Ruth Marcus wrote in the Washington Post on 28 July 2015 that there is no scandal in Mrs. Clinton’s use of a non-secure e-mail server to conduct State Department business.
Now this asinine assertion probably should not come as a surprise for a newspaper whose employee Dana Priest won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize (for Treason?) by revealing and thereby compromising an essential and extremely productive CIA covert-action program and endangering the officers involved. But as lawless as Ms. Priest’s and the Post’s actions were in regard to divulging classified intelligence operations, Mrs. Clinton’s are far worse, as is Ruth Marcus’s partisan, lighthearted pooh-poohing of what seems to be Mrs. Clinton’s clear and deliberate criminality.
While I have been out of the CIA since November, 2004, and know nothing about the content of her mails – save for those now published and identified as classified — I do know that Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct State Department business, and to receive and respond to e-mails from the White House and other government agencies would get any other executive branch employee disciplined or fired, and almost certainly indicted – unless the White House intervened to prevent the enforcement of pertinent laws and regulations.
Why is this case? Well, there are several reasons, none of which are too difficult to understand.
Read the entire article
BATR 2020 Election News
Showing posts with label Michael Scheuer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Scheuer. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
The U.S. Congress = 535 Agents of a Foreign Power
Now, if someone told you that the Congress of the United States invited a foreign leader to address it without coordinating with the president and seeking his approval, the natural reaction, I think, would be to respond that while such an invitation might be legal, it clearly is a case of the legislative branch arrogantly ignoring the executive’s prerogatives in the conduct of foreign policy. Even though the Obama administration does not have a coherent or commonsense foreign policy, the Congress’s action can only make the Obama-made overseas mess worse and thereby further undermine U.S. security. Constitutional prerogatives ought to be honored — in letter and spirit — by all three branches of government, and so this unilateral congressional invitation ought to set off some alarm bells.
Now, if the same someone went on to tell you that the foreign leader invited to address Congress is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that he is going to deliver a speech meant to promote the involvement of the United States in an unnecessary war with Iran, the ringing alarm bells ought to become a deafening nationwide clanging. Our elected interventionist representatives are giving a war-wanting foreign leader a superb platform from which to intervene in U.S. politics, and from which he will try to drag/push/force the United States into Israel’s war with Iran. If Netanyahu succeeds at some point in the future, it will be the soldier-children of American parents who will be killed fighting for Israel in a war in which the United States does not have a horse. Iran has third-rate military that is not capable of successfully attacking North America; that is, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards will not be victoriously goose-stepping down the main street of any American city. And, lest we forget, the U.S. military is still the earth’s preeminent military power and if we are attacked by Iran it could render Persia uncomfortably radioactive. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let it rip, but Washington’s only duty in the case of such a war is to stay completely away from it, support neither side, and refuse to publicly comment.
Another reason why Washington must avoid participation in an Israel-Iran is the catastrophic disaster that our immigration and border policies have wrought in terms of allowing Iran’s intelligence operatives, Revolutionary Guards, and their murderous colleagues in Lebanese Hizballah to establish a strong presence in the United States. Iran has been deploying its fighters here pretty much at will since the early 1980s, and now controls a wide-ranging set of capabilities with which to attack in the United States. (NB: These capabilities are supported by the similar ones that Iran has built in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and parts of South America.) The odds are very much against Iran using these capabilities unless we join in Israel’s war against the Islamic Republic. In that event, Tehran probably would use its U.S. based fighters to cause damage and death in the United States at a level the conventional Iranian military could never achieve. Joining Israel’s war against Iran, then, means Americans will fight a two-front war — one in Iran, the other at home — and would certainly come out the loser in both.
It is important, however, that Americans not misplace blame for this episode by damning either Netanyahu or Israel for taking advantage of the opportunity that the Congress has offered them. Netanyahu is responsible only for Israel’s national security, and that consideration apparently demands that the United States be on-board and fighting when Israel attacks Iran. The Israelis have an absolute right to defend themselves by whatever means they deem necessary, but the United States has no obligation — legal, moral, or security – to join them in their war on Iran. The U.S. government too has an absolute right to defend itself against perceived threats in any manner necessary, but it has an even greater duty – legal, moral, and security — never to become involved in other people’s wars in which no life-and-death U.S. interests are at stake and can only yield ruin for America.
