Tag Archives: Syria

Some Clear Thinking In The Midst Of The Fog

Posted on by

Michael Ledeen posted an article at Pajamas Media yesterday dispelling three basic myths currently controlling America’s foreign policy. All three of the myths can be debunked by common sense, but somehow the mainstream media seems to have missed that.

The three myths:

The Syrian peace negotiations

The Iranian nuclear negotiations

“Resets” and other dreams

In reference to Syria, Mr. Ledeen points out that peace happens in war only after one side wins. He mentions that too many Syrians have been killed and there has been too much violence for both sides to sit down and simply talk peace. Until there is a winner, there will be no peace. He suggests that America support one side or the other in order to bring a quicker end to the war and to bring peace.

In reference to Iran, Mr. Ledeen points out that Iran has been at war with us since 1979, when they were in the streets yelling, “Death to America!”  They want a nuclear weapon because it will make them invulnerable to American and Israeli power.

Mr. Ledeen states:

…“Negotiations” are tactical moves to divide their enemies, gain more time to build their arsenal, and fend off further sanctions.

As the Washington Post‘s editorialists said, if you want to solve the nuke problem, you need regime change in Tehran.  But hardly anyone among the B & Bs cares to discuss how to bring down the Iranian regime, any more than they are doing the slightest thing to bring down the Assads’ tyranny in Damascus.

Forget about the nukes, it’s the war, stupid.

In reference to pushing the “reset button,” Mr. Ledeen points out that good relations with foreign countries are generally the result of shared cultural values. Since we do not have many shared cultural values with Comrade Putin, we can push the reset button all we want, but probably won’t get results.

Mr. Ledeen concludes:

Contrary to the rhetoric of the current secretary of state, the important “reset” is the one that has already occurred, the change in the Russians’ (and others’) evaluation of our willingness to fight for our position in the world.  The current crop of Russian leaders don’t respect us, and most assuredly do not fear the consequences of challenging us.

Those attitudes are very widely shared, from the Middle East to Latin America.  Lack of respect leads even such minor figures as Venezuela’s Chavez to dream of regional empire, and a deadly assault on the United States.

Forget about working things out around conference tables.  The war against us is on, and we won’t have anything approaching peace until that war is won.  By us, or by our enemies.

Common sense is a dangerous thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Complexities Of Syria

Posted on by

The slaughter that is taking place in Syria should be unacceptable to all civilized nations. Unfortunately it is not–the United Nations has commented on it a few times, sent people to see it, but has not really done anything. I have mixed emotions about any role America should play for two reasons–we don’t know who the opposition in Syria is (we could be enabling the Muslim Brotherhood to take over another nation) and also if we decided to intervene in Syria it would get very messy very quickly. Syria is well-armed and has a formidable military. Syria is not Libya. The reason Europe was so willing to help in Libya is that Europe gets most of its oil from Libya. The only country truly interested in Syria is Iran–it is their gateway to Lebanon, Israel and the surrounding of Iraq.

Reza Kahlili posted an article at World Net Daily detailing some of Iran’s involvement in Syria.

The article reports:

The commander of the Quds Forces, Qassem Soleimani, and 15,000 of his fighters have entered Syria with the mission of assisting in the suppression of the Syrian protesters, it was reported last month.

The Quds Forces are acting as a firewall for the Assad regime, because many officers in the Syrian army are joining the opposition over the mass killings of civilians, which so far number more than 7,000.

The article further states that any action against Syria by the United States will be followed by a counterattack by Syria, Iran and Hezbollah on Israel and on American resources in the region.

The situation in Syria is awful. It is probably going to continue to be awful. I am not sure America’s intervening in that situation will make it any less awful.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes You Just Can’t Tell The Players Without A Scorecard

Posted on by

CBS News is reporting today that Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over as head of Al Qaeda after Osama Bin Laden was killed, has released a videotaped statement asking Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join the uprising against Assad’s “pernicious, cancerous regime.”

The article reports that a senior Iraqi security official told the Associated Press that Al Qaeda fighters have been flowing from Iraq into Syria.

It is interesting to me that Al Qaeda is supporting the overthrow of the regime. Assad has been a brutal dictator, but I do not think Al Qaeda would be supporting him unless they felt they could install the Muslim Brotherhood in his place (as they have done in Egypt). The danger here is to the non-Muslims who live in the country. For whatever reason, Assad was content to let Christians practice their faith in Syria. I seriously doubt that will continue if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda have the same goal–a worldwide caliphate. They just have different ideas on how to get there. In American the Muslim Brotherhood is working within the government and the legal system to win control (see Dallas News). The Muslim Brotherhood believes that violence is not useful until the government of the country it is taking over is ready to fall. Al Qaeda sees violence as the means to bring down a government. The end game is the same, but the method is different.

