Archive for May, 2010

Obama’s new national security strategy a recipe for disaster, American Thinker, May 29, 2010

Saturday, May 29th, 2010

President Obama’s recently unveiled National Security Strategy is a recipe for disaster, not only for the United States but for the free world as well. It diminishes rather than enhances our security and is an abdication of America’s role as leader and protector of free nations and champion of western civilization.

The document and philosophy behind it limit America’s capacity to respond quickly and decisively to threats and acts of terrorism and war against us and our allies and virtually guarantees that these will occur with ever increasing frequency and ferocity because our enemies know they have nothing to fear and that there will be no real consequences for their actions. As the U.S. places shackles on itself by emphasizing diplomacy and a collective response to anything and everything enemies throw it’s way and becomes weaker as a result those who would destroy us and our way of life become stronger and more emboldened in turn and more likely to threaten and attack. This is an equation that seems to have escaped Obama.

That isn’t the only thing that has escaped him. The strategy is so full of fallacies it is difficult to refer to them all in a piece of this length. Let me cite but three.

For one thing, there is an assumption that diplomacy can be successful in thwarting the activities of our enemies and that discussion will somehow prevent them from doing us harm. This is dead wrong because it is impossible to change the minds of ideologues, lunatics and religiously motivated fanatics and those are the people we would be around the table with.

For another, there is an assumption that a collective response to our enemies is possible in the first place. It isn’t, because individual nations will always act in their own best interests and these vary from country to country. One only has to look at the failure to formulate a collective response to North Korea and Iran to see this.

For another, it doesn’t link Islam to terrorism and acts of war. This is fallacious because Jihadists, Islamists, extremists or whatever else you want to call them all carry out their murderous activities in the name of Islam and Islam makes their violence and heinous acts mandatory. It also means that there is nothing in the strategy about countering and refuting Islamic beliefs and doctrines. Al Qaeda and it’s affiliates and apologists may be the instruments of terror and war but Islam is their enabler.

And on and on. Suffice it to say that the strategy is full of fallacies and platitudes which make us all much more vulnerable and the world a much more dangerous place because they preclude America’s ability to act unilaterally and with resolve when necessary and because there is no accurate recognition in it of the true nature of the world we live in and the threats we face. The whole thing is nothing more than a formula for inaction, inaction which jeopardizes our way of life and very existence.

What would have hapened if this strategy had been in place when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Would we have called for meetings among interested parties to sort out our differences and avoid further bloodshed?

Fat lot of good that would have done.

Maybe Britain’s new coalition government will turn the tide, Re: British FM: Gov’t will change universal jurisdiction law, Jerusalem Post, May 27, 2010

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

The British Government’s decision to change the law allowing private complaints of war crimes against politicians, government officials and military personnel of foreign countries even though they are not British citizens and the alleged crimes were not committed on British soil is most welcome. In practice the universal jurisdiction law was used by anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic individuals and organizations as a propaganda tool against Israel and as a means of keeping Israelis out of the country. It played into a virulent strain of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic prejudice in Britain and prevented the previous government from taking a positive role in Middle Eastern politics. Rescinding the law means that the current government will take a much more balanced view of the conflict in the Middle East and that it rejects the one sided, biased attitudes and behavior of it’s predecessor and a significant portion of British society. This is a repudiation of the politics of hatred and clearly in Britain’s national self interest. It might even lead to change among those Brits who have nothing good to say about Israel and nothing bad to say about Palestinians.

Well done.

America’s inaction brings world closer to war, Re: US demands world response over Korean warship sinking, BBC News Website, May 26, 2010

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

North Korea is bound and determined to go to war against South Korea and bring the entire Korean peninsula under the aegis of the brutal dictatorship in Pyongyang. It feels that it has the military means to conquer South Korea and that the only country with the ability to prevent this, the United States, will not do so because it will not use it’s military on behalf of the South. North Korea knows that a unified international response to it’s unprovoked sinking of the South Korean frigate and numerous other provocations is simply not going to happen and believes that it has a free hand because it has nothing to fear from the U.S.

