The Obama Administration has had a role in regime change in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya all in one year. Along with the other "Friends of Syria" it would like to bomb its way to regime change in Syria. The point of all this regime change is to replace totalitarian Muslim regimes with democratically elected totalitarian Muslim regimes on the theory that will make everyone happier.
The reason why Muslim countries end up with dictators can be seen in the streets of Libya where militias run wild and former members of the regime and anyone with black skin is dragged off the street for torture sessions and a bullet in the back of the head. Peel away the presidents, colonels and other suit wearing tyrants fronting for an oligarchy and that is what every Muslim country will be reduced to.
To understand the problem with Syria, one only need look at neighboring Lebanon where every attempt at coalition building between different religious and ethnic groups has gone badly over and over again. The ruling Alawites have to hang on to power because the alternative is to be an oppressed minority. The Sunnis have to strive for power because the alternative is to be an oppressed minority. This pattern repeats itself across the region.
To the extent that Western multiculturalism works, it does so because Europeans and their descendants have agreed to cede some power and privileges to minority groups while maintaining confidence in the rule of law to protect equal rights for everyone. Such a state of affairs is ridiculously inconceivable in the countries that we are assuming will adopt that same value system.
The only form of protection for a minority in the Muslim world is to either seize power or form a coalition with the ruling party. Such coalitions are inherently fragile because tribal instincts of race and religion always end up overriding agreements. Mohammed's treaties weren't worthless just because he was a duplicitous power-mad figure, but because all treaties are worthless in the region. After his death, Islamic succession wound up being settled with assassination and civil war among his own family members and allies.
Muslims look to Islam as a central unifying principle of universal allegiance, but it's nothing of the sort. It's actually an excuse for constant internecine violence. Islam adds another layer of allegiances and another excuse for infighting that did not exist previously. Underneath the robes and beards and Korans is yet another oligarchy with family mafias clutching their ill gotten gains, as is the case in Iran and as will be the case in Egypt, where the Brotherhood has already gotten a head start.
Under conditions like this how can democracy exist as anything other than a temporary state of affairs? When there is an overwhelming majority in favor of one religion, it becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp for tyrants, as was the case in the Egyptian elections. When the country is sufficiently divided along religious lines, as is the case in Iraq, it becomes a prolonged struggle with both sides marking their positions and building their coalitions in preparation for a civil war.
The modern state did not emerge overnight in Europe and while the colonization of the Middle East has left behind the facades of modern states which employ some of the ritual and custom of their colonizers, they are not modern states. Often they are not even states at all. They are clans operating in cities built for them by foreigners, using technology sold to them by foreigners and going through the motions of a republic built for them by foreigners.
Behind the facade, the clan trumps the state, religion trumps the state and the state exists mainly as a vehicle for the ambitions of influential families who run the whole thing for their own benefit while providing some subsidies to the rest of the country. Overthrow one family and another rises in its place. Some will be more horrid than others. Saddam was a monster even by the standards of the region. The Assads are worse than some, but better than others.
Taking down Assad will not save Syria, it will transfer power from the Alawites, a Shiite splinter sect, to the Sunnis and the Muslim Brotherhood. This won't just be bad for the Alawites, it will be bad for the Christians and the other minorities still in Syria. In Egypt, the ethnic cleansing of the Copts has already begun, though the media won't comment on it. In Syria there have already been some militia attacks. And it will only get worse.
Only one calculation should be used to determine whether we remove Assad from power and that is whether removing him from power will be good for us. It has been amply demonstrated to us that we cannot save Muslims from themselves, we cannot drag them a thousand years ahead in time just because they use cell phones and have prime ministers. Externally imposing progress does not work. Especially across cultures which have to make their own adaptations and their own journey upwards.
The misbegotten crusade to save Muslims from themselves, to act as missionaries of democracy has cost us more lives than September 11 and to no purpose. There was something noble about the belief that we could march our troops in, liberate a people from their tyrant and their spirits would open up and a new world would be born. That belief however was rooted in a secularized religious ideal that was layered over with American exceptionalism. But the whole point of exceptionalism is that it is not universal. America is not the inevitable outcome, it is a series of accommodations and experiments that derive from a particular set of histories. It cannot be generalized or universally applied.
We cannot save Muslims from themselves, we can however save ourselves from their turmoil, their religiously influenced violence and their cultural instability. The more we try to reach out to them, the more we are at risk of importing their violence and instability.
