March 21, 2011, 5:07 PM
| Comments (32) | | |
 |
| |  |
The US's new war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is the latest sign of its steady regional decline. In media interviews over the weekend, US military chief Adm. Michael Mullen was hard-pressed to explain either the goal of the military strikes in Libya or their strategic rationale.
Mullen's difficulty explaining the purpose of this new war was indicative of the increasing irrationality of US foreign policy.
Traditionally, states have crafted their foreign policy to expand their wealth and bolster their national security. In this context, US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.
Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US's ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region.
These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.
Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside.
BEFORE CONSIDERING the deleterious impact this descent into strategic dementia has had on US interests, it is necessary to consider the motivations of the various sides to the foreign policy debate in the US today.
All of the sides have contributed to the fact that US Middle East policy is now firmly submerged in a morass of strategic insanity.
The first side in the debate is the anti-imperialist camp, represented by President Barack Obama himself. Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama's foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.
Obama looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the US superpower. He views US allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as US allies, they are complicit with US imperialism.
Given his view, Obama's instincts dictate that he do nothing to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East. Consider his policies towards Iran. The Iranian regime threatens all of the US's core regional interests.
And yet, Obama has refused to lift a finger against the mullahs.
Operating under the assumption that US enemies are right to hate America due to its global hegemony, when the mullahs stole the 2009 presidential elections for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and then violently repressed the pro-Western opposition Green Movement, Obama sided with the mullahs.
Aside from its imperative to lash out at Israel, Obama's ideological predisposition would permit him to happily sit on the sidelines and do nothing against US foe or friend alike. But given Obama's basic suspicion of US allies, to the extent he has bowed to pressure to take action in the Middle East, he has always done so to the detriment of US allies.
Obama's treatment of ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak is case in point.
When the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition protests began in late January, Obama was perfectly happy to do nothing despite the US's overwhelming national interest in preserving Mubarak in power. But when faced with domestic pressure to intervene against Mubarak, he did so with a vengeance.
Not only did Obama force Mubarak to resign. He prevented Mubarak from resigning in September and so ensured that the Brotherhood would dominate the transition period to the new regime.
Obama's most outspoken opponents in the US foreign policy debate are the neoconservatives.
Like Obama, the neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US's core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny.
In some cases, like Iran and Iraq, the neoconservatives' view was in consonance with US strategic interests and so their policy recommendation of siding with regime opponents against the regimes was rational.
The problem with the neoconservative position is that it makes no distinction between liberal regime opponents and illiberal regime opponents. It can see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots.
If there is noticeable opposition to tyrants, then the US must support that opposition.
This view is what informed the neoconservative bid to oust Mubarak last month and Gaddafi this month.
The fracture between the Obama camp and the neoconservative camp came to a head with Libya. Obama wished to sit on the sidelines and the neoconservatives pushed for intervention.
To an even greater degree than in Egypt, the debate was settled by the third US foreign policy camp - the opportunists. Led today by Clinton, the opportunist camp supports whoever they believe is going to make them most popular with the media and Europe.
In the case of Libya, the opportunist interests dictated military intervention against Gaddafi. Europe opposes Gaddafi because the French and the British bet early on that his opponents were winning. France recognized the opposition as the legitimate government two weeks ago.
Once Gaddafi's counteroffensive began, France and Britain realized they would be harmed politically and economically if Gaddafi maintained power so they began calling for military strikes to overthrow him.
As for the media, they were quick to romanticize the amorphous "opposition" as freedom fighters.
Seeing the direction of the wind, Clinton jumped on the European-media bandwagon and forced Obama to agree to a military operation whose goal no one can define.
WHAT THE US foreign policy fights regarding Egypt and Libya indicate is that currently, a discussion about how events impact core US regional interests is completely absent from the discussion. Consequently, it should surprise no one that none of the policies the US is implementing in the region advance those core interests in any way. Indeed, they are being severely damaged.
