Cairo Speech, Treaty of Rapallo, German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, and Operation Barbarossa

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2014

History 101

President Obama’s Cairo Speech of Islamist Appeasement Emboldened our Enemies

Candidate Barack Obama said during the 2008 presidential campaign that he would talk to our enemies.  Without preconditions.  He would discontinue the gunboat diplomacy of George W. Bush.  Instead he would open a dialogue with the people who wanted to kill us.  Find out why they wanted to kill us. And then resolve those issues that caused our enemies to want to kill us.  Which was the core of his foreign policy.  Being nice to our enemies to get them to like us.  And once they did they would stop killing us.

Some say this started with the Obama apology tour.  With his message of appeasement in Cairo in June 2009.  Where he told our militant Islamist foes, those people who have a tendency to kill Americans, we only want to live together in peace.  And that there is a level of conservative Islamism that was acceptable to the United States.  When the Arab Spring began in Iran (a sponsor of anti-American/Western terrorism) in June of 2009 (after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won reelection despite reported irregularities) President Obama did nothing to support the Iranian protestors.  And the enemies of the United States took notice.  The Cairo speech of appeasement.  Not condemning the Iranian election results and telling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he had to go (as he would tell Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak).  The message was clear.  America’s enemies could do whatever they wanted.  Even become a rogue nuclear power (see Iran: US and others ‘surrendered before the great Iranian nation’ in nuclear deal by Alexander Smith posted 1/14/2014 on NBC News).

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said world powers including the United States “surrendered before the great Iranian nation” in agreeing an interim nuclear deal with his country, state media reported Tuesday.

Iran reached the deal with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the U.S., Canada, Britain, China, and Russia– and non-member Germany…

Speaking to a crowd gathered in the oil-rich province of Khuzestan on Tuesday, Rouhani said: “Do you know what the Geneva agreement means? It means the big powers have surrendered before the great Iranian nation.”

Apparently appeasing our enemies only makes our enemies bolder.  And stronger.  Which is probably not a good thing.  North Korea is a rogue nuclear state.  But their need for food and energy make it unlikely that they will launch a nuclear weapon.  They have so far used the threat of doing so just to get what they desperately needed.  Food and energy.  Militant Islamists, though, want to rid the world of anyone who is not a militant Islamist.  Even if they have to die in the process.  Which they don’t mind.  Because for them this world is only the prelude for the far better afterworld.  Whereas the regime running North Korea has no desire to die.  They enjoy living in the here and now.  And know that won’t continue if they launch a nuclear weapon.

Neville Chamberlain opened a Dialogue with a Lying Adolf Hitler who lied to Chamberlain

The Allies blamed Germany for World War I.  And the Versailles Treaty made the peace following the war a difficult one for Germany.  Blame for the war, war reparations, loss of territories, emasculation (severe limits on Germany’s military strength), etc.  It did a number to German esteem.  Especially when they didn’t technically lose World War I.  The war ended in an armistice.  Where the combatants agreed to a cease fire as they were all exhausted by war.  Of course, America’s entry into the war would have most likely led to a German surrender.  For they were not yet exhausted by years of war.  And could extend the conflict indefinitely until Germany did surrender.  But that didn’t happen.  Which made for a lot of angry Germans when the Allies treated them as if they had surrendered unconditionally.  Setting the stage for an Adolf Hitler to come to power.  Which is what happened.

The war left the Germans isolated.   Russia pulled out of World War I before its completion and devolved into revolution.  Bringing the communists to power.  Replacing Russia with the Soviet Union.  These developments left them, too, isolated in the post-war world.  And then these two isolated nations found each other.  Signing the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.  Renouncing any territorial or financial claims between them from the war.  And becoming trading partners.  Among other things.  Such as using Soviet soil to rebuild German armed forces in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty.  Where they trained for armor warfare.  Built an air force.  And even developed chemical weapons.  This new eastern friendship had another shared interest.  Poland.

 

Germany and Russia lost portions of Poland following World War I.  And they wanted them back.  But Hitler tested the waters first.  To see how the war-weary allies would react.  He marched troops into the demilitarized Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty.  And the Allies did nothing.  Hitler sent an ultimatum to the Austrian chancellor to hand over power to the Austrian NSDAP (i.e., Austrian Nazi Party) or he would invade Austria.  The Austrian chancellor did.  And Hitler’s Wehrmacht marched triumphantly into Austria the following day.  And the Allies did nothing.  Then Hitler turned his eyes to Czechoslovakia.  And the Sudetenland.  Which he wanted to annex into the Third Reich.  And he was willing to do this with an armed invasion.  Something that got the war-weary Allies’ attention.  For the last thing they wanted in Europe was another war.  British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler.  And opened a dialogue with him.  Finding Hitler to be a reasonable man.  And the Allies agreed to give Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Hitler.  With Czechoslovakia having little say in the matter.  But it was for the greater good.  “Peace in our time.”  And it was the last territorial acquisition he wanted.  He promised.  So Hitler got the Sudetenland.  And within 6 months Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia.  Without firing a single shot.  Because the Allies were so eager to appease Hitler that they never considered that he was lying to them.  Which he was.

The Treaty of Rapallo allowed the Nazis to build the War Machine they eventually Unleashed on the Soviet Union

With the southern border of Poland secured thanks to the Allies giving Czechoslovakia to Germany it was time to recover their lost territory in Poland.  All they needed was a little help from their new best friend.  The Soviet Union.  And it came in the form of a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.  The Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed August 23, 1939.  Promising that neither would go to war with the other.  Or ally with a nation that does.  As well as the secret agreement to invade and divide Poland.  As well as dividing up Bessarabia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, etc.  Then, on September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland.  Launching World War II.  Something they couldn’t have done if it weren’t for their new best friend.  The Soviet Union.

After Poland came Norway.  Then France and the Low Countries.  The British held the Nazis off in the Battle of Britain.  Then came North Africa.  Yugoslavia.  And Greece.  Then came Operation Barbarossa.  Starting on June 22, 1941.  Something Hitler thought about since writing about it in Mein Kampf back in 1925.  Finding Lebensraum (i.e., living space) for the German people.  In particular the Bread Basket of Europe.  The Ukraine.  Which if you know your history, and your geography, was part of the Soviet Union.  Yes, that’s right.  Hitler lied to Joseph Stalin to get what he wanted.  Launching off points for the conquest of the Soviet Union.  A land he viewed as filled with sub-humans he would kill off with famine after taking their food.

The Soviet people paid a dear price for their leader’s treachery.  Enduring hell on earth on the Eastern Front.  With some 20 million dead by the time it was over.  It was these innocent Soviets who won World War II.  Who wore down the Germans with their wholesale dying.  At times 10 Soviets dying for every one German.  None of which would have happened if Stalin had read Mein Kampf.  Or if he didn’t make a pact with the Devil that led to World War II.  The secret agreements in the Treaty of Rapallo.  Letting the Nazis develop the war machine they eventually unleashed on the Soviet Union.  Which just goes to show you that you need to understand who your enemies are.  And once you do you cannot try to make nice with them.  For they will turn on you once you’ve served your useful purpose.  Just like Hitler turned on Stalin.  As Iran will turn on the United States after they served their useful purpose in getting them their nuclear weapons.  And when that time comes the cost of that war will be far greater than it would have been if it was fought before they had nuclear weapons.  With scenes from that war looking more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the hell on earth of the Eastern Front

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama Attacks a Muslim Country with Oil. Just Like George W. Bush.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 20th, 2011

Bombs for Humanity

So we’re bombing Libya.  Why?  What’s the mission?  And our exit strategy?  Vietnam protester, John Kerry, explains on Meet the Press (see Kerry, Levin Defend Timing and Scope of Libya Response by David M. Drucker posted 3/20/2011 on Roll Call).