War between the two Korea’s is imminent. Either North Korea will attack first in an attempt to overwhelm the South or South Korea will attack first in order to prevent a catastrophic strike by it’s archenemy and force America to come to it’s aid. Whatever happens, once war begins the great powers, including the United States, will most certainly be dragged in, whether they want to be or not. This means that a third world war could soon be upon us and that nuclear weapons could very well be used by the combatants.

Unilateral U.S. military action against the North is the only thing that can prevent this from happening. In particular, the United States should destroy a North Korean naval vessel of the size and scale of South Korea’s sunken ship and make it very clear that the full weight of America’s military might will be brought to bear should the North begin a war. This may or may not bring North Korea to it’s senses but it is safe to say that nothing else will and that anything else the U.S. does is bound to fail…other responses such as additional sanctions or further isolation could even cause the North to attack because they will give it an excuse to go ahead. North Korea is hell bent on war and only the thought of it’s own destruction might cause it to back off. The United States is the only country that can bring this about and further inaction on it’s part brings world war closer and closer.

The time to act is now. Right now. Inaction is not an option. In the end, Russia and China won’t mind and no one else really matters.

‘Palestinian-Jewish struggle might have ended peacefuly in 1947-if only Arab leaders hadn’t opted for war’, Re: The Middle East That Could Have Been, National Post, May 14, 2010

Friday, May 14th, 2010

This is not news, not to anyone with an unbiased mind and a knowledge of Middle Eastern history based on fact instead of fiction anyway. The history of the Middle East would have been completely different if Palestinians and the Arab world in general accepted Israel’s legitimate right to exist and welcomed the new country, instead of trying to destroy it and drive the Jews into the sea. Peace would have prevailed, Palestinians would have had their own state and well over 60 years of continuous bloodshed, terror, death and war would have been avoided.

The blame for the ongoing abominable situation is squarely on their shoulders.

So is the solution.

What a silly question. No, it can’t., Re: Could the Middle East become a nuclear free zone?, BBC News Website, May 12, 2010

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

There is no possibility of the Middle East becoming a nuclear free zone in the foreseeable future. None whatsoever.

Right now there is one state in the region with nuclear weapons, Israel, and another, Iran, which is very close to developing and acquiring them. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others will also seek nuclear weapons of their own once Iran becomes a nuclear power.

Israel is not going to give up it’s nuclear weapons because it sees them as essential to the country’s survival and Iran is not going to end it’s development program because it wants to use it’s weapons to attack and destroy Israel (the Little Satan), establish it’s hegemony in the region and eventually confront the United States (the Great Satan).

Three things have to happen before the Middle East can become nuclear free. Israeli’s would have to believe that their country’s security and very existence would not be threatened if they gave up their nuclear deterrent, Iran would have to bring it’s development program to a screeching halt, stop supporting those who work toward Israel’s destruction and convince Israel that it is sincere and won’t revert to form and the Islamic world in general would have to recognize and accept Israel’s legitimate right to exist and act as it’s guarantor.

These things can’t happen because of the Islamic mindset and Islam’s age old antipathy toward Jews (and Israelis by extension), which means that the Middle East can’t become a nuclear free zone either. Israeli’s have no illusions and know full well that they would be attacked in force the minute they gave up their weapons because Iran and the rest of the Islamic world want nothing more than to wipe Israel off the map. Change that and everything else changes too but since the hatred it is based on has existed for 1400 years nothing can be expected soon, if at all.

Blame it on Islam and the Islamic worlds inability to come to terms with Israel’s presence and allow Israeli’s to live in peace and security.

Israel accepted by economic elite into the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Re: Israel takes a big economic step as it joins OECD, Toronto Globe & Mail, May 11, 2010

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

The OECD is comprised of 31 leading industrial democracies and being accepted into it is a very difficult task. “Israel’s scientific and technological policies have produced outstanding outcomes on a world scale,” the Paris based organization said in welcoming Israel into it’s fold. Other remarks were equally as effusive. For example, OECD Secretary General Angel Curria said “This new chapter in the history of the organization confirms our global vocation as the group of countries that searches for answers to the global challenges and establishes standards in many policy fields such as environment, trade, innovation or social issues,”.