The job of governments is not to sell our way of life to others, it is to protect that way of life from others. It is about time that we stopped being the world's benefactor, psychiatrist and policeman, and began looking after our own interests first. That doesn't mean isolationism, it doesn't rule our friendships with other countries, but those friendships should be in our interest.
Like the homeowner who kicks out his family and fills his living room with drug addicts from the street, for too long the United States has pandered to the violent dysfunction of troubled countries and peoples, while neglecting its interests and allies. It has all but abandoned its traditional ties and become obsessed with fixing trouble spots. These bouts of social work have been expensive and they have not worked.
It's time that we stopped trying to save people from themselves and began trying to save ourselves. While we have been teaching good government to others, our own government has become rotten. While we have spent money on others, we are running out of money. While we have taken in the huddled masses of the world yearning to take us for all we've got, our own lives and families are in danger.
A new age of terror is here. It's time to face up to it. To stop saving Muslims from ourselves and to work to save ourselves and our kin from them.
As it says, "don't be like mules that need strong bridles and bits in their mouths "ReplyDelete
Yet Arabs are called wild jackasses of men who need strong control over them so they do not hurt themselves or others.
A mule kick can be fatal. Its worse than a horse and more vicious because horses kick for protection but mules will do it for no real reason at all.
At the link above Yaron Brooks makes a compelling argument that it's the application of Just War Theory that leads to these perverse outcomes. We try to wage war without hurting our enemy. We may eventually engage in semi-war like operations but only after we figure out how to maximize the risk to our soldiers and minimize the risk to the enemy population.
The Muslim populations prefer us to die than they be free. We owe those populations nothing. When they do act to overthrow their government they want a worse government than they had and one which is more dangerous for us.
If you observe the sanctuaries where the terrorists hide you only increase the use of human shields and mingling with the civilian population.
The day the Muslims throw off their death cult I'm happy to consider them my brother. I'd say the same if these fanatics were Scottish or Methodists. Only they can change their culture. But we can destroy their centers of gravity and refuges. We choose not to.
We cannot possible do this.
I believe it is a plan by Obama to allow the MB to take over after the dictators were removed. If you notice, the ones that took over are at odds with the ones that are in Iran.
Consider; Obamas back ground. His bowing to King Saud, his allowing the MB to advise on foreign policy and on and on. Get the picture? My analogy was a Trojan horse, courtesy of the DNC.
"Joe Blow from Idaho" on twitter
Not sure if you heard it yet, but apparently those 19 Americans held in Egypt are now negotiation pawns for the release of various terrorists including 1993 WTC bombing planner -the blind jihadist. Egypt is nothing more than a terror state now.ReplyDelete
1. The basic PROBLEM is ISLAM. We don't need a "war on terror" or a war to free people from some tyrant with which they've unfortunately and misteriously been saddled. What we need is a "war on islam", eradicate islam, short of that, defend ourselves against islam and all muslims. Recognize that it is islam that has declared a war to the death upon us and react accordingly, get an official and legal congressional declaration of a defensive war against islam, and then eradicate islam.ReplyDelete
2. Don't talk to me about Democracy in "dar al islam" until you can list and explain to me, very clearly, the thirteen necessary and sufficient, and ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL..... PREREQUISITES for DEMOCRACY...... None of which obtain in "dar al islam".
3. The idea of bringing Democracy to Iraq and Afganistan was Bush's smug, self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier than thou, feel good, DELUSIONAL moral justification for those wars and was based on an utter failure to understand islam and a failure to understand human nature.
Negotiations with the Islames? For our own? For the blind geriatric hate filled loser? Lets see....19 for 1 plus we cut off aid.. at $19 billion is it?ReplyDelete
Sounds like a deal to me.
Sultan Knish for President.ReplyDelete
Spot on, Sultan! As usual, spot on!ReplyDelete
Instead of importing Muslims from Sudan, Latino's from latin America, and a host of others from narco and dictator states, how about we open our shores only to modernized, democratic and forward thinking people?
The rest? Let them stay in their countries and change it first. Only then will we be willing to lend them a hand.
Just War Theory (JWT) does lead to these perverse outcomes and JWT is taught as an established and accepted dogma at West Point!ReplyDelete
Anonymous is correct that the basic problem is Islam itself. But genocide is not the answer, nor can Islam be eradicated. It can however, be neutralized. And for Islam, neutralization results in extinction.
In a post entitled The Realities Israel Must Accept I advocate a strategy based upon holding hostage what radical Muslims cherish most, to their refraining from organized violence.
