Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

The History Explains A Lot

Obviously there will be a lot of refugees from the war in the Gaza Strip. The infrastructure has been destroyed and peoples’ homes have been destroyed. So why are the other Arab nations in the area unwilling to take in the Palestinian refugees?  The history of the refugees explains a lot. Understand that the refugee problem began in 1948 when Arabs who were living peacefully in Israel were told that if they left their homes to fight Israel they would get their land back plus land owned by the Jews who would be ‘driven into the sea.’ Well, it didn’t work out that way. The refugee problem was further exacerbated in 1967 when Israel reclaimed more of the land it had been promised in agreements with the League of Nations.

On Sunday, Townhall posted an article that explains some of the reasons the neighboring Arab countries are unwilling to take in the refugees from the Gaza Strip.

The article notes:

As the Left rages against Israel, hurling antisemitic slurs and chanting for more Jews to die, some might want to consider why the civilians have nowhere to go. Okay, maybe these folks do know but don’t care, but liberals are historically illiterate, so who knows? It goes beyond geography. The Palestinians bring trouble and have a long, sordid history of fomenting mayhem and terrorism in other Arab nations. 

…Egypt is the logical destination for these Palestinians, but Cairo doesn’t want them, and for good reason: terrorism. The border crossing at Rafah remains closed, with tanks now deployed to ensure their border is secure. Egypt’s prime minister even said his country is willing to sacrifice millions to ensure no Palestinians ever enter Egypt en masse (via WSJ):

The article concludes:

If Hamas and the Palestinians aren’t freely moving into Egypt, they’ll be okay with it. Also, Israel has resisted ceasefires and has continued to chip away at the terror group’s infrastructure in Gaza, but a humanitarian crisis could still emerge. 

As the tweet above mentioned, the Palestinians tried to take over Jordan in the 1970s, leading to the late King Hussein declaring war on them and driving them out. They were booted from Kuwait after collaborating with Saddam Hussein’s forces before the Gulf War. They set off a powder keg in Lebanon, a nation that has yet to recover from its brutal civil war that lasted 15 years. No Arab country wants these people because they bring instability and trouble. They’re not importing terrorism; that’s what we’re doing wholesale.

What country wants to import a bunch of dedicated terrorists?

Lying Is Not Acceptable

The idea that we are all Americans working together for the good of our country has somehow been lost in recent years. We have lost our identity as a nation and are sacrificing the lives of our military as a result. Regardless of how you felt (or feel) about the war in Iraq (or realize that one of the main reasons we went into that war was to salvage the UN peace deal that had been worked out with Saddam Hussein), leaving the war the way we did caused problems. What has come to light in the past few days is the fact that the Obama Administration has been lying to Americans about the progress made against ISIS since we left Iraq after the war.

Yesterday Fox News posted a story about the findings of a House Republican task force regarding what Americans have been told about ISIS.

The article reports:

Intelligence reports produced by U.S. Central Command that tracked the Islamic State’s 2014-15 rise in Iraq and Syria were skewed to present a rosier picture of the situation on the ground, according to a bombshell report released Thursday by a House Republican task force. 

The task force investigated a Defense Department whistleblower’s allegations that higher-ups manipulated analysts’ findings to make the campaign against ISIS appear more successful to the American public. 

The report concluded that intelligence reports from Central Command were, in fact, “inconsistent with the judgments of many senior, career analysts.”

Further, the report found, “these products also consistently described U.S. actions in a more positive light than other assessments from the [intelligence community] and were typically more optimistic than actual events warranted.” 

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who was involved in the House report, said Thursday the data was clearly “manipulated.”

“They wanted to tell a story that ISIS was the JV, that we had Al Qaeda on the run,” he told Fox News. “This is incredibly dangerous. We haven’t seen this kind of manipulation of intelligence … in an awfully long time.” 

Those of us with family members in the military need to remember this when we vote in November. For whatever reason, the Democrats record on military issues–defense spending, military benefits, VA hospitals, etc.–is horrendous. If you want the American military to remain strong, you have no alternative but to vote Republican.