Read the entire article
Now, if the same someone went on to tell you that the foreign leader invited to address Congress is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that he is going to deliver a speech meant to promote the involvement of the United States in an unnecessary war with Iran, the ringing alarm bells ought to become a deafening nationwide clanging. Our elected interventionist representatives are giving a war-wanting foreign leader a superb platform from which to intervene in U.S. politics, and from which he will try to drag/push/force the United States into Israel’s war with Iran. If Netanyahu succeeds at some point in the future, it will be the soldier-children of American parents who will be killed fighting for Israel in a war in which the United States does not have a horse. Iran has third-rate military that is not capable of successfully attacking North America; that is, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards will not be victoriously goose-stepping down the main street of any American city. And, lest we forget, the U.S. military is still the earth’s preeminent military power and if we are attacked by Iran it could render Persia uncomfortably radioactive. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let it rip, but Washington’s only duty in the case of such a war is to stay completely away from it, support neither side, and refuse to publicly comment.
Another reason why Washington must avoid participation in an Israel-Iran is the catastrophic disaster that our immigration and border policies have wrought in terms of allowing Iran’s intelligence operatives, Revolutionary Guards, and their murderous colleagues in Lebanese Hizballah to establish a strong presence in the United States. Iran has been deploying its fighters here pretty much at will since the early 1980s, and now controls a wide-ranging set of capabilities with which to attack in the United States. (NB: These capabilities are supported by the similar ones that Iran has built in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and parts of South America.) The odds are very much against Iran using these capabilities unless we join in Israel’s war against the Islamic Republic. In that event, Tehran probably would use its U.S. based fighters to cause damage and death in the United States at a level the conventional Iranian military could never achieve. Joining Israel’s war against Iran, then, means Americans will fight a two-front war — one in Iran, the other at home — and would certainly come out the loser in both.
It is important, however, that Americans not misplace blame for this episode by damning either Netanyahu or Israel for taking advantage of the opportunity that the Congress has offered them. Netanyahu is responsible only for Israel’s national security, and that consideration apparently demands that the United States be on-board and fighting when Israel attacks Iran. The Israelis have an absolute right to defend themselves by whatever means they deem necessary, but the United States has no obligation — legal, moral, or security – to join them in their war on Iran. The U.S. government too has an absolute right to defend itself against perceived threats in any manner necessary, but it has an even greater duty – legal, moral, and security — never to become involved in other people’s wars in which no life-and-death U.S. interests are at stake and can only yield ruin for America.
Read the entire article
Friday, April 04, 2014
For America, perhaps now is the time for neutrality
Among the most striking aspects of the current debate over U.S. foreign policy is the almost complete lack of perception among Americans about their country’s actual economic and military capabilities and its international influence. Whether it is Ukraine and Russia, the intensifying Islamist offensive on several continents, or the blatantly Potemkin Middle East peace talks, U.S. political leaders, academics, pundits, and most of the media speak as if today’s America is the America of 1945, 1984, or 1991, times when the United States was a nation of almost unlimited military and economic power and telling international influence.
Today, we are barely a shadow of that powerful nation. Indeed, while Washington under either party speaks as if it is the world’s voice of power and all-knowing authority, we are really the very picture of an overused, late-middle age Madam who eagerly displays her sagging wares but doesn’t seem to realize that she has lost her looks, allure, and persuasiveness, and is much more laughed at than lusted over. When an American president speaks on foreign policy, the world and Americans hear meaningless bravado, absurd prating about freedom and other universal values — quite obviously the only universal value is power — and an endless, self-righteous hectoring that orders all peoples in all countries to abandon their heathen ways and improve themselves according to Washington’s dictates.
And what sort of power is available to back-up the words of recent American presidents. Well, today, there is not much power to crow about.
–America is bankrupt with a debt of nearly $17 trillion and apparently damned to eventual economic catastrophe by an oblivious governing elite that will not control its spending and values office more than country. Our rivals and enemies rest comfortably knowing that America will keep spending and thereby keep degrading its ability to generate economic and/or military power. The absurdity of this situation is apparent in the reality that Washington could not fight a war against China unless Beijing was willing to lend us the money we need to attack her. It also clear in the decision to cut the U.S. Army — to save funds for use in building the Democratic base — to 440,000 soldiers. Knowing that, at best, only 1 of 3 soldiers is a shooter, our rivals and enemies — even if they are as stupid as Washington arrogantly claims they are — know that an army of less than 150,000 combat soldiers is not even remotely akin to a formidable deterring or war-fighting force.
