| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, explains why May 21, 2008 is a date that should live in infamy.
“If you have tears, prepare to shed them now…. Oh, what a fall was there… Then I, and you, and all of us fell down.” .--William Shakespeare, “Julius Caesar,” Act 3, Scene 1 May 21, 2008, is a date—like December 7 (1941) and September 11 (2001)—that should now live in infamy. Yet who will notice, mourn, or act the wiser for it?On that day, the Beirut spring was buried under the reign of Hizballah.
Speaking on October 5, 1938, after Britain and France effectively turned Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill said, “What everybody would like to ignore or forget must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat….”[i]
In contrast, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch said that the agreement over Lebanon was, "A necessary and positive step." At least when one sells out a country one should recognize this has happened rather than pretend otherwise. But this is precisely what took place at Munich, when the deal made was proclaimed as a concession that brought peace and resolved Germany’s last territorial demand in the region.
Churchill knew better and his words perfectly suit the situation in Lebanon today:
“The utmost [Western diplomacy] has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia…has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.”
Yes, that’s it exactly. On every point, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria, got all they wanted from Lebanon’s government: its surrender of sovereignty. They have veto power over the government; one-third of the cabinet; election changes to ensure victory in the next balloting; and they will have their candidate installed as president.
The majority side is not giving up but is trying to comfort itself on small mercies. The best arguments it can come up with are that now everyone knows Hizballah is not patriotic, treats other Lebanese as enemies, and cannot seize areas held by Christian and Druze militias. It isn’t much to cheer about.Nevertheless, as in 1938, a lot of the media is proclaiming it as a victory of some kind, securing peace and stability in Lebanon.
Not so. If Syria murders more Lebanese journalists, judges, or politicians, no one will investigate. No one dare diminish Hizballah’s de facto rule over large parts of the country. No one dare stop weapons pouring over the border from Syria and Iran. In fact, why should they continue to be smuggled in secretly? No one dare interfere if and when Hizballah, under Syrian and Iranian guidance, decide it is time for another war with Israel.
This defeat was not only total, it was totally predictable. Just as Churchill said:
“If only Great Britain. France and Italy [today we would add the United States, of course,] had pledged themselves two or three years ago to work in association for maintaining peace and collective security, how different might have been our position…. But the world and the parliaments and public opinion would have none of that in those days. When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have affected a cure.”Instead there was a lack “of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong….” Actually, though, as Churchill knew, when he spoke these faults were still not corrected. The folly continued.
And so is what comes next? Back to Churchill:
“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness.” That country suffered because it put its faith in the Western democracies and the League of Nations (now the United Nations). In particular, she was betrayed by France whom the Czechs then, and the Lebanese today, trusted to help them.
The UN Security Council on May 22 endorsed the Lebanon agreement even though it totally contradicted the Council’s own resolution ending the Hizballah-Israel war, thus betraying the commitments made to Israel about stopping arms smuggling, disarming Hizballah, and keeping that group from returning to south Lebanon. The UN’s total reversal of its demands from two years ago—constituting a total victory for Hizballah—did not bring a flicker of shame or even recognition that this in fact had happened.
All this is a victory for terrorism. It is quite true that the Lebanese Shia—like the German minority in Czechoslovakia which Hitler promoted—has genuine grievances and that Hizballah has real support in its own community. But how did it overcome the other communities, the other political forces in Lebanon? Through assassination and bombing (albeit done by Syria’s surrogates rather than directly), by intimidation and fear, by demagoguery and war.
Iran and Syria help their allies; the West doesn’t. And so the message was: We can kill you; your friends cannot save you. Look at their indifference! Despair and die.
And here, regarding the future, we can only quote Churchill’s speech extensively:
“In future the Czechoslovak State cannot be maintained as an independent entity. I think you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured only by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime. Perhaps they may join it in despair or in revenge. At any rate, that story is over and told. But we cannot consider the abandonment and ruin of Czechoslovakia in the light only of what happened only last month. It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years - five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance….”
Lebanon will not disappear as a country on the map, of course—contrary to the Iranian alliance’s intentions toward Israel—but it is now going to be part of the Iranian bloc. This is not only bad for Lebanon itself but also terrifying for other Arab regimes. The Saudis deserve credit for trying to save Lebanon. But what will happen now as the balance of power shifts? They are less inclined to resist and more likely to follow the West’s course and adopt an appeasement policy.
Again, Churchill in 1938:
“Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted. The road down the Danube Valley to the Black Sea, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened.
In less than four years, that is where German armies were marching, thankfully a situation far worse than we can expect in the Middle East. Yet the trend toward appeasement and surrender could well be similar. Churchill said:
“In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe… will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics--not only power military politics but power economic politics--radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot.”
His specific example was Yugoslavia whose government within three years was ready to join Germany’s bloc. (It was prevented from doing so only by a British-organized coup but was then invaded and overrun by the German army.)