Islam cannot survive another century of exposure to modern civilization, which is why the US has been labeled the 'great Satan'. Islam is theologically incapable of reform. That is not personal opinion but the logical consequence of its theological tenets. Because it cannot survive cultural exposure to modern civilization and because it cannot reform, it must either destroy the 'virus' of modernity or face extinction.
The problem however of Islamic terrorism extends far beyond the terrorist networks and rogue nations. Margaret Thatcher understood this well when she observed, "Rogue states never turn out to be quite the pariahs they are deemed. They are only able to cause, or at least threaten to cause, mayhem because they enjoy the covert support - usually by means of technology transfers - of one or more major powers within the charmed circle of global 'good guys'."
Those 'major players' are Russia and China. I make the case that they support and facilitate Islamic
terrorism against the US in, Countering Russia and China’s covert campaign of aggression against the US
China is continuing unabated its drive to expand its Navy and modernize its military. Putin's Russia will continue to facilitate nuclear weapons proliferation to unstable third world nations hostile to the West.
Both China and Russia consistently use the UN to both block international actions against rogue nations and undermine the world's perception of American prestige, forcing the US to take unilateral actions which the left invariably portrays as colonial aggression and a desire for world dominance.
The US needs to form a new NATO like organization of democracies and then pull out of the UN.
No real progress will be made on these issues until the blinders of PC are shed by both the American people and their representatives.
Your key paragraph, I find, is: The job of governments is not to sell our way of life to others, it is to protect that way of life from others. It is about time that we stopped being the world's benefactor, psychiatrist and policeman, ---- it doesn't rule our friendships with other countries, but those friendships should be in our interest."ReplyDelete
And thereupon I'll even add Robert Frost's idea about making good neighbors with fences.
I don't believe he meant to isolate, but even better, to define the point that as a good neighbor, we might consider another's boundaries as well.
Granted, we're inclined to chat across the pickets with those we find affable, yet regard their affinities well, providing they either share or respect ours.
Chris Yonts said...ReplyDelete
Sultan Knish for President.
Great insight Mr. Knish!ReplyDelete
Hey you know what?
I always love a good fight between the Muslims and Arabs. The Persian-Iraq waris a perfect example. Two fine rabid mongrels ripping each other with careless abandon.
It is indeed a pity that Islam will come to rule the West and what is left of the free world. In their blood lust, they believe they are doing the will of Allah...the West believes in nothing but dope, and reality TV. A lost cause we are.
why is it that daniel greenfield can see so clearly the obvious truths that our traitorous "leaders" just cannot comprehend?ReplyDelete
Thank you for this blog item. Unfortunately, most Americans seem determined to cling to the belief that Islam is just another religion -- not the totalitarian system masquerading as a religion that it is.ReplyDelete
@curmudgeon - Because Daniel Greenfield is a brilliant young man.ReplyDelete
Amen, Daniel. Another great piece.
"Taking down Assad will not save Syria." I agree but it will help a lot in the war against Iran and might help Lebanon.ReplyDelete
And, with the killing that goes on, sitting idle shows that you give in to the Russian message. i.e. that killing people on a massive scale is Ok as long as it fits some dictator's agenda.
We all may need to save ourselves from Muslims vis-a-vis Islam - in the end. EU multiculti works by "..ceding some power and privileges to minority [Muslim] groups while maintaining confidence in the rule of law to protect equal rights for everyone" One might even say - that this is not confidence - but over-confidence! Muslim groups want to change the laws - yet some agree - based on this confidence in equality under the law!! But the Islamic law gives Muslims priority.ReplyDelete
You are one of my heroes, Sultan Knish and have hit the ball out of the park with your analyses so many times, I've lost count. But here's another analysis which makes more sense to me in this case. It's not about democracy, it's about Obama's pro Shite, anti Sunni agenda.ReplyDelete
The Obama Domino Doctrine: Pro-Iran/Anti-Saudi
By: Mark Langfan
Obama has his own Domino Doctrine for the Muslim world...and Saudi Arabia is in even more danger than Israel.
Remember, for one second, in January 2011, before even a dozen demonstrators were killed, a small herd of camel-riding Mubarakists rode into Tahrir Square trampling some protesters underfoot, and Obama immediately flew into an apoplectic rage, gliding close to personally claiming that Mubarak was a war criminal for attacking peaceful "democratic" demonstrators.
But in February 2012, after Assad has murdered over 10,000 Sunni mostly totally unarmed civilians by lobbing barrages of multiple rounds of artillery into Homs, why is Obama all but numbingly silent...?
