Caroline Glick :: The war America fights

The war America fights

September 8, 2011, 4:09 PM

Ten years ago, in the shadow of the crater at Ground Zero, the smoldering Pentagon and a field of honor in Pennsylvania, America found itself at war.

Today, a decade on, America is still at war.

Ten years after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the time has come to assess the progress of America's war. But to assess its progress, we must first understand the war.

What war has the US been fighting since September 11?

President George W. Bush called the war the War on Terror. The War on Terror is a broad tactical campaign to prevent Islamic terrorists from targeting America.

The War on Terror has achieved some notable successes. These include Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which denied al-Qaida free rein in Afghanistan by overthrowing the Taliban.

They also include the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his fascist regime in Iraq, which played a role - albeit far less significant than the Taliban regime and others - in supporting Islamic terrorism against the US.

Moreover, the US has successfully prevented multiple attempts by Islamic terrorists to carry out additional mass terror attacks on US territory.

This achievement, however, is at least partially a function of luck. On two occasions - the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and the Underwear Bomber in 2009 - Islamic terrorists with bombs were able to board airplanes en route to the US and attempt to detonate those bombs in mid-air. The fact that their attacks were foiled by their fellow passengers is a tribute to the passengers, not to the success of the US war effort.

The US's success in killing Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaida members is another clear achievement of this war.

But 10 years on, the fact that Islamic terrorism directed against the US remains a salient threat to US national security shows that the War on Terror is far from won.

And this makes sense. Despite its significant successes, the War on Terror suffers from three inherent problems that make it impossible for the US to win.

The first problem is that the US has unevenly applied its tactic of denying terrorists free rein in territory of their choosing. In his historic speech before the Joint Houses of Congress on September 20, 2001, Bush pledged, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

And yet, while the US applied this principle in Afghanistan and Iraq, it applied it only partially in Pakistan, and failed to apply it all in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. By essentially ending its application of the counterterror tactic of denying terrorists free rein of territory and punishing regimes that provide them shelter, the options left to the US in fighting its war on terror have been reduced to catch-as-catch-can killing and capturing of terrorists, and reactive actions such as arresting or detaining terrorists when they are caught on US soil.

On the positive side, these limited tactics can keep terrorists off balance if they are applied consistently and over the long term. Taken together, the tactics of targeted killing and financial strangulation comprise a strategy of long-term containment not unlike the US's strategy in the Cold War. US containment then caused the Soviet Union to exhaust itself and collapse after 45 years of superpower competition.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE US's containment strategy in its War on Terror is undermined by the second and third problems inherent to its policies.

The second problem is that since September 11, 2001, the US has steadfastly refused to admit the identity of the enemy it seeks to defeat.

US leaders have called that enemy al-Qaida, they have called it extremism or extremists, fringe elements of Islam and radicals. But of course the enemy is jihadist Islam which seeks global leadership and the destruction of Western civilization. Al-Qaida is simply an organization that fights on the enemy's side. As long as the enemy is left unaddressed, organizations like al-Qaida will continue to proliferate.

It isn't that US authorities do not acknowledge among themselves whom the enemy is. They do track Islamic leaders, and in general prosecute jihadists when they can build cases against them.

But their refusal to acknowledge the nature of the enemy has paralyzed their ability to confront and defeat threats as they arise. For instance, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was not removed from service or investigated, despite his known support for jihad and his communication with leading jihadists. Rather, he was promoted and placed in a position where he was capable of massacring 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Texas.

Had the US not been in denial about the identity of its enemy, Hasan's victims would likely be alive today.

So too, the US's refusal to identify its enemy has made it impossible for US officials to understand and contend with the mounting threat from Turkey. Because the US refuses to recognize radical Islam as its enemy, it fails to connect Turkey's erratic and increasingly hostile behavior to the fact that the country is ruled by an Islamist government.

In the face of the rising political instability and uncertainty in the Arab world, the US's refusal to reckon with the fact that radical Islam is the enemy fighting it bodes ill for the future. Quite simply, America is willfully blinding itself to emerging dangers. These dangers are particularly acute in Egypt where the US has completely failed to recognize the threat the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes to its core regional interests and its national security.

The last problem intrinsic to the US's War on Terror is the persistent and powerful strain of appeasement that guides so much of US policy towards the Muslim world.

This appeasement is multifaceted and pervades nearly every aspect of the US's relations with the Islamic world.

The urge to appeasement caused the US to divorce the Islamic jihad against the US from the Islamic jihad against Israel from the outset.

Appeasement has been the chief motivating factor informing the US's intense support for Palestinian statehood and its refusal to reassess this policy in the face of Palestinian terrorism, jihadism and close ties with Iran.