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” from Cairo, described the activities of U.S. military forces in Libya as a “humanitarian initiative” that was wholly unconcerned with removing Gaddafi from power…

 “The goal of this mission is not to get rid of Gaddafi,” Kerry added. “That’s not what the United Nations licensed, and I would not call it going to war. This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives. … It is not geared to try to get rid of Gaddafi, he has not been targeted.”

So the mission is NOT to get rid of the guy that’s doing all the killing.  Yet we want the killing to stop.  Interesting.  And we’re making this information public.  So Gaddafi knows this.  That we’re not targeting him.  Or trying to remove him from power.  So his choices are surrender and die.  Or keep fighting and live.  Seems to me like he has an incentive to keep on doing what he’s doing.  And not to stop killing his own people.  Like I said, interesting.

As far as plans go, this sounds like a pretty bad plan to me.  In fact, it sounds pretty FUBAR.  Because it ignores how dictators stay in power and do the horrible things they do.  Dictators are protected by an inner circle.  Each has a vested interest in the other.  The inner circle keeps the dictator in power.  And the dictator keeps the inner circle living well.  As long as the dictator lives, the inner circle lives.  So if they are fairly certain he will live, they know their best future is with him.  And there’s only one way to make that happen.  By crushing the rebellion.

 “We’re not policing Libya,” Kerry said. “We are engaged in a humanitarian initiative to prevent the slaughter of innocent people, to prevent a dictator from dragging people out of hospital beds and they disappear.”

“What you’re missing here,” [Karl] Levin added, “is this is the world that has made a decision. … It is not just we the United States. The president has taken the time to put the world community together.”

The president put the world community together?  Hillary Clinton was talking to the French president (Nicolas Sarkozy) and the British prime minister (David Cameron).  Obama was doing his NCAA brackets.  And planning his vacation to Brazil.  Even Clinton was growing frustrated with Obama’s inaction.  It’s almost as if he wants plausible denial when this war, his war, fails.

Obama was for Removing Qaddafi from Power before he was Against It

So what if the plans go as planned?  We blow up a lot of stuff.  Kill a lot of people.  But leave Gaddafi in power.  What then?  What is the endgame?  What will it be like after our military involvement is complete.  If our military involvement ends (see U.S. stresses limits to military role in Libya by David Morgan posted 3/20/2011 on Reuters)?

Gates spoke amid growing concern among U.S. politicians over the scope and nature of the Libya mission and after an acknowledgement from the top U.S. military officer that the assault on Gaddafi’s forces could lead to an impasse…

President Barack Obama has called in recent weeks for Gaddafi to step down but U.S. officials have emphasized that is not the goal of the United Nations authorized attacks on Libya. The United States is eager to avoid similarities to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ouster of President Saddam Hussein.

An impasse?  Hell, we can have that without the mission.  So why bother?  And what about the mixed message?  Obama said Gaddafi had to go.  But U.S. officials say he doesn’t?  Is anyone driving this bus?  Does anyone know what we’re doing?  And why?  An astute military man would sense all this indecision.  And see opportunities.  Even a lowly colonel.  Who hasn’t been promoted in decades.

The Qaddafis call Obama Hitler, Brutus

And what about Colonel Gaddafi?  How’s he taking this?  Is he ready to surrender?  To hand over power to the opposition forces?  To go forward in peace because he saw the error of his ways?  Not quite (see A Call from the Colonel: Gaddafi and His Bunker by Howard Chua-Eoan posted 3/20/2011 on Time).

“We defeated Italy when it was a superpower like you,” he said comparing Washington to Rome, Libya’s former colonizer. “You will be defeated like Hitler and Mussolini… You are the new Hitler.” He brought up America’s defeats in Vietnam and its self-debilitating invasion of Iraq. He raised the image of Osama bin Laden “that weak man” who he said defeated the U.S. “We will be victorious. You will die…”

“We have been wronged,” he declared. “Those who have been wronged will always win. There is no justification for this attack. It’s a colonial crusade. Islam will win. Libyans will win.” “We will not let these Christian nations take our oil… We are now giving Libyans weapons, machine guns. Every citizen will be armed…You will not be able to land here… We will destroy those who support you in Benghazi…. We will defend our own country, inch by inch… We will be victorious. The coalition of the devil will be defeated.”

And there is the perfunctory Western criticism.  We’re Christian Crusaders trying to take and colonize Muslim land so we can have their oil.  You know, the usual shtick.  Of course, this carries a lot of weight in the Muslim Middle East.  It will resonate with the masses.  Well played, Colonel.  Perhaps his son will be more reasonable (see Qaddafi’s son: Airstrikes are “big mistake” by CBS/AP posted 3/20/2011 on CBS News).

“One day you’ll wake up and you will find out that you were supporting the wrong people,” Saif al-Islam Qaddafi told ABC’s “This Week…”

Saif said if the U.S. wanted to help the Libyan people, they should “liberate Benghazi from the militia and the terrorists.”

“It was a big surprise that, finally, President Obama – we thought he’s a good man and friend of the Arab world – is bombing Libya,” Saif told “This Week” host Christiane Amanpour.

When asked whether Libya would retaliate against the strikes by attacking civilian airliners, Saif said this was not their “target.”

“Our target is how to help our people in Libya, especially in Benghazi,” he said.

So we’re supporting the wrong people.  Gee, I hope not.  That would be embarrassing.  Of course, if the Muslim Brotherhood rises from the ashes to lead Qaddafi-free Libya into the Iranian camp, we’ll know that we did.  Time will tell. 

And how about that personal dig?  At Obama?  That good man and friend of the Arab world.  Et tu, Barack?  Et tu?  I guess that Apology Tour really resonated with the anti-American elements of the Middle East.  At least they’re not going to target civilian airlines in retaliation.  This time.  Unlike that other time.  When they blew up Pan Am Flight 103.  Over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The Arab Coalition Faltering because Obama is just another George W. Bush

Not having Gaddafi be more open to surrendering and dying may complicate things a bit.  He seems willing to sustain the bombing damage until we grow tired of the war and go home.  Or until the coalition falls apart (see Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya by Edward Cody posted 3/20/2011 on The Washington Post).

The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention…

Moussa’s declaration suggested that some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down on in the Arab world, the leaders and people of the Middle East traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.

A shift away from the Arab League endorsement, even partial, would be an important setback to the U.S.-European campaign. Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to win approval for a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.

It’s a delicate line our friends in the Middle East must walk.  They may want to help the West.  But they cannot really look like they are.  Or, if they are, they can’ t look overly enthusiastic about it.  Because many of our friends have populations they have to appease to prevent civil war.  And if you think it’s hard for us in the Middle East, try to walk a mile in their shoes. 

