Posts Tagged ‘ISRAEL’
ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBANA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, CONGRESS, EGYPT, FACEBOOK, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEZBOLLAH, IRAN, IRAQ, IRAQ WAR, ISLAM, ISRAEL, KORAN, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, RUSSIA, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SHIA MUSLIMS, SOVIET UNION, SUNNI MUSLIMS, SYRIA, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNITED NATIONS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 20, 2015 at 1:00 am
Sometimes your worst enemies aid you in ways you could never help yourself.
From July 10 to October 31, 1940, hundreds of badly-outnumbered pilots of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) fought off relentless attacks by Germany’s feared Luftwaffe.
For Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, it was a major setback.
He was forced to concede that he lacked the strength to destroy the British air force–thus making it possible for his navy to land German troop on English soil.
But Hitler wasn’t prepared to give up. He believed he could so terrorize Britons that they would demand that their government submit to German surrender demands.
From September 7, 1940 to May 21, 1941, the Luftwaffe subjected England–and especially London–to a ruthless bombing campaign that became known as The Blitz.
The undamaged St. Paul’s Cathredal, December, 1940
More than 100 tons of high explosives were dropped on 16 British cities. During 267 days (almost 37 weeks):
- London was attacked 71 times;
- Birmingham, Plymouth and Liverpool were attacked eight times;
- Bristol was attacked six times; Glasgow, five; Southampton four; and
- There was also at least one large raid on another eight cities.
Between 40,000 and 43,000 British civilians were killed. About 139,000 others were wounded.
“London can take it” went the British slogan. But, in the United States, Americans–including President Franklin D. Roosevelt–wondered: For how much longer?
Clearly, what Great Britain desperately needed most was a miracle.
Exactly that happened on June 22, 1941.
With 134 Divisions at full fighting strength and 73 more divisions for deployment behind the front, the German Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union.
Joseph Stalin, the longtime Soviet dictator, was stunned. The invasion had come less than two years after Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Hitler had turned on his partner-in-crime. The two dictators had greedily split Poland between them when Hitler launched his invasion on September 1, 1939.
Now they were locked in a fight to the death.
People in England were also surprised–but also suddenly hopeful. Britain now had an ally whose resources might tip the balance against Hitler.
In the United States, then-Senator Harry S. Truman spoke for many Americans when he said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
Today the United States faces just such an opportunity.
In Syria, two of America’s most deadly enemies are now waging war–with each other.
Yes, it’s Hezbollah (Party of God) vs. Al-Qaeda (The Base).
United Nations officials estimate that more than 70,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war since conflict began on March 15, 2011. The trigger: Protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims, who form a minority of Islamics. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.
Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims, who form the majority of that religion. It is intolerent of non-Sunni Muslims and has instigated violence against them. It denounces them as “takfirs”–heretics–and thus worthy of extermination.
Al-Qaeda has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.
Flag of Al-Qaeda
On one side is the Ba’ath regime of Bashir al-Assad, whose allies include Russia, Iran, Hezbullah, and elements in the Iraqi government.
On the other side are a host of Syrians and thousands of foreign Sunni fighters some of whom have affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
And now that civil war has spread into neighborhing Lebanon.
On January 2, 2014, at least four people were killed and 77 injured when a car bomb exploded in a residential neighborhood in southern Beirut.
The Shiite-dominated district, Haret Hreik, is known as a Hezbollah stronghold.
Two days later, an Al-Qaeda linked group claimed responsibility for the attack.
At a press conference for President Barack Obama on March 20, 2013, a reporter asked:
“Morally, how is it possible that for the last two years, tens of thousands of innocent civilians [in Syria] are being massacred and no one–the world, the United States and you–are doing anything to stop it immediately?”
That is entirely the wrong way to view this conflict.
There are solidly practical reasons why the United States should avoid this bloodfest–while cheering on each of its mortal enemies to do its worst.
First, the United States only recently disengaged from Iraq.
On Dec. 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–had cost the lives of 4,487 service members, with another 32,226 wounded.
Second, the war in Iraq fell victim to the law of unintended consequences.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq to turn it into a base–from which to intimidate its neighboring states: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria and Iran.
But while Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been a counter-weight to the regional ambitions of Iran, the destruction of the Iraqi military created a power vacuum. Into this–eagerly–stepped the Iranian mullahs.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SHAH OF IRAN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on November 19, 2015 at 12:14 am
According to Micheal Scheuer, America needs to end its role as Israel’s permanent bodyguard.
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.
Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security on October 9, 2013, Scheuer warned:
“If it was up to me, I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow. All I worry about is that continuing preaching of American politicians to the American people that our relationship with the Israelis doesn’t cause us to have dead Americans and extraordinary expenses in fighting the Muslim world.”
Michael Scheuer
For decades, the United States has pursued two policies in the Middle East, one based on relations with the Arab world and the other based on relations with Israel.
Policy 1: Maintaining access to vast amounts of Arab oil at low prices.
Policy 2: Maintaining the security of Israel.
Since the Arabs and Israelis hate each other, each side constantly tries to sway American support in its direction.
Every step the United States takes to defend Israel–diplomatically or militarily–ignites hatred of Americans among Islamics.
