Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama's 'Change' In The Middle East


I think it's pretty obvious so far how the wind is blowing.

President Obama appears to be using the Carter administration as a model, with a few of the more insipid errors of the Bush Administration thrown in. Here are a few signs:

* The Obama administration has recognized a new group, American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE) as one of the groups it considers official advocates for the American Muslim community and has given it unprecedented access to the White House.

In reality, is an Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood front very much in line with the Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal of transforming America into a sharia state.

As counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole revealed, the head of the organization is Abubaker Ahmed al-Shingieti, a Sudanese who was one of President Omar al-Bashir top aides when he was involved in the genocidal jihad against the Christian and animist populations in Darfur and other parts of the south and east of the Sudan that killed nearly two million people and created another four million refugees:


The lead organization in AMCE, the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), which al-Shingieti serves as regional director, is the current focus of a federal grand jury probe into terrorist financing. At least two other AMCE groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), were named by federal prosecutors as unindicted co-conspirators in the recent Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, which resulted in convictions on all 108 counts. And the Muslim American Society (MAS) was identified in federal court briefs by the Department of Justice as “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

And documents received this past August by the Investigative Project through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that AMCE steering committee member Jamal al-Barzinji and AMCE advisory council member Yacub Mirza were listed in FBI memos as “members and leaders of the Ikhwan”, which is the Arabic term for the Muslim Brotherhood. Department of Homeland Security senior agent David Kane has testified in a federal court affidavit that “Barzinji is not only closely associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], but also with Hamas.”



This is highly reminiscent of the Bush Administration's ongoing flirtation with CAIR, ISNA and other Islamist front groups, it's coddling of Saudi-funded jihad mosques in America and our sending an envoy to the anti-American and anti-Semitic Organization of Islamic Conference 'to listen and to learn' in th ewords of th erecently departed former occupant of the White House.

*The appointment of Arab-American ex-senator George Mitchell as Mid East special envoy and Obama's pledge to get his face into what he refers to as 'peace between the Israelis and Palestinians' as a top priority of his administration.

Mitchell is an extremely problematic figure both from Israel's standpoint and from the standpoint of US security and ultimately,stability in the region..He has a number of curious beliefs, such as an avowed hostility to Jews living in Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank) or in East Jerusalem and a conviction that the intifadeh was not planned by the Palestinians, in spite of admissions to the contrary by Yasir Arafat, Arafat's information minister Yasir Rabbo,and Arafat's own commissar in Jerusalem Feisal Husseini, who famously referred to Oslo as a Trojan horse to trick the Jews.

He apparently is convinced that the problem between Israel and the Arab world is just like Northern Ireland,a conflict he takes credit for having helped mediate. In doing so,he conveniently forgets a few things: that while Britain had no major stake in Northern Ireland, Israel's 'stake' in retreating to a border only nine miles wide at it's narrowest point and with its major population centers in easy firing range of its enemies is existential in nature; that there was no genocidal intention among either the Ulster Unionists or the IRA,something that cannot be said of the Palestinians; that there were no outside countries using the IRA as a proxy army;and that the real end to the Ulster conflict came when the Republic of Ireland outlawed the military wing of the IRA and cracked down on them hard and both civilians and leaders on both sides tired of the slaughter and realized that both sides would have to compromise to come to a solution. That is not true of the Palestinians,who have hardly tired of 'resistance.'

On a personal level, Mitchell himself can hardly be said to be unbiased. Aside from his ethnic background and his professed sympathies, he has a long history of doing business with the Arab world, including countries that religiously support an anti-Israel boycott that is against US law.

Mitchell appears to agree with the Palestinians (and more importantly, with the Saudis and the Arab League)that any and all compromises are going to come at the expense of the Israelis, which will likely put him and the next likely center/right Israeli government on a collision course and substantially change the relationship between the US and one of its most important and reliable allies.

That the Obama Administration agrees with Mitchell's viewpoint on the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is shown by recent information that he intends to cut loan guarantees to Israel( which are not direct aid and cost the US absolutely nothing,but help Israel borrow money at lower rates) by a billion dollars based on money Israel spends on any infrastructure and services not within the pre-1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.

*Finally, there is Obama's recent pressure on Israel to 'open Gaza's borders.'

In examining what he had to say, the new direction of American policy in the Middle East becomes crystal clear:

The outline for a durable ceasefire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire: Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza: the US and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot re-arm,” the US president said.

“As part of a lasting ceasefire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.”


It all sounds lovely, until you realize that this is exactly the formulae put together by Condi Rice, the PA, the EU and Egypt when Israel withdrew from Gaza and it failed miserably.

It's even more clear now to anyone that's paying attention that this is even more of a silly non-starter than it was in 2005.

For openers, Hamas is not going to sign on to any of this; they don't recognize Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah's authority over Gaza,they will NOT stop firing rockets and Iran and Syria cannot be trusted to abide by it anyway.Nor will the Egyptians allow foreign 'monitors' on their side of the border - Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak just said so.

At a time when the US definitely needs a new way and some common sense in the Middle East,Obama appears to be headed back to the future...and in exactly the wrong direction.


13 comments:

Ymarsakar said...