About That Last Republican Debate

I will confess that I did not watch the entire Republican debate. I don’t deal well with cage fights. However, I did see the part of the debate where Donald Trump attacked Jeb Bush for the actions of George W. Bush in Iraq. Aside from the fact that it was totally tacky to attack George Bush on his brother’s record, all of the charges made were simply false.

Donald Trump seems to have forgotten that there were a number of reasons why we went into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was consistently violating a United Nations established no-fly zone–therefore, the credibility of the UN was at stake (I would just as soon get rid of the UN, but that was the situation). Saddam Hussein had already used poison gas on the Kurds (WMD). Saddam Hussein had previously fought with Iran and invaded Kuwait, and was not a stabilizing force in the region, and Saddam Hussein was training terrorists (google the airliner frame that was used to practice hijackings).

In 2006, Fox News posted a story about the discovery of WMD’s in Iraq. The Bush White House decided not to make a big deal of the discovery. I think this was a mistake, but you can follow the link to read the article.

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article that sheds some light on the fact that we were not ready for 9/11.

Some excerpts from The Washington Times article:

As Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump hammers away at former President George W. Bush for not stopping the September 11 attacks, another factor could be added to the debate: Mr. Bush inherited from Bill Clinton an intelligence community in terrible shape.

This fact comes not from a Republican partisan but from George Tenet, President Clinton’s CIA director, a post that at the time made him the country’s top intelligence officer.

…In addition to Mr. Tenet’s book, other intelligence sources have told The Washington Times that the CIA in the 1990s dramatic cut the number of case officers — the people who recruit spies — from 1,600 to 1,200. The CIA closed operating bases, even the one in Hamburg, Germany, where September 11 Islamists plotted the attack. The NSA, the nation’s listening post, was not keeping up with the Internet revolution and was stymied at times by cell phone technology.

Mr. Bush reversed that trend by pouring billions of dollars into the CIA to hire new officers and into the NSA to set up new technology development units.

Mr. Tenet wrote that he personally asked President Clinton for billions more, but received no increase.

…“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?” Trump said Saturday at a debate in South Carolina.  “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.”

With that line, Mr. Trump is picking up the slogans of the left wing which said, “Bush lied, troops died.”

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a special blue-ribbon panel looked into the claim, and both unanimously concluded the WMD finding was solely the product of the intelligence community, free of White House interference. Neither Mr. Bush nor the CIA lied, the panels said.

So I have a few questions about this attack. Why was Donald Trump spouting Democratic talking points? He also failed to mention that because of the actions of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, President Bush was not able to put his security team in place in a timely manner–his election was declared later than usual and he was delayed in putting his people in place. Donald Trump also failed to mention that Iraq was on its way to being a stable ally before President Obama prematurely withdrew his troops.

I am not a supporter of Jeb Bush, and I believe that his response to this attack was totally ineffective, but the attack was totally out of line and inappropriate. If I were a supporter of Donald Trump (which I am not) his actions during this debate would cause me to reconsider.

Sometimes You Just Wonder About Motives

American Military News reported on Wednesday that the U.S. government suppressed information on chemical weapons found in Iraq.

The article cites a CNN story:

The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.

In an article published late Tuesday, the newspaper says it found 17 American servicemembers and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to mustard or nerve agents after 2003. They were reportedly given inadequate care and told not to talk about what happened.

The article further reports:

According to new reports from the New York Times, between 2003 and 2011 U.S. troops were exposed to Chemical weapons in Iraq regularly, and on 6 occasions were injured by them.

 All in all 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq dating back to the Saddam Hussein regime. Many of these warheads were made in close conjunction with western nations.

I don’t mention this to bring it up as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. I bring it up to remind people that our government has not always been truthful with us. As far as the invasion of Iraq is concerned, we need to remember the situation at the time–the Iraqi government was violating a United Nations no-fly zone and other conditions of the United Nations agreement signed after Iraq invaded Kuwait. If we wanted the United Nations to survive, we had to deal with Iraq. I personally would not miss the United Nations, but that was the situation at the time. We also need to remember that the Democratic party supported the invasion of Iraq at the beginning and later used the war as a political issue. The war in Iraq is another example of politicians interfering in ways that are unhelpful in military situations.

Is There A Realist In The House?