And every step–diplomatically or militarily–the United States takes to improve its relations with Islamic countries convinces Israelis that they’re being “sold out.”
President George W. Bush tilted strongly toward Israel. That convinced Israelis to go on building settlements in occupied Arab territory–and alienated the Arabs.
President Barack Obama, seeking a balanced approach, leaned heavily on Israel to stop building settlements. Israel has continued doing so–thus alienating the Israelis while leaving the Arabs enraged.
In short: The United States is like a giant who has one foot stuck in Israel and the other stuck in any Islamic country–leaving his private parts fully exposed to whichever side wants to take a shot at them.
This is not to deny that Israel has a right to exist. Every nation--including Israel–has the absolute right to defend itself from aggression.
But no nation–including Israel–should have the right to expect another nation to act as its permanent bodyguard.
Millions of Americans believe they are morally obligated to defend Israel owing to the barbarism of the Holocaust. America, however, was never a party to this, and has nothing to atone for.
But there is another reason many Americans feel committed to Israel. And it has nothing to do with concern for the fates of Israelis.
It lies in the mythology of the Christian Right: Many fundamentalist Christians believe that, for Jesus Christ to awaken from his 2,000-year slumber, Israel must first re-conquer every inch of territory it supposedly held during the reign of Kings David and Solomon.
Right-wing Christian fantasy: Dead man hovering
After Christ returns, they believe, the Jews will face a choice: Become Christians or go to hell. For evangelical Christians, Jews remain the eternal “Christ killers.”
And if Jews must assume temporary control of the Middle East to bring about the return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, so be it.
This is also the view of many Right-wing members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Clearly, people who hold such totally irrational views shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office.
Unfortunately, such unbalanced views are shared by millions of equally irrational evangelical Christians.
During his appearance before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael Scheuer absolutely rejected the conservatives’ assertion that jihadists wage war on us because they “hate us for our freedoms.”
SCHEUER: These people are fighting for something substantive, for something religious. ….They are not going to fight us because we have women in the workplace.
That is an insanity. What they are fighting us about is what we do.
…I would draw your attention to the reality that, to the best of my knowledge, neither we nor any of our NATO partners have yet to capture a Western Islamist fighter whose words or documents have shown a motivation to attack based on hatred for liberty, elections or gender equality.
Invariably, they attribute their motivation to U.S. and Western military intervention and support for Israel and Muslim tyrannies.
Scheuer’s take on Israel brought him into direct conflict with Rep. Peter T. King (R-New York).
Congressman Peter T. King
KING: I would just say we would have more dead Americans if we didn’t stand by our allies in the Middle East. We would just be encourage al-Qaeda to take advantage of us.
SCHEUER: You know, you are presiding over a bankruptcy. What can be worse? What has been the goal of al-Qaeda since it was formed? To bankrupt the United States.
Who is winning today, sir? We are done like dinner.
KING: We are winning and we will continue to win unless we take the advice of people like you.
SCHEUER: Sir, you are exactly wrong. We are losing. Two U.S. field armies were defeated by men in the field with weapons from the Korean War.
KING: The fact is we have not been successfully attacked since September 11.
SCHEUER: The fact is, sir, we have had two military defeats overseas, which is far more important.
And, warns Scheuer, more defeats–domestic and international–lie ahead unless the United States radically changes its policies toward the Middle East.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SHAH OF IRAN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 18, 2015 at 12:16 am
For America to avoid permanent military entanglements in the Middle East, it must learn to mind its own business.
So says Michael Scheuer, a 20-year CIA veteran who, from 1996 to 1999, headed Alec Station, the CIA’s unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center.
He’s also the author of two seminal works on America’s fight against terrorism:Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (2003) and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq (2008).
Scheuer has repeatedly warned: The United States must not deploy troops in Syria.
More than 310,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war. The conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
And many members of Congress are demanding that “we must do something” to stop all that killing.
Three reasons have already been given for why America should steer clear of the Syrian tar-baby. Among the others:
Fourth, the Assad regime is backed by–-among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hezbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.
Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. Besides plotting 9/11, It has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis.
Examples of these sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.
Flag of Al Qaeda
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
Fifth, intervening in Syria could produce unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
President Obama has repeatedly said American warplanes are targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). But bombing is never as accurate as its proponents insist.
An accidental American strike on Syrian government forces could lead the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to attack Israel–perhaps even with chemical weapons.
Assad could do this simply because he hates Jews–or to lure Israel into attacking Syria.
If that happened, the Islamic world–which lusts to destroy Israelis even more than “apostate” Muslims–would rally to Syria against the United States, Israel’s chief ally.
Sixth, the United States cannot defeat ISIL through air power alone.
President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIL in September, 2014. Since then, the United States Air Force has dropped thousands of bombs on ISIL convoys.
This has not, however, destroyed ISIL. And its failure to do so has only led to demands by hawkish Republicans and Democrats for “boots on the ground.”
This was in fact predictable. Air power alone failed to secure victory over Nazi Germany during World War II and Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Nor did it “shock and awe” the Iraqis into surrendering during the 2003 Iraq war.