–And speaking of war, we must keep in view that the United States has not won a war since that September day in 1945 when Japan surrendered. Next to the Chicago Cubs, the U.S. military has the longest losing record of any organization in North America. Our recent lost wars, of course, must be attributed to the same politicians in both parties who today are spending us into oblivion. Americans have paid their taxes to support their military, and have sent their kids to join the services. In turn, courageous men and women have given their lives or been maimed fighting often unnecessary but always losing and unconstitutional wars. In truth, these taxes and young citizens have been wasted by politicians who are eager to start wars, but do not care if they win them. Putin’s confidence in moving into Crimea, for example, was in part based on his observation of the callous and cowardly leadership and policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that produced war-losing performances by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Read the entire article
Today, we are barely a shadow of that powerful nation. Indeed, while Washington under either party speaks as if it is the world’s voice of power and all-knowing authority, we are really the very picture of an overused, late-middle age Madam who eagerly displays her sagging wares but doesn’t seem to realize that she has lost her looks, allure, and persuasiveness, and is much more laughed at than lusted over. When an American president speaks on foreign policy, the world and Americans hear meaningless bravado, absurd prating about freedom and other universal values — quite obviously the only universal value is power — and an endless, self-righteous hectoring that orders all peoples in all countries to abandon their heathen ways and improve themselves according to Washington’s dictates.
And what sort of power is available to back-up the words of recent American presidents. Well, today, there is not much power to crow about.
–America is bankrupt with a debt of nearly $17 trillion and apparently damned to eventual economic catastrophe by an oblivious governing elite that will not control its spending and values office more than country. Our rivals and enemies rest comfortably knowing that America will keep spending and thereby keep degrading its ability to generate economic and/or military power. The absurdity of this situation is apparent in the reality that Washington could not fight a war against China unless Beijing was willing to lend us the money we need to attack her. It also clear in the decision to cut the U.S. Army — to save funds for use in building the Democratic base — to 440,000 soldiers. Knowing that, at best, only 1 of 3 soldiers is a shooter, our rivals and enemies — even if they are as stupid as Washington arrogantly claims they are — know that an army of less than 150,000 combat soldiers is not even remotely akin to a formidable deterring or war-fighting force.
–And speaking of war, we must keep in view that the United States has not won a war since that September day in 1945 when Japan surrendered. Next to the Chicago Cubs, the U.S. military has the longest losing record of any organization in North America. Our recent lost wars, of course, must be attributed to the same politicians in both parties who today are spending us into oblivion. Americans have paid their taxes to support their military, and have sent their kids to join the services. In turn, courageous men and women have given their lives or been maimed fighting often unnecessary but always losing and unconstitutional wars. In truth, these taxes and young citizens have been wasted by politicians who are eager to start wars, but do not care if they win them. Putin’s confidence in moving into Crimea, for example, was in part based on his observation of the callous and cowardly leadership and policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that produced war-losing performances by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Read the entire article
Thursday, August 08, 2013
Obama, Rice, Kerry, McCain, and Graham: Intervening for more war
While the frequent, dastardly lies of President Obama, CIA Chief John Brennan, and their media acolytes about the demise of al-Qaeda and its allies unravel, Obama, Susan Rice, John Kerry, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham also are knowingly stoking the flames of Islam’s religious war against the United States by intervening in the Palestine-Israel war and Egyptian politics.
Take, for example, the newly begun Israel-Palestine “peace talks.” There is, of course, no chance of peace, unless all Palestinians are forever willing to be Israel’s obedient, impotent, and forelock-tugging subjects. First, the PLO represents half of Palestinians and the democratically elected Hamas government — which represents the rest — has not been invited to the talks. Second, no viable Palestinian state is possible because (a) for decades Israel has deliberately cut up Palestinian territory with roads, military positions, and settlements that leave little contiguous territory with which to compose a “state,” and (b) because it keeps seizing Palestinian land to build security walls and settlements. Third, more than half of Palestinians — and most of the Muslim world — will never accept peace with the Israelis, whom they regard as the U. S-protected enemies of their God and faith, as well as plundering and murderous land thieves. In addition, Hamas and other Palestinian Islamists — not to mention al Qaeda and its allies — know the Arab Spring has created an enormous, if still potential opportunity to draw large quantities of Israeli blood because it toppled or weakened the Arab tyrannies that border Israel and long helped the Israelis keep their borders secure.
