A good corrective by Walid Phares to the liberal media's insistence that al-Qaeda prefers McCain over Obama, and is actively trying to see to it that the former wins the election.
"Walid Phares explains al-Qaeda 'endorsement' of McCain," by Rick Moran for American Thinker, October 23:
Liberal blogs and websites were falling all over themselves yesterday, breathlessly and gleefully reporting that an al-Qaeda sympathetic website had come out and "endorsed" John McCain for president.The reason they did this is because back in 2004, John Kerry said his loss to George Bush was not because he was one of the most boring, flip flopping, far left liberal candidates in history but because Osama Bin Laden released a tape a few days before the election that echoed many of the same talking points being pushed at the time by Democrats.
Well the simple minded fools now believe that this "endorsement" of McCain will have the same effect. Aside from the laughably ridiculous notion that anyone believes John McCain would be a better president for al-Qaeda than Barack "root causes" Obama, frequent AT contributor Dr. Walid Phares gives us the real reason behind this move by the terrorists:
[Writes Phares:] "If McCain is elected, al Qaeda knows that there will be different teams of advisors to wage a different type of campaign. The Jihadists are very knowledgeable about American and European intellectual debates. They also know the thinking process of the counterterrorism teams under Obama. Hence, there is a difference between what al Qaeda's decision-makers and their analysts know, and what their propagandists wish to instill in the U.S. election debate. What they state should be translated and understood only within the greater picture of what they want to achieve.
Al Qaeda's propagandists operate within the realm of what the Jihadi machine has created in terms of political culture over the years. The main ideas are that the U.S., under President Bush, tried but failed to destroy al Qaeda; hence, the Jihadist narrative says that any next U.S. President who continues the policies of the Bush Administration will give victory to al Qaeda. Inserting their arguments in the ongoing Presidential debate, this means that the candidate who advances Bush strategies will be better for the goals of Bin Laden. Hence the site's assertion that al Qaeda welcomes a McCain victory (in a sarcastic style).
But this tactic used by the Jihadi propagandists is part of a reverse psychology. It aims at sending a message to the American voters: if you want al Qaeda to win, vote for McCain. The Jihadi web sites cannot state it otherwise, such as if you want the U.S. to win, vote for Obama, because in Jihadi war doctrines there cannot be a victory for America, under any President. Hence, what al Qaeda seems to be attempting to achieve is to affect the perception of the undecided voters by stating to them that the strength of McCain in the war on terror is not really strength. Therefore, in the end, the move is aimed at sinking the chances of the former U.S. Navy Pilot by crumbling the support among undecided voters who might ultimately have come to his camp as late as D Day.
Of course, such subtleties are too much for our leftist friends on the internet. It won't alter either their political perception nor would any of this change their belief that a McCain election actually would be inimicable to our efforts to destroy al-Qaeda - that is, if destruction of the terrorists is what they want. They would much prefer to send them food, educate them, teach them how to improve their economies - all the things al-Qaeda could care less about. What they want are dead westerners and anything that furthers that goal - say, endorsing the stronger candidate believing it will adversely affect his chances thus electing someone weaker than McCain - seems to escape our leftist friends who are doing a victory dance over the terrorists endorsing McCain.
I've been following this story, and I agree with the venerable Dr. Phares that the recent jihadi endorsement of McCain is a bit of "reverse psychology."
On the other hand, as is sometimes the case we can take the Islamists at their word on this one. That is, to some degree at least, I think they would welcome a McCain victory, precisely because one of their goals is to bleed us dry militarily and economically, as they forthrightly declare. If McCain will continue to squander men and resources in Iraq (for a hundred years, if necessary) and simultaneously be less effective in reviving the American economy to boot (as is believed by everyone except that endangered species of free-market capitalists) then al Qaeda does win.
Of course, al-Qaeda has a history of trying to influence elections, but I just don't think they really care much about whom we promote to POTUS this go around. They see our going under as inevitable, and they are exhilarated about the financial meltdown.
It may indeed be the case that they view Jack Mac as their ally in hastening our demise.
Muslims worldwide (including Hamas) support Obama even as he shuns them, so why in the world would anyone think AQ hopes for a McCain victory? In 2004 AQ received part of the blame from the left for Kerry's defeat after Osama's 11th hour endorsement of him. So it stands to reason they might be trying a little reverse psychology this time in hope of an Obama win. AQ cares who is POTUS because it directly effects their survival.
Does anyone in America really care about who Al Kaida endorses? Trying to spin this into the utterly typical and banal exercise in media bashing is winning no votes.
"The Jihadists are very knowledgeable about American and European intellectual debates."
"But this tactic used by the Jihadi propagandists is part of a reverse psychology."
Both statements from the article.
What evidence is there to suppose that the Jihadists have any more clue about Western thinking and motives on these matters than do our leaders looking at the picture from the other side? The Jihadists seem to every bit as prone to wishful and delusional thinking as our leaders have been. Attributing reverse psychology thinking to them gives them more credit for rational thinking than they deserve.
Obama- surrender is not an option, it's a policy.
With Clinton it was the "peace dividend" where 1/2 million servicemen were cut from the Army. Along with major Naval and Air Force reductions
Obama is for surrender and Barny Frank is already recommending a Surrender Dividend with a 25% reduction in Military spending.
Powell didn't want either Gulf war.
Gates is no longer willing to even name the enemy nor list Israel as one of our major Allies.
I have an opinion about the end of the first Gulf War and the role Powell played in it. It is an opinion that is not favorable to Powell but would like to know if it is justified or not.
It is my understanding that the MSM reporting placed a great deal of pressure on the Administration to end hostilities as quickly as possible. Specifically because of what came to be known as "the highway of death". When Iraqi forces retreating north out of Kuwait city at night were halted by classic tactics of bombing both ends of their convoy to obstruct there movement. Then bringing on all available force to destroy the units trapped in between. It was not until afterwards was it discovered that for the most part, few really died and the bulk of what was destroyed was the Loot the Iraqi's were trying to get away with.
At the same time tho, the bulk of American Armor formations were still in the process of completing the envelopment of Iraqi Republican Guard units established along the eastern Iraqi/western Kuwaiti border. Despite there having been some clashes along this front, the vast majority of Iraqi forces had not been engaged along this front at the time of the Cease fire ordered after the first 100hrs.
It is my understanding that the Field Commanders had the Republican Guard units contained in the Kill box. Desiring the destruction of those units and expressed their views up the chain of Command. Ultimately landing in Powell's lap as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In my view, Powell was, understandably, between a Rock and a hard Place. The Field Commanders who wanted to destroy the enemy in the Field and the President who wanted to end the hostilities as soon as possible. As it turned out, despite the "cease fire" the largest engagement still took place after it took effect, as Iraqi forces passed through our lines of advance.
It is my view that Powell is the one who made the principle decision to end hostilities by succumbing to the pressures of the President over the desires of the field commanders.
The one known reality, as a result of ending the war as it did, was to leave the bulk of Saddam's power base in tact. Providing the means by which he was able to quell the uprising the Kurds and Shia attempted, essentially at the behest of the President.
Which in turn directly resulted in the need for 2 no fly zones. Principally based in Saudi Arabia, that turned out to be the major ax Osama used as a reason to direct his hostilities towards us. Being the continued presence of American Infidels on sacred soil.
It is my understanding that Both Bushes have left Military decisions to the Military and made their policy decisions based upon their recommendations.
The point of this being. Had Powell leaned in favor of say, to the Field Commanders, allowing hostilities to continue for another 48hrs. Sufficient time for the virtual destruction of the Republican Guard Units. Would we be dealing with the problems we are today. There by dropping most of todays troubles in Powell's lap for the recommendation he made 17 years ago?
Is there comfort in Powell serving in any administration Obama may have?
Is there a ring of truth in my opinion or am I stuck in the shower.
Rebuttals pro or con are welcome.
You can drive yourself crazy by trying to figure if al Qaeda's "endorsement" of McCain is a bluff or some kind of mind game or whatever.
WHO THE HECK CARES?
Americans can make up their own minds. Most already have.
Flowerknife, I agree with you. Colin Powell never wanted to go to war, and when the Bush Administration didn't allow him to do everything he could to ensure defeat, he bailed on them.
Obama wants not only a peace dividend (does anyone remember after Clinton there actually being peace or a dividend, or did we learn that a terrorist attack can devastate our economy?), but he wants to cut the missile defense program and leave us naked when he shuold be bolstering it and trying to findmore ways to fend off an EMP attack. He's also for cutting unproven missile systems, like the Rods from God, which is an amazing defense weapon which causes the same destruction as a nuclear bomb but without the nuclear fallout. It could makes us far safer, keep our troops far safer (it's operated by remote control), and we could make a ton of money selling it to Israel, Europe, Australia, whoever.
ANd of course, under no circumstances would he stop HAMAS, Hezbollah, or Iran from attacking Israel. America makes money with weapons. We make them. We sell them. It's the backbone of our economy. It's what we do better than anyone. And Obama wants to take that away from us and not only leave us vulnerable, not only ensure the destruction of Israel, but kill us and our economy too.
Al Qaeda hates Bush. He humiliated them in Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, it was the Taliban that sprang back up, not Al Qaeda. He dashed Bin Laden's dreams of Caliphate. And he opened up the Middle East to a Shiite revival, if not takeover of Iraq. They know that McCain will not only have smarter people behind him, but won't take crap from Al Qaeda either. I wish he would let the Muslim world take crap from them, but he won't. I still think that going into Iraq to protect ourselves from a nuclear Saddam, deposing Saddam, and then driving out Al Qaeda in Iraq was the right thing to do. I think we should cut and run right now and stop rebuilding, though. The Iraqis don't deserve it and will likely destroy it all in a Sunni/Shiite throwdown, which would useful to exploit.
Pulling our Troops out of the Cities of Iraq is a Good thing. It puts them in better defensive positions when things heat up with Iran. Kind of like the old Forts on the Plains during the Indian wars. They become positions where any one approaching can be considered hostile. Be they Man, Woman or Child. Especially if there is no legal basis for American operations outside their bases. I Have always been of the opinion that operations in Iraq were meant to remove a threat on our flanks with regards to dealing with Iran in a conventional manor. Creating a "friendly" Government In Iraq was just a hope to make things easier. Powell was the one claiming we needed to fix what we broke. Establishing a Democracy was just a political necessity when it became clear that the Sunni's were unwilling to remove Saddam and his family to retain power.
We removed Al Qaeda from Iraq when they all came running to kill American Infidels. Now both sides of the house of Islam are armed and trained but without heavy weapons. When (or if) Iran is neutered. the real killing will begin. By then, the West won't care what they do to each other.
Fortunately for the US, a Million Vets are our guarantee that any problems by the Muslims within our midst will be a short lived affair. The majority of them are of a more conservative nature Unsullied by an excessive Multicultural PC points of view.
Robots with 50 Cal guns and anti-Tank weapons, Cylons, and Guns that shoot around corners against Human Flesh with AK-47's. Many Muslims will see their dreams come true.
flowerknife_us at October 25, 2008 11:16 PM, you pretty much summed up my recollections and understanding of Gulf War I, and Powell's role in it.
On another thread Hugh has wondered about why, specifically, Powell is depicted as being "respected" and "revered" in every news story that mentions him. I, too, have often wondered about this. It has always seemed to me to be a bit like the self-regenerating fame of Zsa Zsa Gabor, who was famous mostly because she was famous and could generate a news story whenever she liked because of it.
Is there comfort in Powell serving in any administration Obama may have?
flowerknife_us,
Only one that I can find. Obama will have to make the same tough decisions, though maybe in different fields of battle, that were made by the Bushes. The gyrations that will be required to make those decisions "the right thing to do" when done by a Democrat vs "American imperialism" when done by a Republican will be good theater.
Would Bush 41 have been allowed to bomb Serbia without Democrats calling him a war criminal?
Imagine (heaven forbid!) if Obama has to deal with another 9/11 on HIS watch. What would he do? What would the filibuster-proof Democratic Congress do? My guess is we'd have the first open declaration of war in fifty years.
Then again, he and his administration would blame it all on Bush.
PMK
I would agree to your point. Having the same opinion that Demoncrats only support a War they OK.
Unfortunately, the Demoncrats are not the same as Democrats of the Kennedy era.
Bill Clinton made Public enemy #1 of Saddam after he had dismantled the Military Forces his own Generals declared were necessary to actually do the Job.
Now there is open declarations of reducing the Military expenditures by another 25%????
The Demoncrats have been openly hostile to the Military. A reduction of 25% will be devastating. Just the thought of reducing the ability of the armed forces is as clear an indication of just what side they are on, given the nature of current world affairs.
In 1939 Great Britain at least had the sense to produce as much hardware as they possibly could.
Bush Hits Syria as I type? Good show!
It would seem that the only way to avoid the cuts is to make the situation impossible to support.
Democrats may be openly hostile to the military but what will they do if America is attacked on their watch?
Today's Democrats aren't the Kennedy Democrats, most of whom fought in WWII and understood the danger posed by Communism. Today's Democrats want the US to act in concert with its "allies". In one sense, it would be interesting to watch our "allies" deal with the next 9/11 type attack. No one in DC will cover their flank. There will be no more US troops moving into other countries if we are attacked again. If anything, they might come home. We'll give the world what it wants: Americans gone home. Let THEM deal with the consequences.
Since 1968, Americans have elected twice as many Republicans as Democrats to the presidency. We may be at the end of that rope, however.
What if NATO is dismantled? When push comes to shove, we don't have the resources to defend the world and provide security at home, all at the same time. Others must shoulder their share of the burden for their own security.
This isn't 1948. It's not 1968. It's not 1988. America has been systematically denuded of its wealth-production capacity. Those who have it must assume the burden that comes with it. We gave them our jobs. They have our wealth. Let them use it. Those who rode on the back of the US for the last fifty years will soon fall to the ground. How they land is up to them.
This will be the case regardless of who wins next week's election. Our national debt is thirteen figures and climbing every day. How long can we sustain a military without resources to fund it, even if John McCain is president?