Seventh, while Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
Eighth, China and Russia are fully supporting the Assad dictatorship–-and the brutalities it commits against its own citizens.
Any move by the United States to directly attack the Assad regime could ignite an all-out war with Russia and/or China.
What happens if American and Russian forces start trading salvos? Or if Russian President Vladimir Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–-that triggered World War l.
Ninth, America’s past efforts in the Middle East have usually gone horribly awry.
Two examples should suffice:
Iran: Mohammad Mosaddegh was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953. His decision to nationalize the Iranian oil industry led to his overthrow in a CIA coup.
He was replaced by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled until 1979 when a national upheaval forced him to flee. Iranians have never forgiven the United States for subjecting them to the 25-year reign of a brutal despot.
Shah of Iran
Afghanistan: In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. America began supplying shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan Mujahideen fighters. These shifted the balance of the war to the Afghans, who brought down countless Soviet airplanes and helicopters.
Deprived of air supremacy, the Soviet army lost 14,453 killed and 53,753 wounded, and withdrew by 1989.
Americans congratulated themselves on their Realpolitic. But many of the Stingers remained in the hands of jihadists–who decided that America was now “The Great Satan.” One of those jihadists: Osama bin Laden.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on November 17, 2015 at 12:30 am
According to Micheal Scheuer, for all their ideological differences, Republicans and Democrats share one belief in common:
“An unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.
Michael Scheuer
From 1996 to 1999 he headed Alec Station, the CIA’s unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center.
He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.
And he’s convinced that if America wants peace, it must learn to mind its own business.
He’s also the author of two seminal works on America’s fight against terrorism: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (2003) and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq (2008).
Scheuer says that Islamics don’t hate Americans because of “our way of life”–with its freedoms of speech and worship and its highly secular, commercialized culture.
Instead, Islamic hatred toward the United States stems from America’s six longstanding policies in the Middle East:
- U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments;
- U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula;
- U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall;
- U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low;
- U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; and
- U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
Scheuer contends that no amount of American propaganda will win “the hearts and minds” of Islamics who can “see, hear, experience, and hate” these policies firsthand.
But there is another danger facing America, says Scheuer, one that threatens “the core of our social and civil institutions.”
And in Marching Toward Hell he bluntly indicts that threat: The “profound and willful ignorance” of America’s “bipartisan governing elite.”
Scheuer defines this elite as “the inbred set of individuals who have influenced…drafted and conducted U.S. foreign policy” since 1973.
Within that group are:
- politicians
- journalists
- academics
- preachers
- civil servants
- military officers
- philanthropists.
“Some are Republicans, others Democrats; some are evangelicals, others atheists; some are militarists, others pacifists; some are purveyors of Western civilization, others are multiculturalists,” writes Scheuer.
But for all their political and/or philosophical differences, the members of this governing elite share one belief in common: “An unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
And he warns that this “bipartisan governing elite” must radically change its policies–such as unconditional support for Israel and corrupt, tyrannical Muslim governments.
Otherwise, Americans will be locked in an endless “hot war” with the Islamic world.
On September 28, 2014, President Barack Obama provided an example of this “unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
In an appearance on 60 Minutes, Obama spoke about his recent decision to commit American troops to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Steve Kroft: I think everybody applauds the efforts that you’ve made and the size of the coalition that has been assembled.
But most of them are contributing money or training or policing the borders, not getting particularly close to the contact. It looks like once again we are leading the operation. We are carrying…
President Obama: Steve, that’s always the case. That’s always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation. We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world.
And when trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don’t call Beijing. They don’t call Moscow. They call us. That’s the deal.
President Barack Obama
Steve Kroft: I mean, it looks like we are doing 90%.
President Obama: Steve…when there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge making sure Haiti can rebuild. That’s how we roll. And that’s what makes this America.
Scheuer believes that this mindset shouldn’t be what “makes this America.” And that the place to start is by not deploying troops to Syria.
More than 310,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war. The conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Among the reasons why America should steer clear of the Syrian bloodbath:
First, since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hizbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safehouse in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–-the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.
Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–“Carlos the Jackal”
Second, there are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–-only murderers who have long served a tyrant and other murderers who now wish to become the next tyrant.
Third, the United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, other than “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.” But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what his “state policy” is toward Syria–or what he intends to gain by attacking it.
Obama has said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–-and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
ABC NEWS, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, CBS NEWS, CHRISTIAN RIGHT, CNN, COLD WAR, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, EGYPT, FACEBOOK, GLOBAL WARMING, HUNGARIAN UPRISING, HUNGARY, IRAN, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISRAEL, JESUS CHRIST, MIDDLE EAST, NBC NEWS, Oil, REUTERS, SAND CURTAIN, SECOND COMING, SHAH OF IRAN, SHIITE MUSLIMS, SOVIET UNION, SUNNI MUSLIMS, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNITED STATES
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Uncategorized on November 16, 2015 at 12:01 am
There can be peace–for the United States--in the Middle East.
But to achieve this, Western Europe and the United States will have to make radical changes in their approach to that part of the world.
First, the United States must embark on a crash program to develop alternatives to oil.
The Islamic world offers only one reason for American concern: oil.