So this could be a little posturing on their side to save face in the Arab world.  Or, perhaps, they just didn’t know establishing a no-fly zone requires gaining air supremacy.  Meaning we can fly wherever we want.  But they cannot.  And to do that we have to take out all of their air defenses.  So Qaddafi may pick off a member or two of the Arab coalition disturbed by the intensity of the bombing.  And he always has his friends.  Those darlings of the liberal left.

As U.S. and European military operations entered their second day, however, most Arab governments maintained public silence, and the strongest expressions of opposition came from the greatest distance. Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Evo Morales of Bolivia and former Cuban president Fidel Castro condemned the intervention and suggested that Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.

You gotta love this.  The liberal left’s guy, President Obama, gets us into another war.  And if that wasn’t bad enough, their idols in Latin America have to stick up for the bad guy in this war.  It’s like the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact all over again.  When the Left had to stop loving their idol, Joseph Stalin, because he made a deal with Adolf Hitler.  The Left just must be beside themselves.  Because even their idols are saying Obama is going into Libya for the oil.  Just like George W. Bush in Iraq.

Islam Lutfi, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt, said he opposed the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. “The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests,” he added.

Even the Muslim Brotherhood says Obama is after Libya’s oil.  Just like George W. Bush in Iraq.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, which previously criticized Gaddafi’s crackdown, on Sunday expressed “doubts” about U.S. and European intentions. Like the Latin American critics, it suggested that the claims of wanting to protect civilians were just a cover for a desire to install a more malleable leadership in Tripoli and make it easier to exploit Libya’s oil.

Even Iran says Obama is after Libya’s oil.  Just like George W. Bush in Iraq.

Christians Attacking Muslims on Land with Oil

So much for the Apology Tour.  If they treat a guy that has bent over backwards to the Muslim community like this, it’s obvious that the Obama approach in the Middle East was wrong.  And naive.  Not only has he damaged relations with our friends and allies, but he got zero goodwill for the effort.

And here we are.  Another ‘Christian’ coalition attacking another Muslim country with oil.  Already the Muslim anger is building.  And the question that begs to be asked is this.  How did we not see this coming?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Going all George W. Bush in the Middle East?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 19th, 2011

Fighting Wars on the other Side of the World

In 1775, the shooting in the American Revolutionary War began.  The world’s superpower, the British Empire, had planned on taking some arms away from local rebels.  Some shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord.  And the small British force retreated to Boston.  The rebels harassed the British column the entire way.  The war did not begin well for the British.  And it would end like it began.  Not well.  The British formally recognized the United States of America 8 years later with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The British outclassed the Americans in every way but one.  Lines of communications.  The British lines were some 3,000 miles back to Great Britain.  About a 6 hour flight today.  Then, a couple of months by ship.  By contrast the Americans held the advantage of short, interior lines.  We could ‘hit and run’ and melt back into the surrounding country.  Like we did in 1775 during that British retreat.  As we did throughout the war.  Though General Washington wanted to defeat the British in a decisive battle, he would not get the chance to meet the British in such a battle until 6 long years later at Yorktown.  Unable to win a decisive battle, he did the only thing he could.  Not lose a decisive battle.  The American Revolutionary War was a war of attrition.  The British sued for peace when the cost of continuing the war was greater than the British people were willing to pay.  As wars are wont to be with such long lines of communications.

Military planners have learned this lesson.  You are probably familiar with a more recent war that was similar.  Where a world superpower was involved in a war of attrition half way across the world.  In South Vietnam.  The Americans came into the conflict to support South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam.  There is no South Vietnam today.  Like the British some 200 years earlier, we won the military engagements but just couldn’t win the war.  When the cost in blood and treasure became too great, we met in Paris, too, to end the war.  We signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.  And we learned the British lesson of 1783.

Winning the War is Easier than Winning the Peace

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. W. Bush assembled an international coalition and threw the Iraqis out of Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm was an overwhelming victory.  However, Bush was heavily criticized for ‘not finishing the job’ in the Gulf War.  His critics said we should have gone on to Baghdad to remove Hussein from power.  We didn’t.  For a couple of good reasons.  First of all, the coalition included Arab nations.  They only joined to repel Hussein from Kuwait.  Not to remove him from power.  The other reason was that if we toppled Hussein we would own Iraq.  And we would probably end up there for years trying to ‘win the peace’.

Following the Gulf War there were uprisings throughout Iraq.  The world watched hopeful that he would be overthrown by his own people and democracy would break out.  It didn’t.  He suppressed the rebellions brutally.  So brutally that no-fly zones were established in the north over the Kurds and in the south over the Shiite population.  But we didn’t invade.  And he remained a thorn in our side.  And his people suffered.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan.  Then Iraq.  The official reason was his weapons of mass destruction that he never documented destroyed.  He had used chemical weapons against the Iranians.  And the Kurds.  Being a ‘supporter’ of terrorism there was worry he might provide these weapons to a terrorist.  So there was that reason.  The other reason was a little more convoluted.  Osama bin Laden was a Wahhabi Sunni.  He had ties in Saudi Arabia.  And there was a large Wahhabi population in Saudi Arabia providing funding to al Qaeda.  The Saudis were reluctant to shut down this funding for fear of a rebellion by the Wahhabis against the House of Saud.  But there was one thing that worried them more than the Wahhabis.  Shiite Iran.  By invading Iraq we forced their hand.  They had a vested interest in seeing us succeed in Iraq.  And in our war against al Qaeda.  We made progress against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.  And the Saudi started to shut down their funding.  The Iraq War was a success.  But the one drawback was that we now owned Iraq.  And winning the peace was nowhere as easy as winning the war.  As George W. Bush learned.

Obama Commits Military Force in Libya

The US has some very important friends in the Middle East and North Africa.  Among these are Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  To name a few.  These are nations with Sunni populations and/or Sunni governments unfriendly to Iran.  Egypt made peace with Israel and kept the Suez Canal open for international trade for decades.  Saudi Arabia peacefully coexists with its neighbors and is the largest oil exporter in the world.  Except for the oil embargo of 1973, they have maintained the flow of that oil at market prices to Western economies.  The US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

These nations aren’t perfect.  Saudi women can’t drive a car, for example.  But they’re stalwart US allies.  One of these nations was pretty progressive as well as being a staunch US friend.  Egypt.  Egyptian women were about the freest in the Middle East, second only to Tunisia.  Egypt and Tunisia, though, were suffering economically.  Had high unemployment.  And a Muslim opposition unhappy with their ‘Western’ ways.  The largest organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood.  And they can be best described as being more simpatico with Iran.  When Egypt had their uprising, the Obama administration called it a democracy uprising and called for Hosni Mubarak to give up power.  Without considering who would step into that power void.  Which did not go over well with Mubarak.  Or the Saudis.

Now Libya is burning.  Qaddafi is attacking his own people.  The US dithered for weeks.  While the Libyans cried for help.  Even other Arab nations cried for our help.  But we did nothing.  Even though Qaddafi is not a US friend.  And was a sponsor of terrorism.  As the carnage mounted, though, someone took action.  The French of all people (see U.S. Missiles Strike Libyan Air-Defense Targets by David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Bumiller posted 3/19/2011 The New York Times).

American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war…

The campaign began with French warplane missions even before the end of an emergency summit meeting in Paris, where leaders, reacting to news that Colonel Qaddafi’s forces were attacking the rebel capital city of Benghazi on Saturday morning despite international demands for a cease-fire, said they had no choice but to act to defend Libyan civilians and opposition forces.

