About Me

Name: JDComments
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Liberal Icon Pleads for Saddam

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:04:03 PM
Ramsay Clark, that icon of the Liberal Establishment , and eternal thorn in the side of practical humanity, today is pleading for poor Saddam Hussein, who he fears may be tortured before he is executed [see article ]. Gee, I know that thought keeps me up nights too.

I am posting this article just as another example of the Liberal idiocy which in time of war borders on suicidal. If we cannot execute an enemy like Saddam, who should we kill? Obviously for Clark the answer is no one, and therein lies the problem: the Left has "evolved" to the point where no one deserves to die, and try waging a war with that minor constraint on it.

Unfortunately the other side doesn't have this compunction, and so must be sitting somewhere with mouths agape as they consider the possibility that Clark speaks for anyone besides himself,  and that they maybe facing such a kind, considerate enemy that even one of the monsters of the 20th century deserve their compassion and forgiveness. In fact , they may be so touched they might feel a bit misty eyed next time they cut off one of our heads.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Students Reflect Iranian Weakpoints

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:34:13 PM
 As last week's protest against the Iranian president by students [see post ]  and this week's election results indicate, there is an underlying discontent with the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran that offers the West the incentive and direction it needs to undermine it without recourse to military options.

The students of the country who have traditionally been the vanguard of societal change are taking heart from recent events to become more vocal and active in opposing the hardline Islamic regime which has smothered the few rights they had and has not provided the economic benefits they had been promised [see article ].

As opposed to North Korea which is like a black hole in regard to information within it, we can clearly see that an authoritarian regime is having seriously problems there, and cracks are forming which we should be taking advantage of to remove one of the most destabilizing factors in the region.

Serious sanctions which inflict hardships on the people and not just a few guys working on the nuclear program could provide the leverage that is needed to tip the whole country into rebellion.  Surgical penalties which seek to spare the citizens from discomfort are idiotic and self defeating. The Iranian people are responsible for Ahmadinejad being in power, and they have to pay a price until he is gone. Our sanctions should also hold out a carrot for their coming to their senses and ousting a maniac who threatens world peace.

If we refuse to seriously apply this kind of pressure we are leaving ourselves with no other option than full scale war, which I cannot see the UN , our allies, or anyone besides the Israelis supporting. And if the Dems are in power,  it may very well be that the Israelis are on their own, which means a regional war which will endanger oil supplies and disrupt the world economy like nothing since the Great Depression. The stakes cannot be higher, and we may have to bet it all on a bunch of unhappy kids.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

UN, Global Warming=New Scandal?

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:19:31 AM
A program supported by the UN to limit the release of global warming gases has demonstrated the effectiveness we have come to associate with that august Institution: a  $5 million dollar fix results in $500 million dollars in payments. Sounds like a deal!

The report in the NY Times details exactly how this wonderful program, which also  involves European trading criteria for emissions,  operates, but the gist is that another Liberal idea is skewing markets and inefficiently operating and actually having results counterproductive to its goals [surprise!] thus proving once again that the UN is organizationally incapable of doing anything right. 

What will it take for people to realize the UN should be shut down for all our sakes?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Libertarian's Ignorant Argument Against Torture

Posted by JDComments on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:53:54 PM
To understand the mindset of a Libertarian, read this article by  Jim Henley where he takes the scenario of a ticking nuclear bomb and a terrorist who admittedly knows where it is that many use as an argument for selective torture and attempts to subvert it by creating an equivalency with a detestable act , thereby proving that  the argument is fallacious. All that he proves to me is that he has no clue as to what he is talking about.

His logic is that if the terrorist asked you to rape your own child and he would reveal the bomb's location, and thus spare millions of lives, you probably wouldn't, and therefore using the same argument to justify torture is dishonest and wrong.  According to him the only reason that the torture scenario is used is because the government wants to torture people, and are just looking for an excuse. This is the thinking of a Libertarian mind. Scary, isn't it?

He then goes on and postulates a whole bunch of "what if's" [what if the Terrorist wants a ride on the space shuttle, what if you could save your life by letting a million other's die, even something about the World Series] and ends with the Liberal lament about the hypothetical innocent man who is tortured and will say anything to end the pain.