How long before you stop blaming Condi Rice and George Bush for CAIR?

And how long before you understand that CAIR's destruction is not furthered by anything you say about Condi or Bush?

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Ymarsarker,
I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject for a number of people, so I ask your inudlgence while we look at a few facts.

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front mostly financed by hostile foreign powers and an unindicted co-conspirator in a number of trials involving fund raising for Islamist terrorist entities, , yet they have tax exempt staus as a 'civil rights group' and were a officially recognized and even honored as such by both the Bush Administration.

To my mind,this is equivalent to what would have incurred had FDR honored and recognized the German-American Bund after 1940, when we were in a de facto state of war with Hitler. Or to put it even more simply, just as with CAIR,it would have been an invitation to sabotage and a fifth column...which is what we essentially have today.

There was absolutely nothing to stop Bush from invoking the Smith Act on CAIR, except for the fact that it would have upset his pals the Saudis.

I fail to see how being dishonest about that helps CAIR, ISNA the MSA or their ilk,and I welcome your enlightening me on the subject.

As for Condi Rice, the less said the better. She's simply been a failure as SoS,and has absolutely no meaningful accomplishments I can think of.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that we defeated Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan in 4 and a half years, yet we are still struggling to defeat some far weaker Nedieval barbarians 8 years after 9/11?

Our beloved country was not less united and energized after 9/11 than after Pearl Harbor,our military has proven itself to be just as valiant and courageous as it was in 1941,and our strategic position was much better vis a' vis our enemies in 2001 than in 1941,yet we're still involved in a war we should have won a long time ago.

The difference is the policies and strategies set out in the White House by our ex-President, IMO,although I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the matter.

He was a sorry excuse for a war president, and in many ways I think his lack of leadership an dpolicy errors has set up a scenario where someone like Obama can be elected.

That will end up costing us a great deal in blood and treasure, I fear.

Regards,
ff

Anonymous said...

Mitchell had nothing to do with the advent of peace in Northern Ireland. The 2 crucial developments were : 1), the collapse of East Germany & the USSR in the 1989 to 1991 period, & 2), the 2001 terrorist attacks. The Soviet Socialist Empire & her puppet East Germany funnelled vast sums of money & materiel to the IRA terrorists. When East Germany collapsed this aid ceased ; however, Erich Honecker, the final hard-line dictator of East Germany, bragged publicly that he already had sent enough arms, explosives, & other aid to keep the terrorists supplied for a generation. (Russian President Boris Yeltsin's autobiography details more info.) The IRA terrorists found themselves isolated & sought to buy time by participating in the 'Good Friday' Accords (or Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement) which concluded with a formal signing on 10 April 1998, Good Friday, by representatives of both Britain & the Irish government & was subsequently endorsed by the electorate of Northern Ireland. The most important provision was the complete 'decommissioning' (viz, public destruction or turnover to any legal authority,) of all weapons in the possession of terrorist groups by a specific date. The terrorist IRA refused to keep their word (no surprise), & the much-ballyhooed Mitchell 'Good Friday' accord was as dead as a door-nail. Then came the terrorist attacks of 2001. The US no longer considered terrorism as a foreign problem restricted to places like the Near East & Africa & the former Yugoslavia & Northern Ireland. The IRA realised that their traditional propaganda would no longer serve them. They had specialised in separating their propaganda into 2 units : 1), the explicitly pro-Communist propaganda for distribution throughout the British Isles (propaganda which called explicitly for the overthrow of the Dublin government & its replacement by an euphemismistically-termed 'dictatorship of the proletariat', sc, Communist dictatorship ; propaganda which treated Northern Ireland as a minor addendum, as an after-thought ; &, 2), for their North American suckers (THEIR own term!) here on our North American side of the Pond, a carefully censored, expurgated, bowdlerised propaganda campaign for raising funds. (Their Janus-faced double-speak was of a piece with the terrorist Arafat's separate Arabic-language propaganda & English-language propaganda : for 2 separate, different audiences there must be 2 separate, different pitches). More than anything else, they realised that they were on the verge of being placed on the US' official terrorist list. With no support from anyone in either Northern Ireland, nor the Republic Of Ireland, &, with their East German & Soviet comrades' loot to keep them afloat having been terminated, they finally abandoned their terrorist campaign in the early 2000s. (A few individual terrorists remained, but they were really just murderous gang-members which had become increasingly abandoned by even their Communist benefactors.) In fact, peace in Northern Ireland may end up being the sole true beneficial product of all that evil in 2001. That, & an awareness by Americans that the terrorists are already here in the US. Mitchell deserves not one jot, not one iota, of credit.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Anonymous 9:51 AM, and welcome to Joshua's Army.

I totally concur with almost everything you've written here,and I thank you for providing a good timeline of recent events concerning the IRA.

What's not so well known is the intimate connection of the IRA not only to the commies but to Yasir Arafat and the PLO,who provided a great deal of training and logistical support to the IRA.

Back in 1990, Scotland Yard uncovered a massive IRA drug running operation when they found 300,000,000 pounds' worth of top-grade ‘Lebanese Gold’ transported from Lebanon in two freighters chartered by the PLO and bound for the IRA. This led to the uncovering of vast IRA-PLO money-laundering operation using British banks to purchase arms with the drug profits for terrorist operations.

