’s contempt for the Constitution and clear preference for tyrannical government?

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

A Memorial Day postscript, more Obama-made death is delivered to the U.S. military

President Obama clearly thinks that non-Ivy-League educated Americans are the stupidest, most gullible people on earth.

On the day after his trip to Afghanistan to try to fool us into believing that he and his party care about the lives of America’s soldier-children, Obama announced that he is going to leave about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after the main body withdraws. These troops are going to train the Afghan army — which spends much of its time killing U.S. and NATO troops — and conduct “counter-terrorism missions” against the Taleban and their allies, to whom Obama and his party are giving Afghanistan back as a base from which to attack the United States.

Now tell me, what does Obama think that 10,000 U.S. troops — of whom, at best, 1 in 3 is a shooter — can do to stem the coming, Obama-ensured Taleban tidal wave that will soon control Afghanistan, when an army of 125,000 U.S. and NATO troops could do nothing but lose to the Taleban and its Islamist allies. The idea that 10,000 troops — being attacked from the Taleban in front and the anti-U.S. Afghan army from behind — can do what 125,000 could not is a conclusion that only a reality-averse, Harvard-educated ideologue could come up with. Obama is deliberately consigning the 10,000 stay-behinders to a slow-motion nightmare of death and maiming in the name of a democratic regime in Kabul that does not now and never will exist. This decision presents Obama, more than ever, as our murderer-in-chief.

And so why is Obama marooning 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a place where we have no friends and which is bigger than Texas? There is only one reason — politics. He intends to pullout what remains of this tiny force by the end of 2016, which just happens to be timed to allow Hillary Clinton — or whatever other merry murderer the Democrats may run — to campaign on the claim that the Democrats ended the war in Afghanistan, as well as the one in Iraq. So whoever among our troops dies, losses a limb, or suffers combat-related mental illness in Afghanistan between now and the end of 2016 will suffer their woes for the electoral advantage of the Democratic Party.

Will Americans ever have enough of Obama and his death-loving Democratic Party? How long, for example, will they continue to believe that bloodthirsty people like Mrs. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the other antiquated but still fanatic Democratic feminists really care about the lives of 300 Nigerian school girls — except as pawns to be used to win votes and put more of our troops in harm’s way — when they have done nothing but applaud and champion laws that have, since 1973, allowed more than 55 million unborn Americans to be deliberately butchered? How long can we Americans claim to be decent and sane human beings while supporting a party peopled by would-be tyrants like Obama and real-life slaughterers like the Democratic sisterhood?

“Revolutions,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1792, “have for their object, a change in the moral condition of governments.” For decent Americans, the indelible contempt of Obama and his party for the lives of Americans suggests that the time to seek such change is fast approaching.

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

Obama, Memorial Day, and the Military: Supportive words and murderous deeds

Memorial Day was originally intended as the day Americans would remember and honor the 620,000 men and boys who died in the four years of our Civil War. It now rightly stands as a day when we recall those men and women who have died in all America’s wars. Local groups decorate veterans’ graves with flags and flowers; special religious services of all faiths are conducted; towns hold parades and community picnics; and Arlington Cemetery hosts those who come to visit the graves of fallen family members, and others who come to honor those they never met but to whom they owe much. It is a day on which we should all pay a quiet, honest, and thoughtful respect to our veterans.

Sadly on this Memorial Day the United States is led by a vastly inexperienced, political ideologue from Chicago. In his weekly radio speech on Saturday, President Obama heaped praise on America’s military and the veterans thereof, both living and dead, and then on Sunday arrived unannounced in Afghanistan to preen and grandstand before our remaining military personnel in the country. This, of course, is the kind of thing that all presidents do on Memorial day, but no president has ever done so with less sincerity or more hypocrisy. The speech sounded soothing and the visit made for good television, but neither can hide the disaster Obama and his lieutenants have been for U.S. military personnel.

Obama’s speech comes in the midst of his administration’s use of what appear to be exactly the kind of “death panels” that opponents of Obama Care warned of while that legislation was being debated in Congress. It appears that Obama’s bureaucrats simply decide who among our veterans will and will not receive timely and effective medical treatment. They also apparently create lists of those whose treatment will be delayed long enough to ensure that the sick or wounded die. The pro-Obama media and Democratic politicians and spokesman have been quick to come to the president’s aid, insisting that our veterans’ problems have been long in the making and are not in any way Obama’s fault.

