Shell game

There is an old saying in poker.

“If after 30 minutes of playing you can’t spot the pigeon at the table– you’re it!” [source]

Ya think?

Here is how American citizens, voters, taxpayers, and military personnel have truly been had. Again and again, we have been scammed into exhausting our blood and treasure in wars that run counter to the interests of America and its people.

The war in Afghanistan as a bipartisan shell game

During the George W. Bush administration, the war in Afghanistan was peddled to us, not as a punitive raid against the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden who brought about 9-11, but rather, as a humanitarian venture to bring freedom, democracy, and equality for women to that benighted corner of the world.

That purported goal was ill-conceived and, considering the fact that shari’a was written into the constitution of Afghanistan under our watch, there was never any real attempt to attain it.

Obama campaigned on, among other things, bringing the troops home from Afghanistan. Instead, he has kept them there under a set of rules of engagement that gives our troops no clear purpose and renders them sitting ducks for enemy attack. Considering the fact that Obama always supports the agenda of Islamic expansionism every chance he gets, we should not be surprised.

Now Hamid Karzai wants us out. Congressman/Lt. Col. Allen West, who knows a thing or two about the military, Afghanistan, and Islam, says we should give Karzai what he wants – but with one caveat: if Afghanistan ever again harbors jihadis who attack us, we will retaliate with devastating ferocity. This is what we should have done in the first place, immediately after 9-11. (For the Allen West video and comments, see 2.0: The Blogmocracy: Rep. Allen West warns Karzai about terrorism if we leave his country 6th century hellhole.)

Robert Spencer: Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

The Afghan mission is imploding, and the Obama administration is covering for Islamic jihadists. Last week, Marine officials revealed that a Marine killed on February 1 in what the Pentagon called “combat operations” at the time was actually murdered by a jihadist in the Afghan army. The cover-up of this latest jihad attack from a supposed ally is emblematic of a failed mission. It is long past time to end the mission in Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai has said that he wants Afghan forces to take control of the nation’s security in 2013, not 2014 as American officials are planning. Karzai is a scoundrel, but he is right about this, albeit for the wrong reasons. This mission is foredoomed. There is no clearly defined goal, and in any case, any goal worth reaching is impossible to achieve. There is no bringing democracy or humane values to a sharia state, and in any case, we already gave the Karzai regime a sharia constitution, so we aren’t really even trying to do anything effective for women or non-Muslims or the freedom of speech or the freedom of conscience. We’re fighting against an enemy that the vice president of the United States says is not an enemy, and that our client president of Afghanistan threatens to join. How long is this madness going to continue?
[...]
The Taliban are thoroughly repulsive and reprehensible, but Karzai’s regime is little better. Two American administrations have spoken about bringing democracy and freedom to Afghanistan, and yet neither has been able or willing to face the fact that the foremost obstacle to those goals is Islam, which respects neither.

George W. Bush oversaw the implementation of an Afghan constitution that enshrined Islamic law as the highest law of the land. Yet Islamic law is nothing like the democratic principles that Bush had taken us into Afghanistan to defend (over here) and establish (over there). Sharia institutionalizes the oppression of women and non-Muslims, extinguishes the freedom of speech, and denies the freedom of conscience.

Was that what we were fighting for?
[...]
Two successive U.S. administrations have now pursued futile and disastrous policies in Afghanistan and elsewhere because they are wedded to the unexamined dogma that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that Muslims want Western-style free societies. They have foolishly disregarded the nature of Islam as a political system as well as a religion, and never considered the likelihood that most Afghans would reject the idea of a secular government, free elections, and equality of rights for all people as a blasphemy against the way in which a proper Islamic society should be ordered.

With the withdrawal of the American troops, there will be many Taliban murders, many more jihads, many more women and non-Muslims victimized. That is an abomination. But we could have never ultimately have prevented it anyway. America’s misbegotten Afghan adventure shows the catastrophic human cost of our national unwillingness to face the unpleasant truths about Islam. It costs us lives and money, and makes us even more vulnerable to jihad attacks than we already were. It’s time not just to bring the troops home from their foredoomed mission, but to begin a searching and encompassing re-evaluation of all our national policies regarding Islam and Islamic states.

But Barack Obama will never do that. Instead, he continues to applaud the “Arab Spring” revolutions that are bringing more virulent, violent sharia states to the Middle East and North Africa. One may be forgiven for wondering if he likes Afghanistan so much that he has decided to replicate it all over the Islamic world.

Read it all.

The Tao of Warmongering

(h/t: 2.0: The Blogmocracy)

By Daniel Greenfield Monday, March 19, 2012

A day after Barack Hussein Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, he gave a press conference and responded to a question of what would happen if sanctions on Iran fail (more than they have already) by denouncing “those who are suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war”.

On cue, the Pravda press rushed to their iPads to begin tapping out the appropriate denunciations of Republican candidates, Netanyahu and American Jews for their warmongering. However, at that same press conference, Obama was careful to draw a distinction between Syria and Iran.

When asked whether his “window of diplomatic opportunity” and serious face remarks about the “costs of war” applied to Syria as well as Iran, the peacemonger suddenly became the warmonger, asserting that, “What’s happening in Syria is heartbreaking and outrageous, and what you’ve seen is the international community mobilize against the Assad regime. And it’s not a question of when Assad leaves—or if Assad leaves—it’s a question of when.”