Thanks for dropping by,
Rob

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous 9.51 AM again) Thank you for reminding me re all of those connexions between the IRA & the PLO. I recognised everything in the 2 articles, but some of those events (ca 1990 in the 1 case) were from so long ago that they weren't easily dislodged from my ancient memory cells. I particularly relished being reminded by the 2002 National Review article's mentioning en passant that the 3 IRA political-wing members arrested in Colombia had, quote, 'explosive traces on their clothes and luggage, but claimed they were in Colombia to advise the FARC on their "peace talks" with the government', end of quote. It's just as morbidly funny at present, more than 6 years later, as it was when I 1st read about this news item then. Apropos the unconstitutional federal drugs prohibition : as a lower-case 'l' libertarian in general, & as a constitutionalist in general, I should strongly recommend reverting to The Edwardian-Era policies of allowing adults addicted to the true 'addictive drugs' to be allowed to check themselves in at specially-designated drugs houses & buying, at real cost, their drugs. In another words, re-legalise the recreational drugs. Just say no to drug prohibition. & completely re-legalise hemp (its real name) & other non-addictive drugs. It's important to emphasise the re- portion of re-legalise because the propaganda war waged against the tax-payers by the government re this issue has rewritten history to such a point that most people don't realise that it's what we are doing at present which is the experiment (a completely failed experiment), & that we have done things differently in the past. As a final, extra benefit, this would remove the profit motive. But it would put federal bureaucrats out of work, & that is the ultimate no-no. Just mentioning the mere possibility of reverting to the Constitution re this subject can provoke quite a maelstrom & whirlpool of angry denunciations from socialists describing themselves as both liberal & conservative equally. But I should ask them to think about how the collapse of the drug-prohibition's covert money would undermine, even destroy, several of the world's terrorist organisations.

Ymarsakar said...


There was absolutely nothing to stop Bush from invoking the Smith Act on CAIR, except for the fact that it would have upset his pals the Saudis.

I fail to see how being dishonest about that helps CAIR, ISNA the MSA or their ilk,and I welcome your enlightening me on the subject.


What I see is that you made conclusions and assumptions without first arguing the case. While I don't expect you to mention everything at once, every time in every post, I do expect at least an attempt to differentiate your views about Bush's Saudi connections from your views concerning how to defeat CAIR. And that, necessarily, they are not the same thing. Just mention Bush does nothing to help educate people on CAIR or how to defeat it. On that note, Why are you mentioning the Smith Act now? Given the kind of people that surrounds power politics in Washington DC and the kinds of people that Bush had to rely upon for advice and in getting things done (with the only reliable people being the US military), if you don't even mention the Smith Act, don't see the need to do so, why would they? If the Prez doesn't know about something, he certainly can't make it policy, now can he. And since the former Prez was an MBA, not a military genius like Petraeus or a Smith Act lawyer whatever, he is likely not to know the details.

And thus your advocacy diverges from a loyal opposition into pure obstructionism. You mention the problem, but provide no solutions. You characterize the threat, but do not analyze the means with which that threat is dealt with. Or the potential obstacles Bush will have to face should he use the Smith Act, which was ruled unconstitutional by a Supreme Court that still hasn't overturned Roe v Wade.

You advocate the blaming of Bush, but do not delineate a fundamental difference between what you think Bush's motivations are and what his actual motivations are, via analytical arguments. You treat this as a done deal, but it isn't.

I would like to believe that the difference between a loyal opposition and a disloyal opposition is that the loyal one tries to make the nation's goals better and more successful, while the disloyal opposition works as saboteurs, spies, and a fifth column. So long as they gain power, it doesn't matter how much America suffers. This is disloyal to both the US Constitution and the American people.

Attacking the former President for his "Saudi connections" is about as useful and as accurate as the Left attacking Bush for being too unilateral in Iraq. You see, that was never the problem, because the people making those charges were never interested in providing Bush any real solutions, alternatives, or constructive criticism. It became about Bush's character and that was the means to the end. It didn't help Bush, because it wasn't designed to help Bush. On the other hand, we who criticized Bush's policies in Iraq, people like Petraeus or even McCain, wanted the nation to win, the Prez to succeed or at least not fail and drag America down with him. That meant we had to solve his problems for him, so to speak, and not just characterize Bush as X, Y, and Z.

You might as well ask yourself why Bush didn't adopt Petraeus' strategy the moment Iraq started having IEDs being set off. That must have meant Bush was in the pocket of Haliburton, the military industrial complex, the Iraqi government, the Syrian/Iranian/Saudi Arabian government, right. There was no "other reason" for him not to have done so... But there were other reasons for him not to have done so. There are always many facets behind an act of policy or a lack of policy.

So instead of crapping on Bush about what he did or didn't do, you should analyze and check out how CAIR has managed to stay in power. Even if they bought Bush, that doesn't mention all the other people they have influence over. It doesn't mention all the legal loopholes and lawyers they have on their side. Nor the domestic American fifth column that covers for them.

