Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Middle East Decision Time?

"Yesterday I had an exchange with someone, formerly associated with an American intelligence agency, who claims to be knowledgable about the Middle East. I offered the following view on the Middle East, to which he later responded: Quite naturally the [US] has important interests in the Arab world, especially in terms of a commitment to protect certain Arab princes in the Gulf region, and to protect 'democracy' in Iraq. At the same time we wish to prevent a second holocaust--a second mass extermination of Jews. Seen by many to be an ally and friend to the Arabs, the [US] is an ally and friend to Israel as well. This is a very uncomfortable position for America, because the conflict between Israel and the Arabs appears to be non-negotiable (especially with the insertion of Islamism into the conflict). We are thus confronted with a dilemma. Either Israel will survive and Islamic power will be broken for centuries to come, or Israel will be destroyed and Europe will come under the same pressure Israel now feels. ... For peace to come about in the Middle East, it is not enough that the Israelis show sympathy for the plight of the Arbas. This is what we would all like to see. But what of Arab sympathy for the plight of the Jews? But no one is sufficently 'insensitive' as to insist on this. ... If Israel is considered an outpost of the West, can the Arabs agree upon a border with Israel? Or must we accept the destruction of Israel? Here the bitter experiences of India, alongside those of Israel, suggest that peace with Islam is always and forever problematic. Do we imagine there is no lesson to be found in the Islamic invasions of the Roman Empire, Europe and India. We are told to be sympathetic to the Islamists, to the plight of the Arabs. What about sympathy for Christians and Jews? ... The ultimate target of the hateful rhetoric in the Middle East is America and not Israel. It is capitalism and the West", JR Nyquist at Financial Sense, 4 June 2010, link:

"What do the following have in common: the piling on Israel after the botched interception of the Hamas relief flotilla, the Chinese military telling the US secretary of defense that he was not welcome in Beijing, and the declaration by Nick Clegg--now deputy prime minister of Great Britain--that his country's special relationship with America is over? Answer: The Obama adminstration has managed to convince most countries around the world that we are worth little as friends and even less as enemies. ... Last week, Israel walked into a trap set by a flotilla of Hamas sypathizers and what Lenin used to call useful idiots. Israeli commandos who were being attacked by burly men trying to throw them overboard or beat them senseless killed a bunch of people whom they would rather not have killed. ... The Israelis have a right to blockade Gaza, from which they withdrew only to soak up several thousand rockets in return, and they did what they could to get the ships to send supplies into Gaza through their ports. Until Vice President Jow Biden plucked up the courage to acknowledge on 'Charlie Rose' that the Israelis are at war with Hamas and have the right to prevent arms from entering Gaza, the Israelis could have been foregiven for thinking that we would hang them out to dry. ... The folly here is to think that leaving the Israelis open to these kinds of diplomatic attacks will buy good will in a Middle East that gets its opinions from Al Jazeera and a venomous media that routinely prints outratgeous lies and hate literature that echoes Nazi Germany. That part of the world, as Osama bin Laden once correctly observed, prefers a strong horse to a weak horse. ... When did the Israelis withdraw from Gaza? When they had a president in the White House upon whom they knew they could count. If, as is the case now, Israel is alone and desperate, is it more or less likely to conclude it has no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities... What precisely have we gained from reaching out to the Syrian government", Eliot Cohen at the WSJ, 7 June 2010, link:

Quoted without comment.

It may be decision time for the US: we side with Israel or the Arabs. We'll see.

9 comments:

William said...

I am broke. So is my country. Let Loyd Blakfien pay for it and the Jewish summer camp ethno-nationalist "Americans" fight it. We are tapped out.

Anonymous said...

Extremely tough call.

We better get cracking on real energy reform... Pres-O's lip service wont cut it...

Ubu said...

If Israel falls, the shock will be greater than when Constantinople was conquered by the Turks; it will embolden the entire Muslim world, and the consequences will be deadly serious for any man accustomed to real freedom. Islam is a death cult, and must be treated with force at all times. When the Muslims do not fear death, they are going to be aggressive.