Most of this is the usual drivel, but let us take his argument backwards, and say if he is right,and torture is not justifiable because you wouldn't do anything imaginable to stop the terrorist, then why is questioning permitted at all? And if questioning is not , then why is putting someone on trial  or even arresting him in the first place? Your honor we wouldn't rape our children so we cannot ethically stop this man from blowing up Manhattan.

The point is that because we do somethings and not others doesn't invalidate the things we do. This guy's argument would eventually lead to a Libertarian paradise in which you could do whatever you want and no one could hold you responsible because they wouldn't rape their child to stop you!  He uses what is obviously a detestable example and then impugns all other methods because we are not willing to perform this most heinous act to obtain our goal. This logic would lead to anarchy, but considering it comes from a Libertarian, I think he knows that already.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time for War for Oil?

Posted by JDComments on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:29:15 PM
Yesterday James Biga  of Biga's Rants and I had an interesting exchange on his post where he does an excellent job of tying together the disparate pieces of what is happening in the Middle East so as to present the underlying strategy.  As I find happening more and more, the excellent bloggers on this site are causing me to think further and deeper than I usually do, and none accomplish this more than James.

In trying to decide how Russia and Venezuela play into this geopolitical puzzle, we pondered the possibility that , even though the Russians are as threatened by Islam as anyone,  they may be operating under a different assumption, one which we are forgetting entirely in looking to them to be our partners in the War on Terror. Simply put, follow the money. Why would Russia be so willing to support Iran's nuclear ambitions when it is just as possible a terrorist nuke could make it into Moscow  as into NY? In a word, oil.

 Even as we speak Putin is assembling an energy empire which will soon have a stranglehold on Europe [see article in Washington Times] and he has demonstrated his willingness to use it to exercise power.  In truth, the Russians are accomplishing through oil and gas what they never really did through their military: establishing hegemony over all of Europe.

If the Middle East is thrown into chaos by the Iranians procuring the Bomb, oil will increase in value significantly, meaning Russia makes even more money and garners more power. If, however, nuclear war erupts with Israel, or a regional conflict breaks out to stop the Iranians before they acquire the material and technology, then Middle Eastern oil might very well be taken off the market, making Russia the MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD by dint of their control of much of the remaining  reserves. Oil could conceivably go to $500 a barrel, and gas could be $20 a gallon! Actually the price will be whatever the Russians decide.

Venezuela is also trying to establish an energy empire in Latin America, and  to extend its distribution capabilities throughout the continent [see article] ] so that it, too, will be the beneficiary of any Middle Eastern conflict which disrupts oil production.

Could Russia be so shortsighted as to think a radical Islamic nuclear state wouldn't seriously threaten them? Well, just remember this was the country which cooperated with Hitler even though in Mein Kampf he just about announced his plans to conquer them. What did they get in return? Finland, and then a war with their "ally" which killed millions of their citizens.  I have to believe world domination through energy has to be more enticing than occupying Helsinki.

So as the Dems take control and try to negotiate us out of the Middle East, perhaps they should look a little deeper at countries like Russia and realize that nations are as foolhardy as people in assessing their  best
interests, and greed in no longer just a Western fault. While we ponder a nuclear attack on a city, who is considering the economic effects of no Middle Eastern oil, which could engulf us in another Great Depression?

The time for respecting the disparaging Liberals mantra of " Would you die for oil?" is over. The truth is more of us will die WITHOUT it, and we cannot allow that to happen. There is a War on Terror, but there is also a  bigger game being played here which is even more dangerous in some respects, and we have to be ready for it.  Whether we have to seize South American oil fields, or invade Iran, we better be prepared to control our destiny by securing the life blood of our industrial nation.

The Middle East is  the nexus of  a vital resource and a fanatical ideology and that is a witches brew which could be toxic for us.  And all those addled minded Liberals who would never fight a war for oil and who look to the Russians and other countries to help us fight the Islamicists, well its time they get a wake up call that gets them out of the dream world they have been slumbering in for way too long. Is oil worth dying for? Unless you want to live in a medieval society, the answer is a resounding "YES".