While I sit here in North Carolina enjoying the beautiful weather, the Middle East is falling apart. There are three articles in today’s Wall Street Journal that cause me to wonder about the future of the Middle East and the future of America.

The first article, entitled, “Sunni Tribes in Iraq Divided Over Battle Against Islamic State” deals with the problem of tribalism in Iraq. Many Iraqis oppose ISIS. They understand that ISIS is not who they want running their country. They are willing to fight ISIS–right up to the point where as Sunnis they are asked to fight with Shiites. Some Sunnis support the Islamic State being created by ISIS. Many do not. It is very difficult to fight an ISIS takeover of Iraq when all Iraqis do not oppose such a takeover.

The second article, entitled, “Islamic State Gains New Leverage in Syria” deals with the ISIS capture of Palmyra in Syria. Palmyra, home to many archaeological treasures, is now in the hands of a group that has destroyed many archaeological treasures in the past.

The article reports:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition group that monitors the conflict via a network of activists inside the country, said that following Palmyra’s fall on Thursday that Islamic State now controls half of the country, including most of its oil fields. The crude provides a steady stream of revenue.

The third article (actually an editorial), entitled “I Don’t Think We’re Losing” deals with President Obama’s recent statement after the fall of Ramadi in Iraq. What does losing look like according to the President?

The article reports:

It’s also worth mulling over Mr. Obama’s claim that he always “anticipated” this would be “a multiyear campaign.” This is the same President who criticized George W. Bush for conducting endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan and vowing to end it in both places. The Iraqi city of Mosul fell last June, Mr. Obama laid out his anti-ISIS strategy in September, and eight months later he promises years of more American commitment to Iraq.

At least Mr. Bush, for all his mistakes after the fall of Saddam Hussein, ordered a change of strategy that left Iraq stable by the time Mr. Obama took office. On present trend Mr. Obama’s Cool Hand Luke generalship will leave his successor an Iraq in turmoil and a mini-caliphate entrenched across hundreds of miles. If this isn’t “losing,” how does the President define victory?

I don’t have the answer to the problems in the Middle East (and the rise of ISIS). However, I do know that there are some very good leaders in our military who do have answers. I question whether or not they are currently being listened to. I do not support ground troops, but also do not support standing idly by as innocent civilians are being killed or forced to flee with only the clothes on their backs. We said ‘never again’ after the holocaust killed millions of Jews. This is our ‘never again.’ ISIS is killing both Jews (if there are any remaining in the Middle East outside of Israel) and Christians. I believe God will hold us accountable for our inaction.

Rewriting History To Help An Election Campaign

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article entitled, “Stop It Liberals: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs.” Please follow the link to read the article, I am simply going to focus on the reason this is important.

The seemingly only candidate the Democrats have right now is Hillary Clinton. She has some basic scandal problems. If the media can get the focus off of Hillary Clinton’s scandals and back to Bush Derangement Syndrome, they can tell people that a Republican President is not a good idea–without talking about Hillary or her scandals (or qualifications).

There was much more to the Iraq War than WMDs. Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review yesterday talking about the reasons for invading Iraq. Please follow the link and read it–it is extremely insightful.

Like it or not, the 2016 Presidential Campaign is upon us. The press has been given its marching orders and is dutifully following them. Unless Americans begin to look past what the mainstream media is telling us, we will have another President who does not believe in the basic tenets that America was founded on. It is our choice. That is the reason the articles at the Daily Caller and National Review about the invasion of Iraq are important.

 

Removed From The Terrorist Threat List

I am not sure how a group goes about getting removed from the Terrorist Threat List put out by the National Intelligence Agency, but Iran and Hezbollah have done it.

The Times of Israel reported yesterday:

An annual report delivered recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports.

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.

Iran has been funding terrorism in the Middle East since the 1978 revolution. They have provided IED’s to Iraq and Afghanistan, killing and maiming American troops. Hezbollah has never made any secret of the fact that they are terrorists.