France has a Muslim problem.  They had some riots a few years back in some Paris Muslim suburbs.  Where young Muslims were unemployed.  Unhappy.  And not all that willing to assimilate into French culture.  Though they want to live in France.  So there’s been tensions between the French and their Muslim population.  So it says a lot that France was on point in this attack on a Muslim country.  Yes, at this time the international community, including some Arab states, approve of this action.  But you play with fire whenever you attack a Muslim country.  Especially if they have oil.  And Libya has oil.  In fact, it’s some of the finest oil in the Middle East.  A low-sulfur sweet crude.

When the international community was coming together against him, Qaddafi was defiant.  Warned us to stay out of their internal affairs.

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans,” he wrote in one letter, read to the news media by a spokesman. “This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe.

“You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Colonel Qaddafi addressed President Obama as “our son,” in a letter jarring for its familiarity. “I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son, and I do not want your image to change with me,” he wrote. “We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”

Could this be why the Obama administration was so reluctant to act?  Because of a father-son relationship between Obama and Qaddafi?  You gotta admit this is a strange thing for Qaddafi to say.  Makes you wonder just what was the extent of Obama’s apology tour in the Middle East.  One thing for sure, it will give fuel to those who think Obama is a Muslim.  I mean, it just doesn’t help when the bad guy calls you a son.

Regret?  We should take that threat seriously.  After some military encounters with Libyan losses in the Gulf of Sidra Qaddafi retaliated with the bombing of a German disco frequented by US troops.  When we discovered his connection to that bombing we bombed Tripoli.  In retaliation for that bombing he had a bomb smuggled aboard a 747.  Pan Am Flight 103.  Brought down on Lockerbie, Scotland.  So he has a history of getting even.  Which we need to be on guard for.

Obama now Owns Libya

So it’s war.  Missiles are flying.  People are dying (see Libya: British forces launch missile attacks on Gaddafi by Colin Freeman, in Benghazi and Sean Rayment posted 3/20/2011 on the UK’s Telegraph).

Explosions were reported at an airport east of Tripoli as a British Trafalgar Class submarine and US Navy ships and submarines stationed off Libya fired 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in what one source described as a “night of carnage”.

The missiles targeted Libyan command and control centres, radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites. Libyan officials said the attacks were “barbaric” and causing civilian casualties…

British sources and Pentagon officials said Nato would undertake a “battle damage assessment” of Libya’s military during daylight hours and would decide whether to continue with further attacks.

Sources at the Elysée Palace said Britain, France and the United States had assumed the “leadership” of the coalition in early talks between the Prime Minister, Mr Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. The “extremely purposeful conclusion” of the early talks was endorsed by the full meeting, where speakers included Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary general.

Well, President Obama has his third war.  Pretty impressive for a guy that said he would get us out of Iraq (he didn’t).  That he would fully prosecute the Afghanistan War to victory (he hasn’t).  And he wouldn’t nation-build like his predecessor.  George W. Bush.  He now may.  There’s no way Qaddafi can withstand the military force now aligned against him.  So he will lose.  But what then?  Who will fill that power vacuum?  In an already unstable and changing Middle East?  He can say what he wants about Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s different with Libya.  This happened on his watch.  And he now owns it.  It will be up to him to win the peace.  Or lose it.

Those naval operations against Libya will be based out of Bahrain.  I sure hope he doesn’t encourage any more ‘democracy’ uprisings while we’re using that base for combat operations.  It would be a shame to lose that base during the middle of these operations.  And by a shame I mean a complete and utter disaster.  Because that would greatly extend our lines of communications.  And history has shown what that can do in war.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democracy or Theocracy Movements in the Middle East and Africa?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 20th, 2011

A Domino Theory in the Middle East and Africa

You may not know where Bahrain is.  But you’ve probably heard of it.  Long before the protests there.  It’s home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.  We support our operations for Afghanistan and Iraq from Bahrain.  So it’s pretty important to U.S. security.

It’s an island nation off the coast of Saudi Arabia.  Not too far from Kuwait (the nation Saddam Hussein invaded back in 1990).  Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are still friendly to the U.S.  And these Sunni states provide a strategic counter to Shiite Iranian power in the Persian Gulf area.

Protests following the democratic uprising in Tunisia and Egypt got pretty bloody in Bahrain.  But is Bahrain going through a democratic uprising?  Or is it a civil war between Sunni and Shiite (see Saudi Arabia says it’s ready to help Bahrain’s rulers by Janine Zacharia and Michael Birnbaum posted 2/20/2011 on The Washington Post)?

Saudi Arabia on Sunday said it stands ready “with all its capabilities” to shore up Bahrain’s ruling royal family if a standoff with the Shiite-led opposition is not resolved soon, underscoring the kingdom’s deep concern about its neighbor’s ongoing political crisis.

Sunni-led Saudi Arabia props up Bahrain’s al-Khalifa family with cash and has long sought to prevent the tiny Persian Gulf state – with its majority Shiite population – from falling into Iran’s orbit. With dwindling oil resources, Bahrain relies heavily on Saudi Arabia for money and security.

This is what makes any ‘democratic’ uprising in the Middle East complicated.  You see, the Sunnis and Shiites don’t exactly get along.  The 8-year war between Iraq and Iran was a war between Sunni (Iraq) and Shiite (Iran).  They hate each other.  And the only way they appear to live in peaceful coexistence is when one is oppressing the other.

But the more stabilizing force tends to be the Sunnis.  The Sunni nations are typically the more modern nations.  The ones with women’s rights.  The Shiites are more old school.  They want to turn the hands of the clock back when there were no comforts in life but prayer.  And women were little more than chattel.  They’re a bit more radical.  Then again, the Sunnis have their own radicalism.  Let us not forget that Osama bin Laden is a Wahhabi Sunni.  As is Al Qaeda.  But the big destabilizing force in the Middle East is Iran.  And they’re Shiite.  They’re big, powerful and trying to acquire nuclear weapons.  So her neighbors are understandably worried.

Kuwait’s emir, Sheik Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, also called the Bahraini king on Sunday and stressed that “the security of Bahrain is the security of the region,” reflecting the growing anxiety among gulf monarchies that Bahrain’s troubles could have a spillover effect. In Kuwait, protesters have already taken to the streets demanding more rights.

Talk about a domino theory.  We still don’t know what will rise from the ashes in Tunisia and Egypt.  They could very well go Muslim Brotherhood.  This would be a huge boost to Iranian interests in the area.  Adding Bahrain and Kuwait could very well seal the deal and give Iran the hegemony it so desperately wants in the region.

We need to be careful in urging democracy to break out in the Middle East and Africa.  Because sometimes stability is better than instability.  For there is a good chance that democracy will lose these revolutions in time.  Opening the door to the more radical elements (such as the Muslim Brotherhood).  Who may impose an oppressive theocracy instead.  Like they said they’ve always wanted to in Egypt.  And if they get what they want, say hello to $4/gallon gasoline.  Or more.  Because they will turn back the hands of time.  And cut off our oil.  Shutting down our economies.  And then, if they get their nuclear weapon, they’ll take it up a notch.

It is important to understand something.  They don’t want our land.  They don’t want our industry.  They just want to get rid of us.  The only thing that prevented the Soviets from destroying us was that they needed our food.  And our technology.  Iran wants technology to make their bomb.  But once they use it they’ll be content to go back to living in abject poverty.