Yet its consumption threatens the future of the world through global warming. And it keeps America tethered to regimes that are fundamentally unstable and hostile to the West.
Second, once the United States weans itself from its dependency on fossil fuels, it can safely end its relationship with such regimes.
That means putting an end to spending billions of dollars every year to prop up regimes like those in Iraq and Egypt. And it also means stopping the supply of big-ticket military hardware (like fighter planes and missiles) to Islamic regimes.
When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, he was probably the best-armed Islamic leader in the Middle East. His army and air force bristled with sophisticated American weaponry he had bought with billions of dollars in oil revenues.
Shah of Iran
But he had thoroughly alienated his people. Liberals thought him a tyrant, and conservatives thought him a traitor to Islam. So when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini flew to Iran from his self-exile in Paris, no one in the Shah’s army and air force raised a hand in his defense.
Third, the United States should end its “Permanent Bodyguard” relationship with Israel.
Every nation--including Israel–has the absolute right to defend itself from aggression. But no nation–including Israel–should have the right to expect another nation to act as its permanent bodyguard.
Millions of Americans believe they are morally obligated to defend Israel owing to the barbarism of the Holocaust. But America was never a party to this, and has nothing to atone for.
But there is another reason many Americans feel committed to Israel. And it has nothing to do with concern for the fates of Israelis.
It lies in the mythology of the Christian Right: Many fundamentalist Christians believe that, for Jesus Christ to awaken from his 2,000-year slumber, Israel must first re-conquer every inch of territory it supposedly held during the reign of Kings David and Solomon.
Right-wing Christian fantasy: Dead man hovering
After Christ returns, they believe, the Jews will face a choice: Become Christians or go to hell. For evangelical Christians, Jews remain the eternal “Christ killers.”
And if Jews must assume temporary control of the Middle East to bring about the return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, so be it.
This is the view of many Right-wing members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Obviously, people who hold such totally irrational views shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office.
Unfortunately, such unbalanced views are shared by millions of equally irrational evangelical Christians.
Fourth, the United States and its European allies should erect a “Sand Curtain” around the Middle East.
For 44 years–1947 to 1991–the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a Cold War. Essentially, the United States drew a ring around the Soviet Union–including those nations its armies had seized following the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.
The United States said, in effect: “We can’t liberate the countries you’re now occupying”–because trying to do so would have triggered a nuclear World War III. “But we won’t allow you to occupy and enslave any other countries. And if you try to do so, it will mean total war.”
That’s why the United States did nothing to aid Hungarians when they rose up against their Soviet occupiers in 1956. That rebellion was quickly and brutally crushed.
And that’s why America stood by when Soviet tanks rolled into Prague in 1968 when Czechoslovakia dared to relax controls over its citizens.
Fifth, a “Sand Curtain” around the Middle East would work as follows:
America would withdraw all of its forces from the Middle East–but keep a good portion stationed in Europe.
It would then publicly announce: “From now on, you are the masters of your own destinies–so long as what you do affects only those of you living in the Middle East.
“We recognize that barbarism and violence have always been a part of life in the Middle East. And we don’t expect this to change.
“So go ahead and destroy as many of your own citizens as you wish–either because they’re Jewish or Christians, or because Sunni Muslims hate Shiite Muslims and Shiite Muslims hate Sunni Muslims.
“Just don’t do anything that poses a threat to those living outside your barbaric lands. In short: Europe and the United States are strictly off-limits to you.
“And if you aim your aggression at either, we will consider this an act of war and use all the weapons at our disposal–including nuclear ones–to wipe you from the face of the Earth.“
The United States cannot enforce peace between Islamics and Israelis. Nor between Christians and Islamics. Nor between Islamics and Islamics.
But it can impose an embargo to confine such barbarism to only the Middle East.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IRAN, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISRAEL, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 21, 2015 at 11:26 am
There are ten excellent reasons for withdrawing American soldiers from their current war on ISIS forces in Syria.
1. It’s been only four years since the United States disengaged from Iraq. On December 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–had killed 4,487 service members and wounded another 32,226.
2. The United States is still fighting a brutal war in Afghanistan. Although the United States’ military role formally ended in December, 2014, airstrikes against Taliban positions continue and U.S. troops remain in combat positions.
U.S. Special Operations troops, serving as advisors and trainers of struggling Afghan government forces, still unleash military operations against the Taliban.
3. Intervening in Syria could produce unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
American bombs or missiles could land on one or more sites containing stockpiles of chemical weapons. Imagine the international outrage that will result if the release of those weapons kills hundreds or thousands of Syrians.
U.S. warship firing Tomahawk Cruise missile
Within the Islamic world, the United States will be seen as waging a war against Islam, and not simply another Islamic dictator.
4. Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hezbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.
Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–“Carlos the Jackal”
5. There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–only murderers who have long served a tyrant or now wish to become the next tyrant.
With no history of democratic government, Syrians aren’t thirsting for one now.
6. The United States had no part in creating the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashir al-Assad.
Thus, Americans have no moral obligation to support those Syrians trying to overthrow it since 2011.
7. The United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, other than “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.”
But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what his “state policy” is toward Syria. He’s said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
8. The Assad regime is backed by–among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hezbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 Americans.
Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. Besides plotting 9/11, It has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis.
Examples of these sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.
Flag of Al Qaeda
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
9. The United States could find itself in a shooting war with Russia.
The Russians recently sent tanks and artillery units to Syria, in addition to hundreds of Russian troops. This is almost certainly an effort by Russian President Vladimir Putin to bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime.
What happens if American and Russian tanks and/or artillery units start trading salvos? Or if Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–that triggered World War l. The difference between 1941 and 2015: Today’s Great Powers have nuclear arsenals.
10. While Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
Every dead supporter of Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda–or ISIS–makes the United States that much safer.
The peoples of the Middle East have long memories for those who commit brutalities against them. In their veins, the cult of the blood feud runs deep.
When Al-Qaeda blows up civilians in Damascus, their relatives will urge Hezbollah to take brutal revenge. And Hezbollah will do so.
Similarly, when Hezbollah destroys a mosque, those who support Al-Qaeda will demand even more brutal reprisals against Hezbollah.
No American could instill such hatred in Al-Qaeda for Hezbollah–or vice versa. This is entirely a war of religious and sectarian hatred.
This conflict could easily become the Islamic equivalent of “the Hundred Years’ War” that raged from 1337 to 1453 between England and France.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CIA, CNN, DAVID BROOKS, DAVID CORN, FACEBOK, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 21, 2015 at 12:56 am
For America to avoid permanent military entanglements in the Middle East, it must learn to mind its own business.
So says Michael Scheuer, a 20-year CIA veteran who, from 1996 to 1999, headed Alec Station, the CIA’s unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center.
He’s also the author of two seminal works on America’s fight against terrorism: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (2003) and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq (2008).
Scheuer has repeatedly warned: The United States must not deploy troops in Syria.
More than 310,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war. The conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
And many members of Congress are demanding that “we must do something” to stop all that killing.
Among the reasons why America should steer clear of the Syrian tar-baby:
The Assad regime is backed by–-among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hezbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.
Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. Besides plotting 9/11, It has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis.
Examples of these sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.
Flag of Al Qaeda
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
Intervening in Syria could produce unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
An American military strike on Syrian government forces could lead the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to attack Israel–perhaps even with chemical weapons.
Assad could do this simply because he hates Jews–or to lure Israel into attacking Syria.
If that happened, the Islamic world–which lusts to destroy Israelis even more than “apostate” Muslims–would rally to Syria against the United States, Israel’s chief ally.
China and Russia are fully supporting the Assad dictatorship–-and the brutalities it commits against its own citizens.
This reflects badly on them–-not the United States.
And any move by the United States to directly attack the Assad regime could ignite an all-out war with Russia and/or China.
What happens if American and Russian forces start trading salvos? Or if Russian President Vladimir Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–-that triggered World War l.
The United States cannot defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) through air power alone.
President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIL in September, 2014. Since then, the United States Air Force has dropped thousands of bombs on ISIL convoys.
This has not, however, destroyed ISIL. And its failure to do so has only led to demands by hawkish Republicans and Democrats for “boots on the ground.”
This was in fact predictable. Air power alone failed to secure victory over Nazi Germany during World War II and Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Nor did it “shock and awe” the Iraqis into surrendering during the 2003 Iraq war.
While Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
* * * * *
During his September 28, 2014 appearance on 60 Minutes, President Obama admitted that the mostly Sunni-Muslim Iraqi army had refused to combat the Sunni army of ISIL.
Then followed this exchange:
Steve Kroft: What happens if the Iraqis don’t fight or can’t fight?
President Obama: Well…
Steve Kroft: What’s the end game?
President Obama: I’m not going to speculate on failure at the moment. We’re just getting started. Let’s see how they do….
It was precisely such a mindset that led the United States, step by step, into the Vietnam quagmire.
As in the case of Vietnam, the United States lacks:
- Real or worthwhile allies in Iraq or Syria;
- A working knowledge of the peoples it wants to influence in either country;
- Clearly-defined goals that it seeks to accomplish in that region.
America rushed to disaster in Vietnam because its foreign policy elite felt it had to “do something” to fight Communism anywhere in the world.
And it is continuing to rush toward disaster in the Middle East because its foreign policy elite once again feel is must “do something.”
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CIA, CNN, DAVID BROOKS, DAVID CORN, FACEBOK, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 20, 2015 at 12:10 am
The United States must learn to mind its own business. Otherwise, it will remain forever entangled in warfare–especially in the Middle East.
That’s the advice of former CIA agent Michael Scheuer.
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.
He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.
Michael Scheuer
He’s also the author of two seminal works on America’s fight against terrorism: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (2003) and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq (2008).
Scheuer says that Islamics don’t hate Americans because of “our way of life”–with its freedoms of speech and worship and its highly secular, commercialized culture.
Instead, Islamic hatred toward the United States stems from America’s six longstanding policies in the Middle East:
- U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments
- U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula
- U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall
- U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low
- U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
- U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants
Scheuer contends that no amount of American propaganda will win “the hearts and minds” of Islamics who can “see, hear, experience, and hate” these policies firsthand.