The National Intelligence report states:

We believe that this results from a combination of diplomatic interests (the United States’ talks with Iran about a nuclear deal) with the idea that Iran could assist in the battle against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and maybe even in the battle against jihadist terrorism in other countries,” the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center said in an analysis of the report (Hebrew PDF). It also noted the Iran and Hezbollah were both listed as terrorism threats in the assessment of another American body, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and Lebanese Hezbollah are instruments of Iran’s foreign policy and its ability to project power in Iraq, Syria, and beyond,” that assessment, also submitted to the Senate of February 26, said in its section on terrorism. “Hezbollah continues to support the Syrian regime, pro-regime militants and Iraqi Shia militants in Syria. Hezbollah trainers and advisors in Iraq assist Iranian and Iraqi Shia militias fighting Sunni extremists there. Select Iraqi Shia militant groups also warned of their willingness to fight US forces returning to Iraq.”

Israel, as well as Sunni allies of the US, has often warned that Iran, through Hezbollah and other proxies, has been sowing instability in the region. An escalating dispute between Jerusalem and Washington over the terms of an eventual agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has seen Israeli official rail against the relatively conciliatory tone adopted by US officials toward Iran, in light of the shared interest in combating the Islamic State.

When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

The Purpose Of This Post Is To Stop The Constant Rewriting Of History On This Matter

There are a lot of Americans who believe that President George W. Bush lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in order to get America into a war with Iraq. That is not only not true–to believe it may be dangerous for America’s future.

On February 8, Lawrence H. Silberman posted an article at the Wall Street Journal explaining why this misconception is dangerous for the future of America.

Mr. Silberman writes:

In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.

Please read the entire article to understand the dangers of letting this lie go unchecked.

Meanwhile, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday providing more information on the subject. Mr. Hinderaker cites a New York Times article from February 15th which stated the following:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

Defending America and American allies should not be a partisan matter. Unfortunately, there are those in Washington who have chosen to make it so. The fact that some Democrats are boycotting the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a disgrace. Israel (and Prime Minister Netanyahu) have a history of successfully dealing with terrorism and of understanding how it works. Israel is willing to share that knowledge. America needs to listen.

What Coalition?

The Hill is reporting today that Turkey has stated that it will not allow the United States to use its military bases in Turkey as operational bases against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The article reports:

National security adviser Susan Rice said Sunday on NBC that Turkey agreed to let the U.S. use its bases and territory, including the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, to train moderate Syrian rebels.

“That’s the new commitment, and one that we very much welcome,” she said.

However, on Monday, Turkish officials denied reaching such a deal, according to local media reports that said both sides were continuing to discuss the use of the military bases and Turkey’s airspace.

Turkey does not want the United States doing anything that will strengthen Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. Turkey also does not want anything to happen in the area that will strengthen the Kurds.

The awkward situation regarding Turkey, a supposed United States ally, illustrates the complexity of meddling in the Middle East. Every country where America has toppled a tyrannical dictator has disintegrated into chaos. Our ‘good deeds’ have resulted in people dying and an increase in Christian persecution. Oddly enough, I am not including the ousting of Saddam Hussein in this statement. The problem with Saddam Hussein is that had he been left in place, the United Nations would have been totally destroyed. As much as I would not object to the end of the United Nations, it is the world umpire we are currently dealing with and Saddam Hussein was thumbing his nose at the United Nations on a regular basis. Saddam Hussein had violated every condition of the peace treaty signed after the first Gulf War and he needed to be reminded that his behavior was unacceptable.

It is time to put an adviser in the White House that has some understanding of the Middle East. Right now we seem to be lacking that expertise.

 

Looking Past The Present

Various news outlets are reporting that America is considering a political alliance with Iran in order to bring stability to the situation in Iraq. While that might work in the short term, there is no way it makes sense if you consider the history of the region and the recent history of Iraq.

Fox News posted a story yesterday reminding us of some of that history. The past problems between Iran and Iraq were based on the Sunni Shiite conflict within Islam. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, the rulers of Iran (after 1978) were Shiites. The Iran-Iraq war was started in 1980 by Saddam Hussein. It was ended by a United Nations resolution in 1988. As a point of interest, that eight-year war is responsible for the fact that as of 2013 almost 90 percent of Iran’s population is under the age of 55. Almost 25 percent is under the age of 25. In America, almost 75 percent of the population is under the age of 55, and about 33 percent is under the age of 25.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the current Prime Minister of Iraq is a Shiite. Almost immediately after taking office, he formed an alliance with Iran. He also persecuted Sunnis. Al-Maliki’s persecution of Sunnis and Iran’s destabilization of Iraq during al-Maliki’s rule have brought us to where we are now. They have created this mess, why are they offering to stabilize it?