At bottom, the Obama administration with the support of the Israel-First-supported shills on both sides of the aisle in Congress — there are about 535 of them — are foisting a charade on the American people. The talks will go nowhere, but when they fail Americans will give Obama credit for trying because they know such talks always fail. The one question that remains unanswered, then, is why did the Israelis and Palestinians agree to this round of useless talks? The answer is apparent if you listen closely. Those sounds you hear are the Israelis and Palestinians — both in the top rank when it comes to venality — slurping up funds in a cash trough filled by American taxpayers. (NB: After the Palestinians failed to walk out of the talks when the Pakistan-bound Kerry left the Israel-First Capo Martin Indyk in charge of the talks, one also must conclude the Palestinians will to accept any level of degrading public insult to grab U.S. cash.) The two parties provided the Potemkin talks Obama needed to remind Americans’ that he is statesman as well as a lawless thug, and so they will walk away with millions of dollars in weapons, training, subsidies for various programs in their own countries, and other forms of “aid” courtesy of the American taxpayer. And they will be back for more failure and swag whenever Obama or another Democratic or Republican president needs a boost for their foreign-policy credentials.
Another example of national-security damaging intervention can be seen in the presence in Cairo of Republican war-lovers McCain and Graham, at Obama’s direction, to negotiate a post-coup “democratic, power-sharing arrangement” with the Egyptian military. What that probably means, of course, is that part of the price Israel exacted from Obama for agreeing to a session of useless peace talks is an effort by the United States to stabilize Egyptian politics by making sure that the legitimately elected ex-president Muhammad Morsi, his Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and the increasingly popular Salafists get no meaningful power in Egypt’s new military dictatorship. The war-boys will also insist that the Egyptian military conduct an election that has the trappings of democracy but which will elect people — including a few women to please the crazed Ms. Rice and the crazier UN Ambassador Samantha Powers — who will do the Egyptian generals’ bidding. The cost, again, will be increased military and “humanitarian and economic” aid to Egypt from the American taxpayers.
Read the entire article
Take, for example, the newly begun Israel-Palestine “peace talks.” There is, of course, no chance of peace, unless all Palestinians are forever willing to be Israel’s obedient, impotent, and forelock-tugging subjects. First, the PLO represents half of Palestinians and the democratically elected Hamas government — which represents the rest — has not been invited to the talks. Second, no viable Palestinian state is possible because (a) for decades Israel has deliberately cut up Palestinian territory with roads, military positions, and settlements that leave little contiguous territory with which to compose a “state,” and (b) because it keeps seizing Palestinian land to build security walls and settlements. Third, more than half of Palestinians — and most of the Muslim world — will never accept peace with the Israelis, whom they regard as the U. S-protected enemies of their God and faith, as well as plundering and murderous land thieves. In addition, Hamas and other Palestinian Islamists — not to mention al Qaeda and its allies — know the Arab Spring has created an enormous, if still potential opportunity to draw large quantities of Israeli blood because it toppled or weakened the Arab tyrannies that border Israel and long helped the Israelis keep their borders secure.
At bottom, the Obama administration with the support of the Israel-First-supported shills on both sides of the aisle in Congress — there are about 535 of them — are foisting a charade on the American people. The talks will go nowhere, but when they fail Americans will give Obama credit for trying because they know such talks always fail. The one question that remains unanswered, then, is why did the Israelis and Palestinians agree to this round of useless talks? The answer is apparent if you listen closely. Those sounds you hear are the Israelis and Palestinians — both in the top rank when it comes to venality — slurping up funds in a cash trough filled by American taxpayers. (NB: After the Palestinians failed to walk out of the talks when the Pakistan-bound Kerry left the Israel-First Capo Martin Indyk in charge of the talks, one also must conclude the Palestinians will to accept any level of degrading public insult to grab U.S. cash.) The two parties provided the Potemkin talks Obama needed to remind Americans’ that he is statesman as well as a lawless thug, and so they will walk away with millions of dollars in weapons, training, subsidies for various programs in their own countries, and other forms of “aid” courtesy of the American taxpayer. And they will be back for more failure and swag whenever Obama or another Democratic or Republican president needs a boost for their foreign-policy credentials.