The decision to accept Israel was made solely on economic grounds and was unanimous. The Palestinian Authority tried very hard to block it but failed to do so because the OECD did not accept it’s argument that Israel’s membership “would be like accepting it’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.” The byzantine world of the Middle East being what it is however that was not the only reason the Palestinians wanted to keep the Israelis out.

Israel’s acceptance into the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development was a tremendous accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination. It affirmed the country’s place as one of the most advanced and developed nations in the world and recognized the achievements that have occurred there since it came into existence a mere sixty two years ago, not only in economics but in science, technology, social justice and other areas as well. It speaks to Israel as a force for good in the world and as an example that other small nations can emulate. Israeli’s can feel very proud indeed, especially since they built the country from nothing and have ben forced to spend the whole of the past sixty two years in a state of war resulting from it’s neighbors refusing to recognize it’s legitimate right to exist and constantly trying to wipe it off the map. It isn’t easy to achieve what the Israeli’s have but to do so under the conditions they have had to live with is most remarkable.

One wonders what they could have done if they were allowed to live in peace and didn’t have to spend so much of their human and financial capital in a never ending fight for survival.

Conversely, Israel’s acceptance is a very poor reflection on the Palestinians. Their standard of living is nowhere near Israeli’s, their accomplishments in the international arena are miniscule in comparison, their society is beset by hatred, violence, anger, misogyny and a misplaced sense of victimhood, their institutions are riddled with corruption and incompetence, they are not in control of their own destiny and are dependent on the outside world for virtually everything they need to live and they are a stateless, badly educated, poverty stricken people. Every success story such as Israel’s acceptance into the OECD magnifies the difference between the two societies and speaks to the futility of their mindset and behavior. That is something their leaders do not want them to be too cognizant of or the outside world to think about.

One also wonders how much further ahead they would be if they had agreed in 1947 to the partition plan contained in United Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 181, which would have given them their own state next to Israel, or if they had taken other opportunities over the years to have their own state and live in peace with their Israeli neighbors. A great deal no doubt. All of the energy spent on trying to kill and maim Israelis and remove Israel from the face of the earth could have been spent on building their own country and improving their quality of life…how much better that would have been for everyone, themselves not the least.

The OECD’s refusal to consider any political arguments against accepting Israel was also very significant, which the Palestinians and their apologists were well aware of and which coceivably was the main reason they wanted it to reject Israel’s application. Palestinians can only justify their actions on political or religious grounds and if they are not going to be considered by the international community when discussing Israel they really have no other arguments to make and no rationalizations for the way they act. It is also a very short step from refusing to consider political or religious arguments to rejecting them altogether, which is something they most defintely do not want because they have nothing else…they might even be forced to quit blaming Israel for their parlous condition and examine their failures openly and honestly as a precursor to throwing off their shackles, changing, and becoming part of the modern world.

All in all, a very good day for Israelis and a very bad day for Palestinians.

What now Hillary?, Re: ‘Consequences’ if Pakistan car bomb link-Hillary Clinton, Daily Telegraph, May 8, 2010

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned Pakistan that it faces severe consequences if an Islamic terrorist attack like the Times Square bombing was ever traced to that country.

US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the United States has evidence that the Taliban in Pakistan was behind the attack on Times Square.

One wonders just what the consequences Clinton was talking about will be and whether they will have more bite and be more effective than the consequences Iran and North Korea faced for their transgressions, nuclear and otherwise.

Or will her threats be every bit as empty and futile as President Obama’s?

Will the United States put it’s money where it’s mouth is? Can America be depended upon to back up Clinton’s words with action? Does Pakistan really have anything to be concerned about because of it’s connection to the attempted mass murder in New York? Is this just more posturing and meaningless rhetoric by the Obama administration?