Under Mubarak, Egypt advanced US interests in two main ways. First, by waging war against the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing the rise of Iranian power in the region, Mubarak weakened the regional forces that most threatened US interests. Second, by managing the Suez Canal in conformance with international maritime law, Egypt facilitated the smooth transport of petroleum products to global markets and prevented Iran from operating in the Mediterranean Sea.
Since Mubarak was ousted, the ruling military junta has taken actions that signal that Egypt is no longer interested in behaving in a manner that advances US interests.
Domestically, the junta has embarked on a course that all but guarantees the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in the fall.
Saturday's referendum on constitutional amendments was a huge victory for the Brotherhood on two counts. First, it cemented Islamic law as the primary source of legislation and so paved the way for the Brotherhood's transformation of Egypt into an Islamic state. Under Mubarak, that constitutional article meant nothing. Under the Brotherhood, it means everything.
Second, it set the date for parliamentary elections for September. Only the Brotherhood, and remnants of Mubarak's National Democratic Party will be ready to stand for election so soon. The liberals have no chance of mounting a coherent campaign in just six months.
In anticipation of the Brotherhood's rise to power, the military has begun realigning Egypt into the Iranian camp. This realignment is seen most openly in Egypt's new support for Hamas. Mubarak opposed Hamas because it is part of the Brotherhood.
The junta supports it for the same reason. Newly appointed Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby has already called for the opening of Egypt's border with Hamasruled Gaza.
There can be little doubt Hamas's massive rocket barrage against Israel on Saturday was the product of its sense that Egypt is now on its side.
As for the Suez Canal, the junta's behavior so far is a cause for alarm. Binding UN Security Council Resolution 1747 from 2007 bars Iran from shipping arms. Yet last month the junta thumbed its nose at international law and permitted two Iranian naval ships to traverse the canal without being inspected.
According to military sources, one of the ships carried advanced armaments. These were illicitly transferred to the German merchant ship Victoria at Syria's Latakia port. Last week, IDF naval commandos interdicted the Victoria with its Iranian weaponry en route to Gaza via Alexandria.
Add to that Egypt's decision to abrogate its contractual obligation to supply Israel with natural gas and we see that the junta is willing to suspend its commitment to international law in order to realign its foreign policy with Iran.
ON EVERY level, a post-Mubarak Egypt threatens the US core interests that Mubarak advanced.
Then there is Libya. One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.
The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi's former ministers.
But while these men - who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle - are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC's 31 members have been identified.
Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi's opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.
Under jihadist commander Abu Yahya Al- Libi, Libyan jihadists staged anti-regime uprisings in the mid-1990s. Like today, those uprisings' central hubs were Benghazi and Darnah.
In 2007 Al-Libi merged his forces into al- Qaida. On March 18, while denouncing the US, France and Britain, Al-Libi called on his forces to overthrow Gaddafi.
A 2007 US Military Academy study of information on al-Qaida forces in Iraq indicate that by far, Eastern Libya made the largest per capita contribution to al-Qaida forces in Iraq.
None of this proves that the US is now assisting an al-Qaida takeover of Libya. But it certainly indicates that the forces being assisted by the US in Libya are probably no more sympathetic to US interests than Gaddafi is. At a minimum, the data indicate the US has no compelling national interest in helping the rebels in overthrow Gaddafi.
The significance of the US's descent into strategic irrationality bodes ill not just for US allies, but for America itself. Until the US foreign policy community is again able to recognize and work to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East, America's policies will threaten both its allies and itself.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
| Comments (32) | | |
|
'the data indicate the US has no compelling national interest in helping the rebels in overthrow Gaddafi.'
""He makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, and guides them.
He takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth,
And makes them wander in a pathless wilderness.""
Job 12
This is the time for Israel understand first and foremost that Israel's God is in complete control of these events and to look ahead and prepare.
'Operation Trap' is being prepared.
Those who keep looking to the U.S. will go mad with confusion.
It's easy to see where all of this is going.
This makes the third attack by we infidels on a Muslim country.
We will need to sell our fair and balanced,level playing field to assuage their concerns about our penchant for attacking only Muslim's.
The biggest cosmic trap in the history of civilization is in play.
When Israel does something necessary but bad to Lebanon,Syria or Gaza the Arab League will call for an emergency U.N Security Council resolution which by a 10-0 vote will call for the formation of a broad coalition to punish the Jews for defending themselves against Syria,Lebanon,Iran and their proxy armies Hizbollah and Hamas.
This will greatly please a majority of the inhabitants of the world and balance out the lopsided 3 infidel 'crusader' wars against Muslim nations.
The trap is laid and soon to be sprung.
'I will also gather all nations,
And bring them down to the Valley of *Jehoshaphat;
(*God is Judge - location: Jezreel valley)
And I will enter into judgment with them there
On account of My people, My heritage Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the nations;
They have also divided up My land.
Joel 3:2
Why do I always feel soooo much better after reading your articles. But seriously, thanks for your journalism - there is too little around.
Somehow something wasn´t clear enoguh and this article is quite clear... just one concern for those of us in the North of our beloved Israel... how many of the weapons left on the way in Lebanon?
Once again Caroline thanks for the truth. Dare I suggest that Barack Obama with his coterie of advisers is surely subverting all the ideals that the US has stood for since her inception over 200 years ago. More frightening are the radicals and fundamentalists standing in the wings laughing at our stupidity and irrationality as they prepare their attacks in every country in the Middle East knowing we will do nothing. What is surprising is that no one in the US government sees the dangerous path we are taking or perhaps they've all been mesmerized by "hope and change".
You have nailed it again. Thank you!!!
INTERESTING ALTERNATE RATIONALE: We consider a far more cynical basis for what seems to be setting up in the Middle East. We like that Caroline demonstrates convincingly that whatever the US is doing is not in the US's interests. Obama is only the face of the viper and its body entwines other 'interests' including the EU and the UN. Plainly these interests want War and Modern Israel is of no interest to them-they see beyond the demise of Modern Israel, to a more conglomerate division of world power and dominion. We still maintain Obama will be the last regularly elected president of the USA. War comes-to the street where you live. Very well written, Caroline, as usual. Your grasp of the filth on Capitol Hill is consumate but they rest on slime deeper still.
It is safe to say that Obama has finished the United States as a world power. The debt he has produced, the self-centeredness he has implemented, the discouragement of small businesses and the construction industry, brought on by the Democrats' mortgage mess will accomplish what our enemies could never do. Long live Obama.
I haven't recognized my country for years; it is completely gone.
The US military is now nothing more than a hit team under globalist control, the Congress ceremonial.
G.I. Joe is Globalist Issue Joe.
All good and I agree completely, but I don't understand one thing. Isn't Mubarak sick and maybe dying? It doesn't make much sense to support a dictator if the dictator is about to retire. And is there really any such thing as a retired dictator? And since Mubarak was on his way out anyway, why isn't there anything like evidence of the existence of some kind of friendly replacement? Isn't this one of the problem of dictators and supporting dictators? That dictators are only stop gap kinds of authority? That they can never afford to have anyone around that might be a replacement? Whatever opposition exists always has time on its side.
This mess was on its way a long time ago. It is one thing to realize that one has to be friendly to dictators. It is another thing to treat them like vital political forces destined to rule forever. Dictatorships can't really be depended on as the stabilizer of any country.
We have nothing to support in the opposition groups in Egypt or Lybia, but we have nothing to support anywhere in these countries. And really, we never did.
Dear Caroline,
This comment, by me, is, in a specific sense, off-topic, but is, in a general sense, on-topic.
The following is an article which explains why the Western world is (why the members of the academic, and journalistic, and political, social classes of Western countries are), with lies, vilifying Israel, and glorifying, and obfuscating the words and actions of, and, therein, the ideology of, and, therein, the intentions of, the adherents of, and, therein, obfuscating the nature of, and, therein, obfuscating the existence of, and, thereby, enabling, the Islamic supremacist political movement. Furthermore, the article explains what needs to be done in order to stop the vilification of Israel by the Western world, and in order to, as part of that, stop the collusion, by the Western world, with the Islamic supremacist political movement (what needs to be done in order to stop the vilification of Israel by the members of the academic, and journalistic, and political, social classes of Western countries, and in order to, as part of that, stop the collusion, by the members of the academic, and journalistic, and political, social classes of Western countries, with the Islamic supremacist political movement), and to, thereby, protect Israel, and the whole world, from harm.
"Why the West Is, with Lies, Vilifying Israel - Excerpts from Articles by Matthias Küntzel and Ruth Wisse and a Speech by Oriana Fallaci"
http://danielbielak.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-west-is-vilifying-israel-excerpts.html
----
I have recently read the following article by retired commodore of the Royal Saudi Navy, Abdulateef Al-Mulhim.
"What if Arabs had recognized the State of Israel in 1948?", by Abdulateef al-Mulhim
http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article322715.ece
The article is on the web site Arab News.com.
I became aware of the article from reading a post about the article on the very good blog Daphne Anson (http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/03/saudi-officer-reflects-on-what-might.html).
I wrote and submitted the following comment in the comments section of the article by Commodore Abdulateef al-Mulhim on the web site Arab News.
"Thank you for your article. I appreciate your honesty.
"My ethnic background - my ethnicity - is Jewish (Jewish-Russian(Ukrainian)-Polish: Ashkenazi Jewish; the term Ashkenazi Jewish means West-European Jewish or East-European Jewish; the word Ashkenazi refers to a place in Germany (which was a place named Ashkenaz) where some of the Jewish (Yehoudi) people migrated, in exile, from Judea (Yehouda), to, and settled in).
"Only the Arab people can help the Jewish people. Arab people can help the Jewish people by stopping attacking Israel, and by accepting Israel into the community of the Middle East, and by joining in friendship with the Jewish people, and by, therein, emotionally supporting, and healing, the Jewish people.
"Only the Jewish people can help the Arab people. The Jewish people can help the Arab people by contributing, with intellectual resources, and with technological resources, and with trade, and with friendship, to the well-being of the Arab people in the Middle East and to the well-being of all of the members of the community of the Middle East.
"Sincerely,
Daniel Bielak
"My Blog
danielbielak.blogspot.com
""Egyptian doctor diagnoses Mid-East ailment： stop exploiting Palestine as wedge against Jewish Israel"; Brief interview with Dr. Tawfik Hamid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IautknlfiIM"
My comment was posted in the comments section of the article by Commodore Abdulateef Al-Mulhim (however, the last part of my comment - the part which consisted of a link to my blog, and of a link to a video of a brief interview with Dr. Tawfik Hamid - was omitted from my comment).
I also sent an e-mail message to Commodore Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, which was an email message in which I included what I wrote in my comment, including a link to my blog, and including a link to a video of a brief interview with Dr. Tawfik Hamid, that I wrote and submitted on Commodore Abdulateef Al-Mulhim's article on Arab News.com.
I received a kind friendly reply by Commodore Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, by e-mail, to my e-mail message that I sent to him. In his reply to me, Commodore Abdulateef Al-Mulhim expressed that it was an honor for him to receive my e-mail message, and he thanked me for information that I wrote, and he asked me whether the article of his that I read on the web site Arab News was the first article of his that I had read, and he offered to send me more articles that he had written, and he wrote that I would be able to, therein, "track events on the other side of the wall". I replied, by e-mail, to him, in reply to his kind friendly reply to me. In my reply to him, I expressed that it was an honor for me to receive his reply, and I thanked him for replying to me, and I thanked him for his understanding and friendliness, and I expressed that the article of his that I read on the web site Arab News was the first article of his that I read, and I expressed that the article of his that I read on the web site Arab News was the first article that I read on the web site Arab News, and I expressed that I would be happy to read more articles by him.
Jewish people need to engage in communication with Arab people. The situation is between the Jewish people and the Arab people. We need to start to engage in communication, with mindfulness, and with truth, and with resoluteness, and with friendliness, and with kindness, with Arab people.
Jewish people need to seek out, and engage in communication with, and join with, Arab people who understand the situation, and with Arab people who are willing to engage in true communication.
Sincerely,
Daniel Bielak
If you state rightfully that we have in the White House a pupil of Noam Chomsky,then there is no limits to his strategic blunders and defeats which on the contrary he sees himself as victories for his own agenda , i.e the debasement of the western world , the shipwrecking of any western allies.
In the lybian crisis, it is true the opportunist ( France, Great Britain , the so-called humnaitarian interventionist ) seized the initiative and Ms Clinton joined the bandwagon. But Lybia will become a second Irak ( from the 1991-2003 period)with economic sanctions and a no-fly zone.If Khaddafi maintains his grip on the western part and the rebels seize only the eastern-oil rich provinces we shall have a long belligerency.I do not see as possible France & GB sending in ground forces. The gain for the USA will be nil.But does Obama care for gains ? Not really quite the contrary, he looks for a new distributions of power and the best game the chinese-islamists receive the better Obama will feel. Egypt was a case in the way worked to debase the US strategic ally Moubarak. The same observation applies on Iran where Obama is pleased with mollahs regime and their home run towards a nuclear arsenal.On Syria-Lebanon except the usual lipservice towards reforms nothing is done .Some people can still be confused about Obama grand strategic plan, but you Caroline should try to explain bluntly to the House of Congress the true nature of the leftist president.
Sooo...what is Israel to do?
The Israeli public correctly perceived Ms. Livni's agenda as dangerous and voted to replace Kadima's Left/Center coalition with a right wing coalition. Unfortunately, Mr. Netanyahu, although politically cunning, articulate and seemingly intelligent, could not manage to follow through on his mandate and do what he was clearly elected to do. So now, we have this ridiculous situation. With menacing dark clouds moving in from all sides, Netanyahu and Barak, seemingly oblivious, are skinny dipping in The Dead Sea...if only they would'nt float!
Israel is just going to have to follow through on something for a change, finally.
Enough procrastination, get out of the water and dry your fat asses,rescue Shalit. Now!
1. Gaza
2. Sinai
3. Lebanon
4. Iran
Perhaps No. 4 should be No. 1.
I feel that it may have been wrong of me to, without Commodore Abdulateef Al Mulhim's permission, publicly write about the e-mail messages that I sent to him, and to, without Commodore Abdulateef Al Mulhim's permission, publicly write about the e-mail message that he sent to me.
I apologize to Commodore Abdulateef Al Mulhim if it was wrong of me to publicly write about the e-mail messages that I sent to him, and if it was wrong of me to publicly write about the e-mail message that he sent to me.
Daniel Bielak
'Jewish people need to engage in communication with Arab people.'
Daniel Bielak
My dear pagan,
Forget the email,
Why don't you go talk personally to Gaddafi?
He's doing alot of communicating,the kind the Arab people are best at.
LIES,BOMBS AND BULLETS
You might try Yemen next when you're finished with your lunatic to lunatic spiel with Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
Don't bother with a flak jacket,your communication skills will do just fine and I thank you in advance for your dedication to your madness.
marcel
Mr. Obama is a traitor because he is first a Marxist and so are many members of the American political scene. This would be general knowledge but the American media, even the "fair and balanced" ones, "protect" the people from this fact. They do it so well in fact that many people don't know what a Marxist, Socialist or Communist is, or any of the considerable "baggage" that comes with it.
I hope Israel is able to hang on but I am not confident that anything will change or get better. Ultimately these people, as you said, are attempting to destroy America and they themselves are mostly Americans. It is just a matter of time for both nations now, unless the truth makes it to the ears of the people. But when you consider that they won't report the massacre of a family, for obviously political reasons, what more can be said?
Christians are under assault the world over, so they are almost completely defensive at the moment. No help to Israel. This is far more complex, with far more players, than even I had imagined.
Many prayers for you and Israel.
israel should warn obama that a libya style/nato sanctioned attack on israel will end with the sinking of usa ships and destruction of usa, uk,fr planes for starters.
Marcel,
I understand and your point.
I also understand the ignorance and arrogance and malice and sanctimony and hypocrisy that you have, you who believes in an religious mythological narrative which totemizes, and fetishizes, and vilifies, and utterly usurps the cultural identity of, an actual living group of people of whom you are not a member.
I take the point that you made.
I do not take the arrogance and malice and sanctimony and hypocrisy that you hold.
If you truly cared about others, you would make your point with kindness. I am Jewish. I am endeavoring to defend my fellow Jewish people. You are not Jewish. If you truly cared about those of us who are Jewish, you would make your point using kindness.
However, you don't truly care about those of us who are Jewish. Rather, you care about viewing yourself as being superior to others, and, therein, you care about believing in the religious mythological narrative that you believe in.
You, who are not Jewish, maliciously, in essence, called me not Jewish as an insult, because your perception of me doesn't conform to your religious belief of who is Jewish.
Who do you think you are?
Mind your own business, or be kind.
Dan
Great Article!
Who in America speaks out about the danger Obama is to the nation besides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Republican politicians may feel this way, but are afraid to say things such as Caroline has said today -- that Obama is deliberately acting against America's interests because he abhors it as an imperialist. That would strike many as traitorous behavior and it's hard to pin another label on it. His shocking disregard of Congress in his careless Libyan adventurism has earned only mild Republican congressional criticim and none at all from the media. 57% of uninformed citizens support what Obama is doing in Libya because no courageous leaders speak out against his anti-American ideologically-driven behavior.
Dan,
You know my business ?
....or be kind ?
Kind hasn't worked for Israel,in fact it's really backfired in a spectacular way wouldn't you agree ?
Instead of Libya you should start with Hamas in Gaza and try your weird kindness with the death cult,show by your example.
Go and communicate with Hamas with your kindness,you fool.
Make sure you tell them that you are a confused, mixed up Jew who has a crush on the dead Buddha.
Do you remember where Daniel Pearl's naive kindness got him with your pals ?
Marrying a Buddhist really skewered his world view as it has yours.
My apologies for calling you a pagan.
Heathen is better suited.
marcel
Great article great analysis Caroline !
I mentioned it to Frank Gaffney (CfSP) and on art7.nu in Holland.
I go deeper though.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430
Yep.
That, um, man, is indeed the President of the United States.
I'm sorry.
It is so rare to read a political analyst whose work is thrilling, because it actually clarifies the situation and makes sense of puzzling behavior. You analysis of Obama's world view as anti-imperialist deftly makes clear his motivations and actions. Your description of the opportunist camp is so spot-on it seems obvious in hindsight -- but only you saw it. Now HRC's actions makes sense. Ditto for your analysis of France, Britain and the media. Another tour-de-force. Brava. And thank you.
' I understand and your point' Do you really ?
'I also understand the ignorance and arrogance and malice and sanctimony and hypocrisy that you have, you who believes in an religious mythological narrative which totemizes, and fetishizes, and vilifies, and utterly usurps the cultural identity of, an actual living group of people of whom you are not a member.'
....but you don't understand the Arab ,Muslim mindset and their hypocrisy,malice,sanctimony and their religious mythological narrative which totemizes and fetishizes and villifies and utterly usurps the cultural identity of an actual living group of people ? ....... and think your solution of communicating with those openly calling for the extermination of the Jews is the answer ?
You treat me worse than you treat the extermination clan and my hands are clean of innocent blood.
That makes you evil.
You are sick indeed,Daniel.
Was it the full moon ,the lack of medication or just a mind fried by natural and spiritual toxins ?
Your hatred of the light of truth drives you into the arms of strange bedfellows,that is the same curse the godless left is under.
Birds of a feather,you Buddhists and the death cult of Islam.
Whoever hides hatred has lying lips,
And whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 10:18
marcel
marcel,
Your business is your own.
Dan
Off-Topic in a specific sense, but on-topic in a general sense:
"Anti-Semitism 2.0", by Mudar Zahran, March 21, 2011; "Mudar Zahran is a Palestinian writer and academic from Jordan, who now resides in the UK as a political refugee."
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1979/anti-semitism-20
For a humorous (if you don't try to at least see the humor in some of these crises you have to consider suicide because our world is THAT demented) take on Obama's strategic dementia, go to rushlimbaugh.com and click on his March 22, 2011 take on the Libya circus and the three female stooges, Clinton, Rice and Power.
I just wanted to note I read this article a few days ago and noticed that Fox news quoted it today during a program that was questioning the wisdom of US action in Libya. As always, thank you Caroline for your excellent and informative work.
Is Obama anorexic?
"Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama's foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony."
Yes and Obama's participation in the illegal UN military action against Qaddafi's Libya is entirely consistent with that goal and moves the US toward that goal.
Welcome to the new UN/leftist rationale, the “Responsibility to Protect”.
"U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), “a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”
“Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government,” he said."
Obama, by voting for UN intervention has agreed to a profoundly important new precedent. National sovereignty is being subsumed; Libya has not attacked another nation. Libya is not in a civil war with no central gov’t. in charge.
Qaddafi’s brutality is not the issue, though it is being used as the excuse. Nothing in the UN charter allows for this intervention.
The precedent set is that the UN can now determine when a formerly recognized legitimate government can be overthrown and prevented, through outside force, from suppressing armed rebellion…
The UN now gets to decide which governments are legitimate and which are not and gets to back it up with member nations military assets.
The UN can now arbitrarily vote to militarily attack a member nation…the potential danger to Israel is obvious and the 'option' it places in the UN's hands is obvious as well. In fact, in the long run, Israel may be the true target of this new UN precedent...
As there are no constitutional limits or even guidelines as to when and how such a determination is to be made, the UN, with the Obama administration legitimizing it, has voted that the rule of men, rather than law, shall rule.
Since the left abhors US sovereignty, look for this to be used in future arguments that the UN should take precedence over US autonomy.
Obama is complicit in the establishment of UN authority over US sovereignty.
Politically, Obama can't afford to vote for a UN resolution to militarily attack Israel but he can abstain from the vote and allow it to pass, then release US military assets to the UN as the new precedent allows.
Some thoughts for consideration:
1. "Neoconservatives see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots." We see a difference but in conjuction with Natan Sharansky's THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY (which had a great influence on President Bush) anti-despotism is a core American value and interest. It can outweigh other interests at times.
2. The "opportunist" action of Hillary Clinton goes beyond media attention and personal advancement. There is a philosophical split in the administration. Hillary is the one who said she would "obliterate Iran" if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel. She said this when she was running for President.
3. The article ignores Obama's pro-Iranian and pro-Shiite preferences. It is more than simply an "ideological predisposition against American global hegemony." Perhaps people should check out the Kenya-Iran agreements with Odinga and Ahmadinejad and the Obama-Odinga connection.
4. Obama's decision to ignore Congress and join on the UN French-European bandwagon of no-fly-zone over Lybia was to restrict military action to the air, leaving Gaddafi in control of the ground. Perhaps people shoud check out the Gaddafi-Farrakhan-Ahmadinejad connection as well. Oh yes, and Farrakhan-Rev. Wright-Obama connection.
One person's dementia or madness is another person's method. In other words, there is a method to the madness.
Isn't the fact that Israel withdrew from the border between Gaza and Egypt and failed to take it back even during Operation Cast Lead another example of strategic dementia?
Now that Mubarak has fallen, partially because of the impopularity that his role of controlling that border brought on him, can Israel afford to leave that border to Hamas?