Iran Likes Democracy as long as it is in Egypt

These protests are getting contagious.  Libya, Morocco and China.  And, yes, even Iran.  Now if there was ever a democratic movement for the U.S. to stick its nose into it would be in Iran.  This isn’t complicated. The Iranian people have been suffering under the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime.  Ahmadinejad is the greatest threat to peace in the region.  He’s working on a nuclear bomb.  And he wants to incinerate Israel.  It doesn’t get simpler than this.  He’s the big bad now.  Osama bin Laden is holed up in a cave.  Kim Jong-il desperately needs western food and energy.  China may be flexing her muscle but she owns so much of our debt that she needs us to prosper if she is to prosper.  Iran, though, has no use for us.  And would be quite happy to see us in the past tense.

And how are the Iranians handling their protesters?  Sounds like they’re not quite as nice as the Egyptians were (see Iran Squelches Protest Attempt in Capital by Liz Robbins posted 2/20/2011 on The New York Times).

Despite a steady rain, large crowds of protesters gathered throughout Tehran, the capital, from the main thoroughfare to city squares, according to opposition Web sites and witnesses. Those sites and witnesses reported that ambulances were being driven into crowds and officers were making arrests. Security forces, some on motorcycles, deployed tear gas to disperse crowds near Valiasr Square. A hazy cloud of tear gas hung over Vanak Square.

Plainclothes officers randomly stopped and frisked people on the streets and removed people from vehicles, witnesses said. There were reports of police officers firing on the crowds, although that could not be immediately verified because foreign journalists were largely not allowed to report in Iran.

And this from the government that praised the people of Egypt of going after what they deserved.  Democracy.  It’s funny how they can praise democracy that can destabilize a nation friendly with the West but attack it within its own borders.  It almost makes one think that Iran has other motives in the region.

It was unclear how many people joined the demonstrations in Tehran on Sunday. Witnesses estimated that more than 20,000 people attended demonstrations on Feb. 14, making them the largest opposition protests since the aftermath of the 2009 disputed election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, president Obama said he would speak with Ahmadinejad.  To address our differences.  And find common ground.  He thought he could reason with him. Then came the Apology Tour.  And the Cairo speech.  He called for more democracy in the Muslim world.  Then came the Iranian election.  There appeared to be massive fraud.  And then the uprising.  Iranians trying to get some of that democracy that Obama spoke of.  And what did Obama do?  Acted timidly.  He didn’t attack Ahmadinejad.  He treated him with far more respect than he gave Hosni Mubarak.  And Mubarak was our ally.  And now the people of Iran are rising up again.  And the Iranian regime is fighting back against the forces of democracy.

The government, however, appeared to limit the electronic voice of the protesters on Sunday. Witnesses in Iran reported that the Internet was working very slowly, cell phone service was shut down in areas where people were demonstrating and satellite television, including Persian BBC, was jammed.

Out on the streets, the police in Tehran appeared to be recruiting teenagers to quell the protests on Sunday. Witnesses observed packs of young boys armed with batons, and wearing helmets and army fatigues.

A witness told the International Campaign for Human Rights that security forces on Mirdamad Street in Tehran had used live ammunition against protesters, and one person is believed to have been killed there, but that could not be verified.

There’s a difference between Ahmadinejad and Mubarak.  Ahmadinejad oppresses his people, supports terrorism, wants to incinerate Israel and seeks to disrupt peace throughout the Middle East.  Mubarak only oppressed his people.  Other than that Egypt was a stabilizing force in the region.  And yet look who’s still in power.

Time for a New Strategy

Instability in every nation other than Iran in the Middle East and Africa is cause for concern.  The one country where it can’t get any worse is Iran.  If their regime collapses anything that replaces it will be closer to democracy.  And if we support all of those democratic uprisings everywhere else, we should support the hell out of it in Iran.  Why, then, has our response there been so lukewarm?

I guess it goes back to the Cairo speech.  And the apology tour.  It would appear that our national security strategy is to get people who have a deep-seated hatred for us to like us. To believe that rolling over and showing our soft underbelly can get our enemies to forget tradition, custom and religion.  But after two years look what it has gotten us.  An emboldened enemy.  And fallen and threatened allies.

I think it’s time for a new strategy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Egyptian Dictator is bad while an Iranian one is Okay?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2011

The Handling of the Egyptian Crisis not our Finest Moment

Mubarak is out.  And the military is in.  They will try to restore order now and keep the country from degenerating into anarchy.  But did we back the right horse?

Early on the Obama administration joined the ‘democratic’ protesters in calls for Mubarak’s resignation.  Even though it looked like we didn’t know what was going on in Egypt (see Crisis Flummoxes White House by Adam Entous and Jay Solomon posted 2/11/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

All day, as rumors swirled Mr. Mubarak would step down, administration officials struggled to understand what was happening, and even U.S. intelligence officials appeared baffled at one point. At a Capitol Hill hearing, Leon Panetta, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers there was “a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening…”

A senior intelligence official defended Mr. Panetta, saying he was referring to press reports in his comments rather than to CIA intelligence reports.

Interesting.  Our intelligence chief uses the same press reports you and I read to brief Congress.  Probably was not a good idea.  Anything we can read will be in English.  And written for us.  The people who matter?  Those in the midst of the crisis?  They don’t read English.  Because English isn’t the official Egyptian language.  Funny, those Egyptians.  Using their native tongue.  Actually, that’s quite common throughout the world.  That’s why we usually collect intelligence from agents inside the country who immerse themselves in the language and customs of the local people.  That way we understand what the common Egyptian on the street is thinking.  Just hope that the rest of the intelligence we used came from hard sources.

Arab and Israeli diplomats said Mr. Obama’s decision to throw his full support behind the opposition after eight days of protests has likely broken ties with Mr. Mubarak beyond repair.

The move also had the effect of pushing Mr. Mubarak closer to regional allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have urged Mr. Mubarak to hold his ground.

As a result, said one Arab diplomat, Washington’s influence in dictating events in Cairo could be limited…

“I don’t think Mubarak trusts too many people from the U.S. anymore,” the Arab diplomat said. “It looks like Omar Suleiman is the right point of contact, but they’re all ticked off with the U.S. position, which they view as throwing Mubarak under the bus.”

We keep hearing about what a dictator Mubarak was.  If he was a dictator, he was a dictator that helped keep the region stable.  He honored the peace treaty with Israel.  He kept the Suez Canal open to navigation.  He supported us during Desert Storm.  He was on our side during Iraqi Freedom.  He has a secular government that has repressed radical Islam.  Yeah, we’re giving him a boatload of foreign aid, and there’s poverty and unemployment throughout Egypt, but to throw him under the bus?  We should be more careful in what we wish for.

In talks with American counterparts in Washington Thursday, top Israeli officials accompanying Defense Minister Ehud Barak made a similar case, warning that the upheaval could be the start of a broader “earthquake” that could sweep the region, said officials briefed on the exchange.

They questioned Washington’s wisdom in appearing to push for Mr. Mubarak’s ouster and whether the military can keep chaos and Islamist forces at bay, a participant said.

Israeli officials also told the U.S. Thursday that right-wing parties in Israel could gain strength in future Israeli elections as a result, complicating efforts to advance peace talks with Palestinians.