While it is certainly true that the Veterans Administration has long been troubled, Obama’s team has arranged and then presided over the return home of U.S. armies from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — both of which Obama decided to lose. He and his lieutenants knew well before the first returning Marine’s boot hit American soil that the homeward-bound veterans were afflicted with unprecedented numbers of mental problems and with a percentage of amputees that America probably has not seen since the War of the Rebellion. Armed well in advance with a clear idea of the specific kinds of care the veterans would need, Obama and his lieutenants, over five and one-half years, did precisely nothing to prepare to handle the task effectively — save to take the opportunity to try out their plans for “death panels” behind the curtain provided by the opaque bureaucratic maze that is the Veterans Administration.

If this was the sole Obama administration abuse of our military personnel it would be plenty to make Americans wretch and pray that he and his lieutenants eventually rot in hell. But this abuse is only the latest in a series or assaults on the U.S. military that Obama has presided over since 2008. At the most petty level, Obama and Attorney General Holder categorized the terrorist attack at Fort Hood as an instance of workplace violence, a decision that was extraordinarily absurd even for Ivy League graduates. The Obama-Holder decision long delayed proper aid to the Fort Hood victims and their families and it was made for the same reason as Obama and Mrs. Clinton refused to send a larger protective force to defend Americans in Benghazi; namely, they wanted to make sure that their lie to Americans claiming that the Islamist threat was receding remained plausible.

Obama also has handled the wars he inherited from George W. Bush with the goal of making their termination useful electoral tools for his party. The Iraq war was ended in time for it to be used as a positive prop for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, and he planned to end the Afghan war at a time when that event would be helpful to the Democrats in the approaching mid-term elections. In reality, of course, neither Bush nor Obama intended to win the Iraq and Afghan wars; neither man has nearly enough moral courage to use the U.S. military to win wars. But Obama’s cynicism and cruelty far and away outpace anything we saw from Bush.

Since Obama’s election in 2008, every U.S. soldier, sailor, or Marine who was killed, wounded, or maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan was a casualty of Obama’s desire to end both wars only when their conclusion would yield the most political advantage for the Democrats. Those who died in the wars during these years had their lives knowingly wasted by their president, and those who will have to go through the rest of their lives with prosthetic devises and/or psychiatric assistance are likewise his victims. In essence, since 2008 our military personnel have been under constant attack from the front by the mujahiden, and from the rear by Team Obama.

And so as this year’s Memorial Day arrives, we should perhaps be twice thankful for the efforts and forbearance that our veterans have displayed in defending our republic. First for their willingness to fight and die or be crippled in wars they know their commanders-in-chief do not intend to win. And a second time for their not yet being the kind of men and women who return home from war and deliver to their political leaders — Democratic and Republican — the retribution they so richly merit, and which would, in its application, destroy what little remains of our 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 , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. intervention kills Americans abroad and advances tyranny at home

The vitriol with which Democrats are denouncing the ongoing investigation of al-Qaeda’s lethal attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi comes from a motivation much deeper than that single event. By pulling on the Benghazi string the Republicans will find an enormous foreign policy failure and a governmental lie of nearly epic proportions — both of which they also are fully responsible for. It will be interesting to see if the newly formed House select committee will shine a light bright enough to reveal to everyday Americans how thoroughly they have been lied to and endangered by the falsehoods fed to them since 1995 by both parties and three presidents.

In case the Republicans pull their punch to avoid showing both parties’ culpability, let me take a crack, first, at explaining why Benghazi is an issue vital to Americans. Then, second, to suggest a warning — based on many of the same reasons — not to let our policy regarding Nigeria and the abducted school girls be guided by the likes of Michelle Obama, whose interest in Nigeria is to rile up the base of Democratic feminists, not to improve U.S. security, for which any intervention in Nigeria will yield a disaster.

I picked the year 1995 as a staring point for this piece for the simple reason that it was in the summer of that year that the CIA’s officers of my unit, along with their extraordinarily able colleagues overseas, began the much-despised, President Clinton-championed, rendition program. As long as this most successful U.S. counterterrorism program was in place — and it was in place because multiple administrations refused to fully use the U.S. military to defend America — the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) was able to stay in the fight against our Islamist foes. The later advent of the drone program sharpened the point of the IC’s spear by making it possible to kill as well as capture/interrogate America’s enemies — both jobs that rightfully belong to the hamstrung-by-the-presidents U.S. military.