I know how I’d answer those questions.

Over to you Hillary.

Bright is not all he is-why won’t the United States attack Iran anyway?, Re: Obama’s Burden of Brightness, American Thinker, May 7, 2010

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

The U.S. under President Obama is not going to launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities in order to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power. We can only speculate about the reasoning behind his decision. This much is clear however.

It can’t have anything to do with national security. Obama must believe that America’s national security would not be gravely compromised if Iran acquired nuclear weapons. Since sanctions have proven to be utterly futile and attacking Iran is the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of it’s hands he has to have concluded that the Iranians would not use them against the
United States or it’s interests. Either that or he has concluded that any missiles which are sent up could be shot down before they reached their target.

Is that right Barack?

It can’t be for economic reasons. A nuclear armed Iran could wreak havoc with the U.S. economy by disrupting or threatening to disrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Obama must believe that the Iranians would never do such things, or that he could persuade them to reverse course if they did.

Is that what you think Mr. President?

It can’t be because he wants to prevent nuclear proliferation, especially in the Middle East. It is a given that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others, perhaps even Iraq, would seek to acquire nuclear weapons of their own if Iran possessed them. The region wouldn’t be a nuclear weapons free zone, it would be full of countries bristling with them, all pointed at one another with trigger happy lunatics at the controls. Obama must believe that wouldn’t happen, or that they wouldn’t be used even if it did.

Do you Barack?

It can’t be because he wants to protect Israel or prevent the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike of their own. The first thing Iran would do if it acquired nuclear weapons is use them against Israel in an effort to wipe it off the face of the earth. Does he seriously think that Israel will not act unilaterally as a matter of national survival? Obama must believe that Israel will take him at his word and rely on the United States to defend it when it isn’t willing to do the one thing it can to keep nuclear weapons out of the Iranian’s arsenal in the first place.

Do you believe that Mr. President?

It can’t be because he wants to inspire confidence in other allies around the world and keep them from arming to the teeth and using their militaries to defend themselves. America’s treatment of Israel is raising concerns among it’s allies everywhere and if countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan decide that they will be abandoned our global strategic position will be weakened and the possibility of regional wars (which could easily morph into much wider conflicts) will increase exponentially. South Korea, to take but one example, will use it’s military to protect itself from North Korea if the U.S. doesn’t and there would be a direct connection between this and the handling of the Iran file.

Do you see that Barack?

It can’t be because he thinks a nuclear armed Iran will stop sowing terror and death and that the world will somehow become a safer place. Iran would become emboldened and it’s support of terrorists and terrorist organizations would go straight up…that includes overt, covert, material, human and financial suport which could very well lead to small and large scale attacks on the American homeland.

Do you understand that Mr. President?

It can’t be because he doesn’t understand that Islam is the real culprit in all of this, that the United States is at war with it and that the Islamists in Tehran are our enemies and can’t be trusted. Islam is fundamentally at odds with American values and the American way of life and Americans are reviled because of who and what they are. Islamists would like nothing better than to bring the U.S. down and turn the country into an Islamic state and are in fact working very hard to do exactly that. If Iranians had nuclear weapons they would be that much closer to achieving their aim. The Little Satan, Israel, today, the Great Satan, the United States, tomorrow…

Can you not recognize the true nature of Islam and see just how serious a threat it really is Barack?

Speculate, speculate, speculate. Personally, I think there are only two possible reasons for Obama’s refusal to take the one step available to him to keep Iran nuclear free. Either he is as naive, feckless, weak, blind, reckless and delusional as his critics think he is or he is fully aware of the ramifications of a nuclear armed Iran, has no love or admiration for America or Americans and wants Iran to become a nuclear power because of some misguided ideology he subscribes to.

You make the choice. Either way, he is unfit for office because the consequences of his mentality and behavior are there for all to see.

Four and counting, Re: Obama: ‘We will not be terrorized’, Washington Times, May 4, 2010

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

The attempt to kill scores of Americans in Times Square was the fourth major Islamist attack on the U.S. homeland since President Obama took office, two successful and two unsuccessful. Prior to this was the fatal shooting at the recruiting station in Little Rock (successful), the Fort Hood massacre (successful) and the attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight over Detroit (unsuccessful). The car bombing in New York was also unsuccessful, but only through the greatest of good luck. There have been many other unsuccessful efforts to commit murder and mayhem in the United States since Obama became President as well.

All of these acts share one defining characteristic. They were carried out by Islamists acting in the name of Islam, every one of them. Although the perpetrators personal circumstances were different (some were born and raised in the U.S., some were naturalized citizens, some acted ostensibly alone, some with the support of foreign networks or individuals, some were Muslim and born into Islam, some were converts and so on) all had a visceral dislike and hatred for America and it’s way of life and were perfectly willing to wipe out as many Americans as they could because Islam told them it was their duty to do so.

President Obama and his administration have worked very hard to minimize and gloss over this basic fact, for reasons known only to themselves. Whatever they are they have nothing to do with national security or with preventing Islamist attacks on U.S. soil. The war on terror that the government is constantly talking about is really a war against Islam. Terrorists, Islamists, Jihadists, Murderers, whatever anyone wants to call them, all operate under it’s rubric and use it’s teachings to justify their vile actions, whether the government wants to admit it or not. Unless we refute Islam and change the Islamic mindset these attacks will increase and more and more Americans will die, no matter how stringent our security measures are.

So, Mr. President, until you and your administration go on the offensive against Islam, which is the root cause of the attacks, we will most certainly be terrorized.

In our own land.

Know thine enemy, Re: Times Square bomb police focus on video of man watching smoking car, The Guardian, May 3, 2010

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

The person or persons responsible for the attempted bombing and mass murder in Times Square has not been identified as of this writing. As such we can only speculate about who might be responsible and their possible motive. Nevertheless, two things stand out very clearly, both of which are cause for great concern, even alarm.

The first is that officials disavowed any possible link to Islamic terrorism virtually as soon as the car bomb was discovered. It was attributed to a lone individual who acted for indeterminate reasons which had nothing to do with the usual litany of grievances raised by Muslim apologists. Even if this turns out to be true, which is exceedingly doubtful, there is no doubt that domestic terrorism in the name of Islam is a significant and growing problem in the United States and that there have been many attempts in New York City to sow terror and death, over and above 9/11 of course. Not acknowledging the possibility of a link closes off numerous lines of inquiry and compromises the investigation and also helps to keep Americans in the dark about how serious the threat of Islamic terrorism in their country really is. Like the Fort Hood massacre and other attacks and attempted attacks, murder and mayhem in the name of Islam is being glossed over by government officials at all levels from President Obama on down. The American public should well ask why…what is the reasoning behind this?

The initial reaction to the car bomb in New York is just the latest example. Given recent history we can expect this to continue as long as Obama is in office even if Osama bin Laden himself planted the bomb.

The second is that Muslim groups and only Muslim groups have praised the attempt and justified the carnage that would have taken place. One terrorist group even rushed to take credit. This is very telling. Yet again it let’s us know, in no uncertain terms, that we are despised and hated, that our way of life is threatened, that our institutions and values will continue to be attacked and that we can expect more and more violence perpetrated by Muslims in our homeland. Whether or not the bomber was acting alone and whether or not his motivation had anything to do with Islam is irrelevant in this sense. There are any number of Islamists in our midst who would like to punish us for what we are and bring about our demise and who see terror and murder as perfectly legitimate means to those ends.

Our governments failure to recognize and admit this, to understand the true motivation behind attacks on us (violent or otherwise) and to take appropriate preventive action makes it complicit at the very least. To rectify the situation we must first become fully conversant with the true nature of Islam. Only then will we get our collective heads out of the sand, start calling a spade a spade and act accordingly.

Are you listening Mr. President? Actually, I know you’re not but I thought I’d ask anyway.

Why indeed?