Appeasement provoked the US to embrace radical Islamic religious leaders and terror operatives such as Sami Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi as credible leaders in the US Muslim community. It stood behind the decisions of both the Bush and Obama administrations to embrace US affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood as legitimate leaders of the American Muslim community and to court the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to the detriment of US ally former president Hosni Mubarak.

Appeasement stood behind the US's bid to try to entice Iran to end its nuclear weapons programs with grand bargains.

It motivated US's decision not to confront Syria on its known support for al-Qaida and Hezbollah as well as Palestinian terror groups; its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; or its involvement in facilitating the insurgency in Iraq.

It is what has compelled the US not to seek the dismantlement of Hezbollah in Lebanon and indeed to fund and arm the Hezbollah-controlled government and army of Lebanon.

The urge to appease has motivated the US's decision to take no action to stem the advance of Iran and its terror allies and proxies in al-Qaida and Hezbollah in Latin America.

WHEN A nation engages in appeasement at the same time it wages war, its appeasement efforts always undermine its war efforts. This is particularly the case, however, in long-term wars of containment such as the one the US is fighting against Islamic terrorism.

The logic guiding a containment strategy is that an enemy force will eventually collapse if kept off balance for long enough. Given that militarily the forces of Islamic jihad are weaker than the US, it is reasonable to assume that if applied consistently for long enough, a policy of containment can indeed cause the forces of global jihad to collapse.

The chronic instability of the Iranian regime and the current unrest in Syria demonstrate the structural weakness of these regimes. The dependence of terror groups such as Hezbollah, al-Qaida and Hamas on the support of governments make clear that containment could potentially defeat them as well by drying out their support structure at its roots.

The problem is that the US's moves to appease its enemies empower them to keep fighting.

Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are far stronger militarily today than they were on September 11, 2001. Hamas controls Gaza and would likely win any Palestinian elections.

Hezbollah controls Lebanon.

Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons and is poised to become the predominant power in Iraq. Its Egyptian nemesis Hosni Mubarak is gone.

Ten years ago Iran and its terror allies and proxies could have only dreamed of having the presence on the Western Hemisphere they enjoy today.

In Europe the threat of domestic terrorism is more salient than ever because the jihadist forces and leaders on the continent have been appeased rather than combated by both the governments of Europe and the US.

The US was able to win the Cold War through its policy of containment because throughout the long conflict there was strong majority support in the US for continuing to pursue the war effort. Despite the widespread nature of Soviet efforts at political subversion, US public opinion remained firmly anti-Soviet until the Berlin Wall was finally destroyed.

The US government's moves to appease its Islamic enemies undermine the domestic consensus supporting the War on Terror. And without such domestic solidarity around the necessity of combating jihadist terrorists, there is little chance that the US will be able to continue to enact its containment strategy for long enough to facilitate victory.

Even as it has continued to prosecute the War on Terror, since it came to power in January 2009 the Obama administration has worked intensively to confuse the American people about its nature, necessity and goals. President Barack Obama dropped the name "War on Terror" for the nebulous "overseas contingency operation." He has rejected the term "terrorism," and expunged the term "jihad" from the official lexicon. In so doing, he made it impermissible for US government officials to hold coherent discussions about the war they are charged with waging. Meanwhile, the public has been invited to question whether the US has the right to fight at all.

Today the events of September 11 are still vivid enough in the American memory for America to continue the fight despite the administration's efforts to discredit the war in the national discourse and imagination. But how long will that memory be strong enough to serve as the primary legitimating force behind a war that even in its limited form is far from won?

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Posted on September 8, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Comments (18)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.carolineglick.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ipractic/managed-mt-dev/mt-tb.cgi/15616

18 Comments

By Marcel on September 8, 2011 5:17 PM

It's amazing.
I can see the hand writing on the wall.I'm sure a few others can also ?

The leader of the great superpower of the day Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand....
they brought the gold vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone...
(The god of America is on Wall Street)
Suddenly the fingers of a man’s hand emerged and began writing opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace...
Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king spoke and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is one of the exiles from Judah...

You Belshazzar,(America) have not humbled your heart.... but you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven ( by assuming to divide ISRAEL and Jerusalem, Mr.Carter,Clinton,Bush,Obama)

This is the interpretation of the [ae]message: ‘MENĒ’—God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. ‘TEKĒL’—you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. ‘PERĒS’—your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.”
Daniel 5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5&version=NASB

History is repeating itself and the majority(as they were then) can't see what is right under their nose.
What we are seeing in America today under arrogant Obama is the spastic twitchings of a terminal nation in it's final days.
We threw God out long ago in invited the darkness in and so normal things we took for granted like common sense are long gone.
We only elect liars and fools to lead us off the cliff.
The rejection of the light and embrace of darkness has made the U.S. too stupid and incompetent to survive.
We have fools who couldn't run a lemonade stand in leadership,destroying what few sound institutions remain.
The people of America and Israel grope in the dark to find the next slick,smooth talking liar to lead them into the darkness instead of seeking the Lord and that why we are repeating history.
Israel needs to jump off the USS Titanic and swim home to sanity,reality and God.