Only the names of the countries need be changed to make Churchill’s point apply to the present:
“You will see, day after day, week after week [that]…many of those countries, in fear of the rise of the Nazi power,” will give in. There had been forces “which looked to the Western democracies and loathed the idea of having this arbitrary rule of the totalitarian system thrust upon them, and hoped that a stand would be made.” But they would now be demoralized. But they would now be demoralized, at best less active in resisting; at worst. going over to the other side.
Churchill knew that his country’s leader had good intentions but that wasn’t enough. His analysis of British thinking applies well both to Europe, to President George Bush’s current policy, and very well to the thinking of Senator Barack Obama:
“The prime minister desires to see cordial relations between this country and Germany. There is no difficulty at all in having cordial relations between the peoples. Our hearts go out to them. But they have no power. But never will you have friendship with the present German government. You must have diplomatic and correct relations, but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which…vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy.”
Churchill understood that his nation’s enemies took their ideology seriously and that their ambitions and methods were incompatible with his country.
And finally, Churchill understood the trend: things will get worse and would even make it politically incorrect to criticize the enemy:
“In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the press, for it will be said--indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.”
In short, what could be called “Germanophobia” or seen as war-mongering in resisting German demands and aggression would be…verboten, something often seen in contemporary debates when political correctness trumps democratic society and pimps for dictatorial regimes and totalitarian ideology..
Churchill predicted victory but only if the free countries—and even some not so free whose interests pushed them to oppose the threat—were strong and cooperated:
“Do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
Wow. Well if you don’t see yet the parallelism with the current time let me continue on my own. Lebanon's brief period of independence has ended. Lebanon is now incorporated--at least in part and probably more in the future--into the Iranian bloc.
Only three years ago, after the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, almost certainly ordered at the highest level of the Syrian government, a popular mass movement called the Beirut spring helped push out the Syrian military. The resulting government was called "pro-Western" in the newscasts, but it might have well been called pro-Lebanon.
Forget about the Israel-Palestinian (and now Israel-Syrian) negotiations or the latest reports from Iraq or Afghanistan. What has happened in Lebanon is far more significant. When all these other developments are long forgotten, the expansion of the Syrian-Iranian zone of influence to Lebanon will be the most important and lasting event.
Basically, the supporters of the Lebanese government--the leadership of the majority of the Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Druze communities--capitulated to the demands of Hizballah. And who can blame them? With a steady drumbeat of terrorist acts and assassinations, with the Hizballah offensive seizing Sunni west Beirut, with the lack of support from the West, they concluded that the battle was unwinnable.
Politicians, intellectuals, academics, and officials in the West live comfortable lives. Their careers prosper often in direct relationship to their misunderstanding, misexplaining, and misacting in the Middle East.
Then, too, all too many of them have lived up to every negative stereotype the Islamists hold of them: greedy for oil and trade; cowardly in confronting aggression, easily fooled, very easily divided, and losing confidence in their own societies and civilization.
In a statement of almost incredible stupidity, the New York Times stated:
“Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with `terrorists and radicals’ to appeasers of the Nazis.”
During the Cold War, I remember that it was said that if a Soviet official or supporter began a statement like that—everyone knows—what followed invariably is a lie. So it is in this case. For several years, the main criticism of Bush has been his strategy of pressure and isolation on Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and assorted terrorists. There have been hundreds of op-eds, eds, speeches, reports, and other formats on this point. It is the administration’s number-one problem. Suddenly, it applies only to Senator Barack Obama. What rubbish.
Equally, the principle issue is not just one of contacts with extremist forces but how much toughness, pressure and isolation as opposed to concessions (of which negotiations are one) and compromises are offered. For example, there have been numerous ongoing contacts with Iran over the nuclear issue for years, supported by the Bush administration. They have all failed. For someone to come and say that negotiations have not been tried is pretty ridiculous. The hidden element there is really as follows:
--The real fault is with us, not them.
--You haven’t offered enough.
--And the assessment that no agreement is possible because of the other side’s aims and behavior is always unacceptable. This implies that even if you talk with them and get nowhere, you just have to keep listening to grievances, avoiding giving offense, trying, conceding, and apologizing.In this context, what better example could there be of this dangerous malady than Obama, the apparent Democratic nominee and possible future president of the United States?
According to Obama at an Oregon rally, Iran does not “pose a serious threat” to the United States. His reasoning is as disturbing—or more so—than his conclusion. Obama explained that Iran has less to spend on defense and if it “tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn’t . . . stand a chance.”
We can now feel secure that the Iranians won’t load their soldiers onto landing craft and storm the New Jersey beaches. Unfortunately, that isn’t their military strategy. Perhaps Obama doesn’t understand that the average B-1 bomber costs less than a suicide bomber. Has he heard about asymmetric warfare?
Forget that. Has he heard of terrorism, the Marine barracks’ bombing, or September 11?
According to Obama:
"Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. I mean if Iran tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. That doesn't, we might not compromise with them on any issues. But, at least we should find out are there areas of potential common interest and we can reduce some of the tension that have caused us so many problems around the world."
One cannot pretend away the implications of this paragraph. Let’s list them:
--No understanding that Iran follows strategies designed to circumvent that problem of unequal power including terrorism, guerrilla war, deniable attacks, long wars of attrition, the use of surrogates, and so on.