CAIR's defenses are in depth and it is never as simple a thing as the President declaring that they are outlawed or tax non-exempt. It is never as simple as that.

She's simply been a failure as SoS,and has absolutely no meaningful accomplishments I can think of.

While I expected a little better from her, the moment she decided not to destroy and reform the State of Department I knew she couldn't accomplish a damn thing. They wouldn't let her, regardless of her intentions or competence.

And if for some reason the DoS decided to play along, it will only be until they decide to pull an Iraqi WMD on the admin. Meaning, intentionally advise and tell the President to go the UN route and focus on WMDs, then when it seems convenient, turn on the PResident for "sexing up" the intel and case on WMDs.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that we defeated Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan in 4 and a half years, yet we are still struggling to defeat some far weaker Nedieval barbarians 8 years after 9/11?

This is the nature of insurgencies and limited wars. If you are advocating Total War, I'd like to hear how you'd go about it. But this is not just a simple case of 4 years vs 8, regardless of what you think Bush did or did not do.


Our beloved country was not less united and energized after 9/11 than after Pearl Harbor,our military has proven itself to be just as valiant and courageous as it was in 1941,and our strategic position was much better vis a' vis our enemies in 2001 than in 1941,yet we're still involved in a war we should have won a long time ago.


As for your point about 9/11, check out the two audio files by David Bellavia and Jimbo.

Link

To make a long audio file short, the unity after 9/11 shattered the moment Bush decided to use violence to further America's "Imperialist" cause. Meaning, in reality there was "no unity". And there may not be even with Obama "owning" Iraq/Afghanistan.

We are fighting this war at a disadvantage because the previous war with the USSR left over some Weapons of Mass Destruction that was unattended to. And by WMD, I don't mean Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical. I am talking about the Gramscian political infiltration and subversion of America's legitimate traditions and moral authority.

link

This has been going on for nigh decades. Bush, even if he wanted to and attempted to do so, could not have reversed the demoralization of America. And without doing that, of course we are going to take more than 4,8, or 10 years to defeat the Islamic terrorists.

He was a sorry excuse for a war president, and in many ways I think his lack of leadership an dpolicy errors has set up a scenario where someone like Obama can be elected.

As Jimbo mentioned, and I agree with his assessment, no other President would have faced a Democrat elected Congress in 2006, elected to lose the Iraq war, and then just kept on doing what he was doing, except by finding someone like Petraeus to change the strategy around. No President could have handled the social and public opprobrium and hate they lashed on him, without crumbling in either Nixon paranoia or Lyndon B Johnson micromanagement/nervous breakdown. No other President living. Not Clinton, not Carter, not George Senior, and certainly not Obama.

Bush did not pull out of Iraq, because he refused to do so. His will was greater than the will of the combined American public, matching the will to win of the US military. That hasn't been the case except in few isolated incidents in American history. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Abe Lincoln. And of those 3, only 2 had the moral high ground.

So I don't know what standards you are using to judge Bush to be a "sorry excuse for a war time President", but I can assure you, it is ahistorical.

Making war on the American public is a Leftist cause and you needed somebody like FDR to get that done. Bush, while adamant and fixed on foreign policy, was not going to go there. You may see this as a deficiency, but I would much prefer that over FDR's excesses on the domestic front, security or economic.

The job of the President is to defend us against external enemies. That is the standard I hold for a war time President. I believe you are corrupting the title to include Bush's actions on the domestic front, which is only his responsibility in so far as he has prevented any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

Cair is a civil rights organization and it is up to Americans exercising their civil rights to get rid of CAIR. The government faces too much legal problems to simply outlaw CAIR, assuming they even wanted to.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Ymarksar,
And thank you for a reasoned and well thought out critique.

Part of the meme of blogging is that when you mention things a great many times previously, you can sometimes forget to continue to draw the lines and repeat the points.Thanks for reminding me to be more thorough in doing so,and I may actually edit this in light of your suggestions..

In answer to a couple of specific points you raised:

, I do expect at least an attempt to differentiate your views about Bush's Saudi connections from your views concerning how to defeat CAIR. And that, necessarily, they are not the same thing. Just mention Bush does nothing to help educate people on CAIR or how to defeat it.

I did think I mentioned what CAIR is. And I do think that CAIR is part of the Saudi attempt to subvert our country, which ties in with the former president's connection to them. As for defeating them and others of that ilk, I should perhaps have included this link in the piece, although as well informed as you are I would have thought that mentioning the Smith Act would have been a tip off.

BTW, as far as President Bush 'not knowing about the Smith Act' it frankly was his JOB to know such things,or to hire people that did. And in all honesty, I'm pretty sure Don Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft DID know about such things..the Decider simply made uo his mind not to follow their advice.

You advocate the blaming of Bush, but do not delineate a fundamental difference between what you think Bush's motivations are and what his actual motivations are, via analytical arguments. You treat this as a done deal, but it isn't.

A very wise man once told me that results are the absolute guru of the physical world and will never lie to you. I don't pretend to know Bush's mindset, so I can only speculate on what I do know...and of course the results,eight years on.