Another example of national-security damaging intervention can be seen in the presence in Cairo of Republican war-lovers McCain and Graham, at Obama’s direction, to negotiate a post-coup “democratic, power-sharing arrangement” with the Egyptian military. What that probably means, of course, is that part of the price Israel exacted from Obama for agreeing to a session of useless peace talks is an effort by the United States to stabilize Egyptian politics by making sure that the legitimately elected ex-president Muhammad Morsi, his Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and the increasingly popular Salafists get no meaningful power in Egypt’s new military dictatorship. The war-boys will also insist that the Egyptian military conduct an election that has the trappings of democracy but which will elect people — including a few women to please the crazed Ms. Rice and the crazier UN Ambassador Samantha Powers — who will do the Egyptian generals’ bidding. The cost, again, will be increased military and “humanitarian and economic” aid to Egypt from the American taxpayers.
Read the entire article
Monday, March 04, 2013
On Syria, Our interventionists ensure America’s luck is running out
For more than two years the Syrian civil war has raged with no impact at all on the United States and its domestic or international interests. Notwithstanding the crocodile tears that have flowed from Mrs. Clinton, President Obama, the European Union, and the usual gang of senatorial war lovers — McCain, Graham, Lieberman, etc. — the Syrian civil war has not troubled genuine U.S. security interests a lick. But that reality is, of course, irrelevant to our bipartisan governing elite, and we now seem headed for yet another mindless foreign intervention.
As he stepped into the Secretary of State’s role, John Kerry must have wondered how he would ever surpass the record of Mrs. Clinton. In her four years in the position, Mrs. Clinton talked constantly, traveled endlessly, further institutionalized the insane, war-causing foreign policy goal of forcing the world to install her view of women’s rights; and scored a breathtaking diplomatic achievement — she bribed the Burmese junta into dealing with Washington and allowing an aging, gad-fly female poet to travel the world. Such of Mrs. Clinton’s predecessors as William Henry Seward, John Quincy Adams, and General George C. Marshall best make way for this unprecedented foreign-policy accomplishment.
After that performance poor Mr. Kerry had to move fast to make his name in history and what better method than that of intervening in a war in which no genuine U.S. national interest is at stake. Smacking his lips and muttering “Syria here I come!” Mr. Kerry met last week with the fundamentally anti-U.S. leaders of the “Syrian Resistance” — AKA: Al-Qaeda and its like-minded allies — and forked over $60 million in “non-lethal aid,” thereby laying the groundwork for greater U.S. participation in that none-of-our-business war.
In this action, Mr. Kerry demonstrated all the usual attributes of our bipartisan governing elite. As noted, we have no life-and-death interests at stake in Syria, so that is where Kerry and our leaders will focus their interest. This, rather than trying to fix, say, our open borders, which are facilitating the ability of Iran and the Sunni Islamists to wage war inside the United States. Kerry’s donation to the Syrian Islamists also underscores the utter contempt he and the governing elite have for the well-being of Americans. In a bankrupt country like today’s United States, Kerry gave away $60 million to America’s enemies, money that could be much better used or simply saved at home, and the waste of which elicited zero negative comments from all those wailing in despair over sequestration. Kerry like all of members of our governing elite defines his own worth and success by how much he can “help” foreigners, Americans be damned.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Israel First thriving in Governor Romney’s camp — and still trying to get me fired, silenced
Readers of this blog will recall several previous battles I have been engaged in with Israel-Firsters intent on getting me fired from various jobs and banned from the media. In these efforts, the Israel-Firsters have had some success.
Well, things on this score had been quiet for a while, but last week a new e-mail campaign began against me, one that is directed at FOX NEWS and Georgetown University. I commented acidly or flippantly to most of these notes, but it became clear that this campaign was different from the others in that the three e-mail writers — blewis3h@yahoo.com, mgilbertc@yahoo.com, and lisabandrea@yahoo.com — implied in their missives to FOX and Georgetown that a senior foreign policy adviser to Governor Romney named Gabrial Schoenfeld was either driving, involved in, or cooperating with their efforts. [NB: Readers of this blog also will recall that Mr. Schoenfeld slandered and lied about me repeatedly while he was a writer at Commentary, Israel-First’s flagship publication.]