--The only way Obama sees for using the U.S. “position of strength” is to listen to their grievances, as if we are not familiar with them. In short, the only thing you can do when stronger is to get weaker. Presumably the same applies when you are the weaker party.
--Why is he so totally unaware that dialogue has been tried? A decade with the PLO, longer with Hizballah by other Lebanese, four straight years of European engagement with Tehran over the nuclear issue, multiple U.S. delegations to talk with the Syrians, and so on. Was nothing learned from this experience?
--And what happens afterward if Obama’s dialogue doesn’t work? What cards would he have left? What readiness to try another course? Perhaps by then the Iranians will have nuclear weapons and other gains negating that “position of strength” so fecklessly frittered away.
--What possible issues can the United States find to compromise with Iran? Let’s say: give them Lebanon (oh, we already did that); ignore their sponsorship of terrorism; give them Iraq; give them Israel; withdraw U.S. forces from the region, accept their having nuclear arms. What?
--Why should the United States be able to reduce tensions through negotiations when Iran wants tensions? There is an important hint here: if the United States makes concessions it might buy off tensions. Since Iran and the others know about Obama’s all-carrots-no-sticks worldview, they will make him pay a lot to get the illusion of peace and quiet.
--There is no hint, not the slightest, of his understanding the option of using power to intimidate or defeat Iran, or as a way to muster allies. If Obama had the most minimal comprehension of these issues, he would fake it with some blah-blah about how America would combine toughness with flexibility, deterrence with compromise, steadfastness in order to gain more from the other side in negotiations. A critical element in peace-keeping, peace-making, and negotiations is to act tough and be strong in order to have leverage. Even in responding to criticisms, Obama has only talked about whether negotiations are conditional or unconditional and at what level they should be conducted. He is oblivious to the fact that the chief executive does things other than negotiations.
--If this is Obama’s strategy while Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons what would he do in dealing with a Tehran owning them?
Make no mistake, Obama is channelling Neville Chamberlain—precisely because what he says shows his parallel thinking. Many people may get a chill listening to Obama but it certainly isn’t a Churchill. Apologists, sympathizers, and wishful-thinkers keep endowing this would-be emperor with beautiful suits of clothes. He doesn’t have any.
And at present, even more if Obama wins, the threat is of an Iran that’s aggressive precisely because it knows that it will not have to confront U.S. forces. Tehran knows that it can sponsor terrorism directly against U.S. forces in Iraq, and also against Israel and Lebanon, because that level of assault will not trigger American reaction.
Yet anyone who doesn’t want to get into war with Iran should be all the more eager to talk about sanctions, pressures, deterrence, building alliances and backing allies; in short, combating Iran indirectly to avoid having to confront it directly.
All the more so now, however, Syria won’t split away from Iran; Iran won’t give up on its nuclear program; Hamas won’t moderate; Hizballah won’t relent. Why should they when they not only believe their own ideologies but also think they are winning? In each case, too, they are banking on an Obama victory—whether accurately or otherwise-- to bring them even more.
A lot of positive factors could be cited to show why Iran and its allies will ultimately lose. But it can happen in an easier way or a harder, longer way. There are too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchills, perhaps none at all. Things are bad, very bad, for the West right now. The beginning of repairing those strategic fortunes is to recognize that fact.
[i] All quotes taken from the full text at http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1189.
Posted by Robert at May 24, 2008 2:38 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This author acts as if the West gave away Lebanon. The Lebanese gave away Lebanon, when they failed to resist the PLO. Even King Hussein of Jordan knew enough to kick them out. The Lebanese did not.
The situation is not nearly analagous with 1938. France, the US and many others have been fighting Islamic terrorism for more than four decades. What have MUSLIMS been doing?
Who among them has been a steadfast ally with the West, even when things got tough? Those that don't engage in terrorism make excuses for those that do. We battle people who are trying to kill them as well as us and all they can do is make noises about someone shooting a BOOK! They claim that we don't offer them enough support but what do they offer us?
All of their support is conditional on our bowing down to them. They can turn on us in a moment. They have before, and they will again. None of them have any right to claim the West doesn't stand by its allies.
Let's see now...
Yet anyone who doesn’t want to get into war with Iran should be all the more eager to talk about sanctions, pressures, deterrence, building alliances and backing allies; in short, combating Iran indirectly to avoid having to confront it directly.
The same kind of deterrence that "worked" with Saddam? We'll hear about the "suffering Iranian people", just as we heard about the "poor Iraqis" who were hurt by sanctions.
All those sanctions, resolutions, UN-mandated no-fly zones and the oil-for-food program netted one result: 9/11. Would New York have been bombed in 1993 or in 2001 had US soldiers not been in Saudi Arabia?
Those sanctions weren't very effective either. Just look at oil-for-food. Should we expect them to work any better in Iran?
Most likely we'll hear about "starving Iranians" and be required to institute yet another program. More bureaucracy, more expense, more betrayal.