The article at Fox News reminds us:

As reported by the Free Beacon, the report warned that Iran was working against U.S. goals in Iraq, by boosting Shiite militia groups — sectarian tensions are part of what allowed the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to gain ground in the country’s north. The State Department report specifically said Iranian forces were working with Hezbollah to provide advisers in Iraq for Shiite militants “in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.” 

Further, the report said Iran has “remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al Qaeda (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.”

The reason Iran is willing to help us ‘stabilize’ Iraq is that Iran believes a stable Iraq will be a step forward in forming a regional caliphate. The plan is to include Iran, Iraq, Syria, and part of Saudi Arabia in that caliphate. Eventual plans include the region (later the world), but for now, Iran wants Iraq, Syria, and part of Saudi Arabia.

Iran is an international sponsor of terrorism. It would be a serious mistake to align ourselves with them in any way.

This Isn’t The Time To Rewrite History

The news coming out of Iraq is horrible. People are being killed because they belong to the wrong Muslim sect or because they tried to preserve the country. It is awful. But in the awfulness, let’s not forget how we got here.

Wikipedia (not a site I love, but occasionally useful) posts some of the items in the resolution that led us to war:

Then we need to look at the Senators who voted for the war. That list can be found at Senate.gov:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Have we forgotten the flouting of the U.N. No-Fly Zone by Saddam Hussein? It would have been nice if we had a viable, unbiased United Nations with the forces and power to handle the situation without using almost all American troops, but that was not the case. It was possible for Iraq to become a viable democracy aligned with western interests. That possibility was ended when no status of forces was reached, when the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki began persecuting minorities, and when President Obama withdrew all American troops. An America willing to be strong, to put pressure on the Prime Minister, and to leave a peacekeeping force would have made a difference. Unfortunately, when America refuses to be strong and lead, bad things happen.

 

Islam As A Political Rather Than A Religious Movement

Yesterday’s New York Post posted an article explaining one of the reasons for the unrest Islamists are causing around the world. The title of the article is, “The Mad Dream of a Dead Empire That Unites Islamic Rebels.” Please follow the link above to read the entire article–it is well worth your time.

The article reminds us of the basic history of Islam:

They call themselves the Army of God (Jund Allah) and claim to be fighting to unite mankind under the banner of Islam as “the only true faith.” To achieve that goal, they believe they should revive the Islamic Caliphate, the theocratic empire developed after the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632 AD.

…In recent months, a branch of the movement, known as Da’esh or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been capturing territory in Syria. Last week, it used its Syrian base as a springboard for conquest in Iraq, ending up in control of the western parts of Mosul, the country’s third-largest city, as well as parts of Saddam Hussein’s native town of Tikrit.

The article goes on to explain that the most effective way to deal with the Islamists is to help countries form governments where Islam is a religion rather than a political system.

The article concludes:

More immediately, the US should do all it could to stop Da’esh and its Saddamite allies from destabilizing Iraq. That could mean drone attacks against Da’esh positions, logistical facilities for bringing elite Iraqi units to the battleground and energetic political action to persuade Iraqi parties to form a government of national unity.

It is time for President Obama to leave the golf course and get involved.

What Happened?

Yesterday Michal Ledeen posted an article at PJ Media about the meaning of recent events in Fallujah.

The article opens with the following statement:

Al-Qaeda is back in Fallujah and Ramadi, where we defeated them in the recent past. Everyone in the Middle East knew it, and they all knew al-Qaeda was on the ropes.  Recruitment was more difficult, fund-raising likewise, and the cult of bin Laden was decidedly wobbly.

Mr. Ledeen reminds us that instead of seizing the moment, the Obama Administration chose to leave the country without securing its victory.

The article continues:

So we walked away, abandoning those who had staked their future to America’s commitment to freedom, and giving hope and time to our enemies, who regrouped and attacked again.  Thus, Iraq, where the slaughter often exceeds the death toll in Syria.  Thus, Syria itself.  And Lebanon.