But there is another danger facing America, says Scheuer, one that threatens “the core of our social and civil institutions.”
And in Marching Toward Hell he bluntly indicts that threat: The “profound and willful ignorance” of America’s “bipartisan governing elite.”
Scheuer defines this elite as “the inbred set of individuals who have influenced…drafted and conducted U.S. foreign policy” since 1973.
Within that group are:
- politicians
- journalists
- academics
- preachers
- civil servants
- military officers
- philanthropists.
“Some are Republicans, others Democrats; some are evangelicals, others atheists; some are militarists, others pacifists; some are purveyors of Western civilization, others are multiculturalists,” writes Scheuer.
But for all their political and/or philosophical differences, the members of this governing elite share one belief in common: “An unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
And he warns that this “bipartisan governing elite” must radically change its policies–such as unconditional support for Israel and corrupt, tyrannical Muslim governments.
Otherwise, Americans will be locked in an endless “hot war” with the Islamic world.
On September 28, 2014, President Barack Obama provided an example of this “unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
In an appearance on 60 Minutes, Obama spoke about his recent decision to commit American troops to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Steve Kroft: I think everybody applauds the efforts that you’ve made and the size of the coalition that has been assembled.
But most of them are contributing money or training or policing the borders, not getting particularly close to the contact. It looks like once again we are leading the operation. We are carrying…
President Obama: Steve, that’s always the case. That’s always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation. We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world.
And when trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don’t call Beijing. They don’t call Moscow. They call us. That’s the deal.
President Barack Obama
Steve Kroft: I mean, it looks like we are doing 90%.
President Obama: Steve…when there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge making sure Haiti can rebuild. That’s how we roll. And that’s what makes this America.
Scheuer believes that this mindset shouldn’t be what “makes this America.” And that the place to start is by not deploying troops to Syria.
More than 310,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war. The conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Among the reasons why America should steer clear of the Syrian bloodbath:
Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hizbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safehouse in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–-the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.
Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–“Carlos the Jackal”
There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–-only murderers who have long served a tyrant and other murderers who now wish to become the next tyrant.
The United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, other than “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.” But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what his “state policy” is toward Syria–or what he intends to gain by attacking it.
Obama has said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–-and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CIA, CNN, DAVID BROOKS, DAVID CORN, FACEBOK, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 19, 2015 at 12:07 am
On April 16, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights released some encouraging news for potential victims of Islamic terrorism–and those fighting it.
More than 310,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war.
Put another way: More than 310,000 potential or actual Islamic terrorists will never again pose a threat to the United States or Western Europe.
The Syrian conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
According to the Observatory, which is safely based in Britain:
- The total number of dead is now at 310,000.
- More than 37,000 rebels have been killed and over 46,000 from pro-Assad forces.
- At least 682 Hizbollah fighters.
- The true toll on both sides was likely much higher–by perhaps more than 60,000.
And who does the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights blame for this Islamic self-slaughter? Why, the West, of course.
According to its website:
“The silence of the International community for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria encourages the criminals to kill more and more Syrian people because they have not found anyone that deter them from continuing their crimes that cause to wound more than 1500000 people; some of them with permanent disabilities, make hundreds of thousands children without parents, displace more than half of Syrian people and destroy infrastructure, private and public properties.”
310,000 people killed since the beginning of the Syrian Revolution | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
Got that? “They have not found anyone that deter them from continuing their crimes”–as if it’s the duty of non-Muslims to bring civilized behavior to Islamics.
And why are all these murderers “continuing their crimes”? Because of a religious dispute within Islam that traces back to the fourth century.
Yes, it’s Sunni Muslims, who make up a majority of Islamics, versus Shiite Muslims, who comprise a minority.
Each group considers the other takfirs–that is, “apostates.” And, in Islam, being labeled an apostate can easily get you murdered.
But, according to the Syrian Observatory, it’s the duty of the infidel West to convince these murderers to stop slaughtering one another.
Think of it:
- In three years, 310,000 actual or potential enemies of Western Civilization have chosen to kill each other off.
- Additional thousands are certain to follow their example.
- And the United States cannot be held in any way responsible for it.
Meanwhile, Right-wing Republicans demand that the United States thrust itself into a conflict that doesn’t threaten or concern Americans in any way.
On August 14, conservative columnist David Brooks appeared on the “Week’s Roundup” segment of The PBS Newshour.
Speaking of the current Islamic self-slaughter in Iraq, he said:
“I do think that we abandoned Iraq too quickly, left too quickly, left a void in the Sunni areas, which ISIS was completely happy to fill.
David Brooks
“But more important–and this is a bigger indictment of the Obama administration–we did nothing about the Syrian civil war. And that created the biggest void.
“And that’s not necessarily [Senator] Hillary Clinton’s fault because she was arguing for a more aggressive policy. Nonetheless, we did nothing.
“Even today, our attacks on ISIS are paltry, and we have continue to do nothing. And there are strategic issues. There are just moral issues.
“Today, my newspaper [The New York Times] had a front-page story on just rape academies, this institutionalized rape.
“And the fact that we can stand by and do nothing while this is happening, to me, that’s an indictment of the sitting administration.”