Are Westerners prepared to deny all Iranians access to the West, or will we hear about our many "allies" in Iran who must be let out rather than isolated? That's what we're getting from Iraq. Translators who worked with the US must be allowed to emigrate, leaving Iraq more firmly in the hands of those who oppose us. Why did they join us in the first place if they didn't want a free Iraq? And if Iraqis want a free Iraq then why are they cutting and running? They blame US for doing that, but what about them? Iraq is their country, not ours.
Will we hear that we must interact with them in order to reform them? How many times will we fall for that line?
Are Iranians who want to see the end of this regime prepared to do whatever it takes to bring that about? NO! They tell us over and over that this type of action or that type of resistance will only drive Iranians into the arms of the terrorists. They're nationalistic, proud, etc. and any attempt to pressure or "humiliate" their leadership will only make them support it more firmly.
Then there's what's gone down in Iraq. If shooting a book or putting panties on someone's head is enough to drive Muslims into the arms of terrorists then the two were never that far apart anyway.
As for Czechoslovakia vs Lebanon, we never had to worry that the Czechs might feel "humiliated" when an allied army crossed their border and so rush into the arms of the Germans. That is the huge difference between 1938 and now. People think we could have changed things by supporting freedom-lovers. Well, we tried in Iran less than a decade after the Revolution and it nearly brought down an American president. The 'moderates' in Iran soon vanished.
The people of Lebanon, Iran, Gaza and just about every country run by "dictators" have to decide they are willing to fight them, even at the cost of their own lives. They have no right to expect Westerners to fight and die for them (and it will come to that, since all the indirect methods ever taken will always be circumvented in the interest of Islamic solidarity) when they are not willing to kill their oppressors, as long as those "oppressors" are Muslim.
Iran and Syria help their allies; the West doesn’t.
Iranian and Syrian allies are fellow totalitarians. Tyranny is always better organized than freedom. The West is told to be "sensitive" about the feelings of those it seeks to help.
God helps those who help themselves.
It's time for the Muslims who want to be free to help themselves.
This implies that even if you talk with them and get nowhere, you just have to keep listening to grievances, avoiding giving offense, trying, conceding, and apologizing.
As long as we have to worry about giving offense then it's time to let them sink or swim. We can't drive ourselves crazy hoping that every soldier looks the right way or that a latrine is facing the wrong direction or that a soldier's cross is hidden from view. Those who put such inane conditions on our help don't need it all that much.
God helps those who help themselves.
The best way we can help ourselves is to understand what we are facing and remove it from our midst. The same holds for all Muslim societies, Lebanon included. The day they decide that Islam is not above all criticism they will find many eager helpers. Granted there are a few Muslims who DO think like that but they are not prepared to fight to the end. If they aren't then why should we do their fighting for them? Let's just defend ourselves.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 24, 2008 4:00 PM
Obamameister is a lightweight, an empty suit singing in baritone.
He's in a dog and pony show
He cannot lead even that.
The socialists, the environmentalists, the appeasers and the conspiracists, the Bush derangement idiots - what a pack of losers.
Ronnie Reagan, Scoop Jackson, do we ever need thewe kind of guys again.
The American public is sharper than the jerks in the press think they are.
Posted by: dgene at May 24, 2008 4:12 PM
I guess that if now Hezhulla attacks Israel a full scale retaliation against all Lebanese infrastructure would be justified given that it could be interpreted as a government sponsored act with the support of the military. The wailings of the Lebanese president as well as the groups that have surrendered to intimidation should fall on deaf ears.
Things will probably remain calm until the election of Obama who will be considered weak and not ready to use force to back up his rhetoric. Expect Israel to be left on its own.
at May 24, 2008 4:21 PM
What I don't like about Bush is his excessive idealism, in waging war for an essentially quixotic goal of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. The remedy for Bush's stupid interventionism, however, is smart interventionism, as Barry Rubin outlines here, but I'm afraid we are just going to pick someone even more naive, who will practise stupid isolationism.
Actually, there is a common ground with the Mullahs: We can help them become martyrs.
at May 24, 2008 4:24 PM
Lebanon is a disaster. The US isn't directly responsible but in it wasting of resources in Iraq it has made this disaster possible. I also blame the Sunnis for letting Hezbollah use Israel as an excuse for its own coup in Lebanon.
I am surprised at how little serious commentary I have seen in the US press on this subject.
at May 24, 2008 5:16 PM
This will be the pattern of the Middle East. Hamas will not stop until they take completely control of Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood will eventually take over Egypt. Please remember these terrorist groups are being voted in by the Muslim civilians. "Moderate" Muslims are NOT coming to the rescue. We need to stop worrying about them so much and worrying more about ourselves.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
It's Only a Few.....That's What They Keep Telling us
Those that follow the worldwide problem of Islam, continually hear the popular "it's only a few" excuse by the Islamic apologists. Well, I beg to differ. Lets finally put that excuse to rest.
If it were only a "few", then how can these FACTS be explained?