In that context,I'd also like to answer this question:

This is the nature of insurgencies and limited wars. If you are advocating Total War, I'd like to hear how you'd go about it.

Oh, I most definitely am advocating total war.That's where victory comes from.

Let's forget Iraq for a moment and go back to 9/11. The first strategic responsibility of a war president is to secure the country from internal threats.That starts with going to Congress and asking them to declare war on al-Qaeda, its affiliated organizations and any nations that harbor or assist them,and with being honest with the American people on whom and what we're fighting instead of mouthing turgid phrases like 'Islam means peace' and 'war on terror.'

There's absolutely no question in my mind that Congress would have voted for such a declaration given the mood of the country at that time.

Bush not doing so meant that each item in our war effort had to be 'resold' to the public and Congress anew, which seriously hampered our war effort.

(The president actually did sort of this in a mush mouthed way with the so-called Bush Doctrine and the 'Axis of Evil ' speech but it was not directed at Congress and he did not follow through on it anyway...which gave an opposition already looking for an excuse to be disloyal their opening.)

After that, you secure the borders, invoke the traditional executive powers that apply, deport or intern anyone who looks like a security risk until you can sort things out and place suspect institutions and communications under surveillance. In short, you do pretty much what FDR did after Pearl Harbor. These sort of things have historically been done in the US during wartime, and are normally reversed after victory.

As that gets done, you begin focusing on the real targets, the nations that finance,train and harbor jihad.

No modern terrorist movement has been able to survive for any length of time without a nation-state nearby to provide a haven.Take any group of well informed people into a room and ask them toprovide a list of countries where Islamic terrorism is imported from and I guarantee you the lists will have some striking similarities.

Until we begin to confront countries like Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia militarily or otherwise,we will not win this war, plain and simple. And the fact that we had
(and likely have now) a president who sees things in terms of 'keeping us safe' rather than leading us to victory, we'll continue to be stuck in a defensive war of attrition.

Again, many thanks for a great, well thought out comment..it was much appreciated.

Regards,
Rob

Ymarsakar said...

So it looks like your real disagreement with Bush is that he chose a Limited War venue while you are basing your calculations, strategic and tactical, based upon a Total War philosophy.

But since we are not at a Total War footing and we never will be, unless some conjunction of the Perfect Storm happens again like 9/11, there results the tactical differences between you, me, and Bush.

More on the details later.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Ymarsakar,
I believe you answer your own question here when you say:

we are not at a Total War footing and we never will be, unless some conjunction of the Perfect Storm happens again like 9/11...

That is exactly my point. The country was no more on a war footing before 9/11 than it was the day before Pearl Harbor. It was President Bush's job to inspire the nation, put us on that war footing, clearly demarcate the enemy and aggressively pursue victory. Had he done so, and the war would have been over, probably before the end of his first term. ( remember, we're dealing with Arabs and thei r'at your feet or at your throat' psyche. A great many Arab nations, faced with an aroused an angry America would have done backflips not to be seen as an ally of our enemies...remember what happened after we pulled Saddam out of that hole in the ground?)

Bush would have been re-elected overwhelmingly for a second term, we would likely have a conservative majority in Congress and Barack Obama would not be sitting in the White House.

As for total war, I'll leave you with a quote from General MacArthur. After Inchon, a reporter asked him to define defensive war.His one word answer was "Defeat."

You had a second comment which failed to publish for some reason, so I'll reproduce it here:

Had Bush done what you wanted him to, President Obama would now have the war time powers of a FDR, with the concomitant ability to run through "Emergency Decrees" by the de facto and de jure justification of wartime exigencies.

And that is the prime and true motivation for why Bush did not take advantage of the political environment immediately after 9/11 to do just that. He had a longer vision of the US Constitution and the threats to it than simply your short term focus on the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the immediate terrorist threat.

Had Bush been unable to secure the home front from terrorist attacks, had Bush engendered a sharia state within a state inside America like Tony Blair did for Britain, then you may have a point. But right now, you don't.


During every war we've faced, there has been an erosion of political liberties. That's a necessary adjustment when a free society goes to war. We have never had a situation where those liberies were not returned in full once victory was achieved, to my knowledge.

You prefer to credit President Bush with a high minded reason for not performing the office of C in C ( which in itself seems to me to be an admission that I'm correct in saying he was a failure as a war president).

I think he had other motivations, and the haphazard execution of this war was based on a mixture of tryting to walk the line between certain business interests and certain psuedo-Wilsonian ideas about 'Arab Democracy', which have proven to be abject failures.

The American public would have understood sacrifice and a great many other things if Bush had the ability to make his case, if Congress had been involved in a declaration of war and if special 'exceptions' to the Bush Doctrine ( Dubai, The Saudis, the Palestinians, Iran) weren't constantly popping up. Remember this: Bush's erosion of support did not come from the Left, but from the Right.

As for your last point...Bush did not secure th ecountry from the jihadist threat, which is growing.A look at th ewell financed and organized pro-Hamas demonstrations by the Islamists and the Angry Leftacross America recently are proof of that if nothing else is. We have a fifth column here and the enemy is inside the gates.