This said, neither of these IC programs ever were or ever will be war winners; only a fully employed U.S. military and the severe curtailment of U.S. government interventionism overseas can bring victory. These options appear never to have been considered. We willingly lost both the Afghan war and the never-should-been Iraq war and we continue to intervene, aching now to get into Nigeria. In addition, Obama, with Republican acquiescence, has partially blinded the IC by ending rendition and has given al-Qaeda a partial respite by cutting back drone attacks. Simply put, both parties have since 1995 led America on a relentless retreat from victory against the Islamists.

This brings us, first, to Benghazi, another in a long string of U.S. defeats at the Islamists’ hands. It allows us to reflect on how far along the road to defeat America has traveled since 1995.

The Obama administration’s performance on Benghazi has involved intentional deception; prioritizing Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s political careers over American lives and security; and — most inexplicably — sheer ignorance of America. The first two points are definitive and require no further explanation, except to again stress that Hillary Clinton knowingly facilitated the killing of four Americans in Benghazi by refusing to protect them. The Obama-ordered lies about Benghazi — the cover-up could have started with no one else — shows how deeply ignorant Obama is about the people he purports to lead. Even a half-wit would have known that almost all U.S. citizens would have rallied to the president’s support over Benghazi had he simply said: “We have been attacked again, we have much more work to do against this enemy; and they will pay dearly for this second 9/11 attack.” Only Ivy Leaguers like Obama and Clinton — elitist, full of theory, but devoid of common sense — would have chosen a politically damaging and corrosive lie over firing-up American patriotism.

Benghazi also is important because it reveals that both parties have been deliberately lying to Americans about the Islamists’ motivation since at least 1995. Since that date, there has been a bipartisan decision to portray the attacks of al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies on America as motivated by our country’s freedom, democracy, liberty, pornography, Miller Lite, gender equality, and early presidential primaries in Iowa. Abetted by most of the media, Americans have come to believe that Islamists are simply crazy people who blow themselves up because of the above ephemera or such other vital strategic issues as whether my daughters go university. As a result they initially bought the White House/State Department lie about Benghazi being a violent spontaneous demonstration inspired by a badly made anti-Muslim video. In the hands of master liars like Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Susan Rice even idiot explanations seem plausible at first.

Sadly, this “big lie” has worked for the most part and has disguised what the politicians and media know — unless they are utterly stupid — to be the truth: The Islamists are motivated to attack because of what the U.S. government does and who it supports in the Muslim world, not because of how Americans live at home. In this regard, why were the mujahedin able to kill four Americans in Benghazi? Because the Obama administration, with Republican and media backing, unconstitutionally intervened in Libya in the name of democracy and instead created a nascent, anti-U.S. Islamist state. Clearly, the Libyan people were better off or at least safer under Qadhafi and there would have been no Americans in Benghazi to be killed if Obama had not intervened.

Thus, Benghazi is important because, as just noted, it is a typical example of the disasters that result from the U.S. government’s intervention in the Muslim world. These disasters are generally termed “unintended consequences,“ a clever statement meant to hide from Americans the fact that the negatives intervention is sure to produce are almost always easily predictable. In addition, the fact that Obama and his Republican partners intervened in Libya — which is in Africa not South Asia — underscores an obvious but little mentioned reality: The Islamist threat to the United States and its allies has expanded enormously since 2001 in terms of its geographic dispersal, manpower, and available weaponry — the last two improvements largely courtesy of the West’s mindless support for the so-called Arab Spring.

So on the issue of Benghazi we have a clear dereliction of duty and deliberate deceit on the part of Obama and Mrs. Clinton: They sent U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials overseas to pursue and protect U.S. interests and then refused their repeated requests for additional security as a means of protecting the so-called successes of Obama’s anti-terrorism and cozy-up-to Muslims policies. Then, Obama and Clinton lied to all Americans about what happened and are still doing so, the latter even asking “What difference does it make?” when asked about who killed our public servants. And, now, we have nearly every leading Democrat politician, party official, and media hack claiming that the truth about Benghazi is already known, and that the dastardly Republicans are persecuting poor, noble Barack and Hillary.

Surely there should be no persecution, but just as surely there should be a subpoena for Obama to testify under oath before the select committee; an intense public humiliation of Mrs. Clinton; and a clear recognition among Americans that any time they put a Clinton in power the product will be either ignoring America’s enemies — Bill Clinton refused ten chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-1999 — or letting them die, as did Mrs. Clinton in Benghazi.