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/05/its-only-fewthats-what-they-keep.html
at May 24, 2008 5:42 PM
This will be the pattern of the Middle East. Hamas will not stop until they take completely control of Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood will eventually take over Egypt. Please remember these terrorist groups are being voted in by the Muslim civilians. "Moderate" Muslims are NOT coming to the rescue. We need to stop worrying about them so much and worrying more about ourselves.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
It's Only a Few.....That's What They Keep Telling us
Those that follow the worldwide problem of Islam, continually hear the popular "it's only a few" excuse by the Islamic apologists. Well, I beg to differ. Lets finally put that excuse to rest.
If it were only a "few", then how can these FACTS be explained?
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/05/its-only-fewthats-what-they-keep.html
at May 24, 2008 5:47 PM
Sorry for the dupe. Please delete one.
Thank you.
at May 24, 2008 5:56 PM
ImNoDhimmi,
Thank you for the kind words.
PMK
at May 24, 2008 9:49 PM
PMK said:
"All those sanctions, resolutions, UN-mandated no-fly zones and the oil-for-food program netted one result: 9/11. Would New York have been bombed in 1993 or in 2001 had US soldiers not been in Saudi Arabia?"
You make some good points ... but this one sounds like Chamberlin doing some Monday morning quarterbacking.
I agree with you, however, that the Lebanese have destroyed themselves, not the West. Their hospitality in taking in Palestinian refugees gave way to a state-within-a-state that has now taken over. Their system of religious power sharing in government and parliament was doomed to self-destruct by virtue of demographic trends and their perpetual lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis Syria's influence.
Being of Lebanese origin and having ancestors driven out of that country by the Druze over a hundred years ago -- this is worse than lamentable. But the date Robert refers to (21 May) is just one date ... there will be more. The "Cedar Revolution", just a few years ago, is ancient history.
Out.
Posted by: blues4allah at May 24, 2008 10:29 PM
blues4allah,
I make that point only because it was osama's point. He wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Why were we in Saudi Arabia? Because of Saddam.
Would Saudi or American leaders have even contemplated stationing soldiers there otherwise?
There's no Monday morning quarterbacking here.
Osama let us know his grievances all through the 1990s. It's the primary reason I would leave the entire Muslim Middle East to fend for itself. There's no pleasing them.
at May 24, 2008 10:45 PM
blues4allah,
A postscript.
Saddam is gone and we're out of SA. Case closed.
at May 24, 2008 10:49 PM
Rubin makes good points. Hezbollah is acting its part as the Lebanese Hamas. What we are seeing in Lebanon today is a slow-motion version of Hamas' Gaza coup last summer. Furthermore, it is clear that the Lebanese government got hammered last week. I think it is ridiculous that an Administration official said that the deal was a "necessary and positive step." The Lebanese government essentially ceded sovereignty over the southern half of its territory, and may soon lose the rest as well.
I hope that we can get away from these discussions about whether the West or the Lebanese are to blame. The fact is, the West and Lebanese are on the same team, and there are measures that both must take to save Lebanon from another catastrophe.
But the international political environment has changed a bit since Munich, and I am not sure this is a problem with a military solution. Western Europe fell to Hitler because it fought one war too few, but that's not what happened to the Soviets. If anything, the Soviets fell because they fought one war too many in Afghanistan, which precipitated a financial crisis that proved fatal.
We should have no illusions about the inhumanity and brutality of the radical Jihadis. But I would also like to point out that during World War Two, we did not arrest Germans in the street, and hence were not guilty of "Germanophobia." We did display "Nazophobia" in arresting Nazis on the street--and we were right to do so. If today Americans are to gain "freedom from fear", we should ensure that we target only radical Jihadis, and not the moderate Muslims (or as Jihad Watchers like to say, the "less religious Muslims"). We should not be arresting Arabs because they come from a current enemy area, any more than it was right to arrest Germans because their country had gone fascist.
Which brings us to Mr. Rubin's remarks on Obama:
1. "The only way Obama sees for using the U.S. “position of strength” is to listen to their grievances, as if we are not familiar with them. In short, the only thing you can do when stronger is to get weaker. Presumably the same applies when you are the weaker party."
How does negotiating on "areas of potential common interest" make us weaker? When we negotiated with Mao, we were well aware of his opposition to the "capitalist running dogs". But we ended up with a major foreign policy coup, with greater ramifications than we could have expected from a military offensive. I know there are issues between the U.S. and China, but if China were as militantly anti-American today as 40 years ago, we'd need to invest in bomb shelters. Why can't the same happen here?
2. "And what happens afterward if Obama’s dialogue doesn’t work? What cards would he have left? What readiness to try another course?"
Let's say negotiations failed. What did we lose by trying? We're in precisely the same position as today. But as we see from Nixon in China, negotiation is not a tool we should take out of the toolbox a la the "we won't negotiate with terrorists" mantra.
3. "Even in responding to criticisms, Obama has only talked about whether negotiations are conditional or unconditional and at what level they should be conducted. He is oblivious to the fact that the chief executive does things other than negotiations."