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq Chief Shiite Favors Moderate Coalition

Posted by JDComments on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:26:20 AM
It is being reported that Ayatollah Al-Sistani, who is the most venerated Shia leader in Iraq, is receptive to an American proposal to form a more moderate , inclusive Government which will isolate radicals like Al-Sadr whose private militia is a major factor in the sectarian violence.

Like everything about Iraq, the importance of this to the stability of the country is open to debate and interpretation. Sistani is a powerful force among the Shia and  having him onboard probably means a realignment in the government will happen, and the Sunnis and Kurds will have more power , or at least feel less threatened.

However, the real story of Iraq is in the streets where the various armed groups are ratchet ing up the killings and bombings, backed by outside sources and internal factions, as they attempt to prevent the will of the majority of the people from being realized and a peaceful , united country to form. To the extent that the current leaders are beholdened to people like Al-Sadr , they refuse to move against him, and even protect him from Coalition forces, and so prevent the pacification of the country which is needed for the healing to begin.

If a new government made up of moderates has the political will and independence to allow the armed forces to finally put a stop to the militias' unbridled rampages Iraq may finally be on the road to national unity and peace, which we are all praying for.

As an aside, I think it is worth noting that the recent reports showing that the Iraqi economy is literally booming may be more important than many have realized. Aside from improving the living conditions of the population, which is fundamental to the support given a government, it demonstrates the faith in the country that those with capital obviously have.
 
Anytime there is uncertainty or fear, money tends to flee whether it was Russia in the 1990's or Latin America in the 1980's. Investment  is conscienceless, and seeks opportunity while fearing and avoiding the losses associated with chaos and violence [yes, there are those who make money in these situations, like arms dealers, but they would not be a major factor ].  Therefore the improving economy is a vote of confidence from the capitalists and financiers in Iraq, and that, too, is a positive sign that should be noted and hailed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrorism Seen as Mere Nuisance

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:09:36 PM
The debate over whether terrorism should be seen as a law enforcement problem or military matter is ongoing, with the Dems by their support of suspect rights and the need for warrants and other legal niceties taking the former view while the administration supports the latter. There does seem to be a third perspective which is encapsulated in this article and it is that terrorism is a lowgrade nuisance which we can learn to live with as we do with traffic fatalities and drownings in bathtubs.  But can we?

John Mueller, the proponent of this opinion, appears to lean libertarian, and that would justify a view which argues that all the costs and efforts used to protect us against terrorism are wasted if you consider the actual effects of terrorists attacks as opposed to their psychological ramifications, which he argues we are furthering by our panicky responses. In other words , if we take them in stride they will lose their potency and hopefully be abandoned as tactics by Islamofascists.

The author gives a good  counterargument which shows that the number and effects of these attacks are increasing, and that just looking at deaths misses the symbolism of losing a World Trade Center to these fanatics. He also points out that thwarted attacks are never noticed by definition, and so the tremendous costs to stop them seem wasted when in truth they are most definitely working. In this case success is almost self defeating if constant reinforcement of the threat is what is required to keep people motivated. Hopefully it is not.

He doesn't point out that the spread of WMD's, and especially nuclear technology, over the last decade has increased the potential damage of a terrorist attack  exponentially, and now a small group of madmen could conceivably wipe out a small city. I think it is safe to say this removes the threat from the "nuisance " category.

However, I think the main factor in magnifying the lethality of terrorism attacks is the fact that it has now become a state sponsored activity to a degree never before seen. Yes, Libya did underwrite some terrorists, but nothing on the scale we see today . Part of the reason for that is the tremendous wealth that Iran has accumulated from the price of oil. When push comes to shove money always talks, and today it is screaming "Allah be praised".

I must confess that after 9/11  I , too, was of the opinion that to allow Al Quaida to control our activities was almost an insult, and that our response should be much more moderate given the small resources of the enemy we faced. However, over the last five years as I have watched the true enablers of terrorism grow wealthy and pursue the ultimate weapons I have come around to supporting the military option as the only viable choice to defeat a multiheaded enemy who truly seeks world domination, and it scares me to see that there are still those out there who just don't understand that we are not dealing with a nuisance but a terrifying menace to all we hold dear.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

European Muslims Face Discrimination?