Defamation of me by OpEd writers in the private sector is fair enough; after all, the public square is a rough place and when scurvy people the likes of Mr. Schoenfeld cannot refute a person’s argument with substance, he only has slander, lies, and defamation in his arsenal.
I was, however, a bit put out that someone advising and being paid by Governor “Jobs-for-All” Romney apparently was using his position to encourage an effort to again cost me employment. So, I sent a letter to Governor Romney’s campaign spokesman, Mr. Kevin Madden.
What follows is (1) a sample of the notes sent to FOX, as well as one sent to me which recounts Israel First’s earlier victories against my income and public voice; (2) the note I sent to Governor Romney’s spokesman, which includes three of the notes sent by lisabandrea@yahoo.com, two to Georgetown and one to me clearly suggesting Mr. Schoenfeld’s cooperation and/or participation in the attacks on me; and, (3) the non-response response I received from Governor Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden.
Read the entire report
Well, things on this score had been quiet for a while, but last week a new e-mail campaign began against me, one that is directed at FOX NEWS and Georgetown University. I commented acidly or flippantly to most of these notes, but it became clear that this campaign was different from the others in that the three e-mail writers — blewis3h@yahoo.com, mgilbertc@yahoo.com, and lisabandrea@yahoo.com — implied in their missives to FOX and Georgetown that a senior foreign policy adviser to Governor Romney named Gabrial Schoenfeld was either driving, involved in, or cooperating with their efforts. [NB: Readers of this blog also will recall that Mr. Schoenfeld slandered and lied about me repeatedly while he was a writer at Commentary, Israel-First’s flagship publication.]
Defamation of me by OpEd writers in the private sector is fair enough; after all, the public square is a rough place and when scurvy people the likes of Mr. Schoenfeld cannot refute a person’s argument with substance, he only has slander, lies, and defamation in his arsenal.
I was, however, a bit put out that someone advising and being paid by Governor “Jobs-for-All” Romney apparently was using his position to encourage an effort to again cost me employment. So, I sent a letter to Governor Romney’s campaign spokesman, Mr. Kevin Madden.
What follows is (1) a sample of the notes sent to FOX, as well as one sent to me which recounts Israel First’s earlier victories against my income and public voice; (2) the note I sent to Governor Romney’s spokesman, which includes three of the notes sent by lisabandrea@yahoo.com, two to Georgetown and one to me clearly suggesting Mr. Schoenfeld’s cooperation and/or participation in the attacks on me; and, (3) the non-response response I received from Governor Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden.
Read the entire report
Friday, July 27, 2012
Galloping toward the abyss: The price of U.S. interventionism in Syria and Israel
While the presidential election campaign is focused on the economy and Barack Obama’s transparent desire for class war in the United States, Americans ought to take a quick look at the outside world to examine the approaching wave of interventionist-wrought disaster, a wave for which both parties are equally culpable.
Secretary of State Clinton’s drive to destroy the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad appears to be moving closer to a conclusion. The democracy-thirsty folks Mrs. Clinton champions have moved into parts of Damascus and Aleppo and last week conducted a suicide car-bomb attack that killed al-Assad’s minister of defense and other top security officials. This may not be the death knell of the Syrian regime but its deteriorating condition seems clear.
There is, of course, no appreciable number of pro-democracy advocates in the Syrian resistance; such people — as in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere — exist only in the minds of Clinton, Obama, McCain, Graham, and Lieberman. Indeed, the correct spelling of the name of those fighting against al-Assad’s regime is “MUJAHEDIN”.
These fighters come from the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which has been patiently waiting to exact revenge for al-Assad’s father’s early 1980s destruction of the city of Hama, and with it the death of 20,000 Brotherhood members, their families, and innocent civilians. In addition, al-Qaeda and its allies are heavily involved in attacking the regime and clearly have brought with them their admirable skill in conducting suicide operations and organizing the logistics needed to keep the resistance supplied and in the field.