This is simply untrue. About a year ago, during a presidential debate, Obama pointed out how Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was not doing enough to fight the Taliban in Bashtunistan. He then declared “If Musharraf does strike imminent terrorist threats, we will!” All the Democratic candidates jumped on him immediately, but he stuck to his guns. And he was right.
at May 24, 2008 11:04 PM
Well, well, well, Lebanon has fallen to Hamas.
What are our chances of surviving this War?
We have a Commander In Chief without even the most rudimentary understanding of Islam's history, the life of Muhammad, the violence, conquests, supremacism and doctrines. What information he does have comes from John Esposito and Reza Aslan, according to our esteemed Mr. Spencer.
No one at the Department of State is allowed to utter any words which might link acts of Muslim violence against non-Muslims to Islam. That is absolutely Orwellian.
Not one of the current presidential candidates has, in my humble opinion, the intellectual wherewithal or world view to grasp what we are up against - a multi-faceted World War against Western Civilization that is driven by Sharia and Koranic doctrine.
We have an American Press Corps which is so far into the liberal multi-culture tank that it does not even acknowledge there is a world-wide jihad in progress. No one among the Press queries the presidential candidates about their understandings of Islam, Sharia, Islamic doctrine, Islamic history, jihad or anything thereto related. It is like the jihad problem does not even exist. Questioning is insipidly framed within the context of the "War In Iraq", or the "War In Afghanistan."
Ergo we have an American Public that, SEVEN YEARS into this World War, remains largely unable to understand or define who it is that is attacking us, how we are being attacked every day by incremental demands to accomodate Sharia, and why.
We are in some deep trouble here.
Posted by: INFIDELATLARGE at May 24, 2008 11:13 PM
Instead there was a lack “of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong….” Actually, though, as Churchill knew, when he spoke these faults were still not corrected. The folly continued.
The price for lack of foresight is failure. Lebanon fell to Hezbollah, in fact to Syria and Iran, because of this failure in foresight. Now we must pay the price for our lack of due diligence. They are the victors, so we must now dance to their tune, however unpleasant that will be. We failed in our vigilance, and this is where it goes. The price is high. Lebanon is lost. This is folly of multiculturalism, a failed philosophy. How many must die as the tanks and bombs of Jihad roll on? Why is our leadership so inept? Too busy changing words in their vocabulary to name and face the enemy? An enemy that must not be named? No optimism on Lebanon. Israel better watch its back. The Cult of Allah is on the march.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 25, 2008 12:54 AM
Caroline Glick has another perspective in her article "Assad's week of triumph". http://www.carolineglick.com/e/
A Western Churchill should have come from Israel, but Olmert is another Chamberlain, or worse. Britain was able to replace Chamberlain, but according to Glick, Israel cannot rid themselves of this guy. And that is too bad for Israel as well as the US. He might as well be on the Iranian general staff.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at May 25, 2008 1:32 AM
Sorry for digressing, but we shouldn't make the comparison as a Churchill vs Chamberlain thing. Poor Chamberlain didn't have much choice. The Brit armed forces were in a woeful state in the late 30s. Britain was arming feverishly but still didn't have adequate fighters, bombers, even a halfway decent squad machine gun. The Spitfires, Wellingtons, Bren guns etc were still in the factories or on the drawing boards. Radar had barely been invented but Chamberlain had given it the go ahead (Churchill scoffed at radar and wanted listening stations instead. Radar won the Battle of Britain). So if Chamberlain had to kowtow to Hitler at Munich, he had some reasons. The "Peace in our time" statement was the real disaster for the poor guy.
As for the politicians buckling to Islamic fascists, that's dhimmitude, or political correctness gone mad. And exploited to the hilt by the jihadis.
at May 25, 2008 7:06 AM
Obama's White Flag is a powerful negotiating tool Supported by a Body Guard of well documented opinion that Surrender is Victory..
For some reason, my inverted cup holds no coffee. For some reason, the flow from the pot will not defy Gravity.
Dialog- the Fruitless expenditure of hot air upon those deaf in the Ear.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 25, 2008 7:36 AM
shlomo_Michael,
The fact is, the West and Lebanese are on the same team, and there are measures that both must take to save Lebanon from another catastrophe.
Tell THEM that. There are no steps that the West MUST take that can save Lebanon from itself. It was once a majority Christian country, which made it a natural ally to the West. Those days are gone. A combination of Muslim propagation and Christian emigration makes Lebanon less friendly to the West. Nothing we can do, short of embracing Islam, will change that. Only the Lebanese can decide what they want for their own country. If the people of Lebanon don't want to be ruled by Hezbollah, they are going to have to do the dirty work. No one else can do it for them. If they would rather be ruled by Hezbollah than kill fellow Muslims, it's their problem.
during World War Two, we did not arrest Germans in the street, and hence were not guilty of "Germanophobia."
We also didn't have the level of travel between the two countries that exists between us and all Muslim countries. We didn't have the communications networks that made it possible for people to connect with one another. We had strict immigration quotas and they were enforced. An ocean and half a continent separated us from Germany and travel was expensive, slow and cumbersome. Once the war started, almost no one got in. German-Americans were regarded with suspicion, if not fear. The German-American community didn't make a show of separation from other Americans. Many hid their Germanic origins, owing to American attitudes after WWI. They did their best to merge with the native population.