Mubarak was an ally.  Israel is an Ally.  The Palestinians?  Not quite an ally.  And yet we choose a course of action that hurts an ally.  And possibly benefits the nation who perhaps is not best aligned with American interests.  Funny.  Not in a ha ha way.  But in a puzzling, confusing way.

One of the biggest questions facing the administration is the future role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Mr. Clapper, on Capitol Hill, muddied the picture when he called the group “largely secular,” despite long-standing U.S. concerns about its Islamist roots and ties to extremism.

Mr. Clapper’s spokeswoman, Jamie Smith, later issued a clarification, citing the Brotherhood’s efforts to work through Egypt’s political system. Mr. Clapper “is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization.”

Oh, this doesn’t help.  Calling a group with a religion in its name secular.  Not only have we thrown an ally under the buss, but we’ve made ourselves look clueless at the highest levels of government.  If the Muslim Brotherhood takes power in Egypt, Egypt will become more like Iran than Egypt.  And if you haven’t been keeping score, that’s the worst possible outcome of this Egyptian crisis.

Our Allies Worry, our Enemies Jubilant

And how are our other allies in the region taking this?  They’re not exactly whistling a happy tune (see Neighbors Rattled by Egypt Shift by Angus McDowall, Richard Boudreaux and Joel Millman posted 2/11/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

The resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Friday rattled regional allies and foes alike, threatening a decades long balance of power in the Mideast and putting Saudi Arabia and Israel, in particular, on the defensive.

Our two strongest allies in the area are now on the defensive.  That doesn’t sound like they were all for the removal of the stabilizing Mubarak.  How about a terrorist group in the region?  How do they feel?

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim political and militant group, issued a statement of congratulations to Egypt. Mr. Mubarak has long battled to curb the influence of Hezbollah’s key sponsor, Iran. Celebratory gunfire broke out in some neighborhoods of Lebanon’s capital, Beirut. Cars honked their horns and people waved victory signs.

That doesn’t sound good.  Our friends feel threatened.  And those who aren’t friendly with us are celebratory.  It looks like we just strengthened Iran’s client in the area.  And how about Iran itself?

Iranian officials have been gloating over the turmoil in Egypt for weeks, comparing it to the Islamic revolution that toppled the shah more than 30 years ago. On Friday, Iran’s national news agency IRNA ran headlines including “Egypt is Without a Pharaoh” and “The Great Victory of the Egyptian People.”

“We congratulate the great nation of Egypt on this victory and we share their happiness,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in a statement on Friday.

Oh, that is not good at all.  Iran and Egypt were not friends.  Now Iran likes what’s happening in Egypt.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why.  Their client, Hezbollah, was sandwiched between our two allies in the Gaza Strip.  Israel on the north and east.  And Egypt in the south.  No doubt Iran is looking at the possibilities in the Gaza Strip now that their old nemesis is gone.  Elsewhere?

In Amman, the capital of Jordan, and in the Palestinian West Bank, fireworks and honking horns also greeted the announcement. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip set off fireworks and shot firearms into the air to celebrate. Mr. Mubarak’s regime is widely blamed there for cooperating with Israel to isolate the enclave since it came under the rule of the Islamist movement Hamas nearly five years ago.

And this is even worse.  Should Jordan follow the way of Egypt, Israel will be surrounded by the most hostile of peoples.  This could lead to a huge disabling force in the Middle East.  Israel will never see peace.  And neither will Iraq.  All our blood and treasure spent in Iraq could be for naught.  And this will cause trouble with one of our most stalwart allies in the region.  Saudi Arabia. 

Mr. Mubarak’s departure represents a significant diplomatic setback for Riyadh. Egypt and Saudi Arabia has collaborated to counter what they see as growing Iranian influence in the region and also against al Qaeda.

“Saudi Arabia has lost a loyal ally today,” said Madawi al-Rasheed, professor of social anthropology of Kings College, London.

Saudi Arabia has been in a very difficult position.  Their large Wahhabi sect has been a major funding source for al Qaeda.  The Wahhabis, Sunnis, don’t like the House of Saud because they’re too Western.  But the Saudis had been reluctant to crack down on them for their al Qaeda funding lest it sparked civil unrest in the kingdom.  But they hate each other.  Make no bones about it.  But they tolerate each other.  Because of their mutual hatred of someone else.  Shiite Iran.   The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  To a certain extent.  Our invasion of Iraq forced the Saudis to crack down on that al Qaeda funding.  Because they would rather suffer a little civil unrest in their kingdom than see Shiite Iran filling the power void in a Saddam Hussein-less Iraq.

Now they, and a large percentage of the world’s oil reserves, are at risk.  Which brings us back to that earlier question.  Did we back the right horse in Egypt?

Mum’s the word on the Iranian Dictatorship

The name that keeps coming up in all of this is Iran.  They’re the great destabilizing force in the Middle East.  They hate us.  And have been our enemy since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 during the Carter administration.  They’re working on a nuclear weapons program.  They have vowed to incinerate Israel.  If we support the overthrow of any regime it should be the Iranian regime.  But when they take to the streets, we’re surprisingly mute (see Iranian opposition leader under house arrest after protests call by Saeed Kamali Dehghan posted 2/10/2011 on guardian.co.uk).

Iran has put opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi under house arrest after he called for renewed street protests against the government, his son told the Guardian.

The move came after thousands of Iranians sympathetic to the opposition green movement joined social networking websites to promote demonstrations on Monday in solidarity with protesters in Egypt and Tunisia.

For some reason, the Obama administration is all for democracy movements when they take place in nations friendly to the United States.  But not in our enemies.  Even when they have a worst record of human rights abuses.  And have committed the same acts of oppression the Egyptians have.

At the same time, opposition websites reported a series of arrests of political activists and journalists as the regime struggles to prevent the news of the planned protest from spreading.

Access to the blogging site WordPress was blocked and internet download speeds appeared to have been reduced.

Arresting political activists?  Shutting down social media?  Where’s the outcry like there was over Egypt?

The Revolutionary Guards, the regime’s most powerful military force, have warned against any protest. Commander Hossein Hamedani told Iran’s IRNA state news agency that the they consider the opposition leaders as “anti-revolutionary and spies and will strongly confront them”.

“The seditionists [opposition leaders] are nothing but a dead corpse and we will strongly confront any of their movements,” he said.

A threat by the most powerful military force?  Where’s the outrage?  Egypt didn’t do this and yet we demanded that the great dictator step down from power.  But Iran can oppress their people without a comment from the Obama administration.  Why?

Nice Guys Finish Last in the Middle East

It would appear that this is an extension of the apology tour.  Our foreign policy strategy appears to be this.  Be nice at all costs to our enemies.  So they will stop hating us.  Don’t flex our strength.  Roll over and show them our soft underbelly to show how willing we are to trust them. 

The problem is that they don’t respect weakness.  They just see weakness as room for them to maneuver.  To get more of what they want.  By making us give up more of our vital national security interests.  And we’re seeing that play out in the Middle East.  One ally is out of power.  And an enemy expands their reach.  All the while working on a nuclear bomb.