Also, if you are going to wage a war, damn well make it pay; screw the hippies who only gauge a war by whether or not the nation loses money. We're capitalists, we should apply a solid bottom line to any endeavor.

The biggest tragedy of this depression was the TARP blowout, we had no real vision; we should have been building modern nuclear plants and clean coal power to sustain us after we lay waste to Iran's nuclear plants. We need to be able to ride out a decade of global oil disruption.

And forget the Arabs, they are not our allies.

Independent Accountant said...

Ubu:
In 1993 Samuel Huntington wrote, "Islam has bloody borders". So it has been and so it is. Unfortunate, but true. Any Westerner interested in these borders should study the history of India.

IA

Joseph Moroco said...

"Also, if you are going to wage a war, damn well make it pay; screw the hippies who only gauge a war by whether or not the nation loses money. We're capitalists, we should apply a solid bottom line to any endeavor."

So, UBU, you signin' up for this war or are you just another chickenhawk?

"And forget the Arabs, they are not our allies."

Certainment. Kindly cite the treaty of alliance we have with Israel.

We have had a ten year war and are losing. In fact, we've been losing for a long time ( http://theneutralist.blogspot.com/2006/11/americas-greatest-20th-century-victory.html ). Bring the troops home while we still can.

Ubu said...

Joseph, give me General Sherman, and a clear intent to destroy the Muslim horde without reservations, and I'll be the first to sign up. I like the idea of using Muslim prisoners to mine-sweep for explosives ahead of US troops, and if the Muslims are barbaric enough to use women and children as human shields, so much the worse for women and children--their blood is on the hands of the Muslims.

We are going to fight that war regardless of how far we withdraw from the geographical area because no geographical distance means very much anymore. As Machiavelli noted, war cannot be avoided, only postponed to the advantage of your enemies. The Muslims are emboldened by our obvious weakness and will remain so until we bring out the the Army of the West.

And spare me the chicken hawk moniker; it's such a lazy and obvious word to toss around. It might have less meaning than being called a racist.

Israel is a liberal democracy, and represents Western Civilization in an area wholly hostile to the project; with or without a treaty, the US is a natural ally of Israel and a natural enemy of the Arab autocracies. Is Israel falls, the monkey-pumping Arabs will be dancing in the streets chanting "death to America" with double the intensity. If you think for a second that abandoning Israel will advance our security, you are a lunatic.

If guys like you weren't around in the early 1930's preaching isolation, we could have hung Hitler long before 1939, and have intervened in Asia the minute Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. Probably would have saved millions of lives.

One other thing, Joe, if I do sign up, and I get to serve with a general who wants to kill the enemy as much as I do, I intend to bring home all of the men in my command, alive, whatever that takes; I will use the full force of superior US firepower on a village if that's what brings my men home alive. I intend to fly the black flag, and I don't want to hear a peep out of you or any of the other hand-wringing pussies at UTNE Reader, Mother Jones or the Nation. You just STFU and let the chickenhawks settle this one.

Agenzia modelle milano said...

I have been reading the articles on this site for sometime. This is my first comment. Your blog has been very useful for me and it provides very good content and too informative,Thanks.

Independent Accountant said...

Ubu:
During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Iran used children as "minesweepers". There is precedent for your suggestion.
I disagree with you about Manchuria. Japan invaded Manuchuria to keep the USSR out. China was too weak to hold Manchuria in 1931. Either Japan or Stalin would take it. I think Hoover's criticism of Japan led to our mistaken Pacific policy. We ended up LOSING the Pacific War. Why? The USSR managed to turn China communist. I have previously referred to Mauritz Halgren's 1935 book about American foreign policy. The next to last chapter was "Japan the Chosen Foe". While I believe the European War was inevitable, with more adroit handling, we could have had Japan fight the USSR and China would not have gone communist. That's my opinion.

IA

Independent Accountant said...

Ubu:
The book came out in 1937. See my 21 August 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/08/russias-man-among-munchkins.html.

IA