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:22:37 AM
The European Union's report on their Muslim population concludes they face discrimination but does mention that they could do more themselves to connect with wider society, an observation which nicely places the blame for their problems right where it belongs: on the Muslims themselves.

Discrimination implies that a people are treated as separate and different than the majority. Part of the problem as identified by the report is the suspicion that international terrorism has cast on Islamicists.

However, let us consider the behavior of the Muslims themselves. This is a people that: insists on wearing clothes that separate them and sometimes fly in the face of European traditions and even laws; follow Sharia, a legal code that dictates all aspects of life and which conflicts with Western tradition and jurisprudence; believe all infidels [non -Muslims] must be converted,, subjugated or killed; support organizations which subsidize terrorism; often espouse a virulent Anti-Semitism ; kill those who offend their religious beliefs [i.e. Theo Van Gogh]] or issue fatwas to that effect [Rushdie]; and occasionally blow up a train or subway station to emphasize their points.

Gee, I wonder why they are treated differently?

Muslims do not want to be treated as others; they want others to acquiesce to them. This report is another attempt to appease the unappeasable and to rationally approach a problem that defies reason or even human decency. Unless the Muslim people come to accept the tolerance of Western culture, something which seems impossible,  the only way to handle the Muslim situation in Europe is the surrender to their demands and accept Islam as the dominant  religion or to fight the Muslims as they attempt to impose this.

This report is a study in unreality and the refusal to accept what conditions exist in hopes of attaining a peaceful solution.  If I didn't know better I'd think it was another Baker-Hamilton work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Bizarre View of America's Religions

Posted by JDComments on Monday, December 18, 2006 7:42:31 PM
If you want to be shocked you must read this article by  Stephen Prothero, a professor [I guess. It just says he chairs a department] at Boston University who describes a US which is fighting a losing battle to justify its Christianity which is withering away. This is not the usual Liberal attempt to relegate religion to obscurity; rather it seeks to create a history of a US steadily changing in its spiritual beliefs and the picture drawn is just plain weird.

Firstly, according to Prothero, Nazism and Fascism gave Christianity such a bad name that we as a nation took to calling ourselves Christian -Judeo after WWII as opposed to just Christian. Now I have read alot of history, and am familiar with the charges against the Church regarding their lack of effort against Hitler, but NEVER have I seen a statement like this.  I am not even sure what it's significance is within the context of Prothero's attempt to demonstrate the widening of the religious tent in the US since this would only seem to be a cosmetic change.

Next he says after 9/11 the inclusion of Islamic references, which had begun before that date, only increased, so that we have become a Christian -Judeo-Islamic nation , or what he calls Abrahamic, since all trace back to Abraham and share monotheism and certain other characteristics.

So according to his theory  we have in the last 60 years gone from Christian to Abrahamic with all that implies which for him means that we are denying the Buddhists, Hindu's and other non-Abrahamic religions their rightful due. in his words:

Or, as Supreme Court Justice William Douglas put it in 1965, we are “a nation of Buddhists, Confucianists, and Taoists, as well as Christians.”

That's right people, the 85% of this country that is Christian is just another sect among all the others, which we are oppressing by refusing to acknowlege their existence and importance. Rather we are lamely holding onto the fiction that Christianty holds a special position in our nation.  Prothero is sure that this is futile and with time all these other faiths will demand and get their rightful place at the table.
 
As for me, I am not sure if I find this depiction more disturbing or the attempt to deny all religions which I have come to understand as the Liberal position. That at least is consistent with 250 years of Leftist ideology, while this rewriting of history and refusal to accept the fact that the vast majority of this nation is Christian seems more than delusional, it almost seems like a psychotic break with reality.  

While the ignorance of this hypothesis is self evident, the fact  that it is being made by a guy who chairs a religion department at a major university and is appearing on the WaPo website means it cannot just be brushed off. I guess we have to consider it another front in the multicultural war as academia again spins from whole cloth "truths" with no basis in fact.  In the meantime enjoy Christmas which I guess only a few of us celebrate anymore.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Good Deed...