It’s times like this you miss a Ronald Reagan.  Or a George W. Bush.  Or one of the other grownups we had in office.  Someone who isn’t naive and easily fooled.  Someone our enemies hated.  But respected.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Iranian Regime is bad for World Peace. An Iranian controlled Egypt is even Worse.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 29th, 2011

They Smile in your Face and then Sneak across the Border to Wreak Havoc

President Obama was a young senator with no executive experience.  And he had no foreign policy experience.  But he could talk to our enemies.  And make them like us.  Those same people who hate us with the fury of a white-hot blast oven.  Throw a couple of kind words in and an apology or two and, voilà, or our past bad blood is gone.  It was that simple.  Why any of the dunderheads who came before him couldn’t understand this was beyond him.  Then again, he is a super genius.  They weren’t.   So he would come in and save the day.  By saving the world (see Obama Doctrine is Failing in the Middle East by James Carafano posted 1/29/2011 on Heritage’s The Foundry).

Obama also bought into the false belief that improving relations between Palestine and Israel was the solution to “all problems” in the Middle East. That simplistic notion masks the serious challenges in the region—lack of healthy civil societies, a paucity of economic freedom, exploding demographic growth, endemic unemployment, environmental troubles, lurking Islamism, terrorism, and troublemaking from Iran. Much the enmity expressed against the West is more properly the product of homegrown problems. Yet, Obama has done little to address these issues other than try to solve them all with a single speech in Cairo.

So how has making nice to the Muslim world worked?  Has Palestine warmed up to Israel?  Have they warmed up to the Arab nations that have recognized Israel?  No.  Nothing has changed.  Apology Tour notwithstanding.  In fact, it looks like they have intensified their efforts (see Red Alert: Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood posted 1/29/2011 on STRATFOR).

The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza.  Hamas [which formed in Gaza as an outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB)] armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

By trying to make nice appears to have emboldened our enemies.  Imagine that. 

Iran supports Hamas.  And both call for the destruction of Israel.  Now there’s unrest in Egypt.  And Israel’s enemy in the Gaza Strip (located between Israel and Egypt) may be moving unopposed across the border into Egypt.  And you can probably guess why they’re going there.  You want a hint?  They’re not going there to be nice.

Damn College Students, always Rioting without Thinking about Tomorrow

President Obama is asking President Mubarak to exercise restraint in dealing with the protesters.  To let democracy work.  The problem is it’s not really democracy at work.  What’s happening in Egypt is kind of like what happened in Iran.  Without the American hostages

There are forces at work to replace the ‘conservative’ Mubarak (he was clamping down on Islamic extremism as well as human rights) with Shari ‘a Law.  Like in Iran.  And like it was in Afghanistan.  And those protesting should be careful of what they ask for.  Because they may just get it.  If they think Mubarak’s regime was difficult to live under, they need to talk to those who have lived under the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Or those currently living in Iran.

And speaking of Iran (see Dutch ends Iran ties over hanging posted 1/30/2011 on Al Jazeera).

The Dutch government has frozen official contacts with Iran to protest the hanging of a Dutch-Iranian woman, the foreign ministry said… Bahrami had been jailed in Iran since December 2009 after protests against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election. Protesters took to the streets, saying the vote was marred by fraud and that opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was the rightful winner.

Rioting college students should pay attention to this.  Some of those students who overthrew the Shah of Iran were women.  Hoping for a better life with their college education.  Of course, after the Revolution, that’s about all they got from their college education.  Hope.  Because opportunities were now limited for second-class citizens.

Where have all the Cowboys Gone?

Things are not good in Egypt.  Or the greater Middle East region.  This could mark a watershed moment in history.  With Iranian influence in Egypt and Iranian control of the Suez Canal, life will change in most of the world.  Probably not for the good.  The shift in the balance of power could be so devastating that it could result in world war.  These are “the times that try men’s souls.”  And we look for a leader to get us through these perilous times. 

A George Washington.  An Abraham Lincoln.  A Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  A Harry S. Truman.  A Dwight D. Eisenhower.  A John F. Kennedy.  A Ronald Reagan.  A George H.W. Bush.  A George W. Bush.  Men hated by their enemies.  Men who pursued foreign policy with confidence.  Guts.   And without losing sight of the big picture.  The kind of leader that our enemies took seriously.  And the kind they respected.  Despite hating them.

That’s the kind of leader we need now.  Instead, we have an apologist.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

America’s War with Iran in Iraq

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 25th, 2010

Apology Tour Diplomacy to Get Ahmadinejad to Like Us

Most everyone was for going to war in Iraq.  They, Republican and Democrat alike, read the same intelligence.  Saddam Hussein was a bad man.  He had some nasty weapons he didn’t document destroyed.  He expelled UN inspectors.  He was brutally suppressing the Kurds.  Torturing and killing dissidents.  And, of course, he had a record of using chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. 

So there was pretty much a united front at the beginning.  But elections come every 2 years.  The Democrats would eventually have to get their hate on.  And, boy, did they.  They all started to dump on the Iraq War.  Never mind that it got Saudi Arabia to crack down on Wahhabi funding of Al Qaeda.  Bush lied.  People died.  Iraq was nothing more than a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.  It created anti-American sentiment.  And plunged Iraq into a civil war.  The Bush administration pointed to the foreign influence.  Especially that of Iran.  But the Left said that the liar George W. Bush just wanted to expand the war into Iran.

We were just bullies.  That’s why the world hated us.  Well, one presidential candidate said he would change that.  He would talk to the people that hated us.  He would meet Iranian president Ahmadinejad.  Without preconditions.  To say, hey, you’re okay.  We’re okay.  What do you say?  Friends?  This candidate would go on to win the election.  He became president.  And President Obama went on a world wind apology tour.  He denigrated the United States.  Bowed to Muslim royalty.  And praised Islam.  And how did all that work?

Ahmadinejad Making Iran the New Evil Empire?

Not good.  For Iran was fueling the Iraqi insurgency.  And Ahmadinejad rebuffed the love of the Obama administration and kept killing Americans.  That fact is made very clear in another dump of classified documents by WikiLeaks.  The New York Times reviewed those documents and Michael R. Gordon and Andrew W. Lehren wrote on 10/22/2010 (see Leaked Reports Detail Iran’s Aid for Iraqi Militias):

Citing the testimony of detainees, a captured militant’s diary and numerous uncovered weapons caches, among other intelligence, the field reports recount Iran’s role in providing Iraqi militia fighters with rockets, magnetic bombs that can be attached to the underside of cars, “explosively formed penetrators,” or E.F.P.’s, which are the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq, and other weapons. Those include powerful .50-caliber rifles and the Misagh-1, an Iranian replica of a portable Chinese surface-to-air missile, which, according to the reports, was fired at American helicopters and downed one in east Baghdad in July 2007.

Iraqi militants went to Iran to be trained as snipers and in the use of explosives, the field reports assert, and Iran’s Quds Force collaborated with Iraqi extremists to encourage the assassination of Iraqi officials.

The reports make it clear that the lethal contest between Iranian-backed militias and American forces continued after President Obama sought to open a diplomatic dialogue with Iran’s leaders and reaffirmed the agreement between the United States and Iraq to withdraw American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have killed or maimed most American troops.  And most of those devices were no doubt the result of Iranian material and/or training.  But why would they help their archenemy?  They hate Saddam.  They hate Iraq.  They fought a bloody 8-year war with Iraq.  So why would they help the Iraqis fight the Americans?

The political struggle between the United States and Iran to influence events in Iraq still continues as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has sought to assemble a coalition — that would include the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr — that will allow him to remain in power. But much of the American’s military concern has revolved around Iran’s role in arming and assisting Shiite militias.