Now on Nigeria. Seeking to reinvigorate the stale and really very tiresome feminist ideology that has long been foisted on Americans, we see Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the rest of the sisterhood demanding U.S. intervention in Nigeria to secure the release of 200-plus school girls abducted by the Islamist group Boko Haram. There surely is no American who does not want the girls freed, but that humane aspiration does not justify any U.S. intervention in Nigeria — even if the Nigerian regime asks for help. This is a Nigerian problem that can only be solved by Nigerians.

What can U.S. intervention do for America besides buck-up the Democratic sisterhood and exhilarate the Hillary-loving Neoconservatives? Well, it would do at least two major negative things for U.S. security and strike yet another blow against our constitutional republic:

–1.) First, intervention will do for Boko Haram what it is hard-pressed to do on its own; namely, make itself an international player in the Islamists’ war on the United States. Since 2001, we have witnessed a pattern among Islamist groups in Africa and elsewhere. The groups start their campaign of violence based on purely local issues. Once solidifying a local base, they turn their attention to regional issues. From that stage they move on to try to make themselves international players in the Islamists’ war. This last stage requires each group to find a fool to play its foil. The groups always do, and they always find it in an intervention by the United States and/or another Western country. This has occurred in North Africa, in Somalia, in Mali, and, if the female Democratic war-wanters have their way, it will occur in Nigeria. Indeed, the abductions by Boko Haram and its leader’s promise to convert the girls to Islam or sell them into slavery are quite clearly lures designed to promote a U.S./Western intervention that will give Boko Haram international stature, allow it to draw on manpower and resources from other Islamist groups in Africa and beyond, and ensnare U.S. forces in another costly overseas involvement from which Obama eventually will accept defeat and flee

–2.) Second, the United States gets a large proportion of its foreign crude from Nigeria, and in Nigeria there already is fighting between Islamists and Christians, Islamists and the government, and between those who have benefited from oil revenues and those who have not. While probably not yet qualifying as a civil war, U.S. or Western intervention in Nigeria would be akin to throwing more gas on an already lit fire because it will appear to many Nigerians as not only the unwanted return of Western colonialists, but as irrefutable evidence that the Nigerian regime is not only corrupt but also impotent and the colonialists’ tool and therefore must be overthrown. A full-fledged civil war in Nigeria could not help but disrupt the country’s oil production and export and thereby deal an damaging blow to the still-struggling U.S. economy.

–3.) Third, an Obama-ordered, U.S.-led Western intervention in Nigeria will be another unconstitutional war started by the president without the approval of the American people or the formal majority vote of their elected representatives. With Obama’s Benghazi lies — along with his lies about the IRS, gay marriage, health care, energy, the economy, etc. — having shredded his administration’s credibility with the much of the electorate, U.S. military involvement in Nigeria would focus Americans on the fact that their republic continues to slip fast toward despotism, a situation that will require correction by ballot or by other, less pleasant means. Obama now wields more personal power than George III and has none of that monarch’s positive character traits or love of country. His decision to involve America in Nigeria’s internal affairs would again underscore Obama’s lust for personal power and so bring Americans closer to the point where they will have to decide what they want — a republic or a tyranny –and then act accordingly.

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

Obama, McCain, and the NATO/EU Gang: Better war than saying: “It’s our fault”?

Once again Americans are watching their government involve itself in an issue in which the United States has nothing at stake economically and no genuine national security interest at risk. Ukraine is a place that is worth neither a single American dollar nor more than a brief scan of the headlines by U.S. citizens. And yet Obama and his fellow European interveners and democracy mongers are conducting themselves in a bellicose manner that could lead to some kind of military conflict in Eastern Europe. Indeed, they already are conducting warfare against Russia via economic sanctions, a punitive exercise they promise to make more severe in the next few weeks.

And for what? When all is said and done Obama and Team Democracy appear to prefer a war to publicly admitting that it was their democracy crusading last winter in Kiev that brought on this worrying and sharpening confrontation. Into a increasingly bitter political battle between the Kiev regime and its domestic opponents, the EU as an organization and individual European governments sent a steady flow of diplomats, officials, and money to help the Ukrainian opposition prevail over the Kiev regime. This foreign intervention in a purely internal domestic dispute was clearly designed to overthrow the legitimate Ukrainian government. It is the kind of imperialist exercise that the UN was created to condemn and stop, but that organization’s recent history shows that it now exists solely to support unjustified — and usually unjustifiable — U.S. and Western political and military interventions.