Posted by JDComments on Monday, December 18, 2006 12:30:27 PM
This article from American Thinker reports how money given for tsunami relief actually wound up being used to enforce Muslim laws, including the lashing of women for violations of Sharia law.

The point is that as moral and uplifting as it is to give charity, there are instances where it is counterproductive if not downright antithetical to our interests and values. Subsidizing  a militant Muslim government as in this case is an obvious instance of this paradox, but it is hardly alone.  Supplying food to North Korea is something that has never made sense to me, as it props up a government which is threatening to spread nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Yes, it is horrible to see those people suffer, but are we doing them or us any favors by helping to maintain an authoritarian regime that oppresses them while endangering us? Regardless of what some say, I believe a people should be held responsible for their governments, whether they voted them into office like Hamas, or they just accept them docilely like in North Korea.

If the population arose in revolt even Kim Jong Il would have to take notice, as did the Ukrainian leaders during the "orange" revolution. Yes, it will be difficult to get citizens who have lived under a  dictatorship to express their outrage, but starvation is one of those motivators that might just work. We won't know until we stop providing food which is used to pacify the people and keep them servile.

The point is that charity should not be a knee jerk response which ignores the government that is receiving it because it is for the "people".  As hard as it is for Liberals to understand, the rulers always wind up benefitting from any kind of aid, and it is usually to our's and their people's detriment. Like our military policies which seek to prevent short term disruptions and damage and instead cause  long term havoc, our charity is often shortsighted and results in consequences which can be more harmful than those which we sought to ameliorate. It's time to be more responsible, even if in the world's eyes we seem callous.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

French Still Retreating

Posted by JDComments on Monday, December 18, 2006 10:00:36 AM
As proof that some things never change,  France has decided that fighting the Taliban is a little too tough, and is withdrawing it's 200 troops [part of a 38,000 man Nato Force ] from an Afghan city [see article ].
 
This is probably not surprising to anyone who has studied French history, which has demonstrated over and over again that the country had made  a speciality out of surrendering at the first sight of just about any other nation's military, even if they are just parading, but to retreat out of fear of the Taliban has to be  a new low.

If they collapse before an enemy that is still fighting on horseback, against whom, exactly, is their military prepared to fight?  I guess their strategy is for preparing against an attack by aboriginal forces using sling shots and blow darts [ though if they use curare the enemy has an excellent chance of occupying Paris. After all, just about everyone else has].

To quote the story:

France has been reluctant to have its forces in Afghanistan, a total of 1,100 troops, serve outside the relatively safe Afghan capital, Kabul.

There you have it. The leader of the new Europe and proponent of developing a countervailing world force to US power is the country you want with you in a foxhole as long as it is safe and you cannot be attacked there. And this is the country Liberals look to for international cooperation in the war on Terror. Unbelievable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McWhorter Critiques Racism Charge

Posted by JDComments on Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:44:57 PM
John McWhorter is one of the most perceptive commentators on race in America today, and his independent , almost iconoclastic , ideas reflect a growing black  viewpoint that includes Shelby Steele, Juan Wiliams , Larry Elders and  perhaps the most preeminent of them all, Thomas Sowell.

In a great article Mr. McWhorter takes a look at the Sean Bell affair in NYC, where the usual demagogues are shouting "racism" regarding the killing of Bell by police in a hail of bullets, and finds a different picture entirely. As opposed to the knee jerk Liberal response , he shows that , while it has to be investigated, it is not that unusual or unreasonable  for young black males to be treated with great caution by the authorities given historical and practical facts and their behavior.

Regarding that behavior, McWhorter does what he does best, and that is dissect and critique what black culture has come to accept as "normal" which includes the idea that regular jobs are an exception and that making a living selling drugs is acceptable.  Using historical facts as well as observations and pragmatism, McWhorter indicts black behavior for normalizing activity that other races would never accept.

And he especially criticizes the "identity" politics of the  Black leadership which would rather blame racism than look at the true, underlying causes of the problems confronting their people, an accusation I have made in a previous post. 