The Saudis still push wahabist jihad through the mosques and madrassahs they control here in America, there are Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhoiod cells here in America as Steven Emerson and others have documented, an dour southern border is still a sieve that allows a lot more than illegal aliens seeking jobs in the US to come across.

Thnaks again for dropping by..we may agree to disagree on this matter, but the points you raised added immensely to the quality of the overall dialogue, and I hope you make a point of dropping by more often.

Rob

Ymarsakar said...

Had he done so, and the war would have been over, probably before the end of his first term

That's not feasible a conclusion. There cannot be any political solution or even military solution in 4 years for the Middle East nations involved with terror. The social, political, international, et all factions were all going to be up against America and all would have to be dismantled one at a time or just en masse. There's no way that can be done in 4 years without just wiping off whole cities and villages, and even that wouldn't solve the political problem with Middle Easterners.

Militarily defeating the terrorist supporting nations would not have ended the war against America. It didn't for Israel, and it sure won't be different for America. It wasn't in Iraq and it wasn't in Afghanistan, either.


During every war we've faced, there has been an erosion of political liberties.


Your are basing your analysis on the premise that the war will be over in X number of years and thus civil liberties will bounce back. If that was true, if the war could end in X number of years, less than eight or maybe greater than 4, then your analysis would have some solid foundations. But I am contesting the fact that the war won't end in 4 years, not even with Total War.

You prefer to credit President Bush with a high minded reason for not performing the office of C in C ( which in itself seems to me to be an admission that I'm correct in saying he was a failure as a war president).

Bush doesn't have "high minded reasons". His actions and the motivations for them, as described by me, derive from my analysis of his psychological profile, his previous actions, and his essential character. Bush is not the kind of megalomaniacal man who takes power because he manufactured a crisis, nor is he someone that is going to go all neurotic because of the pressures of the CINC hat. Bush, for whatever reasons, is humble and has the same profile as a Medal of Honor award winner when talking about his own exploits or capabilities. It is always about other people. He isn't the kind of person who puts himself at the tip of a spear and says "follow me" nor is he someone who goes out of his way to give himself more perks/powers/responsibilities. If God gives him a responsibility, he will discharge it to the best of his ability, as we have already seen, but he will not go out looking for wars. And given the success of his policies in defending America, there were no crisis that demanded Bush take more proactive actions. So he stepped back, became multilateral, and thus inefficient compared to what his unilateral policies had produced.

This is not in anyway an agreement with your position that Bush refused to declare war for any of the reasons you listed nor is it an agreement that Bush made the wrong strategic choice.

I think he had other motivations, and the haphazard execution of this war was based on a mixture of tryting to walk the line between certain business interests and certain psuedo-Wilsonian ideas about 'Arab Democracy', which have proven to be abject failures.

The Iraqi democracy is not an "abject failure".

The American public would have understood sacrifice and a great many other things if Bush had the ability to make his case, if Congress had been involved in a declaration of war and if special 'exceptions' to the Bush Doctrine ( Dubai, The Saudis, the Palestinians, Iran) weren't constantly popping up. Remember this: Bush's erosion of support did not come from the Left, but from the Right.

It didn't matter what support he had or didn't have. It is physically impossible for the war on terrorists and their allies to be over before Bush was out of office. That's not to mention what North Korea, Russia, and China would be doing in the meantime.

As for your last point...Bush did not secure th ecountry from the jihadist threat, which is growing.

I am referring to his impact on AQ's ability to plan and carry out attacks in America.

When terror first struck on 9/11, everyone more or less expected that these attacks couldn't be stopped forever. But nowhere would they have imagined 7 years, and that is a direct consequence of Bush's decision to invade Iraq And Afghanistan: including Bush's Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, and various other programs.

It would be intellectually dishonest to single Bush out for blame on the subject of CAIR without also highlighting Bush's accomplishments.

A look at th ewell financed and organized pro-Hamas demonstrations by the Islamists and the Angry Leftacross America recently are proof of that if nothing else is. We have a fifth column here and the enemy is inside the gates.

The enemy is alway going to be inside our gates. Benedict Arnold, Quislings, Jimmy Carters, and it will go on until the end of the human species. This is not something you can use, legitimately, as a justification that Bush failed in his responsibility to protect America from foreign threats. You can disagree with the methods he used, but how are you going to change the past into something it isn't?

The Saudis still push wahabist jihad through the mosques and madrassahs they control here in America, there are Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhoiod cells here in America as Steven Emerson and others have documented, an dour southern border is still a sieve that allows a lot more than illegal aliens seeking jobs in the US to come across.