Al-Qaeda, and others like them, can now say, “You see, Allah is indeed with us.  We are stronger than ever.  Much stronger.  We used to have bands of terrorists, but today we have armies.  The Americans have run away from Iraq, where our flag now flies, and they are running away from Afghanistan, where the Taliban are preparing to impose God’s will.  The future is clear.  We will win.  Join us, or perish.”

That is the meaning of Fallujah.  And everyone in the Middle East knows it.  These Americans can win some battles, but they do not have the stomach to win the war.

Unless we are determined to finish a war we start, we have no business starting it. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein brazenly ignored all the sanctions and limitations the United Nations had imposed on him to prevent him from any further attacks on his neighbors and his own people. The question of whether or not he had nuclear weapons has never been resolved (despite what you may read in the mainstream media). He was a threat to peace in the Middle East. Looking back, Iran was probably a bigger threat, but they had not invaded any of their neighbors. Had the United Nations oil embargo on Iraq been handled by honest people, it probably would have crippled Iraq enough that America might have avoided the war, but the corruption in the oil for food program only complicated the situation.

The article at PJ Media concludes:

Here in Washington, some pundits are saying that things are actually going well, since radical Sunnis and Shi’ites are killing one another.  The problem with this cheery outlook is that eventually one of them will win, and the winner won’t be good for us.  Moreover, Sunnis and Shi’ites have demonstrated they can work well together when the mission is killing Americans.

They can do that even when they’re killing one another.  Just wait.

Until we realize that the goal of radical Islam is a world-wide caliphate, we will continue to lose Americans and essentially lose the war on terror. We are up against a theology that worships death–not life. While we fight according to our rules of war, the radicals train children to hate the ‘infidels’ and to become suicide bombers. We can’t afford to walk away from the radical Islamists in the Middle East–if we do, they will come here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rewriting History Subtlely

This is the opening paragraph in an article about President Obama’s second term posted by the New York Daily News:

This wasn’t a war started on a lie about weapons of mass destruction the way Iraq was for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Affordable health care for all Americans was Barack Obama’s war, one started with noble intent, the way so many big ideas all the way back to Social Security have started.

The opening sentence of that paragraph is amazing. First of all, America’s intelligence organizations showed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Britain’s intelligence organizations showed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Israel’s intelligence showed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is also a book called Saddam’s Secrets which details Saddam Hussein’s wmd program. The book was written by one of Saddam Hussein’s top generals and details the program and the exportation of those weapons during the run-up to the war. Regardless of whether or not you believe the weapons existed, the President did not lie. He spoke based on the information he had at the time.

ObamaCare is a very different situation. As reported on rightwinggranny yesterday, four years ago it was obvious to many people that people would lose their health insurance under ObamaCare. Christina Romer did an amazing job of avoiding that very question in her testimony before a House Education and Labor Committee hearing of June 23, 2009.  You could make the argument that President Obama was not told that people would lose their insurance, but that would lead to the question of his basic competence.

The article at the Daily News points out that many Democrats are already supporting Hillary Clinton for President in an effort to distance themselves from the debacle of ObamaCare. The Democrats are also very anxious to change the subject.

The comparison of the ObamaCare roll-out to President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina does not work either–President Bush did not create Hurricane Katrina–President Obama did create ObamaCare (or at least he allowed Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy to create it).

The article continues, smashing Republicans as it goes, but the bias is obvious. The rewriting of history is inexcusable, but until voters learn to do their own research, history will remain rewritten. Welcome to 1984.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America Is Rapidly Losing Friends

One of the campaign claims of Barack Obama was that George Bush’s foreign policy had resulted in America being disliked around the world and that he, Barack Obama, would change that. Well, it hasn’t exactly worked that way.

On Friday, Richard Fernandez posted an article at PJ Media about the changing relationship between America and Saudi Arabia.

The article reports:

Today Saudi Arabia rejected a seat on the UN Security Council to which it had been unanimously elected in protest against “its long-time patron United States’ overtures to Iran, among other peeves,” according to the Times of India.