Shiite Iran is helping the Shiite militias in Sunni Iraq.  Unable to beat Iraq in war, they’re now trying it through subterfuge.  But it doesn’t end there.

Established by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has expanded its influence at home under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former member of the corps, and it plays an important role in Iran’s economy, politics and internal security. The corps’s Quds Force, under the command of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, has responsibility for foreign operations and has often sought to work though surrogates, like Hezbollah.

And where has Ahmadinejad been lately?  Lebanon.  And what does he want to do?  Incinerate Israel.  And what are they bringing on line?  Nuclear reactors.  They’re destabilizing Iraq.  Destabilizing the Middle East.  Allied with Hezbollah.  Helping them with their fight against Israel.  Ahmadinejad is pushing a lot of nations towards war.  You know, he’s a lot like Osama bin Laden.  Only more dangerous.  The new Evil Empire?  Well, they are on the axis of evil.  They’ve been killing Americans.  Evil, yes.  And yet our president is trying to make nice with him.

Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall

Ronald Reagan recognized an enemy.  He stood up to them, the Evil Empire.  Didn’t apologize.  Didn’t make nice.  He talked with them but with preconditions.  He didn’t practice Carter’s detente.  Gorbachev was a nice guy.  But the Berlin Wall still stood.  It isn’t standing any more.  Because Reagan won the Cold War.

We don’t need a man like Jimmy Carter in the face of such an implacable enemy.  We need another Ronald Reagan.  But we have Barack Obama.  Who’s a lot more Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.  And we all know how well things turned out for Jimmy Carter in Iran.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Love Dividend Yet from the Apology Tour

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 4th, 2010

Add One Part Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter tried detente.  Make nice to our enemies.  Alienate our allies.  He pointed out the human rights abuses our allies made in their fight against communism.  But he said little about our Cold War foe who raised the bar on human rights abuses.  The plan was to love our enemy.  And they would love us.  How did it work?  During the Carter presidency, the Soviet Union introduced a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  Because they were sure their missiles would land before Carter would ever launch ours.  The Soviets, for the first time since the days of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), were planning to win a nuclear war.

Obama said the Arab/Muslim world hated us because of George W. Bush’s overt hostile rhetoric/actions against them.  He would talk to the president of Iran.  He would engage in diplomacy.  He would change the way the Arab/Muslim world felt about America.  And how is that going?  Not good.  Iran has a nuclear reactor about to go on line, taking them one step closer to becoming a nuclear power.  And now Syria and Iran are cozying up with each other.  A united stand against Israel.  And the United States.  And the thanks Obama got for all his nicey nice?  They dissed him.  They said any attempts at an Israeli-Palestinian peace were only a desperate attempt to boost Obama’s poll numbers.  See Reuters’ Syria’s Assad rebuffs Washington by courting Iran by Robin Pomeroy.

It would appear that the lessons of Carter’s economic policies are not the only lessons Obama ignored.  Our enemies don’t like us.  Really.

Add One Part Richard Nixon

When the Vietnam War expanded into neutral Cambodia, all hell broke out.  On the college campuses.  Four died at Kent State.  And an unpopular war grew ever more unpopular.  But Nixon was playing to win.  The Ho Chi Minh Trail fed the insurgency in the south.  And the jumping off point was in Cambodia.  Where LBJ tried to limit the war Nixon tried to win it.  Nixon would ultimately get a peace treaty in Vietnam.  Backed by the might and will of America.  But Nixon was by then so hated that he would be undone by his own paranoia.  Watergate would throw him out of office.  With him went the might and will promised to South Vietnam.  And soon there was no longer a South Vietnam.

Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan.  Our ally.  The ‘Cambodia’ of that conflict.  And he’s stepping things up.  (See the Wall Street Journal’s CIA Escalates in Pakistan by Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman.)  The similarities are striking.  But there’s no unrest on our college campuses.  No concerted media attack by the 3 major networks.  And yet included in the Obama administration is Hilary Clinton.  She participated in the impeachment of Richard Nixon.  Over in the Senate, John Kerry, the Vietnam War protester, is saying that you have to attack these sanctuaries.  My, how time changes some.  Or the political expediency of the moment.  Nixon’s Cambodian intrusion – bad.  Obama’s Pakistan intrusion – good.  So I guess the lesson here is that if you want to run covert military operations on the wrong side of the border, you better be a Democrat.

The anti-war people in the Democrat Party are fuming over this war doctrine.  This is something that they’d expect George W. Bush to do.  Not their guy of hope and change.  Will Obama try to appease the Left?  Give up on Afghanistan?  Like the Left did on South Vietnam?  Let’s hope not.  Politics is politics.  But Americans shouldn’t die in vain.

Add One Part LBJ

LBJ didn’t want to be the first American president to lose a war.  So he tried.  But with far too many rules of engagement.  For he was trying to win the hearts and minds of the world.  The American people, our allies in Southeast Asia and even our enemies (who were trying to kill us and our allies).  And look where it got him.

LBJ wanted it all.  He wanted to win the war in Vietnam.  And the wars against poverty and racism.  But his policies made Vietnam a quagmire.  There were race riots in the United States.  And his domestic agenda exploded government spending, causing runaway inflation in the 1970s and recession.  We call it stagflation.  It gave Carter a single term.  And he’s still bitter about that to this day.

Johnson was a big liberal.  Obama is a big liberal.  Johnson had an unpopular war.  Obama has an unpopular war.  Johnson had an aggressive domestic agenda.  Obama has an aggressive agenda.  Johnson’s Great Society programs have been abject failures (we are still fighting poverty and racism today.  And we’re still paying the hefty tab on those failed programs).  Wonder what history will say of Obama.

Mix Together for One Obama

On foreign policy, Obama came in young, inexperienced and naive.  Some would even say inept.  His apology tour hasn’t changed the hate.  Our enemies still hate us.  Go figure.  Now Iran will soon have nuclear weapons.  And the world will be less safe.  If you’re nostalgic for Jimmy Carter, here’s your chance to relive those dangerous days.

Afghanistan was the ‘good’ war.  But the Left doesn’t have ‘good’ wars.  They want out.  And Obama is trying.  He even is going Nixon.  Attacking the enemy’s safe havens.  Attack a neutral country?  Hell, I’ll attack an ally.  It’s the right military call but will the Left ever forgive him?  I guess time will tell.  As will the college campuses.

LBJ wanted to give everyone everything they wanted.  Yet they still rioted.  And it hurt.  LBJ could not understand.  Nor could he forgive.  At the end of his first full term he had had enough.  He lost Walter Cronkite.  He lost the American people.  So he said goodbye.  And the hated man faded away.  Obama has had an aggressive domestic agenda.  He gave away a lot of free stuff.  But the people who have to pay for that generosity are not amused.  And the polls show that the Democrats in Congress will ultimately pay for Obama’s generosity.  A lot of them may be looking for a new job.

But it’s not all bad for Obama.  There are some who endorse his Cap and Trade policy initiative.  Some believe in the dangers of global warming.  Osama bin Laden all but said so in one of his latest broadcasts (see Reuters’ UPDATE 1-Bin Laden criticises Pakistan relief mission by Martina Fuchs and Tamara Walid.)  So, the American people may be turning away from him, but some of our enemies still support some of his agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,