There's still the KKK or various pro-Nazi groups here in America as well. But that isn't a justification for the argument that the KKK wasn't defeated. I understand what you mean when you mention such groups, but simply mentioning their existence is not in itself a valid justification to support your argument. And even if Bush had waged Total War on the Middle Eastern terrorist nations you mentioned, this wouldn't have decreased the Fifth Column in America. It would have made it greater. it would have increased recruitment for terrorist organizations, by the simple fact that everyone would now have a clear interest in either cutting bait or staying with the Jihadists. Some would go over to our side, some would like to go over to our side but couldn't, and some would just flip us off (like Turkey). I'm not saying that the simple fact that terrorist recruitment would go up means we will lose, or that this would be a wrong strategic decision to make, but the simple fact is that under either of the Bush scenarios we have (the one we have now and the one you posited about Total War declaration), both would still have terrorist groups, cells, and the various other things you mentioned here now. They would be operating, probably actively rather than hidden, and how would that be different from the fact that they are staying here quiet and not killing anyone? What matters is what will ultimately defeat them, not just kill them one by one. The death one Palestinian suicide bomber will keep producing them enmasse from Palestine, so you'd have to kill 95% of them or you are going to have to use some kind of political compromise (and the latter takes time). Now a megalomaniac could easily order the nukes unleashed after 9/11, but Bush's personality and psychological profile is far too healthy for that. So under either scenario, the war would still be ongoing when Obama took the office. Once a declaration of war is done and Total War becomes the philosophy, nothing except unconditional (or slight conditional) surrender would end it. And the Arabs are not going to surrender, at least they won't let anyone who will live (Sadat).

Thnaks again for dropping by..we may agree to disagree on this matter, but the points you raised added immensely to the quality of the overall dialogue, and I hope you make a point of dropping by more often.

I thank you for your hospitality and graciousness, regardless of the fact that we disagree on various fundamental criteria, even though we have the same goals concerning Islamic terrorists and their jihad.

P.S.

The comment you said didn't post was made in another thread, further along from this one. That may be the explanation, since you obviously received my post.

Freedom Fighter said...

There cannot be any political solution or even military solution in 4 years for the Middle East nations involved with terror. The social, political, international, et all factions were all going to be up against America and all would have to be dismantled one at a time or just en masse.

Again, one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on.

I base my argument of two major points.One,no terrorist organization in modern times has ever been able to survive without a friendly nation nearby to provide logisticalsupport as a haven, finacier and training/recruiting point.Elimninate the jihad friendly nations and you eliminate the 'terrorism'. My fundamental position is that we are in a war on jihad, not 'terrorism' which is merely a tactic...and anyone he thinks we are merely at war with al-Qaeda is simply not looking at the facts.

My second point is based on the psychological nature of our enemies. it is that we would not find it necessary to invade more than one or two of the players to end the war.

You may recall how the Arab world greeted our dragging Saddam Hussein out of his hole, with Syria leaving Lebanon and cracking down on jihadis transiting to Iraq over its borders, and Libya giving up its nuclear program and suing for normal relations with America.

Had Bush actually meant what he said with all his talk about the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil, Iran and probably Syria would have likely been dealt with,and while the Saudis, Pakistanis and the rest, given an ultimatum on curbing jihad recruitment in the West would have cheerfully complied.

BTW, vis a vis Israel, please read this.Israel has never been permitted to have the kind of victory that would actually have ended hostilities.

The Iraqi democracy is not an "abject failure".

I will thus take it that you agree with me that the Bush Administration's vetures in Lebanon and Palestine are abject failures, as I characterized them.

As for Iraq, I suppose it depends on what you mean by failure. The president's own goals( and I believe this is an accurate quote) were for an Iraq that was "stable, democratic and an ally of the Us in the War on terror."

There's a degree of stability,thanks to the incredible bravery of our warriors and the leadership of Generals Petraeus and Ordiano.

As for democracy, if you consider a Shiite Islamic republic based on sharia law where it's open season on Christians, homosexuals and other undesireables and where a boycott against Israel illegal under US law is enthusiastically complied with, I suppose you could say that. We'll see how long it takes for the Shias to start oppressing the Kurds an dSunnis after we leave.

As far as being an ally, Iraq has been very clear that it would not allow the US to use its territory for strikes on Iran under any circumstances, and you will not see the Iraqi army we equipped at such huge expense fighting jihadis alongside our guys in Afghanistan, the Phillipines or elsewhere.Some ally!

Iraq was useful in that it put a fighting edge on our army and became a graveyard for a heckuva lot of jihadis. And of course, once we were in,it made no sense to leave until we had won. But once it became clear to me that we were not going to use it as a base against Iran, it's strategic value faded rapidly, IMO.

I feel we could have spent 4,000 lives and a trillion dollars tomuch greater effect elsewhere...not to mention the effect on American public opinion.

Regarding American public opinion, another thing we apparently differ on is the effect that an actual declaration of war and follow through would have had. IMO the American people after 9/11 were ready for shared sacrifice and dready to be led into war. Bush didn't. It's that simple.

Of course there would be quislings, there always are. But the American people reward success and movement towards victory in war, and despise being bogged down in failure

I also must admit I find your comparison of the KKK with jihadist cells here in America to be a bit ingenuous. The first and groups like them are not a real threat to our liberty..groups like Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood definitely are, and the fact is that Bush did nothing to stop the Saudis and others from importing jihad to our shores, nor did he take any steps to control our borders.

The KKK is here, nut mostly ineffective, the jihadis are here and growing as a threat.

I simply can't excuse that kind of negligence in a wartime president, sorry.

I'm glad you've decided to be a regular part of Joshua's Army, Ymarsaker...your comments, even when I disagree with them add a great deal of food for thought.

If you want to have the last word, feel free.