As an extremely intelligent Black writer, Mr. McWhorters conservative views are especially trenchant and probably carry more weight with the Black establishment and hopefully rank and file than if he were White. I hope so, for his insight and prescriptions are what Black society need to move beyond the Liberal plantation of ideology they have been stuck on for decades and finally give them the freedom and opportunity that will come from both being held responsible for their actions while at the same time enjoying the fruits of their efforts and talents.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For Liberals It Never Changes

Posted by JDComments on Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:58:25 PM
 In considering the crusades waged by Liberalism today, a complex of policies and beliefs can really be reduced to simple animosity towards the successful  who have accumulated wealth and the religious. Everything else ,as the the saying goes, is commentary. The Left wages a constant battle against these groups as it seeks to create a better world, and oddly enough, for a party of progress, this is the same war they have been engaged in since their founding.

To understand this, you must realize the Enlightenment was a reaction to the corruption and overwhelming power of the most influential  institution in Western Europe, the Catholic Church. As such it was the  intellectual offspring of the Reformation which also attempted to cleanse policies it found offensive, such as the granting of indulgences.
 
Many believe the rediscovery of the works of the Greek philosophers set off the Renaissance which led to the Enlightenment, but St. Aquinas was mulling Aristotle in the 13th century, much before Italy flowered with the "Rebirth". No, those works were around a long time before they were used to justify a secular approach to the world which sought to negate Papal influence. That time came with the Enlightenment.

 Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot , Montaigne and others came to see the Catholic Church as a problem which had to be removed before man's lot could be improved. Their work continued on that of Erasmus and others who ,while not quite so blatant, also began to do what was unthinkable: question ecclesiastical teachings.

Using the only force powerful enough to confont faith, Reason, they began to build the intellectual construct which came to  secularize life, in the process establishing liberties and freedoms where none had ever been contemplated. As they continued, they ran up against the other foundation of the medieval caste society which constrained men, the Aristocracy, and so it, too, became a target in their crosshairs against which they used the concept of equality as ammunition.

With the success of the French Revolution the Church and Aristocracy were basically outlawed as a Utopia was sought through raw mob Democracy tempered by the Reason of the Intelligentsia. Sound familiar?

Over the decades many specifics have changed, but this obsession with religion and wealth,  which today includes Big Business, still hold center stage for the modern descendants of the Revolution, our Liberals. Religion which once had been opposed for its corruption has become the embodiment of absolute values and ethics which is anathema to the social engineering so near and dear to a Leftist's heart. 

Business as representative of success and wealth accumulation is the obstacle to the Liberal quest for the elimination of all inequities, something they never seem to realize is as natural to man as his instinct for survival. It is always so curious to me that a group that will forgo energy independence to preserve the natural habitat of a caribou seems to think man's nature is made of silly putty, able to be stretched into any shape they want.  The party that trumpets the omniscence of Darwinian evolution  nevertheless believes it can ignore it in constructing society. Someone will have to explain that to me someday.

And so, as I said at the beginning of this piece, the party that prides itself on it's progressive beliefs and ever onward spirit of  accomplishment actually is stuck in the mindset of 250 years ago as it continues to wage a war against ancient enemies.  If they believe Iraq is a mistake because it has taken over 3 years, perhaps it is time they realized their campaign against faith and accomplishment  is a study in futility.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Reported to Have New Plan for Iraq

Posted by JDComments on Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:09:26 AM
Fred Barnes is reporting that Bush is reviewing a plan put together by experts which redirects the policy in Iraq. No, it's not that  plan, but rather one formulated by military experts [what a quaint idea-asking  people who know something about warfare, as opposed to a motley crew of accomplished individuals with next to no such expertise].

According to Barnes the gist of the new strategy is increasing troop levels substantially, and using them to pacify and hold Baghdad, something which we have not been able to do in the past due to limited manpower.
[ Frederick Kagan , one of the authors of the new study, has posted it here for anyone who wants more detail].

After Baghdad is secured and sectarian violence contained it is believed that the establishment of a national government can continue and the political part of the process can finally be successful.