David Corn, the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine, appeared on that Newshour segment. And he had a totally different take on the matter:
“…It wasn’t until after [President George W. Bush’s] invasion of Iraq that you had something called al-Qaida in Iraq. And that was the group that morphed into ISIS. So ISIS is a direct result of the war in Iraq right there….
“But then [Presidential candidate Jeb Bush] said what happened was that [President Barack] Obama and [then-Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton orchestrated this quick withdrawal after everything was secure.
David Corn
“Nothing was really secure in 2009-2010….But it was George W. Bush in December 2008 who created the agreement with [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] Maliki that said that U.S. troops had to be out by 2011.
“And then Obama didn’t renegotiate that. And there is a lot of question as to whether he could even have, given the political situation in Baghdad itself. So…Jeb Bush is totally rewriting this. And my question is, why is he even talking about Iraq?”
To which Brooks replied: “He wants to have an anti-terror foreign policy.”
According to Micheal Scheuer, for all their ideological differences, Republicans and Democrats share one belief in common: “An unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.
Michael Scheuer
From 1996 to 1999 he headed Alec Station, the CIA’s unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center.
And he’s convinced that if America wants peace, it must learn to mind its own business.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BERLIN AIRLIFT, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, EGYPT, FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ISRAEL, MEXICO, MITCH MCCONNELL, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, OPERATION NICKEL GRASS, OUTER LIMITS "ZANTI MISFITS" EPISODE, RACIAL PROFILING, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE OUTER LIMITS, THE WASHINGTON POST, YOM KIPPUR WAR
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 10, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Republican Congressional candidates like Kentucky U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell have long demanded an end to illegal immigration.
In 2012, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum made illegal immigration a major issue of his failed campaign for the Presidency.
The Republicans’ chief proposed weapon: Wholesale deportation of millions of illegal aliens from the United States.
But even if a future Republican President dared to take such a politically controversial step, could it actually succeed?
Let’s assume that the Federal Government could identify and arrest all or most of the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens now living in the United States. Then what?
Sending them back to their native countries would prove a colossal failure.
Most of America’s illegals come from neighboring Hispanic countries. Which means that as soon as they are deported, most of them cross the Mexican border again.
Case in point: Francisco Sanchez, now accused of shooting a woman on a San Francisco pier. With a history of seven felony convictions, he’s been deported to his native Mexico five times, most recently in 2009.
Click here: Report: Most Illegal Immigrants Come From Mexico – US News
More importantly: The governments of those Central and South American countries use the United States as a dumping ground–of those citizens who might demand reforms in their political and economic institutions.
There is only one approach that could strike a meaningful blow against illegal immigration. And it might well be called “The Zanti Option.”
Viewers of the 1960s sci-fi series, The Outer Limits, will vividly recall its classic 1963 episode, “The Zanti Misfits.”
In this, soldiers at an American Army base in a California ghost town nervously await first-contact with an alien race that has landed a space ship nearby.
The soldiers are warned to steer clear of the ship, and they do. But then an escaped convict (Bruce Dern, in an early role) happens upon the scene–-and the ship.
The Zantis, enraged, emerge–and soon the soldiers at the military base find themselves under attack.
A “Zanti”
The soldiers desperately fight back–-with flamethrowers, machineguns or just rifle butts. Finally the soldiers win, wiping out the Zantis.
But now the base–-and probably America–-faces a wholesale invasion from the planet Zanti to avenge the deaths of their comrades.
So the soldiers wait anxiously for their next transmission from Zanti–-which soon arrives.
To their surprise–-and relief–-it’s a message of thanks: “We will not retaliate. We never intended to. We knew that you could not live with such aliens in your midst.
“It was always our intention that you destroy them…We are incapable of executing our own species, but you are not. You are practiced executioners. We thank you.”
A future Republican President could deal with the tsunami of illegal aliens by launching what might be called “Operation Zanti.”
Rather than deport them to nearby countries–from which they would easily sneak back into the United States–-the Federal Government could ship them off to more distant lands.
Like Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Syria.
It’s unlikely they will sneak back across the American border from the Middle East.
Such a policy change would:
- Close the Mexican revolving door, which keeps illegal immigration flowing; and
- Send an unmistakably blunt message to other would-be illegals: “The same fate awaits you.”
Although this might seem a far-fetched proposal, it could be easily carried out by the United States Air Force.
According to this agency’s website: “The C-5 Galaxy is one of the largest aircraft in the world and the largest airlifter in the Air Force inventory.
“The C-5 has a greater capacity than any other airlifter. It [can] carry 36 standard pallets and 81 troops simultaneously.
C-5 transport plane
“[It can also carry] any of the Army’s air-transportable combat equipment, including such bulky items as the 74-ton mobile scissors bridge.
“It can also carry outsize and oversize cargo over intercontinental ranges and can take off or land in relatively short distances.”
Click here: C-5 A/B/C Galaxy and C-5M Super Galaxy > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display
Instead of stuffing these planes with cargo, they could be stuffed wall-to-wall with illegal aliens.
The United States Air Force has a proud history of successfully providing America’s soldiers–-and allies–-with the supplies they need.