If the government of Syria falls, which I believe it will, the only safe place for Christians in the Middle East will be Israel. Isn’t that ironic?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why I Want To End The United Nations

Posted on by

Yesterday the U. K. Telegraph reported that Russia and China had vetoed a United Nations resolution to back an Arab League plan to end the violence in Syria. The problem issue was a requirement that the Syrian government withdraw tanks and artillery from the streets. Syria had agreed to do this in November. On Friday it was reported that the Syrian government had killed hundreds of civilians in the city of Homs.

This would seem to be an obvious situation for the United Nations, Amnesty International, and various human rights groups to be involved with. Where are they?

Why would Russia and China veto this? Syria is a puppet state of Iran. Iran does not want the government of Syria to fall. Russia and China have been supplying Iran with nuclear material and knowledge and have been doing a lot of trading with Iran. This is all in keeping with the policy of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Russia and China are not friends of the United States. Their governments do not wish us well, although many of their people do not share those feelings. The United Nations is powerless because it has been taken over by dictators. It needs to be replaced by an organization that actually supports human rights and will protect innocent civilians.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Our Moral Perspective

Posted on by

CNSNews reported today on the latest effort of the Obama administration to gain worldwide acceptance of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender) Agenda. This is not a human rights issue–this is a moral issue. Now before you jump to a few wrong conclusions, let me explain. I do not support discrimination against anyone for any reason. I do not support the way that LGBT people are treated in countries with Sharia Law (they are killed). But I think the rights of religious people have to be respected as well as the rights of LGBT people. I also think it is a little ridiculous to be focused on LGBT rights while Syria is gunning down its citizens to protect the current tyrant. It seems as if some of the priorities are a bit upside down.

The article reports:

“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money,” Perry said in a statement, adding that the policy was “just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country.”

“Obviously the administration is promoting their particular agenda in this country, and now they feel its their obligation to promote those values not just in the military, not just in our society, but now around the world with taxpayer dollars,” CNN quoted Santorum as telling reporters in Iowa.

Again, I don’t support discrimination of LGBT people, but I don’t support special protections for them either. In a truly free society, what someone did in their personal life would not be the basis for any sort of discrimination or any sort of favor.

Like it or not, the two-parent family (husband and wife) is the basis of society. If the family is destroyed or weakened, the basic fabric of society is weakened. LGBT people should not be discriminated against, but they should not be granted special legal status either.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Let’s Unfund The United Nations

Posted on by

CNSNews reported today that UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has decided to reappoint Syria to a committee dealing with human rights. The United States declared a funding freeze on UNESCO after they recently admitted  “Palestine” to the agency.

The article reports:

Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime was recently reappointed to the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations, a subsidiary body of the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s executive board.

The 29-member committee, which meets twice a year, is tasked to examine often sensitive communications received from individuals or organizations relating to human rights violations within UNESCO’s field of competence – that is, in education, science, culture and communication (including freedom of opinion and expression.)

Other members of the committee in 2010-2011 include Algeria, Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Venezuela. Not exactly a group known for its support of civil liberties.

The article also reported:

The U.S. accounts for 22 percent of UNESCO’s operating budget and also makes voluntary contributions. The enforced funding cut saves U.S. taxpayers more than $80 million a year.

The United Nations does not even agree with itself on the issue of Syria. The article reports:

But Syria’s return to the committee is particularly controversial at a time when Damascus is under fire for a violent response to anti-government protests that has killed more than 3,500 people. (A U.N. General Assembly committee on Tuesday passed a draft resolution by a 122-13 vote condemning Assad for the crackdown.)

It really is time for the United States to withdraw itself and its support from the United Nations. The organization began with good intentions, but now has become a place where tyrants rule.

Enhanced by Zemanta

As America Leaves Iraq And Iran Moves Forward On Its Nuclear Program…

Posted on by
Official photograph portrait of former U.S. Pr...

Image via Wikipedia

The only ‘peaceful’ solution to Iran’s nuclear program is the end of Iranian rule by the Mullahs. Since that is not likely–protesters have been simply shot in the streets in the past–we are in need of a better solution.