Alienating Saudi Arabia is not necessarily a good thing. I understand that the government of Saudi Arabia is a repressive Islamic state. It is a dictatorship that severely limits the rights of women. However, the Saudis have been the major support of the U.S. dollar as the trading currency for oil. That is one of the major things that has prevented the U.S. dollar from becoming worthless paper.

The Saudis understand the threat that Iran presents. On October 3rd, the National Interest reported:

The Saudi royal family has seen Iran as a threat to their survival ever since 1979, when Iranian leaders began encouraging Shi’ite communities in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province to rebel. Subsequently, the Kingdom has been engaged in a regional battle for influence with Iran, and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq removed a traditional counterweight to Iranian power. Sunni rulers now fear a Shi’ite crescent stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean—and possibly south into the Arab Gulf states.

Fearing Iranian advances, the Kingdom spearheaded a 2011 military intervention by the Gulf Cooperation Council that was designed to rescue the minority Sunni regime in Bahrain from its Shi’ite opposition. But of late, Syria has been the biggest regional source of conflict between Riyadh and Tehran. Saudi officials insist that Syria’s Assad regime is guilty of genocide, and they see Iran’s efforts to rescue Assad as aiding and abetting this slaughter.

I have lost faith in the idea that any of the Muslim countries in the Middle East will form governments that will actually promote freedom. Sharia Law is not compatible with freedom, and Sharia Law is one of the basic tenets of Islam. I suspect our best course of action is to understand who we are dealing with and distance ourselves when necessary. Saudi Arabia is an ally in the fight against radical Shiite Islam, but the Wahabi brand of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia gave us Al Qaeda. We would be better off the let the radicals deal with each other and stay out of the way.

This is how Richard Fernandez sums up President Obama”s foreign policy:

Obama sold himself to the voters as the candidate of the future. His real talent however, apparently lies in missing every opportunity that history presents. It has been said that “generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it”. With Obama it’s different. He always fights the last war and can’t even remember who won it, except to remain confirmed in his conviction that the future is some other country’s past.

President Obama may be a very intelligent man, but he obviously does not have a gift for dealing with (or understanding) the complexities of the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

In Case You Missed It When It Happened

One of the stories the media is currently ignoring is the origin of the chemical weapons that have been used in Syria. Some were manufactured in Syria, some were supplied by the Russians, and some were given to Syria by Iraq during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by America.

The Canada Free Press posted an article today about the weapons Iraq sent to Syria. The story is told in a book by Georges Sada entitled Saddam’s Secrets .

The article in the Canada Free Press reports:

In 2006, Sada laid out the case against Saddam Hussein in a book titled “Saddam’s Secrets,” wherein he writes that the Iraqi leader ordered barrels of chemical weapons loaded onto civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats had been removed and flew them into — you guessed it — Syria.

…Sada claims there were a total of 56 such flights. “Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming,” he said. “They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.” He also said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the WMDs was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali,” and that the Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad.

Please note that the weapons were moved when Saddam Hussein realized that the Americans were coming. Because we telegraphed our arrival, Saddam had ample time to move his chemical weapons. In Syria there is a different issue. As long as the Russians are in charge of securing the chemical weapons, they will be dealing with Bashar Assad–thus as long as that process is continuing, Assad will remain in power. Unfortunately, the choice in Syria is either Assad or Al Qaeda. Either way, the people of Syria and the Middle East lose. The situation is Syria is such that it will take someone with the wisdom of Solomon to sort it out in a way that is beneficial to both the people of Syria and the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Still Need Guantanamo

One of the reasons cited for closing the prison at Guantanamo has been that the terrorists held there should be repatriated to their home countries. In theory that is a great idea–why should we pay the kind of money we are paying to provide soccer fields, special food, and flat screen televisions for terrorists? The jails in their home countries are much more in line with the punishment they deserve. Unfortunately, there are some problems with that idea. These problems were illustrated by some recent news stories.

Reuters has posted two stories recently about jailbreaks in Pakistan and Iraq where the Taliban freed terrorists inmates. (July 30, and July 23)

The July 30 story is about a jail break in Pakistan where the Taliban freed 250 prisoners. That article reported:

The attack in the city of Dera Ismail Khan showed the ability of the al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban to strike at the heart of Pakistan’s heavily guarded prison system and walk away with dozens of senior Taliban fighters and commanders.