Also fighting in Syria are Islamist fighters who transited the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-built highway through Iraq that now connects Syria with Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Finally, some of the other democrats Mrs. Clinton and Senator McCain supported in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are fighting in Syria and brought with them many of the weapons they looted from the regimes they overthrew while bipartisan Washington mindlessly applauded and prated about the birth of “Arab democracies.”
Secretary of State Clinton’s drive to destroy the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad appears to be moving closer to a conclusion. The democracy-thirsty folks Mrs. Clinton champions have moved into parts of Damascus and Aleppo and last week conducted a suicide car-bomb attack that killed al-Assad’s minister of defense and other top security officials. This may not be the death knell of the Syrian regime but its deteriorating condition seems clear.
There is, of course, no appreciable number of pro-democracy advocates in the Syrian resistance; such people — as in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere — exist only in the minds of Clinton, Obama, McCain, Graham, and Lieberman. Indeed, the correct spelling of the name of those fighting against al-Assad’s regime is “MUJAHEDIN”.
These fighters come from the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which has been patiently waiting to exact revenge for al-Assad’s father’s early 1980s destruction of the city of Hama, and with it the death of 20,000 Brotherhood members, their families, and innocent civilians. In addition, al-Qaeda and its allies are heavily involved in attacking the regime and clearly have brought with them their admirable skill in conducting suicide operations and organizing the logistics needed to keep the resistance supplied and in the field.
Also fighting in Syria are Islamist fighters who transited the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-built highway through Iraq that now connects Syria with Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Finally, some of the other democrats Mrs. Clinton and Senator McCain supported in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are fighting in Syria and brought with them many of the weapons they looted from the regimes they overthrew while bipartisan Washington mindlessly applauded and prated about the birth of “Arab democracies.”
Monday, February 27, 2012
Who Should Apologize for Afghanistan?
Driving to Mass this morning I was listening to FOX on the issue of Afghanistan and the killing of U.S. and NATO soldiers by our supposed Afghan allies. FOX had its “terrorism expert” on and he was blathering about how President Obama’s apology for the recent Koran burning was causing more violence in Afghanistan and across the Muslim world. The apology, said the “expert”, was typical of Obama’s weakness, and this weakness is contributing to the rise of Islamist power in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Afghanistan, and other places. Somehow Obama’s apology for the Koran burning was explained by FOX’s “expert” as an apology for “U.S. policy,” which surprised me as I did not know our policy was to burn Korans.
Anyway, that this sort of truly brain-dead stuff passes for acceptable — or even plausible — analysis on any U.S. network falls into the appalling but not surprising category. The violence in Afghanistan against U.S. and NATO forces, for example, has nothing to do with the repeated apologies of Obama, Bush, Secretary Clinton, etc. for various incidents. The violence comes from the fact that we and NATO are viewed by the overwhelming number of Afghans as, to quote an old but true phrase, “foreign infidel occupiers.”
Now, there is no doubt that burning Korans alienates Afghans, but it is the icing on the cake of 2,000-plus years of unrelenting, violent Afghan opposition to all occupiers — Greeks, Persians, Mongols, British, or Soviets. FOX’s “expert” said that Washington and NATO should be “partnering with pro-democracy Afghan social groups” to discredit the Taleban and other Afghan mujahedin and thereby reduce violence and spur democracy. This analysis is truly a howler as those Afghans who are killing Western soldiers are the only social forces that count in Afghanistan, and they are the only ones that have counted since we invaded in 2001. Had we smashed these folks to the edge of extinction and then left in the 18 months following 9/11, all would have been well. But we stayed to build a secular democracy and empower women, and today the world’s greatest power and its allies are acknowledging defeat at the hands of shaggy lads armed with weapons of Korean War vintage.
On the issue of “apologies,” it is clear that one is due, but it is due to the American people and especially to American parents who have lost sons or daughters to members of the so-called Afghan Forces who have shot the U.S. and NATO soldiers who trained them. I always try to avoid saying “I told you so,” but since I published Imperial Hubris in 2004 I have written on numerous occasions that the idea that the U.S. and NATO were going to be able to train an Afghan military/security/police force that could defend the country and the social and political values Washington and its allies sought to impose on Afghans was a piece of absolute of nonsense. I argued that those we trained would kill our soldiers, ultimately help the Taleban to throw NATO out of the country, and thereafter divide along ethnic lines for the coming civil war. Right and left came down hard on me for making these points, the former claiming I was a Bush hater and the latter that I was a an anti-Afghan racist because I refused to see how much the Afghans were desirous and capable of uniting their nation under a secular democracy. Well, I hated neither Bush nor the Afghans — I simply hate those U.S. and Western politicians who refuse to see reality and read history and so get our soldier-children killed for no good reason.