In September 2006 there was a mysterious Israeli airstrike on Syria. Gradually the news came out that there was radiation at the site, and it became obvious that this was not just some innocent desert location. The strike was expertly carried out, and the threat of Syria as a nuclear power was ended by Israel. In his memoir Decision Points, President George W. Bush relates the story behind Israel’s attack. The President states that Prime Minister Olmert requested that America bomb the site in Syria, but President Bush refused, suggesting to the Prime Minister that they pursue diplomatic action backed up by force. President Bush stated that since his administration could not prove that the site was part of a Syrian nuclear weapons program, he could not justify attacking it. The Israelis attacked the site unilaterally. President Bush comments that Prime Minister Olmert had acted alone to do what he thought was better for Israel.

We are at that place again–only with Iran. On October 4, the Jerusalem Post reported:

Warning that Israel is becoming growingly isolated in the Middle East, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hinted on Monday he expected Israel to refrain from taking unilateral action against Iran and instead needs to work together with the US and other countries in the region.

I have a few problems with that statement. When Wikileaks released a bunch of cables regarding Middle East politics recently, it became obvious that most of the countries in the Middle East were much more worried about Iran than Israel. Now as the ‘Arab Spring’ progresses, we will see Iran begin to increase its influence in countries that have previously not aligned with it, and logically Israel will become isolated. This has much more to do with the actions of Iran than the actions of Israel.

The Obama administration (and unfortunately previous administrations) have not dealt effectively with Iran’s nuclear program. That program is the biggest international threat to the world today. In the Arab Spring, Iran is expanding its sphere of influence, and the possession of a nuclear weapon will put Iran in charge in the Middle East. Israel may again find itself in a position where it is the only country with the courage to prevent an international catastrophe. Admittedly, they would be acting in their own interest, but the world would benefit from their actions.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Notes On Yesterday’s Attack On Israel

Posted on by

J. E. Dyer posted an article at Hot Air today listing three things about the attack on Israel that he considered significant.

The first thing to be noted about the attack is that it was mounted from Egypt. This is a change. This is the result of the “Arab Spring” revolution that happened in Egypt this past year. That revolution will not bring peace–it will lead the world closer to war.

The article points out:

It’s too early to determine where alliances and affiliations will shake out in the future.  But it’s not too early to recognize that Hezbollah and Hamas, along with their patron Iran, have reason to stake a claim in the future of Egypt.  Their orientation is no longer as solidly centered on Syria as it was six months ago.  Hamas’s horizons have traditionally been narrower than Hezbollah’s, but either one is in a position to see influence and freedom of action in the Sinai as an alternative to its traditional ties to Damascus.  That bodes ill for Egypt.

The second notable point about the attack is that it was a sustained multi-pronged attack.

The article points out:

But the 18 August attack encompassed at least two buses and a car (the vehicle carrying the two Israeli children who were killed), as well as the emergency response forces and the IDF helicopters dispatched to search for the attackers.  Nearly 7 hours after the initial attack (at almost 7:00 PM in Israel), gunfire was reportedly directed from the Egyptian side of the border at Israelis in the vicinity of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was conducting a press conference from the site of the attack.  That would seem to indicate that the terrorists were able to regenerate or hold forces in reserve on the Egyptian side of the border – a bad sign about both their tenacity and the security conditions in that part of the Sinai.

Again, this represents an escalation of previous attacks on Israel by its neighbors.

The third aspect of this attack is that it may create a perception that Egypt needs to increase her troop levels in the Sinai.

The article concludes:

The prospects, therefore, are for a continued, incremental expansion of the Egyptian troop presence in the peninsula.  It is well to remember why the Sinai was demilitarized in the first place: to ensure that Egypt would not be in a position to launch a surprise attack on Israel.  Establishing an ever-higher “normal” for the level of forces there will chip away at that insurance.  Is Egypt anxious to launch an attack on Israel?  Not today.  But as an Egyptian troop presence grows in the Sinai – for reasons that seem iron-clad and urgent as they crop up – that could certainly change.

Obviously, none of this is moving in the direction of peace. Since Iran is pulling the strings on much of this activity, I wonder if the purpose of this activity is to take the eyes of the world off of what is happening in Syria. Syria is a puppet state of Iran, and the unrest there is not good news for Iran. A new government in Syria might have a streak of independence that could interfere with Iran’s plan for its middle east caliphate.

Enhanced by Zemanta