By Ivan

on September 8, 2011 7:35 PM

Dear Caroline,
I don't seem to have time to comment on all your writings. But you do a good job. It seems America's government can no longer make a right decision. As you said we seem to fight terrorist on one hand, and support them with the other. And to ignore some terrorist and the danger they pose, just seems irresponsible. It seems the majority of our terrorist of late, are muslim. That means they should be watched closely. It doesn't mean every muslim is a terrorist, but so far the terrorist are coming from their belief. And how many muslims would turn terrorist in if they new who it was, and what they were doing. I hope they would, but if not, then their loyalty is not with the American people. God bless you. Thanks for your insight. Ivan

By naomir

on September 8, 2011 8:08 PM

Caroline. Thank you once again for a most excellent article. Unfortunately the bottom line is that until the United States is willing to admit that radical Islam is being fostered by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Quaida and call them by their rightful description, terrorists groups, there can be no end to this war that is slowly, but surely overwhelming the world.

By Linda Cohn on September 8, 2011 8:28 PM

G-d Bless you Caroline. They are not appeasers. They are enablers - enabling all the Israel hating regimes to thrive, and destroying the regimes which are neutral or not a threat to Israel. They are deliberately working hand in glove with the would be destroyers of Israel. This is the plan the internationalists want and the internationalists place the POTUS on the throne. Carter allowed the Shah to be overthrown; Bush Jr. toppled Saddam Hussein (who was no longer a threat after Israel took out Osirak) and thereby strengthened Ahmadinejad. Obama toppled Muburak with his American led Facebook campaign and the week after he returned from Turkey, all the trouble with Turkey began. If it looks a plot, if it talks like a plot, if it walks like a plot, if it smells like a plot, it's a plot. These are not stupid or bumbling actors. They are actively, actively working for your death and destruction. I don't know what the answer is, but please don't pretend it's not about destroying Israel. It most certainly is. Destroying Israel is a lynch pin of the internationalists plan. I don't know why. Presumably the Catholic Church wants a piece of Jerusalem, if it could be put under 'international control.' You have my best wishes.

By Eugene

on September 9, 2011 5:46 AM

“persistent and powerful strain of appeasement that guides so much of US policy towards the Muslim world.”
With appeasement becoming again a central issue on the world’s agenda and with the crucial US elections approaching, one wonders about Thomas Carlyle’s theory of great personalities making history. It can be convincingly argued that without Churchill Britain would have continued its appeasement of Hitler (a point made in Orwell’s “War Diaries” in regard to the country’s leadership – as for the Britain’s intellectual elite, note that both Oxford and Cambridge were vociferously pacifist throughout the pre-war decade). Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union and freeing Eastern Europe. Much-maligned Thatcher by standing up to rather than appeasing the Argentine military government brought down the latter and halted for a while the unravelling of Great Britain her successors have been so eagerly promoting. Hopefully the Republican winner will be one of such great people who replace the easy and suicidal appeasement of the aggressor with what Carlyle called “the heroic in history.”

By octopod18

on September 9, 2011 6:21 AM

There you go again. The Zionists want to provoke the US to fight Israel's wars, defining the enemy as the whole Islamic world. The US is out of money, and has no vital interests at stake.

Instead, we should abandon Israel, which like the Crusader states, has no future, and seek the geopolitically natural alliance with Iran.

Caroline--keep your US passport renewed. Chicago, which now has a Zionist mayor, isn't such a bad place to live.

By Anonymous on September 9, 2011 9:33 AM

The left is evil. They, as they always do, have lied, cheated, stolen, intimidated, extorted, coerced, and if given the opportunity, will assault and kill to gain and maintain power. Fortunately, their lies are working well enough at the moment and they control the media and so they are almost completely unaccountable.
Israel faces the same enemies, using the same tactics. How strange that we do not recognize this as a plan but then, that is why they have sought control of news and information dissemination.

These people are evil and they have a plan and truth, in any form which does not serve them, is the enemy as are those who speak or write it. As long as there are no consequences, as long as they have unrestrained control of the public mind, they have nothing to fear and they know it.

While you and I seek peace and the building of a future for our kids, they seek control of our future and the future of those kids. Life is a lot easier for a party chairman when his people are actually his slaves but don't know it.