How does negotiating on "areas of potential common interest" make us weaker?
By diverting our attention. We may have common interests but that doesn't obviate their desire to kill us or convert us. They aren't interested in peaceful coexistence. It allows them to continue their own buildup of forces (military or otherwise) while we work for "peace in our time". If we allow ourselves to get sidetracked we may end up unable to fight back when the time comes.
I know there are issues between the U.S. and China, but if China were as militantly anti-American today as 40 years ago, we'd need to invest in bomb shelters.
China isn't seeking our elimination. Forty years ago it had a greater adversary sitting on its border: the USSR. China doesn't have to be anti-American to pose a threat to our freedom and prosperity. It can threaten our allies and it does. Look at Taiwan. China is facilitating the transfer of technology to Iran. There are many ways to harm the US without launching ICBMs.
Let's say negotiations failed. What did we lose by trying? We're in precisely the same position as today.
Most likely we're in a worse position. That is because we wasted valuable time jawboning and hoping for peace while our adversary was strengthening its own position. It's been said that Chamberlain's negotiations with Hitler strengthened Hitler in the eyes of the German people and also made it acceptable for others to do business with the Nazis. It also discouraged elements of the German army, which had been plotting Hitler's assassination. They were undercut by Chamberlain. How many lives were lost?
It's hindsight, of course but how else are we to learn but by examining our past and trying to discern where we went wrong? Unless and until we learn those lessons we are condemned to repeat them.
at May 25, 2008 10:12 AM
Negotiate what?
Hezbollah controlled Lebanon has nothing to offer, not even hudna, so what is there to negotiate with them? To keep them from attacking Israel? To keep them from advancing their evil cult Jihad? To keep them from sending suicide bombers, children included? No on all counts. They have nothing to offer us, and any negotiations would be advancing their agenda. Neither the West nor Israel can afford to play into their agenda of coercive violence and supremacist domination to reclaim all the territories of the Middle East for Allah. There is no room for negotiations with such a war cult pariah whose only agenda is our surrender.
To negotiate the other party must show reason. The only 'reason' Hezbollah has shown is aggressive power grabbing. All they do is in the name of their evil god Allah, including using human shields of women and children in their attack positions. There can be no negotiations with such low life cultists. There is no reason to negotiate with such a violent coercive cult.
If faced with a pariah dog, there is only one course of action. Negotiations is not it.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 25, 2008 10:43 AM
"How does negotiating on "areas of potential common interest" make us weaker? "
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael
throughout Muslim history negotiations with Muslims did not necessarily make the negotiators weaker, only deader..
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 25, 2008 3:17 PM
PMK: "[i]How does negotiating on "areas of potential common interest" make us weaker?[/i]
By diverting our attention. We may have common interests but that doesn't obviate their desire to kill us or convert us. They aren't interested in peaceful coexistence. It allows them to continue their own buildup of forces (military or otherwise) while we work for "peace in our time". If we allow ourselves to get sidetracked we may end up unable to fight back when the time comes."
>>>>
The same applies to Iran as well.
--"By diverting our attention."
Iran's attention is diverted from terrorizing the civilian population, which explains why Iranian dissidents consistently oppose sanctions. By negotiating, we give more space for Iranian dissidents and weaken the Islamists from the inside out. On the other hand, we do not have to worry about democracy's collapse from the inside out due to negotiating. Therefore, if we negotiate, we may actually have an a priori advantage.
--"We may have common interests but that doesn't obviate their desire to kill us or convert us."
We have common interests with Iran, but we still obviously want to see a different government there. Government officials also have to cope with that threat while they negotiate, and as I've described above, they may be less suited to handle it.
--"It allows them to continue their own buildup of forces (military or otherwise) while we work for "peace in our time"."
The U.S. can continue to perfect its counterinsurgency strategies and weaponry while it engages in negotiations, just as Iran can continue its buildup.
But again, we need to be careful with cutting and pasting the lessons of Munich onto U.S.-Iran negotiations seventy years later. As PMK himself points out, technologies are very different today, and the tactics of terrorists in 2008 are not the same as Nazis in 1938. Nor can they be, because of the following important difference: Nazi Germany was an economic powerhouse, while Iran's economy is far inferior to the America's.
During the 1930's, German economic growth was the fastest in Europe and perhaps the world. Therefore, time was not on the Allies' side, and they should have fought sooner rather than allow a further buildup. Are we honestly worried about an economic race with Iran? We would win, in a landslide.
The dynamics are different between then and now in other ways. In 1938, the nature of military technologies meant that whoever could win an arms race (heavily dependent on economics) would win a war. While there is still a connection between Iran's capacity for terror and its total supply of arms, the link is not as sure as in 1938.