The reason: the US President Obama has artfully and silently pivoted US Middle East Policy from a Pro-Saudi, Anti-Iran paradigm to a Pro-Iran, Anti-Saudi imperative.
Crazy you say? The Dubai Police Chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim, attending at a recent Gulf security conference with US diplomats, "undiplomatically" for over 18 minutes calmly stated, in essence:
1) "US Policy is the Number One threat" to the Gulf States;
2) America "has realized the dreams of Iran in Iraq;"
3) the US has "adopted the path and ideology of Khomeini;" and
4) the US "is no longer an ally" of the Gulf States.
To frame the instant question with a sharper point:
Why did President Obama, in his 2009 Cairo Speech, pro-actively incite and reflexively, over Saudi Arabia's infinite anger, support the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, who was the US' stalwart Sunni American ally for over 30 years and who acted as the sole-substantial Sunni Arab counterweight to Iran? How come the Nobel Prize-winning Obama unflinchingly allows Assad, a Shiite/Alawite, confirmed state-sponsor of terror, funneler of IEDs in Iraq which murdered thousands of US soldiers, and a stalwart ally of Shiite Iran, to cold-bloodedly massacre what is now over ten thousand unarmed Sunni Muslims?
And why did President Obama anoint the Shiite Al Maliki, a known-Iranian stooge, as the omnipotent new-Shiite Saddam of Iraq, sideline the Iraqi Sunnis, and compound the decidedly pro-Shiite tilt by tacitly handing the keys of Iraq over to Iran leaving the Sunni Gulf states to fend for themselves against the a combined Iraq/Iran Shi'ite colossus from the North and East?
Why does Obama constantly refer to the ragtag, disjointed, barely-existing Sunni al Qaeda as the "greatest threat to the US" when the Shiite Iran and its Hizbullah and Iraqi based proxies have killed many times more US soldiers and US civilians in the past 20 years than al Qaeda has, - and Iran is nearing the acquisition of nuclear bomb and constantly claiming Israel is a "cancerous tumor" that needs to be "cut out" of the Middle East?
The answer can be found in Obama' first documented foreign "policy" speech in 2002 dubbed the "Iraq War Speech" where Obama unambiguously declared:
"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality. . . ." - Barack Obama's Iraq Speech dated Oct. 2, 2002
From Obama's very first recorded words on US foreign policy, Saudi Arabia, and not Iran, was to Obama, America's Number one enemy.
. . .
Obama, from his 2002 speech on a Chicago street to his 2011 speech at the State Department, sees the House of Saud as the very personification of Obama's "elites who steal from their people," and of "the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect."
But Obama's one act which symbolically crystallizes the essence of what has been, is, and will be the Obama Doctrine is Obama's very first act as US President. Obama's first act was he formally and publically returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Great Britain that had long adorned the Bush Oval Office.
Obama viscerally rejected Churchill's White House presence because it was Winston Churchill and his "Lawrence of Arabia" generation of British foreign establishment that, in effect, had "divided and conquered" the Muslim Ummah, and empowered the balkanized Sunni "elite" kingdoms at the expense of the Shi'ites and the Ottoman Empire. While empowering the local Sunni Kingdoms, Churchill disempowered a possible unified Muslim Caliphate, and the Shi'ites.
At core, to Obama, Lawrence of Arabia wasn't a heroic liberator of Arabia, but a villainous enslaver of the Ummah. To Obama, the Churchill's very Middle East "borders" themselves are colonial vestiges which divide and enshackle the Muslim Ummah and prevent it from achieving its true greatness and superpower status on a par with the EU, the US, China, and Russia.
Consequently, Obama, from day one of his US Presidency, has been the first anti-Winston Churchill US President. The Obama Doctrine is "Whatever Churchill did, Obama would, and will, undo." Churchill empowered the Sunnis, Obama will dispossess the Sunnis. Churchill created Israel, Obama will dismember Israel.
Within this tightly focused foreign policy imperative, Obama sees the total empowerment of Iran as the quickest and surest route to obliterate the shackles of the Churchill's vestigial enslaving pro-Sunni "elite" localized fiefdoms that practically prevent the unification of the Muslim Global Ummah.
As a consequence, of the "Obama Doctrine", Obama's Iranian Nuclear policy can be summed up as "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." As a result, Obama's overall Iranian political empowerment policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon isn't weakness, "naivete," or "vacillation," but Obama's central overarching, immutable goal. ... Iran understands Obama's need to "false flag" Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon into believing Obama's Justice Department's sanctions are doing something. Otherwise, Obama's Pro-Iran policy would be impossible to hide.
