Monday, December 11, 2006

How do we win in Iraq?

The ISG report suggests that we involve Iran and Syria diplomatically as a major part of our effort to appear not to lose too badly in Iraq and that Israel is a major part of the equation. I think the report may be on to something: Yes, we should involve Iran and Syria; Yes, Israel is a critical element in the equation and the status quo must be altered.

Much has been said and written about the "fact" that our armed forces are stretched thin and we have no more troops to send to Iraq. Many are of the opinion, for differing reasons, that more troops in Iraq are not the answer.

I am no military expert. It does appear though that any overuse of our assets, if that is what it is, is limited to the Army and Marines. Our Navy and Air Force do not appear to be heavily committed in Iraq or in support of the troops that are there.

Here are a series of actions designed to capitalize on the ISG's recommendations with respect to involving Iran, Syria and Israel in resolving the problems plaguing the Middle East:

1) We park a carrier group in the Mediterranean off Israel;
2) We park a second carrier group in the Persian Gulf off Iran;
3) We inform Iran and Syria that their support of sectarian warfare and terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon will no longer be tolerated;
4) We inform Iran and Syria that we will begin strategic bombing of their countries immediately in retaliation for their activities in Iraq and Lebanon;
5) We inform Iran and Syria that the bombing will end when:
A) We can verify that they have withdrawn their aid and support for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon;
B) We can verify that they have closed their borders with Iraq and stopped the shipping of arms to Lebanon;
C) They turn over to the USA all Iraqi Baathists and Al-Quada members in their countries as well as the assets of those people;
D) They issue unambiguous declarations in English, Arabic and Farsi that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a free and sovereign state and forswear any intention to attack her;
E) Iran issues a declaration in English, Arabic and Farsi that it will not now, or in the future, attempt to create nuclear weapons or attempt to acquire the materials to make them;
F) Iran invites US inspection teams into the country in order to facilitate the verification of E above and gives the teams complete freedom of movement.

What we are seeing now in Iraq and Lebanon are the fruits of our reliance on organizations like the UN and over-reliance on institutions like "International Law".

The UN is a failed concept. It is now clear to all but the most blindered of internationalists that elevating to the level of legitimacy any regime in the world just because it exists invites the barbarians into the dining room where they will, quite naturally, feast on the truly legitimate since the truly legitimate are constrained by the rules of decency.

You do not promote Human Rights in Libya by making Libya the chair of the Human Rights Commission. You promote Human Rights in Libya by denying membership in august organizations to Libya until Libya has demonstrated that its government will protect the Human Rights of its inhabitants.

The internationalists have somehow persuaded otherwise intelligent people that exposure to right minded people and invitations to high councils will cause the transformation of brutes into intellectuals while our human experience is exactly the opposite. You don't award a Harvard degree to a High School student in the hope that he will study hard and earn the degree. You have removed any incentive for him to study hard and earn the degree.

Similarly, we don't invite rogue regimes like Syria and Iran to sit down and discuss things with us. We drive them to the table begging for us to talk with them instead of shoot at them.

International law, like domestic law, only serves to inhibit those who are law abiding. Criminals really don't care about criminal law. Rogue regimes which, by definition, have spent their existence defying international law are obviously not constrained by it. Why should they be? There are no meaningful penalties for breaking it.

The road to victory in Iraq will be paved with stones made of courage and resolve. Not the courage and resolve of our forces already there, who have already proven just how courageous and resolute they are. The stones of courage and resolve needed can only come from an American public supportive of the truly liberal cause of spreading freedom and dedicated to the imperative cause of refusing to bow down to tyrants. Those stones are missing. They must be found.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

ISG - Iraq Surrender Group

A colleague asked me on Tuesday whether I had seen anything definitive on the "Report" yet. I replied that I hadn't but that it really didn't much matter. From all accounts I have read it appeared likely to contain a prescription for abandoning the Iraqis who believed in us, the troops who sacrificed and died for the cause and those in the region who had cast their lot with us.

Now it's out.

I missed one essential element: Give Israel back to the Arabs. It never occurred to me that even someone as reputedly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel as James "F--k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker would go so far as to recommend a "regional meeting without Israel so as to avoid pressure from the Jews" as has been reported. Sure, if we give the Golan Heights back to Syria Islamonuts will stop setting off bombs in Bali.

The report says that we should engage the Syrians and Iranians in talks to get their co-operation in stabilizing Iraq.

I heard a clip of Baker defending his view to Lieberman. Turns out his brilliant idea is to invite Syria and Iran to the table. If they say "no" then they will be exposed to all the world as obstructionists who are encouraging the de-stabilization of Iraq. Apparently there is someone in the world that Baker thinks needs convincing of this most obvious fact. Whoever that someone is, he must be living in a cave somewhere without access to any information at all. That being the case, how does Baker plan to inform him of Iran's newly confirmed intransigence?

Then, thanks to Rush, we get to hear Madeline Albright's sage advice on the subject. (I always have a problem with her name. Seems to me Aldumb would be more appropriate.) I will quote from memory as nearly as possible: "Of course we have to talk to our enemies, not only to our friends". Brilliant. As Rush said, "No, we don't have to talk to our enemies, we have to defeat our enemies". He went on to say that our talks with the Soviets became a lot more productive when we had Pershings in England pointed at their heads.

Happily, as W pays lip service to the report he spares no effort to make perfectly clear in a press conference today that, if anything, we will become more aggressive in Iraq.

The war isn't lost yet. Hundreds, if not thousands of American service personnel along with thousands of Iraqis have died needlessly. Sacrificed on the alter of the American left's hatred of America and W. It is impossible to look back at the progress of events in Iraq and not reach the conclusion that the bad guys were emboldened by the constant drum beat of the left and the main stream press for the defeat of America in Iraq. They knew, as OBL had pointed out shortly after Mogadishu, that as long as they could keep killing Americans for a couple of years the useful idiots of the American left would cheer them on and revel in the defeat of the country they so despise, a muscular and confident America.

The lefties have never felt so good about themselves as they did in the late sixties and early seventies when they last caused the defeat of America and the needless loss of thousands of American lives. Their actions (mine included at the time) ensured the murder and slavery of millions in Indo-China. In the eighties (I had been cured by then) they fawned over the Soviets and protested the placing of nukes in England and Europe. That the Soviets were running the world's largest and most brutal prison, enslaving hundreds of millions of people mattered not at all to them. Liberals? Not by any sane definition.

Monday, December 04, 2006

The Religion of Perpetual Outrage - Again

You have all read by now of the "Flying Imams" and the hurtful treatment they received at the hands of those dastardly Islamophobes, the Flying Public and US Airways.

The facts are fairly clear:

1) 6 Arab looking men were praying in or near the boarding lounge for the Minneapolis - Phoenix flight happily invoking the name of Allah;
2) All boarded together;
3) They sat apart; 2 in 1st class, 2 mid-cabin and 2 in the rear of the plane;
4) The 2 who sat in 1st class didn't have boarding passes for 1st class and had been told by the gate agent that 1st class seats were not available;
5) 3 of the 6 asked for "seat belt extenders". Most of us have never heard of these before. They are used to make it possible for the obese to strap themselves in comfortably. (I had the misfortune of sitting beside someone who actually needed one of these devices once on SW Airlines);
6) None of those who asked for the extenders needed them and they placed them on the floor beneath their seats;
7) The seat belt extenders can be used effectively as weapons to disable others.

Well, nothing suspicious about any of that is there? The "Imams" claim they sat apart so as not to alarm the other passengers. This explanation is a beautiful example of just how stupid they think we are. They are so sensitive to our perceptions that they split up after getting on the plane ( as did the 9-11 terrorists) but so insensitive to our perceptions that they hold a prayer meeting invoking the name of Allah in the boarding lounge. Makes perfect sense to me.

Now its a week or so later. CAIR has dutifully accused all of us of Islamophobia. "Imams" are holding protests at airports in Washington and at US Airways HQ in Tempe.

This is another test of our policy of "Tolerance". Do we tolerate obviously provocative behavior from third world nuts with a 7th century philosophy whose stated goal is to wipe from the earth any form of tolerance? Is it possible that the non-Islamists who are promoting our multi-culti nonsense policies do not understand that these people actually intend to accomplish what they so loudly proclaim as their goal? The "Tolerant" society these activists are so proud of will be extinguished if we extend our tolerance to those who loudly and constantly proclaim their intent to destroy Western Liberal Society? What idiocy.

On a more practical note: I have flown a lot over the last 25 years. A whole lot. I have never, ever, ever ,ever seen ANYONE praying before a flight. Not Muslims, not Jews, not Christians. That some of you may have would not surprise me but if it has been observed it is certainly an extremely rare event.

The leading "Imam" ( I have forgotten his name) gave an interview in which he says he "loves" US Airways. The implication is that he has flown often. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question:

Q: Mr. Imam, sir, your holiness, since you are so fond of US Airways can you tell us what has happened when you and your colleagues have said your prayers in the boarding lounge before other of the many flights you appear to have taken? And a follow up- What has been the reaction of the passengers when you have to say your prayers during a flight? Unless you only take short flights and given the schedule of Muslim prayer, an observant person like yourself must surely have found himself in flight at prayer time on one occasion or another.

A: (Please note this is my answer, not that of his holiness): Allah is great and the infidels will all perish, it is the will of Allah. Why are you asking me all these questions. You hate Islam and the followers of the Prophet. Obviously the wrong-headed executives of US Airways are discriminating against all Islamic people because they have an irrational fear of Islam..........