One of the strongest linkages is the weapons shipments from Iran--> Shia' Iraq --> Syria --> Lebanon +Gaza. That's why Israeli and Syrian officials are meeting in Damasqus right now. If Israel can get Syria to close off this spigot, it will be much safer giving up territory that is "strategic" when you worry about Syria invading, but not when you worry about Hamas bombings. If the deal in Lebanon reduces the linkage between Syria and Lebanon, as some people hope (wrongly I think), that will also help. But the linkage between Syria and Lebanon is not an issue if Syria stops subversive activities. At least, that is the logic of the Israeli negotiators, and if anyone understands terrorism's dangers it's Israelis.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at May 25, 2008 7:11 PM
“But the linkage between Syria and Lebanon is not an issue if Syria stops subversive activities.”
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael
Do you think Hezbollah are incompetent idiots, Shlomo?
Why would ANYONE, because of “dialogue” no matter how erudite, cease “subversive activities” -
WHEN THEY ARE WINNING!
Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 26, 2008 1:50 AM
Dave,
Israel is not negotiating with Hezbollah. It is negotiating with Syria, because Syria is channeling weapons to Hezbollah. If these shipments were stopped, Hezbollah's militia would lose ground, regardless of whether or not they were "winning".
My main point here is that Syria is not "winning". Any Israeli tourist can hike up to the Golan, and point a gun at Syria's capital city. This is hardly a "winning" equation for Syria. The Assads know that the IDF could send hundreds of troops to their doorstep at a moment's notice.
Returning the Golan Heights would reduce this risk for Syria, but would not introduce a commensurate risk for Israel. If Syrian troops tried to invade, they would be squashed. This is well established, because it's been tried already, when Syria did control the Golan.
Right now, Israel has more to fear from terrorism than from the conquering armies of fossilized Ba'thist dictators. If a deal could be worked out that would stop weapons shipments to Hamas and Hezbullah, it would be well worth giving up the Golan.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at May 26, 2008 11:42 AM
“Israel is not negotiating with Hezbollah. It is negotiating with Syria…”
Aye shlomo, but that is a distinction without a difference.
An Israeli withdrawal from Golan would win the peace just as swimmingly as the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has.
Keep doing the same things, in the same way, over and over – then, oh how you’ll marvel that the results are the same!
at May 26, 2008 1:42 PM
'shlomo'
you need to lose some illusions, re the matter of negotiating with Muslims.
IF you are in fact Jewish, I urge you - if you have not already done so - to read Bat Yeor, "The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam".
Pay particular attention to the original documents it includes, from the Levant, from Persia, from everywhere else within the Empire of Islam, that record 13 ghastly centuries of withering contempt, exploitation, bullying, a thousand petty humiliations, robbery, rape, kidnapping, forced removals, child abductions, forced conversions, and periodical mass murder, endured by Jewish dhimmi communities under Muslim overlords who can only be described as drunk on a mindless and sadistic supremacism.
I think it may be only the fact that humans can grow weary in evil doing, unable to consistently obey always and everywhere those ruthless doctrines, that they frequently chose to keep people alive in order to profit from them, rather than killing them outright, that may have permitted those beleaguered and oppressed Jewish communities in dar al-Islam, to survive.
Moshe Gil's 'Legacy of Jihad in Palestine', and the chapters, in James Parkes' overview, 'Whose Land?', on the destruction caused by Muslim invasions and occupation of eretz Israel, complement Bat Yeor quite nicely.
The early medieval Jews whose writings were preserved in the Cairo Geniza even added a whole new word to the Hebrew lexicon, to describe the baseless and inveterate hatred with which the Muslims regarded them.
Reflect on the attitude summed up in this terrifying line from a Sufi Muslim 'saint' and poet, Sirhindi, in India (d. 1621):
'every time a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam'.
Furthermore, you must get, and read, as soon as possible, Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism" - and in the name of G-d, believe him!
It is absolutely futile to even try to negotiate with people, and polities, whose whole mindset toward you may be summed up by two terrible phrases - 'Itbah al-Yahood!' (Kill the Jews!) and 'The Jews are our dogs!".
Add to that the complete absence of any real recognition of the Golden Rule by Islam (mercy applies only to fellow Muslims, NOT to Infidels), the permission to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam ('advancing Islam' means, in practice, that Muslims domineer over and rule non-Muslims), and the sacralised example of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, and one is forced to the bleak conclusion that NO Infidel person or polity, least of all the Jewish state of Israel, should even bother negotiating with a Muslim polity, in the first place.
If one has something to tell them, it should be said from a position of clear advantage, while emphasising that no part of that advantage will ever be relinquished, not one inch of Infidel ground given up; and that all cheating, lying, whingeing, whining, insults and aggression, from the Muslim side, will be met with devastating force.
Look up Orde Wingate.
Yet again, I commend to the IDF - and to the leaders and armed forces and law enforcers of all Infidel lands that are now troubled by the amoral supremacism and violence of the Jihad - the words of Winston Churchill, on what happens when Civilisation meets Islamic barbarity:
"No terms but fight or death were offered. No reparation or apology could be made. . . The red light of retribution played on the bayonets and the lances, and civilization—elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise—here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness, and rejecting all other courses, offered only the arbitration of the sword."
Sir Winston Churchill - The River Wars.
at May 27, 2008 12:46 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)