By Mladen

on September 9, 2011 11:51 AM

The policy of containment formulated by George F. Kennan in a cable from Moscow in February of 1946, know as the Long Telegram, worked because despite all the differences the Soviet priviligentsia wanted to enjoy their closed shops and trips abroad while they were still alive on this Earth.

This is no longer the case when Iran is concerned. As Bernard Lewis keeps repeating: “In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”

So I would add a fourth inherent problem to Caroline Glick’s list and that is that the MAD doctrine is dead. Although the death MAD may have a more profound and immediate effect on the lives of people than the three other combined it has been constantly neglected if not outright erased from our discourse. Why?

By Bill

on September 9, 2011 3:26 PM

One of your best columns ever. Your columns are sometimes picked up for wider distribution on RealClearPolitics, I hope this one is.

I wonder if you could explain why you say the enemy is "jihadist Islam" or "radical Islam," not Islam per se. Surely after 1400 years of continuous war against infidels at home and abroad, and in the light of clear and obvious scriptural commands, we can say that "jihadist Islam" is Islam, pure and simple? Or are rhetorically presenting the idea that a non-political Islam, which permits its adherents to leave in conditions of peace and mutual respect with infidels, is actually the true Islam, and that "jihadist Islam" and "radical Islam" are perversions of it? Since you correctly accuse the U.S. establishment of being unwilling to name the enemy, I wonder if you could clarify this point. Thank you and God bless.

By Ron on September 9, 2011 5:20 PM

Political correctness is a perversion of our Judo-Christian heritage. It is the acceptance of mankind and his actions with reliance upon discernment, rationality, and moral foundations.

It is an evil that stays our actions to combat it, to question our right to join in the battle to defeat it and to crush those who perpetrate it.

The political correctness that infects our schools ruins our judgment and destroys our spirit to survive. Why do we second guess our actions? Is it because we fear some future historical review would judge us morally corrupt?

Political correctness is leading us into the global Coliseum to be slaughtered. Along with us our allies are being drug into the pit. Who are these people who are setting the stage for our demise? Why not remove them? Be decisive! Take courage! Quit assuming the role of G-d and judging our own actions by some skewed image.

Our nations deserve to be great. We are a great people who readily strive for the goodness of humanity, not it's enslavement to a cult of repression.

Take all necessary actions to defeat this rising evil that will destroy humanity if let to it's own actions. Remove the leaders of our country who take no action in the interest of our right to exist free of this repression. Hear the will of the minority but do not let it lead our countries to destruction.

The minions of the left are driving the inaction that will tolerate another holocaust, another 9/11 but take no decisive action to prevent it. Listen to what Caroline has to say here...

By Kevin Bjornson

on September 9, 2011 5:26 PM

"The dependence of terror groups such as Hezbollah, al-Qaida and Hamas on the support of governments make clear that containment could potentially defeat them as well by drying out their support structure at its roots."

While it is true that Jihadist groups continue to feed on the dying carcasses of estatist governments--both Islamist, American, and European--the trends are in the other direction.

More and more, Jihad is funded by the blackmarket, primarily opium from Afghanistan.
This does not depend on official "governments" except does rely on them to continue prohibition. Until repealed, prohibition will continue to fund Jihad for the next million years or until the west is utterly defeated.

Still the bulk of funding is from nationalized oil infrastructure. Until that problem is solved, preferably through "privatization",
the Jihad will continue.

By jashcroft

on September 9, 2011 7:38 PM

This is an excellent article but, rather than compare the strategy in the US 'war on terror' with its strategy in the Cold war it is far more appropriate to compare it with the strategy of World War 2 following Pearl Harbour. This is dealt with in depth here:

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2011/09/comparing-response-to-911-with-response.html

For example:

"If the response to Pearl Harbour had been the same as that of 9/11, the US would have declared a 'war against fighter aircraft that have the potential to attack ships' with a clear statement that 'this in no way linked to the great nation of Japan which, like Nazi Germany, is a nation of peace'. This might have been followed by a few sorties against Japanese fighter aircraft (and, as a token to prove there was no bias against the Japanese people, some British spitfires would also have been attacked). This would have been followed by years of appeasement of Japan and Germany, plus massive funding of 'moderate' Japanese and Nazi institutions. The media would have devoted most of its time on identifying what the US had done to invite the attacks. For example, it would no doubt have focused on the US refusal to help Germany invade Britain, thus stopping the natural hegemony of Nazi control of the whole of Europe. Indeed Britain (and Singapore) would have become the focus of hatred for provoking the Nazis (Japs) and daring to protect their right to exist. By 1945 America would have been a Japanese colony, and to this day Europe would still be under Nazi rule.

Conversely, if the response to 9/11 had been similar to the actual response to Pearl Harbour then the US would have declared war on Islamic fundamentalism and would not have stopped until it was totally eradicated throughout the world as a supremisist belief. The first targets would have been Iran and Saudi Arabia. The war would only have finished with a prolonged programme of 'de-Islamification' (the de-Nazification programme for Germany took many years to work even though the people had only been indoctrinated for 10 years. Islamists have been indoctrinating Muslims for 1300 years)."

By Ron Grandinetti

on September 9, 2011 7:56 PM

Caroline, you’re right on as usual.

President Bush had it right:
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Unfortunately he and the US government did not follow through with the pledge.

I often said, the US must begin by cutting off financial and other aid to nations and organizations who engage in and support terrorism and that includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinians, Pakistan to name a few.

By the way, to begin with, the foresaid nations don’t like us, yet we believe we can win their love by giving.

Their kind of love we don’t need.

By Bill K. on September 10, 2011 1:13 AM

Ed Cline at The Rule of Reason has written the definitive version of what should have happened after 9-11.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-post-911-world-ten-year.html

Some excerpts:

"That day! Ten years ago, on September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked on its own soil by agents of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. Complicit in that attack, or at least aiding and abetting it by supplying resources, training, sanctuaries, and “foot soldiers,” were key enablers, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attack, mostly Americans, including the passengers on the hijacked planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and that Pennsylvania field.

Everyone can remember the response of everyday, rank-and-file “moderate” Muslims: in Gaza, in Iran, in Cairo, in London, in Paris, in Indonesia, in Patterson, New Jersey, in Brooklyn, New York, in Dearborn, Michigan, celebrated, passed out candy, danced in the streets, and shouted their hatred for the U.S. Their spokesmen and leaders put on pious faces and published solemn-sounding regrets, but did not chastise their collects of celebrants.

Two days after the attack, in a stirring, televised speech to Congress and the American people, still reeling from a greater loss of American life than the country had suffered during the attack on Pearl Harbor sixty years before, President George W. Bush assured the nation – and the world – that the “parties responsible for the attack will regret and rue the day they decided that this country had lost its resolve to exist as a free and sovereign nation. It will act to defend its citizens and its shores.” He did not name the suspected “parties,” nor did he specify what actions would be taken."

And:

"On September 15th, President Bush asked Congress for a declaration of war. He named names. With only six dissensions, Congress approved the declaration. And the clock began ticking.

Hiding in an Afghan village in the Swat Valley, bin Laden for two months maintained radio contact with his sympathizers and enablers in the Pakistani government and in Kabul. On November 4th, when our intelligence had confirmed his location and that of his enablers and protectors in Pakistan, the village was vaporized with a battlefield nuclear projectile mounted on a drone fired from a nuclear submarine patrolling the Indian Ocean, the Patrick Henry.

A great hole was dug in the middle of Karachi when three more of the missiles, launched consecutively by the submarine, were targeted on the Pakistani intelligence headquarters. Stealth bombers also reduced to glass Pakistan’s nuclear fuel processing plants and much of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Pakistan subsequently descended into an anarchy which continues to this day. India’s military has turned back hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis looking for refuge in India, often having to fire on crazed mobs. It is thought that all of bin Laden’s lieutenants, including the hierarchy of the Taliban, perished in the Afghan blast, because nothing has been heard from bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban since then.

On the same day, Kabul, capital of Afghanistan and held by the Taliban, was similarly razed.

On September 22nd, in response to Prince Talal’s statement about the Palestinians, Bush ordered all U.S. subsidies terminated to Gaza and the West Bank. Al Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Authority immediately and jointly attacked Israeli settlements with rockets and suicide bombers. Israel’s IDF responded by reducing Gaza and the West Bank to rubble with coordinated counter-attacks. Palestinian forces and their terrorist allies were decimated. Palestinians by the tens of thousands streamed for safety to Egypt, Syria and Jordan and established impromptu refugee camps. Gaza is now fully Israeli (it has since become the Israeli “Silicon Valley”), as is the West Bank. Israel has enjoyed ten years of unprecedented peace, and has become a major economic force in the Mideast."

I won't spoil the ending other than to say that nuclear weapons are once again involved.

By Marcel on September 10, 2011 3:17 AM

'The left is evil. They, as they always do, have lied, cheated, stolen, intimidated, extorted, coerced, and if given the opportunity, will assault and kill to gain and maintain power.'

octopod of lies writes :

'Caroline--keep your US passport renewed. Chicago, which now has a Zionist mayor, isn't such a bad place to live.'

Everyone knows the crime in Chicago is out of control,a very bloody city, and that is is run by corrupt gangsters and that Rahm is anything but a Zionist and yet these proud liars keep spewing their deceit and venom.

It is so encouraging to know that God is watching and that He will shut the wicked up permanently.
We have to be patient and trust in Him.

1 O God, do not remain quiet;
Do not be silent and, O God, do not be still.
2 For behold, Your enemies make an uproar,
And those who hate You have exalted themselves.
3 They make shrewd plans against Your people,
And conspire together against Your treasured ones.
4 They have said, “Come, and let us wipe them out as a nation,
That the name of Israel be remembered no more.”
5 For they have conspired together with one mind;
Against You they make a covenant:

O my God, make them like the whirling dust,
Like chaff before the wind.
14 Like fire that burns the forest
And like a flame that sets the mountains on fire,
15 So pursue them with Your tempest
And terrify them with Your storm.
16 Fill their faces with dishonor,
That they may seek Your name, O LORD.
17 Let them be ashamed and dismayed forever,
And let them be humiliated and perish,
18 That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD,
Are the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 83

By Ted Lewis on September 10, 2011 5:35 AM

Israel needs, in my view, to be prepared to take back the Sinai, soon.
Let me first of all address "my friend" octopod18. Not too articulate are ya. There YOU go again. President Ronald Reagan was a lifelong friend to Israel and would be offended by you, as am I and the vast majority of Americans, who see unbreakable bonds of friendship between Israel and The United States.As far as i am concerned, you are all a bunch of freaks, morons actually(some of the dumbest are in the military, that is why we perform mediocre at best and frag our own) who are no better than enemies like Hasan who murdered his fellow soldiers in Texas.
Octopod is part of the disinformation bureau allied with the united states state department and roque elements within the us military which, precisely as octopod ststes above believe The US should abandon Israel and take an alliance with Iran. In other words, they support the cold blooded murder of every Jewish American who has the guts to speak up in support for Israel's right to exist and second class citizenship for the appeasers, the soros', the lerners', the stanley scheinbaums, the rita hausers etc.
Octopod's post is an excellent introduction to their polemics, which need to be understood. For instance, Ms. Glick just this week wrote an excellent article on the Jeffrey Goldberg piece promoting the anti-Israel views of our disgusting former defense secretary, let me now go into the world of octopod and extract from their blog that very same issue. Warning:have a barf bag within reach:the blog sic semper tyrannis is that of one patrick lang, a very sick mind, pitiful actually. What the discredited lang does not know is he is exposed and finished partly by yours truly, I'm proud to say:

Goldberg says Israel is an "ungrateful ally," AND he says it in Bloomberg.

"It was an extraordinary scene: President Barack Obama, sitting impassively in the Oval Office in May as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lectured him, at considerable length and at times condescendingly, on Jewish history, Arab perfidy and the existential challenges facing his country." Goldberg

------------------------------------------

Does this mean that Jeffrey Goldberg and the mayor of New York City are "self hating Jews?" No, it does not. If i am not mistaken, Goldberg is an IDF reservist, not a US reservist, an IDF reservist.

Goldberg is worried that wide spead Israeli and other Zionist disdain and lack of concern for all who are not of their tribe has found a voice and a face in Bibi that threatens to finally disrupt the dog-like devotion that Gentile Americans generally display toward Israel.

I am not among those who think that the Arabs, Iranians or other Middle Easterners are any better from the US point of view. All these groups/countries have what can only be described as "transactional" relations with the US. Any thought that there are feelings of affection toward the US in "the region" is just silly. Well, there might be a few people...

Natanyahu's abuse of American hospitality was abominable. He displayed his opinion of Obama and of us all. The vendu MSM and congress were remarkably silent over this insult. They had heard the dog whistle blow.

Obama is in a sadly amusing political position. He is largely a creation of liberal Zionist money, but even he, and his kennel mates in the administration, find Bibi's public contempt hard to bear. Perhaps a tickle under the chin would help.

Rick Perry has sworn his fealty to the Zionist project. He awaits the Rapture.

Woof! pl

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/robert-gates-says-israel-is-an-ungrateful-ally-jeffrey-goldberg.html

06 September 2011 in Current Affairs, Israel | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c72e153ef015435311903970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Goldberg says Israel is an "ungrateful ally," AND he says it in Bloomberg.:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How far away are we from a candidate being challenged for being too "pro-Israel"?

When that happens, the dam will break.

Posted by: Matthew | 06 September 2011 at 12:01 PM

Gates coldly laid out the many steps the administration has taken to guarantee Israel’s security ...-- and then stated bluntly that the U.S. has received nothing in return, …"
"Netanyahu lectured Gates at length on the possible dangers posed to Israel by such sales…"

Unlike the danger to the USA by Israel's sale of secrets from Jonathan Pollard that Israel sold to our enemies?

Gates should have been focusing on US security, not that of a foreign government. Now that he's out of power he bitches? No balls to resign? To say No to Israel while he had power? Did Gates remove any former IDF officer from security clearances or employment by DOD? Did he order an end to training and port of call visits to Israel? Anything at all while he had power, authority and the RESPONSIBILITY?

Posted by: Fred | 06 September 2011 at 12:24 PM

I wish the so called Rapture would happen soon and we could be rid of all these idiots. The world would be a much better place.
Maybe Islamic extremists could also be magically transported to another realm along with the Christian extremists.

Posted by: Nancy K | 06 September 2011 at 12:56 PM

Sorry, meant to add Zionist extremists to the list also. Looking at who would be in that chosen area, it looks like hell to me.

Posted by: Nancy K | 06 September 2011 at 12:59 PM

1. Jeff Goldberg seems like a good guy, he reflects the old Labor Zionist rational point of view that is in the minority in Israel now that they imported hundreds of thousands of Soviets.

2. I doubt the Mayor of NYC exercises much if any editorial control over the media that bears his name.

3. Gates is a true patriot; he serves the nation the best he can in the role he is in.

Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 06 September 2011 at 02:09 PM

'a tickle under the chin'(lol). How about a rolled up newspaper? That can get an errant pup's attention.

Posted by: par4 | 06 September 2011 at 02:27 PM

Netanyahu is simply "Harvesting" whatever he can get from Israels long relationship with America, knowing that, as Col. Lang said, it is a transactional relationship, and it has almost run its course.

Netahyahu knows that the Endlosung the settlers have in mind for the Palestinians will fracture whats left of the American Jewish (and Gentile) liberal support base on human rights grounds. He is also aware that the American financial condition is going to make the Three billion a year in aid more visible year by year.

This already pronounced decline in support of Israel among younger American Jews support was coyly termed by Steve Cohen and Ari Kelman: “a near-total absence of positive feelings.” as quoted by Peter Beinart.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false

Then there is the Arab spring to consider, and Turkey. What is the likelihood that America is going to continue to always see things Israels way when it is wrapped in its own travails?

Most probably the last thing he gets is the bombing of Iran by a newly elected Christianist Republican President. After that, what more is there to ask for?

Just my Two cents...

Posted by: walrus | 06 September 2011 at 02:39 PM

GZC, Colonel,

In my book Goldberg is a horse's arse. He was born/raised/suckled by U.S., and instead of joining our U.S. Military and doing a short stint, he goes and joins a 'foreign military', defending that 'foreign nation' from their prison inmates. Goldberg's stint in the IDF was as a prison guard, he had to make sure that those crafty Palestinan prisoners didn't have any slingshots between them. IMO when Mr. Goldberg at the moment he joined a 'foreign military' he should have 'lost' his U.S. Citizenship, right then. It's one thing for those born in Israel to join their IDF, don't have a problem with that, it's when U.S. Citizens put a foreign nation ahead of our U.S., that gets my goat. I have said it before, and I'll say it again they need to 'end' U.S. 'dual citizenship'. Either you're with U.S. or one is not, just that plain and that simple.

Posted by: J | 06 September 2011 at 03:45 PM

Colonel,

Bibi, IMO is an ungrateful little snot. Thanks to U.S., that little whip-snort got a good education, provided by U.S., namely attending U.S. High School, and after his stint in the IDF (as a born-in-Israel Israeli), he obtained his College studies (architecture, business management, political science) in our U.S.. I have no problems with Bibi putting Israel first and saluting his Israeli flag, it's his arrogant/smug attitude that he 'deserved it' from U.S. that gets my goat. If it wasn't for U.S., he would have never had an Israeli State to be born in to begin with. Arrogant little whip-snort.

Posted by: J | 06 September 2011 at 04:05 PM

It's heartening to see the protests in Tel Aviv, as the masses there realize how much of their government's money is spent on militarization and maintaining the settlers, rather than the welfare of their society. The commonalities between the Israeli and US governments has never been clearer, and I give the protesters credit for their awareness and willingness to take action - unlike their counterparts in the US who are too stupefied and propagandized to know or care.

Posted by: Roy G. | 06 September 2011 at 05:00 PM

That's some blunt voice you got there :)
Will certainly subscribe to this rss.

Posted by: theFool | 06 September 2011 at 05:27 PM

GZC, Colonel,

What's a nation to do with all the JINSA Israeli junkets by retired U.S. Flag and General Officers? What's a nation to do?
These particulars were a few years back, 09 for the Israeli briefing at a U.S. sub base trip, and retired U.S. Flags & General Officers junket to Israel. What concerns me, is what type of security or lack thereof that was exercised with the Israeli brief at our sensitive U.S. sub base? Were/are any of these civilian members of JINSA working on behalf of Israeli Intelligence?

http://www.jinsa.org/events-programs/us-military-study-programs/jinsa-group-briefed-navys-ballistic-missile-submarine-ops

What type of 'conversations/discussions' did these Retired Flags & General Officers have with Israelis while in Israel? How much 'fishing' was done with them by the Israeli Intelligence apparatus?

http://www.jinsa.org/events-programs/about-jinsas-flag-general-officers-trip-israel

Posted by: J | 06 September 2011 at 05:42 PM

ted by: Nancy K | 06 September 2011 at 06:17 PM

The best "tickle" will be a yes vote at the UN when the question of Palestine arises.

Posted by: Bobo | 06 September 2011 at 06:23 PM

Posted by: ked | 06 September 2011 at 06:31 PM

ked

I must move in the wrong circles. Nobody has ever said anything like that to me. pl

Posted by: Patrick Lang | 06 September 2011 at 06:39 PM

Bobo,

Ah yes, but Obama on Israeli orders is working against just such a 'tickle'. All stops have been pulled out to derail Palestine statehood attempts at the U.N., why even Israeli diplomatic types have been spotted handing out bags of cash to little nations in an attempt to buy-off their U.N. votes on the Palestinian Statehood Issue.

Posted by: J | 06 September 2011 at 08:15 PM

GZC,

I do not question Gate's patriotism I question why he failed to do anything while he had authority and responsibility.

Posted by: Fred | 06 September 2011 at 08:18 PM

how wonderful. Why did the 'tourists' get a guided visit to the missile control room? Isn't that classified on a need to know basis?

The submarine fleet needs to move back to Groton. Kings Bay is a long way from deep water and would be quite easy to bottle up.

Posted by: Fred | 06 September 2011 at 08:40 PM

Let's face it, no American President will ever stand up to Israel, no congressman will ever say no to Israel, and no senior bureaucrat will ever criticize Israel while they are in office until there is a seismic shift in the way the American public sees Israel. May it come soon, but I am not holding my breath.

Posted by: Phil Giraldi | 06 September 2011 at 08:55 PM

The big test will be the UN vote on Palestinian statehood. In my understanding, the General Assembly has the authority to override a Security Council veto, which makes our rubber stamp veto for all things contra Israel useless. Then why do it?

Then there's Turkey. The amount of energy needed maintain Israel's position is unsustainable.

Posted by: jr786 | 06 September 2011 at 09:55 PM

I recently saw a letter congresswoman Nina Lowery sent out to her Jewish supporters. In it she said she had been accused of being "a tool for Israel".
But she said she wasn't going to let this bother her and her main goal in congress would always be to protect Israel.

Yes, people are calling out the Israeli traitors in our congress.
I have called my senator three times the last month about various statement made by politicians in support of Israel...and I call them traitors because they are.

The American public doesn't support Israel, the politicians and a minority of religious fanatics and Jewish zionist do..that's not a majority.

You want to get rid of Israel?...then get rid of their politicians in our government. Call them frequently and call them traitors. And sooner than you think everyone will be calling them traitors. Make it an issue.

Posted by: Cal | 06 September 2011 at 11:05 PM

Posted by: Phil Giraldi>>>>

I don't know why you think the US public supports Israel.
Do you follow the comment sections in the NYT, the WP, even the WSJ and other MSM? If you did you would see that most comments on any Israel article are against Israel, against the US support of Israel, against the Israeli agents in our congress...and these aren't 'activist' making anti Israel comments, just average readers....and they out number the pro Israel zionist hasbar crowd 100 to 1.

The majority of Americans are divided between those who know something about Israel and are disgusted with it and those who don't know much and so don't give a damn either way.

By Elmo on September 11, 2011 3:27 AM

And ten years later, everyone is STILL dancing around the head of a politically correct pin. Buraq Hussein Obama ... 12th mahdi/messiah/(astride) magic (sparkle) pony/head of the O.I.C.. Is T H E GREATEST enemy, the United States of America, has EVER known.

By Macy on November 13, 2011 11:23 PM

Okay get ready to be offend by this videos and websites of what people said about Jesus Christ AND Race:

If you have any concerns please reach me at my email:
Ms.Shalom@hmamail.com

Search

Menu

Recent Posts

Recent Articles

Categories

Archives

The war America fights

TrackBack

18 Comments

Leave a comment

Syndication

Contact Me

Recommended Sites