With the Obama Doctrine, Obama's entire foreign policy makes sense: It explains why Obama toppled Egypt, Saudi Arabia's key Sunni ally. In a heartbeat, Obama rendered Egypt permanently paralyzed to assist the Saudis against Iran. ...
In accordance with this doctrine, Obama obliterated the Sunni Qaddafi with hundreds of million dollar Tomahawk missiles, deleting the precious cache of Tomahawks (for possible use against Iran) where there was a truly heavily armed Libyan opposition who could fight for themselves and instead left an absolute Islamist maelstrom wrapped in chaos enveloped in bedlam and mayhem. As a result, Obama has mutely watched well over ten thousand Syrian Sunnis be massacred by Iran's Shi'ite handmaiden, Assad, and hasn't even shipped in one 5 kilometer range anti-tank weapon that would easily spay Assad's rampaging tanks and artillery.
Somehow Reagan wasn't afraid to send the Afghans anti-air stingers to down Soviet helicopters when the USSR had 5,000 ICBM nukes locked and loaded at Washington DC, but Obama is petrified to send embattled Sunni Syrian unarmed civilians a single Band-Aid, lest Obama might upset Iran and his ability to close his Iranian Nuclear Grand "Bargain" just in time for the 2012 elections.
And as a final policy puzzle piece, Obama's noisy objection to an Israeli attack on Iran is, in reality, a deafeningly silent total rejection of Saudi Arabia's push for America to militarily attack Iran. The Saudis know Iran is infinitely more of a threat to Saudi Arabia than to Israel.
Obama has publically amped up the five-alarm fire-fight with Israel to make the Iran issue appear to be an "Israel only" issue, thereby preemptively embarrassing the Saudis out of even asking for the US to strike. For as long as Obama and his minions are vituperatively publicly attacking Israel about an Israeli attack and even threatening to do a "reverse-Liberty" and shoot down attacking Israeli planes, the Saudis know they have no hope of even broaching the "Attack Iran" issue with Obama.
So for Obama it's a win-win-win, actively attack Israel, blame Israel for destabilizing the Middle East, attack Israel's American supporters as dual loyalists, and passively pre-reject the Saudis request for an attack on Iran's facilities before the Saudis even ask for one.
What all this means is Obama has quietly turned 50 years of US Foreign policy on its head without even a single congressional hearing. If Obama isn't sending Band-Aids to Homs, he sure ain't sending Bunker-busters to Fordo.
The Egyptian "Pillar" of US strategic interests is now yesterday's dust. The vaunted Saudi "Pillar" of US Middle East policy since World War I is now a prime US target for destruction. Israel is live bait. Obama's true foreign policy objective seems to be nothing less than the full nuclear weaponization of Iran. Anything else is a smoke-screen for Obama to look like he's doing something, but in reality he is doing nothing to stop Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
In conclusion, Obama is actively "democratically" toppling all U.S. Middle East allies, and soon a nuclear-armed Iran will control 70% of the World's Oil Reserves, charging $500 a barrel for oil.
Under the Obama "Domino" Doctrine, in the not so far future, the House of Saud and all the Gulf monarchies will be the very first "elite" colonial vestiges which will have to be annihilated by Iran for Iran to unify the Muslim Ummah to achieve its historical and rightful greatness and power. In the longer-term, once Iran has liquidated the House of Saud and acquired its limitless oil wealth, the Iranian Rial and the price of bread for the common Iranian will return to normal, and Iran can the focus on destroying Israel.
And in the short-term, Obama and the world will watch Assad commit a holocaust against the unarmed Syrian Sunnis.
To reiterate, my 3 prior posts were quotes from Mark Langfan at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11315ReplyDelete
(as stated in the first post) and should all have been surrounded by quotation marks.
Clearly, our error was on September 12, 2001. We should have nuked Mecca and Medina on that day. The message would be very clear, any attack on the US homeland will be repaid with unimaginable horror. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and we nuked 2 Japanese cities. Muslims have attacked the US homeland, and they should have paid the same price.ReplyDelete
The left, particularly its European branch would have been horrified, but who cares. Muslims would have been forced to reassess their creed. And many would have abandoned it.
The nuclear weapons in 1945 had a very salutary affect on Japan. Nuclear weapons in 2001 would have worked wonders in the Middle East.