In Iran, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei get an endless window to repress their own people and build their nukes, while in Syria, Assad is told that it’s only a question of when he leaves. That’s not the kind of talk you use unless you mean to make him leave, one way or another, using the fig leaf of the international community, which can’t get a war vote through the UN, but can organize yet another Coalition of the Willing.

To the untrained ear this may sound a lot like the beating of war drums, but sophisticated types know that it’s actually the cowbell of peace jangling with the groovy beat of humanitarian vibes. Sure it may all end in bombs falling on Damascus, but they’ll be peace bombs painted rainbow colors by marines who have married each other in a special commitment ceremony.

Republicans make war, while Democrats make explosive peace, just like they did in Kosovo where there are still more American troops than there are in Iraq, a legacy of the Clinton Administration’s humanitarian bombmaking peace.

Now after years of sneering at Republicans, the Democrats have their own Axis of Evil list, they just refuse to admit that they have it. Bombing countries on the list is a friendly act, which is why the current name for the Coalition of the Willing in Syria, is “Friends of Syria”, a name that would have given Orwell a fit. Bombing countries that aren’t on the list is irresponsible warmongering.

It’s a matter of transparent hypocrisy that the same voices who keep denouncing warmongering in Iran, want us to go into Syria. The difference between warmongering and a righteous humanitarian effort is a matter of political orientation, much like the difference between Iraq and Libya where we bombed a country to rid it of its dictator only to leave behind chaos and feuding factions. Or between Kony2012 and drone strikes in Somalia.

Democrats don’t like the military, but they like their wars. Until the Gulf War, every significant war in the previous century had been begun by Democratic presidents. They just didn’t like calling them wars. Korea was a “police action” and in Vietnam we were just there as advisers. No wars to see here. Libya officially wasn’t a war, it was just one of things where we bombed a country for several months until we tracked down and crippled the convoy of its leader. If we go into Syria, it certainly won’t be as a war, we’ll be keeping the peace through a war, bombing the village to save the village.

In the 20th century, there has hardly been a single Democratic president who didn’t bring America into a war. Woodrow Wilson had WW1, Franklin Roosevelt had WW2, Truman had Korea, JFK and LBJ had Vietnam, Bill Clinton had Yugoslavia and Obama has Libya. Only Carter was the odd man out, though he did begin supplying the Afghan Mujahideen with weapons which helped bring us into the current conflict.

With a record like that you would think that the Democrats would at least leave the peace signs and flowers at home. Some of their wars were necessary and some weren’t, but between them they are responsible for the lion’s share of wars that we have been in.

These days the Dems love intervening in what they call “humanitarian crises”, which is usually code for intervening on one side of a civil war where both sides are dubious. They don’t tend to intervene in genuinely one-sided conflicts. Sudan and Rwanda never saw bombers overhead. Actual genocide doesn’t interest them except when bemoaning the general fallen state of man without international law. Fake genocide, whether it’s in Yugoslavia or Libya draws them like flies to a D.C. banquet in summer.

These wars are usually billed as “interventions” to stop the killing. And that part doesn’t work too well. There’s still killing going on in Yugoslavia, it just doesn’t make the evening news. Libya has more killing than ever now that we liberated it. We can probably count on the Syrians for the same. But while the killing doesn’t stop, that was never really the point. If the Dems wanted to save lives, there would have jets over Sudan and peacekeeping forces gunning down Janjaweed rape squads like mad dogs.

What these peaceful wars are really about is glorying in the majesty of international law and sending soldiers off to die so that people in other countries will live the way you want them to. The Arab Spring isn’t about overthrowing dictators, it’s about putting the right kind of dictators in power.

No wonder then that the “international community” in all its majesty sneers at the kind of limited existential conflict that Israel would like to fight. There’s no mention of a democratic Iran and the stuff about international law is just unserious. Stopping madmen from getting their hands on nuclear weapons is fine for the plot of a Tom Cruise movie, but serious diplomats can’t be expected to take it seriously as a basis for intervention. Why if they intervened every time some lunatic got his hands on nuclear weapons, they would have to go into North Korea and Pakistan. And why do that when it’s much more fun to lay out the plans of what kind of government Syria should have after its liberation from Shiite totalitarian rule to Sunni totalitarian rule, as if the latter won’t handle that themselves.
[...]
In times past we sacrificed soldiers to win wars, in our days we sacrifice them to lose wars. The more soldiers die unnecessarily to protect and take care of the vital infrastructure of the local democratic junta when they could have been saved with an air strike or two, the more we show how unselfish we are, how humanitarian and altruistic our foreign policy is.

Some countries pride themselves on having a foreign policy that serves their interests. We pride ourselves on having a foreign policy that doesn’t serve our interests at all. The more our foreign policy doesn’t serve our interests, the nobler we know that we are. Take the Arab Spring. We would have been well served to protect ourselves by keeping allied governments in place. Instead we sacrificed those governments and turned the place over to the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby showing how unselfish we truly are.
[...]
Read it all.


{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 CzechRebel March 21, 2012 at 8:55 am

The US won World War II the right way. The choice was pretty simple. The US could have either:

A. Invaded Japan losing over 1,000,000 American troops in the process and killing many more Japanese combatants and civilians; or
B. Use its new atomic bombs, saving millions of lives in the process.

The US choose B. In every conflict since, the US has proceeded along path A. However, when the cost in lives and resources get too high, the US public demands and end to the war. The Korean War ended because the newly elected President Eisenhower made it clear that he would go with option B if the war continued. Suddenly, the North Koreans were ready to settle for a draw.

The lesson of history should be clear: If you are not ready to employ the nuclear option, don’t fight the war.

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: