One wonders if the Obama entourage will really invite immediate dismay and fury by appointing to head the State Department and the Pentagon those who have displayed palpable want of sympathy for the plight of Israel, as demonstrated in some cases by Senate voting records that astonish for the consistency of the anti-Israel theme. Such people are also, unsurprisingly, and possibly as a result of that coldness or indifference toward Israel, those least prepared, temperamentally and intellectually, to begin to comprehend the meaning and menace of Islam and Jihad.
It is important that people be chosen to refashion the war of self-defense against Jihad who will not, for other reasons, be disinclined to properly analyze the threat. And those least inclined to do so, I'm afraid, are those who are most inclined to find fault with, and wish to diminish support for, Israel. It may not, in all cases, rise to the level of antisemitism, but it is certainly a telling sign of a likely inability to be able to analyze the meaning and recognize the menace of the Jihad.
I'd worry most about that: who is going to be appointed to those positions. They can do a lot of good or a lot of harm, as the American government can either end the Iraq folly for the right reasons -- to conduct the war of self-defense against Jihad far less expensively and much more effectively -- or for the wrong reasons. And for the wrong reasons means to choose the path of continued indifference to what is happening all over the world, as in Western Europe, by means of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, or in southern Thailand or southern Philippines, or in Kashmir or India proper, by Muslims hell-bent on waging Jihad by whatever means they have at hand, and that for the moment are likely to get the best results.
A poster at Jihad Watch recently claimed that "Obama's Iraqi policy readily dovetails with Hugh's..."
No, Obama's policy in Iraq, while not entirely clear, hardly "dovetails" with what I have suggested in the past. Nor does his attempt to couple the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, in a period far too drawn-out for my taste (and would he leave the Iraqis with any American weaponry?), with moving more troops into Afghanistan. Afghanistan, of course, is Obama's candidate for that "central front" everyone keeps looking for in that misnamed "war on terror." This has nothing to do with what I have been suggesting.
It is true, however, that the removal of American forces from Iraq is now made far easier by the perfectly predictable behavior of the Shi'a government. It has used the Americans, used them until power could be solidified, and to dampen the power of the Sunnis. And now it is time for those Americans to go, unless they agree to terms that are absurd. For what would it mean if Americans remained in Iraq, passing out money, "reconstructing," but not allowed to use their mere handful of temporary bases in any way useful to the Americans -- that is, to use them in possible attacks on Iran or Syria or groups, not only those that threaten Israel and the West directly, but also such things as oil shipping in the Gulf, or Lebanon's stability.
If the bases are never to be used against any force outside Iraq, then what good are they? Are the Americans to remain dutifully around for another year or two or three, and spend another two hundred or three hundred billion dollars, only in order to possibly intervene, to act as "peacemakers" among people, the Muslims of Iraq, who have been raised up in Total Belief-System that encourages mendacity in dealings with, and permanent hostility toward, all non-Muslims, and that inculcates the notion that compromise with one's enemies is wrong (though occasional, feigned compromise in order to buy time, or gain an advantage, is permitted), and that there are only two possible outcomes for the party in any quarrel: that of Victor or that of Vanquished?
The only way to justify withdrawal from Iraq is to rightly paint the Iraqis as ungrateful (Churchill's "ungrateful volcano"), and to explain, in feigned sorrow, that "we've done everything that it is humanly possible to do and now the Iraqis really must make the necessary compromises, and with their bursting surpluses, pay their own way, for the war in Iraq has already cost us two trillion dollars in sunk and committed future costs.”
And if a larger commitment of troops is to avoided, or once committed, then later withdrawn, form Afghanistan, it will require that President Obama justify this not through a policy of declared appeasement ("finding common cause" with Muslims, "addressing their grievances" loading them up with American aid instead of demanding that any such aid come from the fabulously rich Arab oil states, and so on. In the next four years, the sentimental messianism ("freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" etc.) of the Bush Administration must, necessarily, end. In Western Europe, encouragement must be given to all those in those countries who have understood the threat of Islam to the political and legal institutions and social arrangements of non-Muslim states and societies, despite the control of so much of the press and government by appeasers or apologists. Much more attention should be given to Western Europe, rather than to Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Lesser Jihad against Israel (whether conducted by the Slow Jihadists of Fatah or the Fast Jihadists of Hamas, who differ only on tactics and timing, not on the final goal). Encouragement must be given to those who are willing to take measures to halt Muslim immigration and to diminish the large-scale Muslim presence that, wherever it is to be found, has created a situation for both the indigenous Infidels and for other, non-Muslim immigrants, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than would be the case without such a large-scale Muslim presence.
President Obama surely will, if he has the courage and vision to do so, at long last do what no President before has done, which is to read Saudi Arabia the riot act. He should threaten all kinds of retaliation unless it stops deploying huge sums, the Money Weapon, to fund efforts everywhere to strengthen Islam and the Muslim presence in the Western world, and to conduct propaganda designed to weaken Western resolve, and delay the day of recognition of what Islam inculcates, and what, as the behavior of Muslims today, and over the past 1350 years demonstrates, is so easily taken to heart. This retaliation could take the form of denial of access to Western education and medical care, taxes on gasoline and oil even larger than may be planned for economic reasons, a propaganda campaign conducted against Saudi Arabia, in which the contents of its textbooks become the subject of political speeches and the nightly news, and much more.
Anything less than this from Obama should raise holy hell, not least from many of those who voted for him but can turn on a dime, or at least a quarter, if all the worries about him and his naive (or worse) worldview turn out to be true.
Question: will Pope Benedict XVI invite the President-Elect to an official audience, and possibly also a private conversation, at the Vatican - and if such an invitation were issued, would Obama accept, or refuse?
Double foreign aid, withdraw from Iraq and place more troops in afghanistan, get on board with the Kyoto protocols.
Wether he will do those things by executive fiat or submit his plans to the senate remains to be seen.
Dream on Hugh.
The Obamanator will do nothing unless it is in furtherance of America's degradation, so he will be "liked" by the rest of the world.
Much of the rest of the world hates or dislikes Israel.
According to the socialist and islamic playbook, Israel is apartheid, and definitely infidel.
So what do you think he will do ?
I couldn't help but remember that hideous picture of Nancy Pelosi in her designer headscarf.
off topic?
but according to Wikipedia on Rahm Emanuel
"During the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel.[7]"
and his father was in Irgun, a "zionist" resistance movement against British rule.
good news? I don't know much about him..
"Anything less than this from Obama should raise holy hell"
As a charter member of the Church of Holy Hell, I'm getting ready for a raising.
dumbledoresarmy: You asked a curious question about a Vatican invite? Why so? Because Benedict has made some realistic statements about the nature of Islam? Because the new Messiah is perhaps too cozy with Islamic reprobates and is seen very differently in the Islamic world than he is here?
Keep in mind, though, that no President can afford to snub the leader of the, by far, largest bloc of religious voters in America. My prediction: the invite will come within the first year and will be accepted. As for anything being solved by this, well, that is an entirely different matter. The ordinary diplomatic shuffle will be what most likely occurs and nothing will come of it.
Rahm Emanuel is a authoritarian partisan thug from the Chicago school of politics.
And they don't come any more partisan than him and he plays dirty, real dirty. The Clinton's found that out to their dismay when he was their chief of staff.
Also the man is almost totally despised by the liberal branch of the party because of his backroom dealings and corporate ties.
In short this guy is bad news, he doesn't reach across party lines, he builds walls to prevent that. Put another way, there will be no bipartisanship under Obama.
As for Obama's foreign policy you bet it will be predicated on being sympathetic to every third world cause out there and putting the boot to the Jews.
The world is all that is the case.
One fashions policies based on the world as it is.
And as it is, I think Obama wishes to leave Iraq quickly. And he may know that once the Americans leave, things are unlikely to improve, and all kinds of stories may come out about the sectarian (and ethnic) conflicts that can be fodder for attacks on him. Unless. Unless he withdraws as part of a calcualted strategy, which can be hinted at through fits-and-starts links, to no longer have American Infidels spending trillions to shore up Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Jordan, or the "Palestinians" because that money is needed at home. And why is it needed at home? For all kinds of reasons, but mainly in order to rebuild infrastructure, and to pay for nuclear plants (as the French government does) , and to rebuild a national rail grid, and to pay for windmills (as in Denmark and elsewhere in Northern Europe), and solar plants (and offer subsiidizies to users, as in Germany), and so on.
And the justification for this ending of aid, and withdrawal from these places, can be justified with both true and feigned reasons. One cannot expect the American government to openly declare that it has decided that the Bush policy was too naive, messianic, and insufficiently hard-headed to recognize, and then attempt to exploit, the pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam. There are three main fissures: the sectarian one (Shi'a and Sunni), the ethnic one (Arab and non-Arab Muslims, the latter slowly becoming more aware that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, including cultural and linguistic imperialism as well as the more obvious kind), and the financial one (despite the claims of loyalty to the Umma, the rich Arabs and Muslims contribute almost nothing to the poor Arabs and other Muslims, and even as they swim in surpluses of trillions, they have managed to get away with making the Americans and other Infidels somehow think they, those Infidels who are already suffering from the trillions they keep transferring to the Muslim oil states, are responsible for giving tens or even hundreds of billions more to the poorer Muslims).
Little economic progress can be made in this country with the continuing drain in Iraq and Afghanistan. A war must indeed be waged - a war of self-defense -- against those who believe in the duty and necessity of Jihad, that is all those Muslims who believe that they have a duty to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. An Obama administration should first allow itself to recognize that, and then to suggest that the best way to weaken the enemy camp is not expensively, and futilely, with boots on the ground to do fighting that never ends, and with further lavishing of largesse on those who will pocket the money, but whose Muslim hearts and minds cannot be won, for Islam inculcates permanent, and deep, hostility to all non-Muslims.
The logic is inexorable. In order to become unstuck from the Tar Baby of Iraq, the next Administration must not allow itself to be seen to appease. And it will not be appeasing if it leaves Iraq, and then Afghanistan (continuing to monitor, with drones and other means, what goes on, and now and then perhaps helping with military equipment or intelligence now this side, and now that), as part of a more coherent strategy, the lineaments of which can be made known, to not only exploit by failing to halt, the pre-existing fissures, but by encouraging an alliance with other Infidel targets of Jihad, and in Western Europe, making clear that the American government sympathizes with all efforts to minimize the power, and presence, of Islam.
An Obama administration might find the reasons offered here for seizing the southern Sudan and Darfur, a move that would require only a few thousand American or Western troops, and would be wildly popular among the black Africans, and politically impossible for the U.N., even in the grip of the Islamintern, to protest this humanitarian move. And these areas could be held until such time as a referendum on independence from the northern Arabs could be held. This is only one of the things that might be done, as the Americans leave Iraq and Afghanistan, to make clear they are leaving because they are husbanding, not squandering, resources, and will now deploy them more effectively, with a bigger bang for the buck, seeking ways to win back from Islam territories taken over, and at the same time, to rescue those who, as in Darfur and the southern Sudan, have suffered from Arab supreamcism, or Islamic supremacism.
That's the way out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) that will be politically acceptable -- and also best.
And the way to win across-the-board favor for environmental policie that the Right might otherwise reject, is to appeal not only to those who are rightly worried about irreversible anthropogenic climate disruption, but also to thse who may be willing to embrace the same policies (including subsidies to mass transit, and solar and wind power, and even government building of nuclear power plants) if it is presented to them as akin to the Manhattan Project (that could not have been completed by "the free market"), in winning a war, or at least keeping the permanent Jihad made by Muslims on non-Muslims within manageable limits, by diminishing the use of oil and hence of the Money Weapon that is the major instrument, at present, of Jihad.
It is fascinating to see how many people who seem to be far ahead in their grasp of the threat of Islam became credulous and oxymoronic "skeptics" about climate change. Possibly this illustrates Eliot's trite phrase about how "mankind cannnot bear too much reality." In any case, there is a way to enroll the support of both anti-Jihad Right and anti-climate-change Left, for the same policies, even if for different reasons.
That's okay. The next Administration, in order to end both the wasteful boots-on-the-ground, accompanied by the equally wasteful winning-hearts-and-minds expensive construction projects, can extricate itself from Iraq and Afghanistan successfully only if I shows it simply has a better, implacable, even ruthless way, to deal with Jihad, and to husband, not squander resources.
The rest of what must be done – the understanding that the ideology of Islam is a Total Belief-System, regulating every detail of life, and offering a Complete Explanation of the Universe, and inculcating the idea that one division of humanity matters, and only one: that between Believers and Infidels, Muslims and non-Muslims, and between the two there must exist a state of permanent war (if not always open warfare). Once this is grasped by those who presume to protect and instruct us, the rest will come naturally.
This is great - earlier this year we were all ruminating on the female Muslin aide (Huma?) to Sen. Hillary Clinton and now this...
I'm not sure which is worse: s closet Islamist or a follower of the "Rev Wright" brand of Christianity in the White House...
Surely there are other nations other than Israel about which we should show concern during this transition. Aint that right Hugh?
Yes. But you have misunderstood my point. I want in positions of authority those who are most likely to grasp the meaning, and menace of Islam. It is not illegitimate to suspect that those who have long records of being curiously unsympathetic to Israel may be among those least likely to grasp the problem, for to grasp the problem in all of its dimensions (including for example, the essential worthlessness of promises made in treaties by those who follow the model of Muhammad and his Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and Muslim victories in one place leading to a triumphalist whetting of the appetite for victories in other places) will make one realize how pointless or dangerous is the pressure put on Israel to make still further concessions, or to trust to a "treaty" that is essentially worthless, or to make much of the distinction between Fatah and Hamas, when the only distinction is that the Slow Jihadists of the former group differ in timing and tactics, but not in ultimate goals, from the Fast Jihadists.
It is the United States, it is the entire West, that needs to stop thinking it can or should curry favor with Muslims, winning their hearts and minds by paying them off in the coin of Israeli security.
And it needs to do this not for Israel's sake -- successive Israeli governments have been so trusting and so yielding and so hopeful and so stupid that one can be sure they will need no outside pressure to continue to make disastrous concessions (I've written many times about how the failure of Israeli governments to grasp, and publicize, the nature of the war being waged against Israel also contributed to negligence in Western Europe, at a time when, had Israel's leaders bothered to educate themselves about Islam, this might have had a salutary effect on political and media elites in Western Europe, before the anti-Israel campaign, based on the "Palestinian-people-legitimate-rights" business, was turned up to full volume.
In fact, I'd put the entire Middle East on the backest of burners, and devote attention only to the problem of Islam in the countries of Western Europe, and helping them fully gauge the threat to the art, science, freedoms of the individual, and so much else, that mere demographic conquest by Muslims can undo.
Obama is of the school that Israel is the problem to the "peace" in the Middle East. Look for him to push hard for the division of Jerusalem. He will advise the Israeli's that unless they go forward with that he will cut off all official US financial aid to Israel. One of his close foreign policy advisors Samantha Power has stated all US funding that is currently given to Israel should be stopped and given to the Palestinians, I concur Obama agrees with her as does his friend Khalidi. She has also suggested the US send troops in to protect the Pali's from the Israeli "genocide". Birds of a feather flock together.
" I will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse her".
The US will not be able to duck the curse, because G-d does not miss His target. Bt it appears by yesterday's vote 52% of American are fine with this.
Obama is very bad for Israel. He firmly opposes a strike on Iran, and recalls the idealist and anti-Semitic Carter
So this is a golden chance for Israel. Now is the time to Israel to break the trend of electing murderous traitorous leaders, who appease America despite the spiraling violence and clear declarations of intent by Arabs.
The appeasement of the Americans/Europeans, a policy brought to the fore by Golda Meir, produced bloody fruits: the IDF was instructed to save Arab lives. In practice, that meant not firing at the civilians used by the terrorists as shields, so that Jews often operated without air support and suffered heavy casualties. Without doubt, the Americans/Europeans were concerned with civilian death toll, the very Americans/Europeans who designed blockbuster bombs to rip away the roofs so that subsequently dropped incendiary bombs could set the houses on fire more reliably; fried (and rightly so) Dresdners caused no public outcry in America and Europe.
Peres-Beilin-Rabin gang launched the worst war that Israel face is the peace process which has killed and maimed more Jews than the Yom Kippur war
Netanyahu continued the peace process, and Lieberman never even tried repealing it while in the government.
Sharon loved oppression. When oppressing the Arabs proved to be not a politically correct option, he turned to oppressing Jews, and turned thousands of Jewish refugees from Gush Katif into social corpses, broke and broken.
Olmert, who released hundreds of sworn enemies of Israel, including children killers (Samir Kuntar) for the exchange of two corpses..
The US president who humbled Israel most, beat her pride into dust, was an idealist Jimmy Carter; ostensibly weak and simple-minded, he pushed Israel to accept his own ideals and abandon Sinai to the enemy who lost five wars against us. Obama is a similar personality. After his recent book on Israel, Carter is universally considered an anti-Semite; Obama’s reputation is very questionable, though his friends are deeply anti-Semitic with great passion for rights of Palestinian terrorists.
The next Israeli leader must abandon all peace talks, because peace equates to a Palestinian state because as soon as a Palestinian state is created, Jordan, Syria, and Iran, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda would rush to control it. Israel cannot do anything about massive military buildup in Gaza. What would we be able to do about the West Bank? Hezbollah replenished its arsenal of rockets in less than a year despite a considerable hostile buffer area in North Lebanon. The Palestinian state will have a common border with Syria, and will be stocked up with rockets in a matter of weeks. Even if Israel signs a peace deal with Syria, it would still happily subvert its Jewish nemesis through Palestinian guerrillas. Iran, too.
Obama is no friend to Israel, neither is America, America pours money into Egypt and Pakistan, Iran is not the biggest nuclear threat. The biggest is Pakistan. It supports nuclear development programs in many Muslim countries. Muslim radicals heavily influence Pakistan policies and are strong in its military, especially due to the close security-military-religious cooperation in Kashmir insurgency. Pakistan enjoys Saudi Arabian political and financial backing. Pakistan is basically a front for Saudi Arabia nuclear proliferation activities.
Other Muslim countries are also dangerous. It is unknown whether Libya ended its nuclear program or transferred it to a safer location. Algeria and Morocco have nuclear programs. Jordan intends to build a nuclear reactor under Israeli nose, and with the fall of Jordanian monarchy Palestinians will get a lot of radioactive material for dirty bombs. Egypt can develop nuclear weapons in the matter of years, and Saudi Arabia most likely stocks some of the Pakistani nuclear bombs; Saudi also received top-edge aircraft from the US capable of delivering nuclear bombs into Israel.
So what is new about Obama, Because historically, US Administrations opposed every preemptive attack by Israel: in the 1956 war, 1967, 1973 (“successfully”),
Suppose Israel attacks Iran, what can Obama do? The US Army won’t raise its planes in Iraq to intercept Israeli aircraft on the way to Natanz,
Moreover, Bush won’t risk public exposure as the one who stopped a potentially successful Israeli raid against Holocaust facilities.
Thanks to Russia, the US cannot sanction Israel or stop the weapons supplies: at the time of renewed confrontation, America won’t risk losing its major ally in the Middle East. And Israel can always apply to Russia or France for weapons. Israel can even produce weapons in cooperation with China: Israeli design, cheap Chinese manufacturing, and to hell wth Obamas change
Its time for Israel to declare war, because
A peace process cannot lead to peace. If history is any lesson, peace is only achieved after unconditional capitulation of one’s enemy.
A peace process is highly unusual. Every other nation destroyed whatever people happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state.
A peace process is illegal. The original mandate for the Jewish state included Transjordan, but the British illegally cut it off. Then the UN further partitioned Israel to accommodate Palestinian Arabs.
A peace process is immoral. Palestinian Arabs don’t constitute a nation. Offering them a state is a plot against Jews.
A peace process doesn’t offer safety. Jews need a secure state - not a beach strip fourteen miles wide.
A peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the conductors of the peace process give to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could just as well settle in Uganda or in Arizona.
A peace process is pointless. Israel can reach a settlement with the Palestinian government, but a sufficient number of Palestinian Arabs would always resent what they think is Jewish occupation of the land of their ancestors. A few thousand such Arabs would always be there, and will employ terrorist tactics to attack Israel.
If Israel wants peace, then Israel must strike terror into every arab heart.
Obama's foreign policy challenge is to try and show that he is less naive and screwed up than Jimmy Carter.
He will fail.
Things are going to get far worse before they start getting any better.
Europeans, you really are on your own at this point. If you are going to do something to save yourselves, you'd best do it now.