We will never know how the internal Ukrainian dispute would have worked itself out if the Ukrainians had been allowed an exercise in self-determination, but what we do we do know is that the EU’s arrogant intervention in the country’s internal affairs tipped the scales in the opposition’s favor and led to the Kiev regime’s collapse. And we know that Obama, Kerrey, and Biden steered clear of the problem until they saw that the EU’s intervention might succeed. Faced with that reality, these U.S. leaders put their best interventionist foot forward and joined the Europeans to wreck both Ukraine and European stability in the name of a democracy that will never see the light of day in Kiev. Washington, NATO, and Brussels are now well on their way to creating in Ukraine the same kind of democratic paradise they previously delivered in Egypt, Libya, and South Sudan.

They are also striding cluelessly along a road that could lead to a war in Eastern Europe. Why? Simple. The democracy mongers operate on the assumption that only the United States and Europe have legitimate national interests. Actions taken by non-Western states to defend what they perceive to be life-and-death national interests are labeled by Washington and NATO as illegitimate, aggressive, war-causing operations. But hold on for a moment. Was it Russia that intentionally fomented revolution in Ukraine? No, there is no evidence of that. Was it Moscow that publicly threatened the Ukrainian opposition with force and trials for war crimes? No, it was the West and the UN who treated the legitimate Ukrainian regime in that manner. So it was, in fact, Washington, NATO, and the EU who took a solely internal Ukrainian conflict and, by intervening in favor of anti-Russian Ukrainians, made it into a showdown between the West and Russia.

About Mr. Putin. One must say that he is not a particularly likeable man, and he is, after all, the legatee of a political system that killed and starved-to-death 60-plus million people. (NB: Odd, is it not, that the West spends years and billions of dollars tracking down a handful of two-bit Serbian and African murderers, but never utters a word about Russian and Chinese genocide-merchants who have killed far more than 100 million people?) Anyway, what has Putin done that makes him and Russia the sole bad guys in this sorry Ukrainian drama?

Well, Mr. Putin had the gall to see that the aggressive but always effete democracy mongers were mindlessly intent on a regime-change operation in Kiev that would put an anti-Russian regime in power, increase animosities between the country’s ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians, and destabilize Ukraine and perhaps have a knock-on destabilizing impact along much of Russia’s western border. Faced with this prospect, Putin unleashed his armored columns and took Kiev and all Ukraine, right? No. Faced with what the West was doing to make Ukraine an anti-Russian bastion and promote civil war in the country, Putin simply did what genuine Russian national interests required, he took what always has been and always must be Russia’s, the Crimea and its naval bases. Any Westerner who claims he was surprised by this action — or the cause of it — is either a liar or ignorant of Russian history. Given the state of Western education, the latter is at least as likely as the former.

So Putin takes Crimea and it votes to join Russia. End of crisis? No. Even though it is obvious that U.S.-NATO-EU intervention caused the crisis in the first place, the democracy mongers sanction Russia for protecting its national interests and then pick-up the pace of intervention by pumping funds into the anti-Russian regime in Kiev, deploying U.S. military forces in NATO’s Eastern European members, and Obama trying to prove he is not the terminal adolescent that Putin knows he is by waging war against Russia via sanctions. And, of course, there on the sidelines, are America’s Neoconservatives urging the West to threaten the use military force against Russia and at least heavily arm the illegitimate government now operating in Kiev.

Like the terminal adolescents they are, the leaders of both parties in the United States and their counterparts in NATO and the EU cannot bring themselves to admit the clear and simple fact that they are responsible for the festering problem in Ukraine. They have encountered in Putin a man who is unsavory and no hero but one who is a thorough-going nationalist who will not roll over and play dead and abandon his country’s security interests because the intervention-addicted Western democracy mongers demand he do so. Western pride, historical ignorance, and hubris makes admitting a mistake impossible, so we continue meandering toward war.

A final word on sanctions. Western interventionists ought to recall that (a) economic sanctions are attacks on the targeted nation that amount to acts of war, and (b) economic sanctions that savage an already fragile economy — like Russia’s — can make the attacked state opt for war as a last resort. Americans still debate whether FDR’s sanctions against Japan were an attempt to change Tokyo’s foreign policy or to force Japan to start a Pacific war FDR wanted to fight but the American people overwhelmingly opposed. Which side of that debate is accurate is irrelevant here, and perhaps it is unknowable. What is irrefutable fact, however, is that FDR’s sanctions forced Imperial Japan to decide between war and the withering away of its economic and military power and the eventual termination of its status as a Great Power. Even the West’s ill-educated leaders must know the decision Imperial Japan took as the result of FDR’s sanctions.

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