Now this is certainly not a new approach, and many have been amazed we haven't done it sooner. In fact, this is much more in line with the kind of policy espoused by Shelby Steele  [ see post ] which recognizes our responsibility to finish what we start as opposed to the half hearted efforts that result from our refusal to accept our hegemonic role.  As nice as it is to think we can allow the Iraqis to take it from here, that is delusional and suicidal to believe and it is up to us to provide the power to recreate this country.

Inevitably there will arise the clamor from those who say this is exactly the opposite of the approach of the ISG, which calls for us to assume an increasing training role and the Iraqis doing the legwork. Well I can't think of a better vote of confidence in a plan than to have it compared unfavorably with that travesty of bipartisanship.

The key question is why would Bush do this now when he has resisted in the past? I think he knows we are down to the "put up or shut time", and with his Presidency winding down and no elections for two years he , hopefully, will make the judgment that it is now or never if his vision  of the Middle East is ever to be given a fighting chance. We have this one last chance before the Liberals and their allies can begin their effort to emasculate us once again and appease the Islamic Terrorists by having us withdraw with our tail between our legs. We have to make this count or risk the trauma to our national psyche that many of us remember after Vietnam. When faced with a determined enemy we cannot allow that to happen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Real "Realpolitiks"

Posted by JDComments on Friday, December 15, 2006 2:14:29 PM
As opposed to the ISG report which is idealism and fantasy falsely packaged as Realist because of the reputation of its leaders, this article by Doug Bandow detailing a non -military strategy for responding to North Korea's nuclear threat shows what "realism" in foreign affairs actually should look like.

Bandow's idea is not new, but rather an elaboration of the "tit for tat" approach which others have bandied about but I have never heard fleshed out as well as here. Simply put, we have to get the Chinese to deal with North Korea for only they have the leverage to do so without firing a shot. To do this we have to align the Chinese interests with ours, which means giving them a vested interest in seeing that North Korea not go nuclear which is stronger than their fear of collapse of that country's regime which will flood their country with a tidal wave of immigrants. It is the belief that , like many extremely weak authoritarian governments, if Korea cannot constantly increase its military capabilities it has a good chance of falling as it's people lose faith in the only thing it seems to do well.

To accomplish this redirecting of the Chinese interests, Bandow goes farther than most, and suggests the US pull back it's nuclear umbrella while giving a tacit green light to the development of nuclear weapons by not only the Japanese, but also the South Koreans and Taiwanese. This should give the Chinese the same warm fuzzy feeling that North Korea is causing us, and hopefully the game of chicken would end with the North Koreans being put in their place by their Beijing masters.

Bandow also points out how so far the administration has taken the exact opposite tack and overtly reconfirmed our protection of our Asian Allies, a noble but morally and diplomatically wrong gesture which is placing us in a worse position than ever to play hardball with the North and Chinese and thus increases the probability of Kim Jong Il brandishing the Bomb. It's so stupid it almost sounds like it was designed by the ISG.

And that gets me back to my main point. Contrast this tough assessment of how to change the dynamics of Asia through the only thing that matters to most countries, their national self interests, to the useless guidelines recommended for pacifying the Middle East, among which is ending the Israel- Palestine Conflict [it's only been going on for 60 years!] and negotiating with the Iranians and Syrians based on their perceived interests in the region which includes reducing the chaos and violence in Iraq. This pie in the sky , Hail Mary attempt at diplomacy overlooks that Syria and Iran are a major cause of said turmoil, and assuming they want to stop it is almost incomprehensible.

Let's not even bring up the  implicit timetable for troop withdrawal, which they then denounce as dangerous for the region. This report is thus not even consistent within its own absurdist Universe, but this is to be expected from a "bipartisan", essentially political effort to wage a war.

If we are going to go the "realist route" as opposed to the "idealism" of fostering democracy , then we better get people who understand conditions on the ground as well as human nature, things the ISG seem to be totally oblivious to, and who are willing to play "tough" and not subscribe to the "feel good" diplomacy which wishes and hopes a lot while seeking to alienate no one, but has no chance of succeeding. Maybe Mr. Bandow should have headed the ISG. Or better yet, maybe he should have been the only member.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910111213Next »