The overnight assault on the Central Prison took place despite reports that regional officials had received intelligence days, if not weeks, ago suggesting such an attack was imminent.

Officials blamed a combination of negligence and lack of communication among Pakistan’s many security agencies, but some suggested there may have been a degree of insider help.

The July 23 story deals with an attack on two Iraqi prisons that freed 500 inmates. The July 23 story reports:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formed earlier this year through a merger of al Qaeda’s affiliates in Syria and Iraq, said it had stormed Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib jail and another, some 20 km (12 miles) north of capital, after months of preparation.

Monday’s attacks came exactly a year after the leader of al Qaeda’s Iraqi branch, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, launched a “Breaking the Walls” campaign that made freeing its imprisoned members a top priority, the group said in a statement.

Sunni Islamist militants have in recent months been regaining momentum in their insurgency against Iraq’s Shi’ite-led government, which came to power after the U.S. invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

The group said it had deployed suicide attackers, rockets, and 12 car bombs, killing 120 Iraqi guards and SWAT forces in the attacks in Taji, north of Baghdad, and Abu Ghraib, the prison made notorious a decade ago by photographs showing abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers.

One interesting aspect of the Iraqi prison break is contained in the first sentence of the above quote, “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formed earlier this year through a merger of al Qaeda’s affiliates in Syria and Iraq…” This is what has happened in Iraq because we did not negotiate a withdrawal that included enough American forces to prevent a civil war.

But beyond that, let’s look at what happened. Al Qaeda is reconstructing itself because there is a very limited American presence (and thus, influence) in the areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda needs foot soldiers–the leaders are somewhat expendable. The foot soldiers carry out the suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. The leaders of Al Qaeda do not do a lot of the work–they simply generate propaganda and supervise the suicide missions. As long as there are young men and women who are willing to undertake these suicide missions, the missions will continue. Al Qaeda has claimed that the attacks on the prisons in Pakistan and Iraq freed 750 prisoners. In those prison attacks, Al Qaeda just gained 750 foot soldiers. No wonder our embassies in the Middle East are shut down.

How much of this story have you seen in the American media?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Energy Independence Is Important For All Countries

Yesterday the U.K. Telegraph posted a story about an interesting development in the Syrian civil war. Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda off-shoot has become the strongest faction of the rebels around the city of Raqqa and in the desert region to its east. The group is violently anti-Western.

The article reports that the group:

…has been steadily extending its control in the region, is selling the crude oil to local entrepreneurs, who use home-made refineries to produce low-grade petrol and other fuels for Syrians facing acute shortages.

The article explains:

In the battle for the future of the rebel cause, the oil-fields may begin to play an increasingly strategic role. All are in the three provinces closest to Iraq – Hasakeh, Deir al-Zour, and Raqqa, while the Iraqi border regions are the homeland of the Islamic State of Iraq, as al-Qaeda’s branch in the country calls itself.

We may have freed Iraq from the horrors of Saddam Hussein, but because we did not stay to finish the job, Iraq is not a free country–it is a satellite of Iran.

The article reports:

General Selim Idriss, the head of the western-backed opposition Military Council, has appealed for Western help specifically to seize the fields from Jabhat, but the forces required – he put it at 30,000 men – make that a pipe dream. Even pro-Western rebel militias in the area admit that the level of support received from the council is at present minimal.

They have promised to take on Jabhat al-Nusra once the fighting is over, but they are split and fighting among themselves, with their lack of money forcing some to turn to looting and extortion to fund themselves, further alienating the local population.

Arming the rebels in Syria right now would be a mistake–it would be arming al-Qaeda at the risk of having the weapons given used against us in the Middle East or in terrorist attacks elsewhere. The rebels that we would be arming are not in control, and arming them would be somewhat futile. So what is our option? We need to do everything we can to get innocent civilians out of the country and to provide them with food and shelter. We can let the anti-Western Islamists fight among themselves–there are no good guys with any power in this war. If we were actually dumb enough to enter this war, the rebels and the government forces would probably unite against us–after all, we are the infidels.

Enhanced by Zemanta