All Best,
Rob

Ymarsakar said...

Elimninate the jihad friendly nations and you eliminate the 'terrorism'.

That requires you have an end strategy for those nations. And that, because of the differences involved, won't be just one strategy reproduced over and over.

Just the differences in Iraq vs Afghanistan would inform that context.

Had Bush actually meant what he said with all his talk about the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil, Iran and probably Syria would have likely been dealt with,and while the Saudis, Pakistanis and the rest, given an ultimatum on curbing jihad recruitment in the West would have cheerfully complied.

For the religious extremists, that would not have been tolerable. Meaning, they will find a way to topple these governments and then we will be forced to defend them, which is nothing but maintaining the Cold War balance of powers. It doesn't solve anything in the long term.

I will thus take it that you agree with me that the Bush Administration's vetures in Lebanon and Palestine are abject failures, as I characterized them.

Of course they are failures. They, however, have nothing to do with a declaration of war ending our fight against terrorists or terrorist supporting nations in around 4 years.

Israel keeps trying to hit the PLO/Hamas factions but unless they occupy the territory de-program the people, these things are going to reconstitute and regenerate. Rational government is the only long term solution and until that happens, Arab states will continue to support terrorism, regardless of any momentary lapses in their courage.

You may recall how the Arab world greeted our dragging Saddam Hussein out of his hole, with Syria leaving Lebanon and cracking down on jihadis transiting to Iraq over its borders, and Libya giving up its nuclear program and suing for normal relations with America.

The Arabs do tend to respect or at least fear strength and ruthlessness. However, that is not an end state for a war. That's just a temporary cease fire until they get their courage back up.

As far as being an ally, Iraq has been very clear that it would not allow the US to use its territory for strikes on Iran under any circumstances, and you will not see the Iraqi army we equipped at such huge expense fighting jihadis alongside our guys in Afghanistan, the Phillipines or elsewhere.Some ally!

That is more because the US won't allow it than anything else. When you give a nation sovereignty, that means they and their political factions will be the ones making the decisions. The benefits to this, what makes this tolerable for us, is that it paves the way for future policy choices. France can switch from a Chirac to a Sarkosy because of democracy. Perfection is not the goal and Iraq's expeditionary forces capability are still not up to par, but will and determination is mostly created by circumstances. When there is no need, there is no need to drive oneself. Iran will create that need eventually and create situations where the people of Iraq will demand action, in one way or another.

As for democracy, if you consider a Shiite Islamic republic based on sharia law where it's open season on Christians

The Iraqi government has a far better record of fighting Sadr and the Badr brigades in Basra than the British do. The Brits, after all, made secret deals with Sadr that if the Brits left Sadr alone to terrorize the population that Sadr would leave the Brits safe in their FOBs. Compared to that standard, Rob, Iraq is a successful democracy, far more so than Britain right now is.

But once it became clear to me that we were not going to use it as a base against Iran, it's strategic value faded rapidly, IMO.

The reason why AQ went to Babylon was precisely because the strategic value of Iraq wasn't decided by whatever Bush intended to do with it or not. The symbol, the very simple fact of democracy in Iraq, created its own strategic reality independent of anything the US would do with it in the future. Bush decided not to use it as a springboard to take down Iran, but he never said anything about invading Iran. We did, however, but that is us. It does increase the logistical capability for future administrations if they should decide Iran needs to go down. Afghanistan, for example, is so tricky because we have no sea route logistical line to our forces there, except ones that go through pakistan. That informs our alliances, our freedom of movement and strategy, and various other things. With Afghanistan and Iraq sandwiching Iran, the same is not true. Kuwait wasn't about to have a US presence on their soil, either, until they thought their interests would be forwarded by it. These things are political choices and political persuasion efforts. But Kuwait had to be there for such things to be possible in the first place. So the same for Iraq.

Regarding American public opinion, another thing we apparently differ on is the effect that an actual declaration of war and follow through would have had. IMO the American people after 9/11 were ready for shared sacrifice and dready to be led into war. Bush didn't. It's that simple.

I don't think we actually disagree about that. We disagree concerning Bush's motivations, how he saw the strategic context of Iraq and the war and his own Presidency, as well as Bush's inborn need not to take more executive powers than he was required to use by circumstance (katrina, Iraq, etc.). We disagree about the ultimate consequences, long term, of a declaration of war. You say it will have ended the war and Obama wouldn't have benefited from the war time powers. I say differently.

The first and groups like them are not a real threat to our liberty

I am not comparing their threat levels, I am comparing the fact that simply mentioning their existence is no reason to blame Bush for their existence. You can blame Bush for their resurgence, but not for their existence, which is the primary thing you mentioned up above.

When I said I know what you meant, of course I knew that you were placing importance on their level of threat and not just on their existence, but you were doing so by arguing that their continued existence was the problem. And I argued that the KKK's continued existence would not be a correct justification for the argument against Bush or any other President. If you had placed more emphasis on terror cell capabilities and less on their existence, that wouldn't have been the case.

As for the Southern Border, I think my analysis of the situation may actually be more dire than yours.

If you want to have the last word, feel free.

Take these as more clarifications of my positions.

Superb Jon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.