For my sins, I spent most of my CIA career working on Afghanistan in one way or another; my most intense Afghan experience came between 1985 and 1992 when I had the privilege to work on President Reagan’s (peace be upon him) covert-action program to help the Afghan mujahedin kill Soviet soldiers and their Afghan communist allies; drive the Red Army out of Afghanistan; and contribute to demise of the Soviet Union. To prepare for this assignment — pedant that I am — I read the history of the occupations of Afghanistan by Alexander, Britain, and the USSR. History as always was an excellent instructor, offering clear lessons not about what to do, but about what not to do. And one lesson was clear: DO NOT TRUST YOUR AFGHAN ALLIES. In each of the three occupations, the occupiers found that the Afghans they paid, armed, and trained ultimately either deserted and joined the enemy or simply turned on and killed them.
Anyway, that this sort of truly brain-dead stuff passes for acceptable — or even plausible — analysis on any U.S. network falls into the appalling but not surprising category. The violence in Afghanistan against U.S. and NATO forces, for example, has nothing to do with the repeated apologies of Obama, Bush, Secretary Clinton, etc. for various incidents. The violence comes from the fact that we and NATO are viewed by the overwhelming number of Afghans as, to quote an old but true phrase, “foreign infidel occupiers.”
Now, there is no doubt that burning Korans alienates Afghans, but it is the icing on the cake of 2,000-plus years of unrelenting, violent Afghan opposition to all occupiers — Greeks, Persians, Mongols, British, or Soviets. FOX’s “expert” said that Washington and NATO should be “partnering with pro-democracy Afghan social groups” to discredit the Taleban and other Afghan mujahedin and thereby reduce violence and spur democracy. This analysis is truly a howler as those Afghans who are killing Western soldiers are the only social forces that count in Afghanistan, and they are the only ones that have counted since we invaded in 2001. Had we smashed these folks to the edge of extinction and then left in the 18 months following 9/11, all would have been well. But we stayed to build a secular democracy and empower women, and today the world’s greatest power and its allies are acknowledging defeat at the hands of shaggy lads armed with weapons of Korean War vintage.
On the issue of “apologies,” it is clear that one is due, but it is due to the American people and especially to American parents who have lost sons or daughters to members of the so-called Afghan Forces who have shot the U.S. and NATO soldiers who trained them. I always try to avoid saying “I told you so,” but since I published Imperial Hubris in 2004 I have written on numerous occasions that the idea that the U.S. and NATO were going to be able to train an Afghan military/security/police force that could defend the country and the social and political values Washington and its allies sought to impose on Afghans was a piece of absolute of nonsense. I argued that those we trained would kill our soldiers, ultimately help the Taleban to throw NATO out of the country, and thereafter divide along ethnic lines for the coming civil war. Right and left came down hard on me for making these points, the former claiming I was a Bush hater and the latter that I was a an anti-Afghan racist because I refused to see how much the Afghans were desirous and capable of uniting their nation under a secular democracy. Well, I hated neither Bush nor the Afghans — I simply hate those U.S. and Western politicians who refuse to see reality and read history and so get our soldier-children killed for no good reason.
For my sins, I spent most of my CIA career working on Afghanistan in one way or another; my most intense Afghan experience came between 1985 and 1992 when I had the privilege to work on President Reagan’s (peace be upon him) covert-action program to help the Afghan mujahedin kill Soviet soldiers and their Afghan communist allies; drive the Red Army out of Afghanistan; and contribute to demise of the Soviet Union. To prepare for this assignment — pedant that I am — I read the history of the occupations of Afghanistan by Alexander, Britain, and the USSR. History as always was an excellent instructor, offering clear lessons not about what to do, but about what not to do. And one lesson was clear: DO NOT TRUST YOUR AFGHAN ALLIES. In each of the three occupations, the occupiers found that the Afghans they paid, armed, and trained ultimately either deserted and joined the enemy or simply turned on and killed them.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)