From June 24, 1948 to May 12, 1949, only the Berlin Airlift stood between German citizens and starvation.
The Soviet Union had blocked the railway, road, and canal access to the Berlin sectors under allied control. Their goal: Force the western powers to allow the Soviet zone to supply Berlin with food, fuel, and aid.
This would have given the Soviets control over the entire city.
Air forces from the United States, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa flew over 200,000 flights in one year, dropping more than 4,700 tons of necessities daily to the besiged Berliners.
The success of the Berlin Airlift raised American prestige and embarrassed the Soviets, who lifted the blockade.
The Berlin Airlift
A similar triumph came during the Yom Kippur War after Egypt and Syria attacked Israel without warning on October 6, 1973.
A Watergate-embattled President Richard Nixon ordered “Operation Nickel Grass” to deliver urgently-needed weapons and supplies to Israel.
For 32 days, the Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of ammunition, artillery, tanks and other supplies. These proved invaluable in saving Israel from destruction.
So the mass deportation of millions of illegal aliens lies within America’s technological capability. Whether any American President would be willing to give that order is another matter.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBANA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, CONGRESS, EGYPT, FACEBOOK, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEZBOLLAH, IRAN, IRAQ, IRAQ WAR, ISLAM, ISRAEL, KORAN, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, RUSSIA, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SHIA MUSLIMS, SOVIET UNION, SUNNI MUSLIMS, SYRIA, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNITED NATIONS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
GETTING HELP FROM YOUR ENEMIES: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 20, 2015 at 1:00 amSometimes your worst enemies aid you in ways you could never help yourself.
From July 10 to October 31, 1940, hundreds of badly-outnumbered pilots of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) fought off relentless attacks by Germany’s feared Luftwaffe.
For Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, it was a major setback.
He was forced to concede that he lacked the strength to destroy the British air force–thus making it possible for his navy to land German troop on English soil.
But Hitler wasn’t prepared to give up. He believed he could so terrorize Britons that they would demand that their government submit to German surrender demands.
From September 7, 1940 to May 21, 1941, the Luftwaffe subjected England–and especially London–to a ruthless bombing campaign that became known as The Blitz.
The undamaged St. Paul’s Cathredal, December, 1940
More than 100 tons of high explosives were dropped on 16 British cities. During 267 days (almost 37 weeks):
Between 40,000 and 43,000 British civilians were killed. About 139,000 others were wounded.
“London can take it” went the British slogan. But, in the United States, Americans–including President Franklin D. Roosevelt–wondered: For how much longer?
Clearly, what Great Britain desperately needed most was a miracle.
Exactly that happened on June 22, 1941.
With 134 Divisions at full fighting strength and 73 more divisions for deployment behind the front, the German Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union.
Joseph Stalin, the longtime Soviet dictator, was stunned. The invasion had come less than two years after Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Hitler had turned on his partner-in-crime. The two dictators had greedily split Poland between them when Hitler launched his invasion on September 1, 1939.
Now they were locked in a fight to the death.
People in England were also surprised–but also suddenly hopeful. Britain now had an ally whose resources might tip the balance against Hitler.
In the United States, then-Senator Harry S. Truman spoke for many Americans when he said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
Today the United States faces just such an opportunity.
In Syria, two of America’s most deadly enemies are now waging war–with each other.
Yes, it’s Hezbollah (Party of God) vs. Al-Qaeda (The Base).
United Nations officials estimate that more than 70,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war since conflict began on March 15, 2011. The trigger: Protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims, who form a minority of Islamics. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.
Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims, who form the majority of that religion. It is intolerent of non-Sunni Muslims and has instigated violence against them. It denounces them as “takfirs”–heretics–and thus worthy of extermination.
Al-Qaeda has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.
Flag of Al-Qaeda
On one side is the Ba’ath regime of Bashir al-Assad, whose allies include Russia, Iran, Hezbullah, and elements in the Iraqi government.
On the other side are a host of Syrians and thousands of foreign Sunni fighters some of whom have affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
And now that civil war has spread into neighborhing Lebanon.
On January 2, 2014, at least four people were killed and 77 injured when a car bomb exploded in a residential neighborhood in southern Beirut.
The Shiite-dominated district, Haret Hreik, is known as a Hezbollah stronghold.
Two days later, an Al-Qaeda linked group claimed responsibility for the attack.
At a press conference for President Barack Obama on March 20, 2013, a reporter asked:
“Morally, how is it possible that for the last two years, tens of thousands of innocent civilians [in Syria] are being massacred and no one–the world, the United States and you–are doing anything to stop it immediately?”
That is entirely the wrong way to view this conflict.
There are solidly practical reasons why the United States should avoid this bloodfest–while cheering on each of its mortal enemies to do its worst.
First, the United States only recently disengaged from Iraq.
On Dec. 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–had cost the lives of 4,487 service members, with another 32,226 wounded.
Second, the war in Iraq fell victim to the law of unintended consequences.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq to turn it into a base–from which to intimidate its neighboring states: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria and Iran.
But while Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been a counter-weight to the regional ambitions of Iran, the destruction of the Iraqi military created a power vacuum. Into this–eagerly–stepped the Iranian mullahs.
Share this: