This set of emails begins with more of Newbill following the possible reasons that Obama is interested in what happens in Syria. It does have to do with American National Interests, natural gas, oil and Russia. The other emails deal with the dangers facing the American economy and the Federal Reserve’s economic management.
This Syrian War is a Pipeline Dance among the Global Elites!!!!!!!
Sent: 9/10/2013 1:51 PM
Russia wants to be the Supplier to Europe but Needs the energy from the Middle East regions that they are Associated with to make this happen:
Pipeline Politics; Is Putin Running Out of Gas?
The Cold War is now so over that it might as well be grouped with the ancient ice ages, but there is one echo rolling across Europe from East to West: the Russian attempt to dominate the natural gas market on the European continent. As the energy sector accounts for 25 percent of Russia’s economy, any large changes in energy markets present major challenges for Vladimir Putin. Those old enough to recall the Soviet gas pipeline controversy of the early 1980s a high-profile fight of the Reagan administration to deprive Moscow of hard currency are right to have a feeling of déjà vu, as Putin’s motives transcend honest commerce.
Despite huge gas reserves waiting to be tapped, most of Europe lags the United States in the shale gas boom for several reasons: a lack of mineral rights on private land, bureaucratic obstacles, the usual intransigent opposition from Europe’s potent green lobby, and, perhaps most important, the lack of adequate pipelines to connect new gas fields to the market. Hence, natural gas prices in Europe are several times higher than U.S. prices. Since natural gas and oil are Russia’s principal export commodities, the prospect of newly abundant oil and cheaper gas outside of Russia is a grave threat to Russia’s economic and political might in the region. Russia can’t do much about global oil trends, but Putin and the state-controlled Gazprom are doing everything they can to throttle new gas development in Eastern Europe, rerunning the same kind of behind-the-scenes propaganda against shale gas that the KGB ran against new NATO missiles back in the Cold War. Propagandists in Russia are promoting every translation possible for the message fracking=bad. The second prong of Putin’s strategy is to control pipeline development as far as possible. But things are not going well for him.
Gazprom is the linchpin of Putin’s political and economic strength. The state-controlled natural gas conglomerate is a huge source of revenues for the Russian budget, but also a slush fund for Putin’s clan the corrupt network of power-political and economic relationships that rules Russia today. Immediately after coming to power in 2000, Putin moved to put the company under his direct control. In short order, he made his protégé and current prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, chairman of Gazprom’s board and appointed another protégé, Alexey Miller, as CEO. According to a book by two prominent former Russian politicians, 11 of the 18 executive positions in Gazprom were quickly filled with Putin cronies. He then moved to make the company a national champion, giving it an exclusive license for the export of the country’s gigantic gas wealth. It is widely believed that Putin makes all of the key Gazprom decisions himself.
Putin’s energy cronyism is vertically integrated, as he ensures that infrastructure projects such as pipeline construction go to his friends’ firms at lucrative prices. Gazprom pipelines typically cost two to three times more than those built by Western companies, despite the much lower wages paid to Russian labor. While the German portion of the Nord Stream pipeline, for instance, cost $2.8 million per kilometer, the Russian portion built by one of Putin’s handpicked companies cost $6.5 million/km. This is one reason Putin likes pipelines, even if he can’t guarantee they will be fully utilized.
Sitting on 18 percent of the world’s current proven gas reserves (a percentage that shrinks with each new discovery elsewhere), Gazprom became one of the largest companies in the world. At the 2008 peak of the bubble in oil prices, to which Russian gas prices were indexed, Gazprom’s hubris overflowed. With a market valuation of $365 billion at the time, Alexey Miller confidently predicted that his company would become the largest in the world, with a market cap of up to $1 trillion by 2015, and that it would dominate the huge Chinese market as well as 10 percent of the American market with shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Gazprom’s optimists thought it could command 30 percent of the world market.
Two other threats to Gazprom’s fortunes must also be mentioned. For years Gazprom and Kremlin propaganda have done their level best to scare the Europeans away from shale gas exploration. Alternatively dismissing it as a Hollywood invention or conjuring up an ecological apocalypse, the Kremlin seemingly believed that it can wish this threat away, despite evidence of the massive impact of the shale gas revolution in America. Early on, things seemed to go their way, with France and Bulgaria imposing a moratorium on shale gas exploration. No longer. With Great Britain now allowing fracking and Germany’s government submitting a draft law to do the same, the genie is out of the bottle. It’s only a matter of time before European countries begin exploiting their domestic shale gas fields, posing yet another challenge to the Russian monopolist.
Vladimir Putin may have dreamed of becoming the J.R. Ewing of Europe, but his recent moves are more in the mold of the hapless Cliff Barnes. His signature initiative at the moment is the proposed South Stream pipeline, which would run under the Black Sea and through Bulgaria to points west. Putin was hoping Gazprom could retain monopoly control of the pipeline, but because it runs through European Union territory, it is subject to the EU’s market regulations (known as the Third Energy Package ), which require that all pipelines be available for use by competing suppliers and overseen by an independent EU regulator. These conditions are unacceptable to Putin and make it unlikely that South Stream will be built.
That strategy envisaged South Stream as achieving two key political objectives. In bypassing Ukraine, heretofore the key transit country for Russian gas to Europe, it would provide the Kremlin with a powerful weapon for continued economic and political blackmail of Kiev. And, just as important, it would preempt the realization of the competing Nabucco pipeline project, designed to bring non-Russian gas from the Middle East and Central Asia into Europe. The Nabucco pipeline will run to Europe either by way of Greece and Albania into southern Italy, or through Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary to a hub at Baumgarten, Austria. A decision on the final route is expected in June. The defeat of South Stream holds dire implications for Russia’s standing as the indispensable gas supplier to Europe and for the political fortunes of Putin. [Bold Emphasis Blog Editor – It is my impression Tony Newbill is drawing attention to the fact that the control of the proposed Nabucco Pipeline from Syria by Putin would make up for his ongoing apparent natural gas designs gone awry.]
Putin’s grand scheme of strong-arming Ukraine, Poland, and others and making Europe ever more dependent on Russian gas has not only failed but seriously endangers the gas monopoly’s very existence. Well-known experts such as Mikhail Korchemkin, head of East European Gas Analysis, believe that Gazprom has only a few years before bankruptcy. With Russia’s future oil exports looking soft the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Energy Research Institute in early April forecast that oil exports could drop by 20 percent over the next 30 years weakness in gas exports will deliver a double-whammy to Putin’s power base. The financial flop of the Soviet gas pipeline in the 1980s contributed significantly to the eventual collapse of the evil empire a few years later; the prospective collapse of Putin’s energy strategy may similarly hasten the demise of his evil empire lite. (READ ENTIRETY – Pipeline Politics; Is Putin Running Out of Gas? By Alex Alexiev & Steven F. Hayward; Downstream Today – Originally Weekly Standard; 5/27/13)
The Competition to this is described here in this link:
It’s not about the chemical weapons, it’s about the Syrian pipeline (Photos)
Obama is going after Syria to secure gas pipelines for Sunni Muslims.
America’s quest to bomb Syria is not about chemical weapons being used against the Syrians. Chemical weapons are basically a smoke screen, and Obama desperately wants to remove Assad from power for other reasons.
The players in this continuing world drama are Turkey, the United States, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia. There is a good reason why Turkey and Saudi Arabia both have their backs against the wall and are desperate to take out Assad.
Two years ago, Syria announced it found a promising gas field in its country, and Oil Minister Sufian Allawai said “The first wells were drilled at Qara in Homs governorate, and the flow rate is 400,000 cubic meters per day.” This is great news for Syria’s energy revenues. Besides the prospect of its own gas field, Syria is also one of the most strategic locations for natural gas pipelines to flow to Europe.
Qatar, home to the world’s largest gas field along with Iran, has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey that would traverse Syria to the Mediterranean, with the gas then being shipped to Europe. Assad in 2009 refused to go along with the Qatar plan, instead inking deals with Russia and Iran.
Called the Islamic pipeline, it is set to open in 2016; in fact, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed deals in 2011 to construct the 3,480 mile natural gas pipeline that runs from Iran’s South Pars to Europe. This Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is set to be the largest gas pipeline in the Middle East. It will snake through Iran, Iraq, Syria, South Lebanon and through the Mediterranean; in addition, the best refinery and infrastructure is in Damascus. Further talks between Iran, Syria, and Iraq for construction of the Islamic Pipeline kicked off in Baghdad today.
The Islamic pipeline through Syria could cut energy power of Qatar and Turkey. To make matters worse, most Arabs view the Islamic Pipeline as a Shi’ite pipeline serving Shi’ite interests. After all, it originates in Shi’ite Iran, passes through Shi’ite Iraq, and flows into Shi’ite controlled Syria. Therefore, the Sunni-dominated Gulf nations have both an economic and to a lesser extent, a religious reason, for stopping the Islamic Pipeline from becoming a reality. So far, the Gulf nations have violently opposed Syria’s adoption of the Islamic Pipeline by arming opposition fighters within Syria in order to destabilize the nation.
This is certainly one reason why President Obama helped run weapons from Benghazi, Libya, through Turkey into the hands of the Syrian rebels. Al Qaeda strongly opposes the Assad government and has joined other rebel factions in an effort to overthrow Assad and to install a more Sunni-friendly government.
Russia has built up naval presence in the ports of Latakia and Tartus to protect the pipeline.
Saudi Arabia is desperate to get rid of Assad. The Saudi’s, through their intelligence … (READ ENTIRETY - It’s not about the chemical weapons, it’s about the Syrian pipeline By Vicky Nissen; Examiner; 9/9/13)
And the US Political Elites on both sides of the Isle are Involved, see here look at the board members:
And this Link shows you the connection between the Genie Oil & Gas Co and the Pipeline project that will compete with Russian Interests if Syria Falls:
Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights
Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy.
Major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel – include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild. This from a 2010 Genie Energy press release:
Claude Pupkin, CEO of Genie Oil and Gas, commented, “Genie’s success will ultimately depend, in part, on access to the expertise of the oil and gas industry and to the financial markets.
Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch are extremely well regarded by and connected to leaders in these sectors. Their guidance and participation will prove invaluable.”
This will rock your world!!!
Sent: 9/12/2013 9:35 AM
[Blog Editor: The above link is to a video that has interesting information but will make an offer to deal with the info. Video title below]
Could Take Effect as Early as October 17
“When it happens, 16 states are ready to disappear from the United States, including California and Florida.” Wall Street Journal
Warren Buffet, Bank of America and all the Big Banks
Sent: 9/20/2013 7:42 AM
Warren Buffet and Bank of America as well as all the Big Banks have this helping them profit…. It’s the greatest group of insiders ever in the history of the world!!!!! This will take you right to page 144 and show you the insider information …….
Here is how they are controlling inflation…. and it shows how the insider’s club is not helping the debt investment market that feeds a consumer supply-side demand. So this means the market is overpriced.
The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion Dollars To The American People
Did you know that U.S. banks have more than 1.8 trillion dollars parked at the Federal Reserve and that the Fed is actually paying them not to lend that money to us? We were always told that the goal of quantitative easing was to “help the economy”, but the truth is that the vast majority of the money that the Fed has created through quantitative easing has not even gotten into the system. Instead, most of it is sitting at the Fed slowly earning interest for the bankers. Back in October 2008, just as the last financial crisis was starting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Federal Reserve would start paying interest on the reserves that banks keep at the Fed. This caused an absolute explosion in the size of these reserves. Back in 2008, U.S. banks had less than 2 billion dollars of excess reserves parked at the Fed. Today, they have more than 1.8 trillion. In less than five years, the pile of excess reserves has gotten nearly 1,000 times larger. This is utter insanity, and it will have very serious consequences down the road.
Posted below is a chart that shows the explosive growth of these excess reserves in recent years…
This explains why all of the crazy money printing that the Fed has been doing has not caused tremendous inflation yet. Most of the money has not even gotten into the economy. The Fed has been paying banks not to lend it out.
But now that big pile of money is sitting out there, and at some point it is going to come pouring in to the U.S. economy. When that happens, we could very well see an absolutely massive tsunami of inflation.
Posted below is a chart that shows the growth of the M2 money supply over the past several decades. It has been fairly steady, but imagine what would happen if you … (READ THE REST - The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion Dollars To The American People; By Michael Snyder; The Economic Collapse; 7/1/13)
Then they pumped this into the equities markets:
Wall Street Week Ahead: Fed may taper without causing market tantrum
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Months of anticipation will come to an end next week when the Federal Reserve finally says whether it will start to rein in its massive stimulus of the economy, which has flooded financial markets with some $2.75 trillion over the past five years, supercharging returns on everything from stocks to junk bonds.
But for all the concerns that the reduced presence of such a giant asset buyer would be calamitous for investors, it appears equity and bond markets are poised to take next week’s Fed decision largely in stride – provided the central bank doesn’t surprise with the size of its move or shock in some other way.
The Fed has telegraphed its intentions to … (READ THE REST – Wall Street Week Ahead: Fed may taper without causing market tantrum; By Ryan Vlastelica; Yahoo Finance; 9/13/13 5:50 PM EDT)
Big Government Rationed Economic System
Sent: 9/25/2013 5:30 PM
Obamacare is a Result of this Trend because they have not the will to try and continue to allow the free market economic concept to feed demand because of Peak Earth Ideology!!!!!!
This 15 year chart shows why the Governments around the world are setting up the free market consumer driven international economy to become a Big Government rationed economic system.
The rate of this inflation is an unsustainable signal that demand is out pacing any kind of supply-side growth potential in the key areas of resource production and development that sustains life growing at the rate it has been.
This is why we see a dysfunctional Government not willing to up hold the values of the Constitution in their entirety.
This is a 15 Year chart of key resource price inflation and interest rates
This will end in nation Isolating from the International free market Scheme because as these supply demand struggles increase without any future growth expanding the supply and population continuing to expand incomes in the free market will not be able to manage the continued inflation in the key vital resource categories and nations will have to respond to their society outcry with intervention in free market profitability.
© Tony Newbill
Edited by John R. Houk
Intro to ‘JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE’
Intro by John R. Houk
Posted September 9, 2013
Who is James Buchanan? Buchanan was the 15th President of the USA elected as a Democrat (You know, the same political party as Barack Hussein Obama). Buchanan’s term of Office was from 1857 to January 11, 1861. Even though Buchanan was from Pennsylvania he supported the Slave States’ position on slavery. Buchanan mouthed his support of the U.S. Constitution and the Union of the United States of America; however as President he took no action to preserve America’s Union. Controversies of if a new State should be admitted as slave or free knocked loggerheads together politically. After Abraham Lincoln was elected as a Republican President in 1860, Southern State after Southern State seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America to preserve a slave economic culture in the South.
You have to understand Buchanan’s ineptitude to comprehend the title of John Bert’s essay castigating President Barack Hussein Obama Foreign Policy and specifically Obama’s desire to engage Syria militarily.
BTW – I believe I am at least one of the reasons that John Bert reposted this essay. You can tell this might be about a week or so dated; nevertheless the thoughts are still valid. I might point out I don’t completely agree with John Bert on the issue if engaging Bashar al-Assad is not to our National Interest. I believe it is to the USA’s interest (See Also HERE) but NOT the Obama is trying to convince people to engage Assad. The lone wolf path will make things worse before it is better.
I am re-posting this by request
JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling)
By John Bert
Reposted September 9, 2013 2:27 pm
I am re-posting this by request
JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling)
Well…Folks GET READY…Obama has JUST CHECKMATED the Congress with the Syria issue. I am CERTAIN he did not make these decisions on his own…someone with an actual working brain made these calculations…not Obama.
Here is where we are:
1.) At this point there is NO Tactical advantage (or otherwise) for the type of military strike that the imbecile in chief, Obama, has been broadcasting to the enemy that we would be making.
2.) It is most assuredly NOT in our “National Interest” or in the “Security Interests” to proceed with limited military action of the sort the “president” has proposed. There is No pressing nor imminent danger. These horrible poison gas weapons are being used in theater only.
3.) Many months back Obama’s teleprompter (we have to blame it on anyone BUT him, right?) caused Obama to shoot off his mouth about “red lines”. The “red line” has been repeatedly crossed. Now, trapped by his own mouth, he had to put up or shut up. Shutting up makes him (and the country by default) look WEAK, which is no shock to anyone who has observed HIM for more than 5 minutes, as the Russians and Iranians surely have.
4.) So now, feeling the heat (and MOST importantly watching his poll numbers plummet) he had to try to find a “way out”. Now he (or actually one of his handlers) has done so. By “seeking the authority of congress” he has effectively REVERSED the tables. Now the BLAME will fall on Congress for whatever mess comes out of Obama’s desperate need to save face for his earlier case of diarrhea of the mouth about “red lines”. Maybe we should call this approaching debacle the “Vanity War”?
Here is what WILL HAPPEN NOW… The very people that you have heard repeatedly saying taking military action against Syria was a BAD IDEA with no goal and no plan and worse, it could cause the entire region to go up in flames, these very SAME PEOPLE will now (many of them) FLIP and say the Congress MUST authorize the President to do something that an hour ago they were vehemently AGAINST. Yep…you read that right. The reason will be that we MUST authorize the President to make an asinine mistake, because if we do not Iran and everyone in the world will see the USA as weak and not living up to our word (Well…not our word…but the imbecile’s). In other words by Obama seeking congressional authority he has abdicated his leadership and authority to act and will have it BOTH WAYS…
a.) If Congress denies him the authority he will point the finger at CONGRESS.
b.) If Congress grants him the authority whatever happens when he does launch his military action against Syria, now THEY–CONGRESS will stand right with him in assuming the blame for the consequences of military action with NO clear objective and no real benefit to the USA.
THIS IS PURE GENIUS!! Either way Congress is holding the bag!!
Just when you thought this Amateur could not screw things up worse he pulls a rabbit out of his hat and promptly drops it in the lap of Congress.
The price to pay for this one move will ripple forward in time with ramifications that are hard to fathom on sooo many fronts.
If it could not get worse…it will…Obama is getting ready to fly to RUSSIA for the G20 summit. This will be a circus. Do you remember the videos of Obama walking along a line of dignitaries in Russia and NO ONE SHAKING HIS HAND…Obama sticks his hand out and NO ONE takes it…reason?? Russians are proud people and would rather be shot dead than be seen with a WEAKLING and COWARD. They KNOW who and what Obama is and they will not shake the hand of a coward…it is as simple as that. So watch as the White House staff does their best to shepherd Obama clear of any opportunities for another round of videos of folks refusing to shake his hand.
The dire foreign policy issues will multiply from this decision. Israel now knows (if they had not before they SURE DO NOW) that they are on their own. Iran now knows beyond any illusions that Obama’s word is worthless…utterly. Russia already knew.
Remember Obama did NOT seek congressional approval for Libya did he? NO. It is being done here for Obama’s VANITY reasons, NOT for the benefit of the USA. It is a Parlor Trick to pull HIS ass out of the fire and stick Congress in his place. He knows historians will look on this as abdication of authority and he is desperate to find a scapegoat…he now has, IF the Congress is stupid enough to fall for this ploy.
This man is a travesty beyond comprehension. This little stunt will be paid for and I fear the price in American lives will be STEEP.
As a side note Obama has made a laughingstock out of his brand New Secretary of State. Kerry has gone out on a limb trying to assemble “partners” making a vocal and impassioned plea for military action NOW, while Obama just sawed off the limb Kerry was clinging to. Want to bet THAT picture will quickly emerge in the Political Cartoons?? I wish I could draw!
Brilliant, right? Destroy the country’s credibility. Weaken foreign policy. Throw your Sec of State under the bus….and on and on…trust me this will NOT be the last act. I could write a BOOK on what MIGHT happen from here….none of it will be good. This idiot just sealed his fate historically as probably the most inept President. Move over James Buchanan you have a new cellmate.
Postscript: I have already heard Ambassador Bolton and Charles Krauthammer, two men that have repeatedly said the Syria military intervention is a horrible idea, now start sounding like Obama’s cheerleader for authority to act based upon the premise I recite above…geez…it did not take long.
Friends and Countrymen IF we are to stop this madness we NEED to let our Senators and Congressmen KNOW that voting for military intervention of the type Obama has proposed in Syria is STILL a HORRIBLE IDEA, and does NOT serve any security interest of this Country, only now, if they grant him the authority, THEY will join him in the history books as the Village Idiots who got out foxed by an Rank Imbecile.
You have my permission to post this as you see fit.
© John Bert
Edited by John R. Houk
Intro to: A Vital U.S. Interest?
My Brief Lone Wolf Opinion
Intro by John R. Houk
Justin Smith believes there is no benefit to American National Interests if President Barack Hussein Obama punishes Bashar al-Assad for the use of Chemical Weapons against Syria.
I know I am beginning to sound like a lone wolf among my fellow Conservatives, but I do think it is to the National Interests of the USA to remove Assad. And yes, I do realize Assad’s removal could lead to a Sunni version of Iran’s Shi’ite theocracy. That is exactly why I believe Assad’s removal is to America’s National Interests. Assad’s removal throws a monkey into Iranian hegemonic plans for the Middle East. If a Sunni regime stands between the Radical Islamic Shias of Iran and the Radical Islamic Shias of Hezbollah residing in Lebanon, the situation then highlights the violent divide between Sunnis and Shias. Sunni-Wahhabi support of Syrian rebels by Saudi Arabia is an illustration of Sunnis trying to prevent the power of emerging Nuclear WMD Iran from being a dominating Middle Eastern hegemon hating Israel. Keeping the divide between Sunnis and Shias is to Israel’s National Interests and thus to U.S. National Interests. I realize that is increasingly my lone Conservative opinion, but there you go.
A Vital U.S. Interest?
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 9/2/2013 9:43 PM
The President of the United States has become an increasingly powerful branch of government over the past century, simply because Congress has not successfully checked the President whenever a power overreach occurred. So now, more from fear of being mocked than dismay over 1429 dead, including 400 children, Obama has placed himself in a politically precarious position and the U.S. in a dangerous military venture, over his “red line” comment and the use of weapons of mass destruction. He is poised to intervene in Syria through cruise missile strikes, with or without Congressional approval, since he has not let that stop him in the past in foreign or domestic policy.
The War Powers Act (WPA) is very clear on this matter. A U.S. President can only act in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and engage an enemy of our nation, when an attack has already occurred or is imminent against the U.S. or one of our allies or when a vital U.S. interest is under a heavy threat.
President Bill Clinton acted outside the WPA when he involved the U.S. in the Serbian conflict; when President Ronald Reagan sent the U.S. Marines to Grenada, he did so to protect U.S. citizens attending medical school on the island from a Cuban invasion force.
Obama is essentially damned if he commits to this limited surgical strike and damned if he doesn’t. Two weeks ago, it wasn’t a question of if, but a question of when President Obama was going to order a strike on Syria on his own authority; and now, after speaking with Denis McDonough, White House Chief of Staff, Obama seems quite reticent to act on his own and without Congressional approval, which led Syria’s state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, to call this “the start of the historic American retreat.”
I must ask once again, “What vital interest of the U.S. is at stake in Syria, and what risk of imminent attack exists?”
The answer for the moment is that the U.S. has never had any vital interests concerning Syria, except to closely scrutinize Syria as Iran’s ally and to keep Syria and Iran from going nuclear; however, Obama’s loose-lipped “red line” comment is driving him towards proceeding with an attack which will give Iran its excuse for a retaliatory attack on Israel, according to a senior mullah in Iran, not that Obama is too worried about Israel. So, whether he attacks or not, he is seen for the indecisive, weak, and timid U.S. President, who is guided by his own arrogant self-image and false pride, rather than any clear and concise foreign policy.
More asinine reasoning is readily viewed in statements from Obama, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, who have continually spoken of “regime change” and Assad’s ouster, although Obama now states that this is not the mission. All three were wrong in Libya…wrong in Egypt…and now that they are on the record they are wrong in stating that any U.S. military intervention should “deter and degrade” Assad’s government’s ability to launch chemical weapons and level the field for the “rebels.” And, to what end? So Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Nusra can more easily take Syria for their own and run terrorist operations out of Syria for the rest of the century?
It should trouble us all to see hundreds and thousands of little innocent Syrian children suffering, and trouble me greatly it does. But once more, this crisis of humanity gives me pause and offers up more questions than answers.
Where were those who advocate “intervention for human rights” crises, such as Susan Rice, NSA advisor and ex-Ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, Obama advisor and current U.N. Ambassador and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…or for that matter Secretary of State John Kerry, when the freedom fighters of Tiananmen Square in China, the Greens of Iran or the people of Rwanda and the Congo were crying out for their assistance? Susan Rice, for one, was busy lining her pockets through her close business relationship with Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, which extended through her time at Intellibridge and her position as the State Department’s top African affairs expert, during the Clinton administration. John Kerry was probably cruising Boston Harbor on his yacht.
The harsh reality exists that the U.S. cannot be the world’s policeman. Simply put, we help when and where we can, without doing any harm. As much as we all wish to save all the hurt and suffering people of the world, the enormity of the task is simply too much for any one nation; but this has not stopped Prince Saud al-Faisal from begging the international community to “stop Assad’s aggression” against his people, while at the same time, the Arab League, Great Britain and the U.N., all three, have given Obama a vote of no confidence and refused to join him in any coalition for intervening in Syria, because Obama is not trusted as a world leader.
It mat bear reminding that more than humanitarian aid is at the forefront of Prince Faisal’s mind. This is the same family who teach the youth of Saudi Arabia that “jihad-is-the-road-to-paradise”, and because they viewed jihad, holy war, as a proper response through the Q’uran to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, they left their borders open with Iraq. The Faisal family tacitly supported the flow of non-Iraqi islamofascist insurgents into Iraq, in much the same manner that they now support the “rebels”/islamofascists in Syria!
The best of intentions all too often go awry, and no matter that Obama calls this a “limited surgical strike” or McCain’s refrain of “no boots on the ground” echoes through the halls of Congress, to date, the military proposal has not been properly limited in its scope or duration; many Democrats and Republicans alike already stand in opposition to this intervention with great logic: Senator Christopher Murphy (D) asks, “Will a U.S. attack make the situation better for the Syrian people or worse?” And, on ‘Meet the Press’ this past Sunday, Senator Rand Paul seemed to answer that very question, as he stated, “If we start a bombing campaign in Syria that expands the misery. Assad’s not an ally, but I’m not convinced that anyone on the rebel side will be an American ally.”
Nearly two million refugees have fled Syria. Little elementary school children have witnessed unspeakable horrors and the deaths of numerous friends and family members, and the head of the United Nations Human Rights Commission says that “we are looking at a lost generation of children traumatized by this war.” And there are no good answers to far too many questions, as the world rings its hands. Is this America’s problem? No, I tend to view this more as the entire Middle East’s problem due to its cultural aberrations; under no circumstance should the U.S. further involve itself in this mess, under a Commander-In-Chief I certainly could never have served. As harsh and unfeeling as this may sound, the world has all too often stood on the sidelines and allowed much worse to take place; if the attack on our consulate at Benghazi did not warrant a U.S. military response, how can Obama justify an intervention in Syria? …He can’t!
By Justin O Smith
© Justin O. Smith
Editor-Intro John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© July 31, 2013
Brig. Gen. Samson Simon Sharaf (ret.) of Pakistan has sent a critique of my post ‘A Response to “Samson Simon Sharaf and Pakistani Christian Patriotism”’ via the Google+ comment system. I usually place my thoughts preceding responses to comments; however General Sharaf’s comment is a post length and is well written with ideas I agree with as well as disagree. I’ll do my best to answer the Brigadier General’s well thought out comments below his post.
Brig. Gen. Sharaf (ret.) Defends Pakistan Patriotism and USA Criticism
(Title created by Editor)
Comment posted: July 28, 2013
Please understand that like you, we Pakistanis are also justified to claim our patriotism. . The right to freedom of thought cannot be viewed in black and white and selectively. If American citizens have a right to criticise government policies, so do we. I neither despise USA nor its people. Our opinions manifest fundamental rights and freedom of expression.
USA is a great country, the world’s only super power with a rich history. American Civil War was the Zenith of the Renaissance, Industrial Revolution and Nation States. Yet it took USA over a century to come to grips with civil rights epitomised in the tragedies of Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy. Social dynamics in an instant go berserk, but ages to take a correction course.
The America of our dreams that rose out of the civil war and the land of opportunities is not the America we see in recent international policies. Cocooned in its trans-Atlantic isolation, the advantages of globalisation do not manifest themselves in the policy towards conflict zones that lie far away. There are dual standards we protest.
The biggest and most enduring lesson of the Civil War was the decisive nature of the Social Dimension of conflict, again brought to fore in WWI and II. Hence post WWII, the process of rebuilding and restructuring was initiated for Central Europe, Japan and South Korea. The same was not done for Afghanistan and Pakistan in the post-Soviet withdrawal in the late 80s. The forces of religiously inspired militancy that were US allies from 1979 to 1989 were disowned and allowed to rot in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I felt then and in retrospect feel convinced that had USA followed the development model of Japan/Germany thereafter, much of what is happening now could have been moderated and contained. In fact, the absence to factorise societal factors and psych-social dynamics in policy and war plans has hurt countries adversely: from Gulf of Tonkin that destabilised the entire peninsula to AFPAK that has destabilised the entire region. The SledgeHammer and Daisy Cutter approach to kill a fly can only be paid back by collective hate.
USA and its allies could also have played a more assertive role in settling political issues in South Asia and prevented it from becoming a nuclear keg. Rather, Arab militants were allowed to transcend international borders and create a floating threat. OBL was allowed to Sudan and after Kenyan bombings facilitated to enter Afghanistan. Mansur Ijaz, an American opinion maker claims that USA refused to take him over from Sudan and I know through personal knowledge that USA refused to take him [OBL] over through a neutral country once Taliban wanted to hand him over in 2001.
In strategic parlance, Pakistan was the pivot from which the act of containing godless communism and Iranian revolution took place. Pakistan’s allies notably USA promoted the policy of using religion for strategic purposes as a result of which no measures were taken to hedge against religious and sectarian divides. The process began in 1949 and continued to become more exclusive with time. It is this effect we see in the religiously motivated violence in our country.
Unlike 1947-1971, Pakistani Christians are seen an extension of western influence. Acts of intolerance against Christians saw a sharp rise after 1981, when USA began sponsoring religiously inspired violence against Iran, Shia populations and USSR. Apart from blasphemy cases, in 28 incidents of terrorism spanning 10 years, 116 Christians have been killed and 410 severely impaired. 7 churches or properties have been destroyed. Human rights organisations and many Christian NGOs watching Pakistan through a periscope ignore the linkages of this violence to global politics. The socio-economic indices of Christians have plummeted and majority resigned to life in slums and ghettos. This is what I am fighting against as a Pakistani Christian activist.
During a lecture at Vatican, I said that we do not need reinforcement of Faith. In all adversities, we stick to our religion. Please convince the world to follow constructive policies that will help us prosper in other things as we do in Faith (3rd Letter of St. Paul, 1:2). As a religious right and a strong lobby, it is also your responsibility to instil the fear of God in your policy makers, whose Shock and Awe rains hell for Pakistanis and Afghans.
John R. Houk Response
July 30, 2013
General Sharaf is absolutely correct that he has as much right to criticize foreign and domestic governments as much as I do. Well anyway, from an American perspective. I doubt that General Sharaf would criticize the Pakistan government action that potentially would criminalize a group of Pakistani Christians for having an outdoor Easter Sunrise Service. General Sharaf is a Roman Catholic thus if he chose such criticism I suspect he would run afoul of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws. It would be blasphemous for a Muslim to accept an open Christian Service proclaiming the Resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Christ’s Resurrection and Sonship are a direct contradiction of the Islamic Quran. Hence the probable accusation of breaking a Blasphemy Law.
That was the point I was attempting to drive home in the post that got this discussion rolling – “Samson Simon Sharaf and Pakistani Christian Patriotism”. It is a mystery to me that Pakistani Christians are patriotic to a government that validates Islamic Sharia Law that results in persecution for the simple practice of Religious Freedom (e.g. proclaiming Jesus is the only way to God and all other paths – including Mohammed’s – are false paths). In America it is annoying to Biblical Christians when Muslims preach that Mohammed is the last Prophet and his revelation from Allah is truth while the People of the Book are deceived following a corrupted Scriptures. Annoyance does not lead to societal riots in which Mosques are burnt to the ground and Muslims homes and stores are destroyed and women are violated. That is something that does occur in Pakistan aimed at Christians when Americans speak what they believe is the truth about Islam. Muslims go beyond being annoyed to something said in a nation foreign to them leading toward taking out their vitriol on Pakistani Christians. AND still Pakistani Christians are patriotic to a government that does little prevention and only sometimes prosecutes only a few Muslims when hundreds may have been involved in violence and desecration of Churches. I have to be honest, Pakistan Christian loyalty and Patriotism mystifies me.
General Sharaf you say America is great nation then write a paragraph of America’s Civil Rights struggles in the past that are better now than any time in our history as if that greatness has now evaporated. I do agree America’s shining star on the hill status has diminished but Civil Rights have not been the cause of that dimming light. The American struggle to rekindle the fire to the light has more to do with the unfortunate success of Left Wing politics diminishing America’s moral fabric by separating all things Christian from influencing the nation on a Federal, State and Local level.
Prayer has been removed from our Public Schools, Christian symbolism in Public buildings are being extracted by legal means, lax abortion laws has enabled the murder of millions of unborn children and America’s Left has successfully forced American society to accept homosexuality and transgenderism as a part of the society’s normal fabric. There are a plethora of moral issues that I haven’t mentioned that the Left is using as a legal war on Christianity in an attempt to slowly expunge our faith and Biblical Morality.
America’s Founding Fathers believed in a Church-State separation; however that separation was not a two-way street like the American Left has been revising for the last 50 years or so. America’s First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom and ensures that the government will not establish a State-managed Church. There is no mention whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution of preventing Christianity (literally any ‘religion’ in the wording, but the intent was referencing Christianity) from influencing the morals of American society on a Private or Public level.
The result of this moral encroachment by America’s Left has seen a skyrocketing of crime on an urban and rural level. Children that were once predominantly innocent angels have multiplied into disrespectful violent criminals. Most of America’s rural areas (which was my upbringing) had so much neighborly and community trust that people did not lock their doors in their homes or their automobiles. Those days are gone in the 21st Century. Actually those days left before the 21st Century arrived.
Chuckle. Now look what you did General. You got me contemplating the things that I do find disturbing about America’s current state of society.
Addressing America’s international policies there is an essence of truth to what you have observed. America’s Foreign Policy had a central paradigm that was established by our first President George Washington. Do not meddle in European affairs. Americans distrusted Europeans shortly after the American Revolution. Even after the establishment of our honored Constitution that has been the benchmark of American governance, America’s military strength was purposefully kept small because Americans do not trust the power of government which controlled the military. Even after America’s Civil War military personnel was reduced monumentally to limit government interference with American citizens. Only after a war began was there a military mobilization. This included America’s involvement in WWI. After WWI was over the military was reduced. The political reasoning for military reduction was because of the belief of the difficulty for foreign powers (with the focus on Europe) to cross the Atlantic and/or Pacific Oceans to make a sustained attack on American soil. The policy was called Isolationism.
Japan’s bombing of the Navy Base at Pearl Harbor Hawaii changed America’s military strategy forever. America had to play catch-up in mobilizing the army and navy to confront Japanese aggression in the Pacific and join the British in fighting Japan’s European ally Nazi Germany in the Atlantic-European theatre.
After WWII America was the big winner. All of Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to Moscow Russia suffered the devastation of truly horrible carnage and destruction. Japan’s industrial complex had been destroyed as well.
There was only one nation that did not experience destruction on their home soil during WWII. Of course that was the USA. Part of the reason for this again were the two oceans of the Pacific and the Atlantic; however it was obvious from WWII that ocean protection was quickly coming to an end. Soon after WWII the old Soviet Union set out to turn lands their Red Army had captured into a Communist Empire by imposing Satellite status of European nations the USSR did not directly absorb into their Marxist union.
If the USA had returned to past demilitarization as in all previous wars Europe and Japan would have to depend on their own diminished resources to rebuild their Industrial Complex AND they would become an obvious target of Stalin’s Communist expansionism that was quickly forming an Iron Curtain.
Seeing the change in the wind of geopolitics and National Security it became a wise choice to use America’s abundant resources to aid Europe and Japan to rebuild their Industrial Complex. Thus it was also inevitable that America would protect their investment from Soviet aggression by protecting it. To protect the USA had to expand their Military Complex for its first time in history.
Nuclear energy and hi-tech science turned America into the most formidable military the world has ever seen to the chagrin of the Soviet expansionist agenda. The USSR was constantly playing technical catch-up with our Military and Scientific Complex but were always a step behind. Marxist principles simply could not develop innovation with their resources in the same way as America’s Free Market Capitalism did. Even Russia’s nuclear program and armament was the result of espionage rather than personal development.
Have there been Foreign Policy mistakes and bad decisions by the American government? We all know the answer is yes. Nonetheless, America’s National Interests are more important to us than that of an unstable or destabilized nation that has the capacity to initiate WWIII conventionally or with a nuke war strategy.
General you stated the Muslim world (well specifically you use the global stretch example of the AFPAK area through the Vietnamese Gulf of Tonkin) could have benefitted from the post-WWII rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan. This a point I believe is categorically incorrect. In the case of the Muslim dominated world, it is not willing to allow the kind of American encroachment that would have been needed to create industrialism and an uncorrupted government Civil Service ex nihilo. Europe and Japan had a long history of a growing industrialism and a Civil Service to make the apparatus of government to function efficiently. Islamic Supremacism and Tribalism among Muslim nations makes such an American investment nearly impossible.
I didn’t use to believe that. I too felt the Westernized traditions of the Europe and Japan (yes Japan learned Western ways to make their nation military world power in the 1930s) paradigm would also benefit the Muslim world. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that nation-building political infrastructure that would infuse stable institutions of governance and economy cannot happen between America and Third World Muslim nations. America was able to do this with nations that already had a foundation to rebuild upon.
Ironically the Iranian model will probably work best among Muslim nations; however that government is so full of loathing of everything non-Muslim that American National Interests compels the USA to marginalize Iranian development. General you have to realize Pakistan has the capacity to become a model for the Muslim world, but again Islamic Supremacism compels the USA to meddle in Pakistan internal affairs. After all Pakistan has nukes. Perhaps saner people are managing Pakistan’s military than those managing the Iranian military; nonetheless from an American National Interest standpoint the Radical Islam that appears to becoming more and more pervasive makes the USA to overtly or covertly meddle to maintain some kind of balance of weakness rather than a balance of strength. The issue of finding Osama bin Laden holed up in Pakistan for years certainly adds to that distrust.
You don’t seriously think America was going to fix Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin reference) after developing a Marxist paradigm for their economy and industry? Even today Vietnam maintains a Maoist-Stalinist repressive regime in which Civil Rights are non-existent unless you accept the Communist paradigm. Just briefly on Southeast Asia: South Korea and Taiwan join Japan in creating an Economic-Industrial Complex with American help.
I checked out the source you mentioned concerning Mansur (or Mansoor) Ijaz. There appears to be a bit of controversy on Mr. Ijaz’s reliability. The Memogate scandal he caused in Pakistan (and less publicized in the USA) in which Ijaz accuses Pakistan’s President Zardari and the Pakistani Ambassador at the time to the USA to be in collusion with America in allowing soldiers to fly into Pakistan and attack bin Laden’s Abbottabad paramilitary complex which resulted in OBL’s death. If true, in my opinion that is a plus for Pakistan’s President. Any Pakistan negative public reaction frankly shows why Pakistan should be a concern to American National Interests. As the USA departs from Afghanistan militarily the Afghanis deserve what happens to them if their good citizens allow the Taliban to rule again. After an Afghan departure the USA has less reason to meddle in Pakistan internal affairs except perhaps as to who controls Pakistan’s nuke arsenal. And also I have to be frank: the killing of Osama bin Laden makes it easier for American citizens of a Conservative nature to stomach leaving Afghanistan even with the failure of Presidents Bush and Obama to use a win at all costs strategy as was last practiced during WWII. The win at all costs strategy probably would have ended America’s interest in fighting in Afghanistan sooner; however as in WWII civilian collateral damage in both Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been much steeper. Musharraf’s game of getting US military aid in exchange for Pakistan cooperation in creating an anti-Taliban front was a travesty of a faithful alliance with Pakistan.
Apparently Mansur Ijaz is the global source of how America could have captured Osama bin Laden two times before the 9/11 Islamic Terrorist attack that led America into a Middle East war. The reasoning is no OBL means no 9/11 attack. No 9/11 attack suggests no American Global War on Terror (GWOT). The reality is 9/11 caused an American military mobilization like Pearl Harbor caused a mobilization to participate in WWII. You see WWII had been going on in Europe since 1939 and in Asia between Japan since before the Day of Infamy on December 7, 1941 in the early 1930s. Islamic Terrorists had been attacking Israel-Jews since before its inception in 1948 and American interests since at least from the late 70s and early 80s. It took around 3000 deaths on American soil to wake up American sensibilities that Islamic Terrorists are more than just a nuisance, but rather a threat to the American way of life at home and abroad. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar simply gave the USA something tangible to extend American wrath for the senseless killing of Americans just because they are Americans. Frankly I and a lot of Americans would not be bothered using our resources to strike down Islamic Terrorists wherever they are hiding no matter the sovereign nation. Whether it takes the reach of SEAL Team 6 or Drones, Islamic Terrorists need to feel the pain they inflict on others. If Islamic Terrorists are dumb enough to hide among accepting non-combatants then so be it.
I apologize General I know it sounds harsh. Honestly though I’ve grown weary of Islam’s contribution to messing up the trust between individuals that I experienced in my childhood and youth.
Okay, back to Ijaz.
Ijaz claims the USA could have collected bin Laden from Sudan with the full consent of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Google exploration appears to validate Ijaz (See Also HERE) however the 9/11 Commission and Clinton Administration disagreed with Ijaz’s contention. Exposing Clinton to potential Foreign Policy screw-ups made Mansoor Ijaz a media darling among American Conservatives. However, more and more evidence seems to be pointing toward Ijaz as a narcissistic showboater in the case of Memogate.
Journalist David Frum believes Mansoor Ijaz is a faker because he lied about Frum under oath in a Pakistan investigation:
I finally concluded that Ijaz’s version of events was almost certainly bogus, and I raised the possibility that “Pakistani democracy has been corroded, and the U.S. and Pakistan have been pushed toward a dangerous confrontation, by a reckless fantasist motivated by childish vanity.”
Q: Do you know Mr. David Frum, who is also a contributor to CNN?
A: I don’t know Mr. David Frum personally, but I know about him. He has extensively written against me with regard to this matter.
Q: Do you have an article contributed on December 8, 2011, by Mr. David Frum?
A: I don’t have it.
Q: How did Mr. David Frum describe you in the said article?
A: I don’t recall, but it was in negative terms. [Volunteers] In view of the fact Mr. Frum defamed me my lawyers in Washington informed him that if he does not retract, I will be taking legal action against him.
(You can read the transcript here. This exchange is on page 43.)
Let me state flatly for the record: that quoted statement of Mansoor Ijaz is false. I have not been threatened with legal action by any lawyer representing Mansoor Ijaz. I have not had any communication of any kind from any lawyer representing Mansoor Ijaz.
Mansoor Ijaz did ask CNN.com to post a response from him, not only to my column, but also to a column by my CNN colleague Peter Bergen detailing the long, sorry history of false claims by Ijaz. That response can be read here:
Peter Bergen can ridicule my three or four claims that turned out to be inaccurate over a five year period of being interviewed nearly four or five times a week — it won’t change the facts, or the accuracy with which I recorded them in this instance.
Now there is a fifth time (at least) when an Ijaz statement has been revealed as false.
May it please the court, I think we have a regular pattern of behavior here. (READ ENTIRITY - Did The Notorious Mansoor Ijaz Lie About Me Under Oath? By David Frum; The Daily Beast; Mar 21, 2012 10:58 AM EDT)
General Sharaf, using Mansoor Ijaz as a source seems unreliable; nonetheless giving him the benefit of the doubt the U.S. government did not have a sense of a homeland security problem with Islamic Terrorism. It was still viewed as a legal Court issue rather than a military matter. Not until 9/11 occurred that National Security strategists began to view Islamic Terrorism as a homeland National Security matter. Of all the problems blamed on President Bush including some misjudged Foreign Policy decisions, he is a hero to me. President GW Bush made the decision to face Islamic Terrorism as a military threat that the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans could not throw up a wall big enough to keep the barbarians out. America’s war with the Taliban for protecting Osama bin Laden was the disturbing fault of the Taliban leadership of which Mullah Omar was the Chief leader among many.
So if Omar Mullah desired to give up Osama bin Laden in cooperation with the USA before 9/11, why not after 9/11 when bin Laden was considered a military war criminal?
General Sharaf you point out Pakistani Christians became persecution targets of American meddling in religious affairs of Iran. You do remember what the Shi’ite Mullocracy did to the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 right? An Embassy by international protocol is the national soil of the nation that occupies that Embassy. The protocol for diplomatic extinction is to order the national diplomatic personnel to leave the host nation. The protocol is not to attack an Embassy and hold the personnel hostage for nearly ONE YEAR screaming espionage where diplomatic immunity applies. If one thinks the USA will not inflict mayhem at least covertly for such ignorance of the sanctity of diplomatic immunity is sadly mistaken. I suspect the only reason President Carter did not respond as if this was an act of war was because he is Democratic Party Liberal like America’s current President Obama. Most American Liberals live under the delusion that ALL acts of aggression can be solved with a carrot more than with a stick. Radical Muslims do not respond well with carrots from the kafir. Carrots are viewed as weakness. It is only the stick that elicits a negotiation point with the ideology of Radical Islam. Iran is an enemy of the USA. Carter screwed up the opportunity to put Iran in its place. Instead Carter made Iran look like it was negotiating from a point of strength and enabled the Iranian Mullocracy to have an agenda of building a Military Complex that is not only threatening to American National Security but also to initiating yet another global conflict by forcing nations to choose sides if such a conflict breaks out.
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Canonical)
13 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (13: 1-7 NKJV)
I get why Pakistani Christians should submit to the governing authorities imposing Islamic Supremacism over the Religious Freedom of Christians. After all the authorities appointed are from God regardless of Christian, Islamic, other religion or atheist. However when rulers fail to do good or be a minister of good, that ruler is outside the mandated appointment. When that ruler or rulers support evil over good God raises up another instrument to do the will of God knowingly or unknowingly (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar).
18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.
22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers[a] of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 “And this is the inscription that was written:
26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it;27 TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.”[e] (Daniel 5: 18-28 NKJV)
I am biased nonetheless I believe America has been an instrument of good globally since WWII. I also believe standing as an instrument of good could be endangered because of the American Left purging of America’s Christian foundations that helped bring about good government when a council of diverse people agreed upon a national experiment that has been the U.S. Constitution. All the geopolitical meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations under the policies of American National Interests and National Security might allow another instrument to spank the USA a few times to get the people to wake up. A paradigm God used with the Hebrew Tribes until the disregard of faith in God led to Assyria deporting the Northern Tribes of Israel and 100 years later Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar deported Judah and Benjamin. The largest of the remaining 12 Tribes was Judah and thus the Hebrew descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became labeled as Jews. After punishment Jews by prophecy returned to their homeland about 70 years later ironically by the direction of the King of Persia which is present day Iran.
My point is God chooses whomever whether of faith or not to accomplish His purpose on the Earth. The New Testament warns that the Antichrist will fool people that he represents God. The Antichrists actions ultimately reveal who he belongs to whether as an individual or as an Antichrist spirit corrupting people and nations. I still believe the USA is God’s global instrument; however the further America descends away from Christianity the more likely that instrumentation will come to an end.
John R. Houk
© June 3, 2013
The blogger Danny Jeffrey has often been critical of the U.N. and Obama international principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The public presentation of R2P is that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians of a nation placed in a life threatening dangerous position from either its government or perhaps internal terrorism the local government cannot cope with or both. AND that sounds altruistic enough, don’t you think?
Jeffrey’s criticism is simple. R2P is a tool of Leftist Globalists and the U.N. to have an excuse to further the agenda of a global New World Order under some kind of dual Leftist-Islamic design. Danny Jeffrey off the top of my head seems to emphasize the Caliphate agenda of Radical Islam.
I say “off the top of my head” because it seems that Danny’s essays that I have read tend to be suspicious of Islam’s goal to destroy Israel and the Leftist tend to agree with that agenda. I personally think global Leftists and the Caliphate agenda Muslims are taking advantage of each other with the intention of screwing each other over. My reasoning for this thinking is that Leftists are not fond of religious influence in general and Islam is not fond of any other religions or ideologies that are secularist at best and atheistic at worst. As far as Islam is concerned that would run the Leftist gamut of Secular Humanist Socialists to atheistic Marxists.
Thus in my line of thinking the Leftist-Radical Islam unity is more like an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” agenda until that enemy is eliminated. If that situation occurs you can imagine the global bloodlust that would follow a global Leftist vs. global Muslim Caliphate war. It would be like medieval days when the winners destroyed en masse the losers. Protocols of modern Western Civilization would be totally thrown out the door while such a war would be a series of battles in which each battle victory by either side would be an ethnic cleansing moment until the victors would be the only ones standing after ethnic cleansing annihilation.
A global Leftist-Caliphate war would be an End Times apocalypse in nature.
In this sense I agree with Danny that R2P is a nefarious thing that the long term affects will be of no good for people (Mostly Americans) who love Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The long term affects of R2P will strengthen the ulterior motives of global Leftists and global Caliphate Muslims to the horrible misfortune of Christians and Bill of Rights minded Americans. Both Christians and Bill of Rights minded Americans are the target of destruction by global Leftists and global Caliphate Muslims.
However when it comes to Syria, I believe dumping Bashar al-Assad will throw a monkey wrench in the Caliphate agenda because it will highlight the mutual hatred that Sunnis and Shias have for each other. Sunnis represent roughly 90% of Islam and Shias represent roughly 10% Islam.
The largest Shia nation is Iran of which that nation’s Mullocracy are mostly Twelver Shias. They are called Twelvers because they believe a Twelfth or Hidden Imam will reveal himself and force Islam upon the whole Earth. That Twelfth Imam is a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. Therein lay the hatred between Sunnis and Shias.
The Sunnis beat back the Shias in a war in which the last Mohammed relative that was a Caliph – Ali – had his Caliphate terminated by assassination. The Shias believed only a person of a Mohammed ancestry line could guide Muslims as Caliph. Allegedly the last living relative of Mohammed (the twelfth in lineage that is) disappeared. I am uncertain what the Sunnis believe about this guy – perhaps Sunnis believe he was killed or perhaps never existed; thus ending any claim to a hereditary Caliphate. I am certain that the Shias believe this twelfth Imam and descendant of Mohammed via Ali went into some sort of occultation to be hidden until the time was right for revealing himself to secure the Earth for Islam.
Okay that is a brief summary of the Sunni-Shia divide that is roughly correct but I am sure is filled with anomalies from the Sunni or Shia perspective.
The thing is Iran – a Shia theocratic nation – has regional designs as in being the top Muslim dog in the Middle East. Iran is the only Muslim nation that has an open destructive against both Israel and America that will undoubted be threatening because the development of nuclear weapons.
Iran’s principle allies in the region are Assad’s Shia-Alawite minority Syrian government and Hezbollah-Shia terrorist dominated Lebanon. Taking out Assad from this religious maniac alliance of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah will disrupt the military designs of Iran.
Of course the problem that Danny will point is that Syrian rebels fighting against Assad are religious nuts of radical Sunni-Muslims that essentially and probably will lead to a problem for the USA and Israel. My thinking is though that the USA and Israel already have a problem with Israel. So why not place Iran is a situation that some of their nefarious regional goals are disrupted by killing or booting Assad out of Syrian control?
So here I am in the unenviable position of both agreeing and disagreeing with Danny Jeffrey’s most recent essay on R2P, aiding the Syrian rebels, Obama’s support of those rebels and Senator McCain’s pushing Obama to support those rebels.
And yet I also have to tell you that Obama is the most corrupt President as to supporting the Constitutional principles of the Founding Fathers since Aaron Burr almost attained that Presidency in our then young Republic. When Obama says “Change” he means transform America away from the Bill of Rights and to at least make America a Multiculturalist Socialist-Democratic nation and at worst a Marxist utopia with no Liberty whatsoever.
John R. Houk
© May 28, 2013
Most Conservatives see the Syrian Civil War as a no-win situation for American National Interests. On one side you have the rogue government of Bashar al-Assad that is Iran’s ally and a conduit for Islamic terrorists especially the Shi’ites of Hezbollah entrenched in Lebanon. On the other side you have the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that is a loosely united bunch of Sunni Muslims and Syrian Secularists (See Also HERE and HERE) rebelling against Assad’s Shi’ite Alawite dominated government. The current problem with the Free Syrian Army rebels is that its army is dominated by Islamist factions of which the largest appears to an al Qaeda affiliate.
And so there is the appearance of a no-win choice existing for the U.S. government. It has been confirmed that the Assad government is indeed using chemical weapons against the FSA. It is probably a good guess that Assad is using internationally illegal chemical weapons against the FSA it is a good guess that Assad is using chemical weapons against the Sunni civilian population that is supportive of the FSA.
History shows that helping Islamists against a current common enemy of the USA will come back to bite us in the – you know what. We aided Taliban Islamists against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Taliban were more than willing to take American aid to be a thorn in Soviet Russia’s side until the Soviet army withdrew and the puppet Communist government eventually fell into the hands of Mullah Mohammed Omar. AND the old one-eyed Mullah Omar repaid our aid by giving al Qaeda and its power structure led by Usama bin Laden refuge after the psycho Islamic terrorist sneak attack on 9/11.
The same thing will probably happen if America decides to aid the FSA against Assad’s rogue Syrian government. So then why help the FSA?
The reason for helping the FSA is because ending Assad throws a monkey wrench into Iran and Hezbollah’s nefarious designs against Israel and the USA. Well, at least for awhile there will be disruption against Iran.
The hat trick is knowing history of radical Muslims we have helped will bite our gluteus maximus then at least be smart enough to develop a couple of back-up plans in preparation for that radical Muslim back-stabbing. And by back-up plans I mean something that will strike pain and fear for radical Muslim treachery. A military response does not necessarily mean soldiers on the ground. A military response can be a military strike using conventional weaponry or nuclear weaponry on a strategic basis. And strategic nukes does not turning a whole nation into nuclear made glass from a massive nuke blast.
So yes, at this time an American led coalition needs to remove and punish Assad and his chem-weapon happy generals as war criminals.
John R. Houk
© April 28, 2013
Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime is using chemical weapons to stop the momentum of the Syrian rebels from dethroning the Assad regime. Now I realize perhaps a half to even more than a half of the Rebels are radical Muslims perhaps making them no worse than Assad’s secular-socialized government dominated by Syria’s Alawite-Shia (See Here, Here and Here) minority. Nonetheless, chemical weapons are supposed to be illegal by international convention. I am guessing the U.N. Security Council could empower military sanctions against Assad’s regime.
Now I know many Conservatives – Danny Jeffrey comes to mind – are against the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). R2P apparently has a few criticisms such as providing an excuse to invade to accomplish the National Interests of perhaps an agreed coalition bloc of nations. And perhaps R2P could embroil the USA in a war that is conducted beyond the pale of the U.S. Constitution.
I believe removing Assad is as much in the National Interests of the USA as there is a R2P military reason to save civilian lives. Now Danny Jeffrey’s concern is that R2P strategy is an Obama mask to discreetly aid invading Arab or Muslim armies to take down the Leftist perceived threat to world peace in the Jewish State of Israel. With Obama at the helm of the U.S. government I can see Danny’s view of a reprehensible motive behind the Obama R2P agenda. President Barack Hussein Obama is NO friend of Israel. Obama has gone beyond satisfying political correctness by saying Palestinians deserve a sovereign nation to forcing the issue including robbing Israel of half its capital city of Jerusalem and giving that to Jew-Hating Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.
Why is it in America’s National Interest to remove Bashar al-Assad? Anything that throws a monkey wrench into the radical Islamic agenda of America’s enemy Iran is good for America and perhaps signals those Twelver maniacs that American muscle might actually spank Iran for making good on their threats to drive Israeli Jews into the sea.
The fine line at issue is what will the U.S. government do after aiding Syrian rebels to give the Assad regime a boot? It would be crazy to get rid of Assad and allow a radical Muslim government to form to be the Sunni mirror image of Iran’s Shi’ite Twelver radical Muslim government.
The information I have managed to cull about the nature of the Syrian Rebels is that the Islamist militias – especially Jabhat al Nusra – are gaining infrastructure control of the rebel held land in Syria. Even though the secular or more moderate Muslim rebels figured prominently early in the Syrian Rebellion against Assad, it appears the radical Muslims by virtue of infrastructure possession would evolve into the controlling faction of any future Syrian government absent of Assad. This would not be good for American National Interests. A Sunni Islamist theocratic nation will be as much of an enemy of the USA and Israel as Iran is. Indeed I suspect Iran would make friendly overtures to a Sunni Islamist regime even though Iran represents Shia Islam. Just for perspective you should know that Sunnis are about 90% of Islam while Shias are roughly 10% of Islam. Radical Muslim Sunni Clerics have labeled Shias a heretic religion thus making the Shias as much of an infidel as Jews and Christians. Perhaps even more worth of death than Jews and Christians because a Shi’ite existence could be perceived as an insult to Allah and Mohammed. Among radical Muslims, in particular insulting Mo and Allah, is a good reason for the execution of the death penalty.
So here are the horns of a dilemma the U.S. government faces. Help the Syrian Rebels defeat Assad quite probably bring into power a Jew-Hating and American-Hating Islamist government OR do nothing while Assad uses chemical weapons of mass destruction to reverse the defeat he has been experiencing utilizing conventional weapons against the Rebels. Undoubtedly an Assad victory to remain in power would result in a wholesale genocide of Sunni Rebels and the civilian Sunni population that supported the Rebels. An Assad victory would also mean acquiring hubris perhaps leading the dictator to make rash moves against American interests and Israel, feeling an illusion of being undefeatable.
In the realm of the lesser of two evils, it still seems to me Assad’s demise will in at least the short term be better for the National Interests of the USA even if the long term outcome of Assad’s removal may not be helpful. The best way to bring down Assad with the least amount of American blood is to provide arms to the Syrian Rebels. It may be a futile hope but weaponry should be distributed to the more secular minded Sunnis who desire an elected government rather than a theo-political Sharia religious government in which the religious elite call the shots.
It will be up to the U.S. government – cough the Obama Administration – to actively influence a relationship that is not inimical to American National Interests. That probably is a tough order for I sense even a secular government based on Islamic elections will still be a Jew-Hating anti-Israel government. Which brings us back to Danny Jeffrey’s thoughts that President Barack Hussein Obama will part of an agenda to use R2P to join Arab and Muslim government to end the existence of Israel.
I was brought to this line of thinking from reading a Caroline Glick article entitled, “Time to confront Obama”. Glick wants to confront Obama’s motives behind the decisions he has made relating to Islamic terrorism, his treatment of Israel, wondering the value the word of BHO in relation to the Chemical WMD attack perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad against his own citizens and so on.
As my thoughts began to evolve it became apparent I was following a different train of thinking than Ms Glick. Nonetheless, you should read her article which is anti-Obama and pro-Israel. I like that way of thinking.
John R. Houk
© July 6, 2012
Danny Jeffrey posted this letter from a Facebook friend who had received it from a Christian residing in the turmoil in Syria. I had posted Danny’s thoughts on Syria (FIRST RATE PROPAGANDA AND FOX NEWS IS INVOLVED) underneath my thoughts after Googling on the Houla Massacre the subject matter of Danny’s post.
I think this is a fair summary of the Christian’s plight in Syria:
§ The majority population of Syria is Sunni Muslims.
§ The Rebels in Syria are dominated by Radical Muslim Sunnis.
§ President Bashar al-Assad is a good righteous President dedicated to bring democracy to Syria.
§ The Assad regime is dominated by the minority Shia Muslims.
§ The Assad regime is dedicated to bringing a level political situation to Syria including protecting the Christian minority in Syria.
§ Sunnis do not care if Syrian Christians are ethnically cleansed.
§ Israelis do not care if Syrian Christians are ethnically cleansed.
§ President Barack Hussein Obama does not care if Syrian Christians are ethnically cleansed.
§ The world wants to remove Assad because of his friendship with Iran.
§ Saudi Arabia is orchestrating the world to buy into the Sunni Radical Muslims as leaders.
§ The world is unjust and is following the Sunni butchers to rid Syria of Bashar al-Assad.
This Christian is distressed and hopeless about Christianity in Syria if Assad is removed. I absolutely believe the assessment of the future of Syrian Christians if Shia Alawite Bashar al-Assad is removed (probably killed or exiled to Iran).
On the other hand I believe the Christian has bought into the propaganda of the Assad regime. Christians may survive in Syria under Assad but the lot in life will not be as full participants in a representative democratic government because there is no such thing under the Assad regime. Bashar al-Assad inherited the reins of dictatorship from his father who was highly involved in mid-20th century Arab wars to eradicate Jewish Israel off the earth.
There is a reason for the move of Syrian Sunnis toward radical Islam. It is to remove the hopelessness of the Oppression of the Alawite Assad family rule has executed upon the majority Sunnis. Is Assad oppression a reason to butcher Syrian Shias and Christians?
There is no justification for massacres of the Sunni majority, the Shia minority and the Christian minority. Alas the only thing that will save Syria from savage massacres is to end the tribal mindedness of Syrian Arabs and the secularization of Islam (Sunni and Shia).
NONE of those situations will ever happen in Syria without bloodshed. AND that bloodshed would have to occur with the goal of ending familial tribalism and the secularization of Islam. The current antagonists in Syria indicate there is no such reform on the horizon for Syria.
I have to believe fear and propaganda is the foundation for Christians supporting Assad and therefore the brutal Mullahs of Iran. I am convinced Saudi Arabia is probably involved in some subterfuge in Syria for the simple matter that Syrian chaos benefits Saudi National Interests concerning their primary Middle Eastern enemy Iran.
As to Israel and President BHO, I believe the Christian in the letter is in a state of hopelessness in the analysis of uncaring by Israelis and the American government. Israel is a loser by whoever wins the civil war in Syria. The common thread of Jew-hatred that has brainwashed into every citizen in residing Middle Eastern nations will be the same by whoever wins. I believe the Obama Administration and some foolish Senators interest in removing Assad is the result of bad geopolitical thinking in poking a thumb in the eye of Iran by ridding the Mullahs of a client state. If Assad falls though, it will change nothing for America. The common thread of the perception of hating the Muslim big Satan (USA) and the Muslim little Satan (Israel) will continue until a war to end wars occurs in the Middle East.
And so, God have mercy on the Christians in Syria. Syrian Christians are stuck between the Mohammed-style radical Islam of the Sunnis and the Alawite Shias need to rule at any cost to survive because of their own oppressive sins toward Sunnis.
DO NOT BELIEVE the crap in the news about Syria!!!
Jul 2, 2012 7:59pm
John, thank you for joining the effort. This is a letter from a Christian in Syria to a FB friend – Terry Cook.
DO NOT BELIEVE the crap in the news about Syria!!!
From a beloved Christian sister in Syria:
We are all suffering here in Syria & have had to leave our homes in Homs & come to Aleppo. These animals, the “free Syria” [SlantRight Editor: Free Syrian Army] thugs have all but burnt our city. We Thank God we have family here where we are welcome & safe for the time being. Unfortunately I don’t think we will ever see our homes again.
We Christians have been advised to keep a low profile & to stay indoors for our safety. We were lucky to get out of Homs when we did as forty three Christians were kidnapped two days after we fled. These non humans are using our brothers & sisters as human shields so the Army cannot fire upon them.
Terry I don’t think many in the western world understand what is needed of a ruling party in order to enforce a free & just society for all people. Any country in the Middle East like Syria whose population is eighty seven % Sunni Muslim, have to have a strong regime to ensure the minority are treated equally. It has been difficult for our President to introduce Syria to a form of western style democracy, but this is what he had been working hard to achieve. He was working hard to open Syria up to the world by the introduction of the internet & tourism etc. He had lifted our economy by 5% just before this invasion.
The REAL problem is that many of the Sunni hard liners do not want democracy, it goes against Islamic Sharia law. They with the aid of Saudi Arabia instigated this all from outside Syria. They are not the only ones behind this as many in the region have their purpose of wanting to rid Syria of it’s President & install one that is more “Controllable”. Iran is the real target. Saudi Arabia want the Shiites eradicated, Israel want them disarmed, those controlling American foreign policy agree with Israel & accept the bribe from Saudi Arabia. Syria is the minor stumbling block to their plan so they must control it. Fine Terry but what about us? Does Saudi Arabia care if us Christians are eradicated? No they don’t. Does Israel really care if we are eradicated? No I am sure they are not. Is Mr. Obama losing sleep over us Christians? No I don’t think so! If many in the west understood our plight & the reason behind this farce invasion then just maybe Terry we might survive. One of the greatest crimes in history will be if this intervention on our country results in the killing of this VERY just President.
Sorry for rambling Terry I am just so overwhelmed at the injustice in this world & the way the free world are aiding Satan (Islam) to reign.
There are NO Winners in Syria’s Civil War
John R. Houk
© July 6, 2012
DO NOT BELIEVE the crap in the news about Syria!!!
SlantRight Editor: I ran a spell check on the Christian’s letter. I did not change the grammar, just the spelling of a few words. If you choose to you can read the pristine original at the link provided at the beginning of the letter.
About Danny Jeffrey from Freedom Rings 1776
I’m sixty seven and since Ronald Reagan left office I have watched my country slowly deteriorate as freedoms are lost and the value of our currency dwindles. This has been a slow but steady decline until Barrack Obama entered the White House. I will not refer to this man as President. That is a job that deserves respect and he has earned none at all. I am convinced that were it not for the Tea Party stirring up the public we would now be living under a total dictatorship. He seeks only power and has no loyalty at all to the United States, and as long as he is in office I shall write to any who will read and speak of what he is and what he is doing to this country.
John R. Houk
© February 7, 2012
After al Qaeda pulled a Pearl Harbor-like attack that killed over three thousand Americans in New York City, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 America invaded Afghanistan beginning October 7, 2001. The connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan was the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Omar refused to give up bin Laden to American justice.
Here we are in February 2012 just a few months over the tenth year of Americans fighting Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan. After the initial easy military victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists, the Taliban and al Qaeda disappeared into the intricate caves of Tora Bora and across the border into Pakistan. It is my opinion this is where America botched the AfPak Theater of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The American led coalition forces relied too much on Afghan Northern Alliance and respected the Pakistan border too much as well. America should have gone into Tora Bora with extreme prejudice militarily and crossed the border into Pakistan to cut off any retreat of the Taliban and al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. This kind of an aggressive strategy probably would have ended our involvement in the AfPak Theater by capturing bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Sure Pakistan would have protested vehemently and perhaps even ended a political alliance previously promised to America to fight the GWOT; however hindsight has shown Pakistan promises are diluted in favor of Pakistan National Interests.
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) preferred a strategy of supporting Taliban that were pro-Pakistan and fighting Taliban that were anti-Pakistan with the end game of keeping Pakistan tentacles on Afghanistan to compliment Pakistan National Interests with local enemies primarily against India and secondarily against Shia-Iran. In other words Pakistan set out to be duplicitous with America at the outset depending on the ebb and flow of what affected Pakistan National Interests.
So America should have ignored Pakistan denials of entering their sovereign territory in the interest of ending America’s involvement in Afghanistan much earlier. Unfortunately it was and probably still is politically incorrect to go all out to do what it takes to have a complete victory. Western Leftist apologists have forgotten what it takes to end an evil despotism as was undertaken against Hitler’s Nazi Germany. The Allies bombed cities on route to victory in WWII. The American led Coalition should have had the same demeanor toward a victory at the outset of the initial invasion of Afghanistan.
The goal of the invasion was to capture or kill bin Laden and punish the Taliban for supporting bin Laden. A complete victory at Tora Bora would have accomplished those ends. Then America could have extricated itself from the affairs of Afghanistan to let the Afghanis fight over whoever will control the reins of government. America’s invasion and the success of its end game goals of an all out offensive would serve as a warning that America would be back to any Muslim nation that harbored Islamic terrorists that attacked American soil in order to exact justice.
Now after writing about what should have happened, here we are a little over ten years deciding an exit strategy that is complicated. The Afghan U.S. installed Karzai Administration is corrupt and not popular enough to sustain the Administration of the whole of Afghanistan’s borders. The situation is somewhat similar to the corrupt South Vietnamese government that southern Vietnamese people disliked enough that there was no popular support to resist the North Vietnamese usurpation of the South. Fortunately the Taliban does not have the military hardware like the Taliban to exact a sustained offensive to bludgeon its way to Kabul. However, the Taliban has enough unbelievable popular support that a Karzai led Afghan government would lose territory to a Taliban offensive. The Taliban then declare its own government and acquire the weaponry to sustain the usurpation of the rest of Afghanistan if the U.S. sponsored Afghan government does not find a leader to inspire Afghanis against the purist Islamic religious rule of the Taliban.
With all this in mind America has sent out feelers to the Taliban negotiate a peace that might incorporate the Taliban in the electorate and government of Afghanistan. If such a negotiated peace with the Taliban did occur, who thinks the Taliban would effectively organize a political victory? Well I believe that is exactly what will happen! And yet, the Taliban entrance into the Afghan government would be the simplest solution for America to end the Afghan Theater of the GWOT.
George Friedman’s STRATFOR article today is what developed my musings of this post.
John R. Houk
© December 29, 2011
Shoebat.com has posted a video that is a documentary of the death of Usama Bin Laden. The important theme of this video is that Pakistan aided Bin Laden in hiding him in plain sight.
This is not a surprise because Pakistan’s Intelligence community – Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – is a byzantine style government within a government and the ISI were and are very supportive of the radical Islam of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Pakistan’s military are not really supportive of radical Islam as much as it supportive of Pakistan National Interests. The primary objective of Pakistan’s National Interests is to focus on its mortal enemy India. In 1947 the British succumbed to India’s nationalist movement and departed; however the political expediency in the hope to prevent an India civil war was to create a rough division between India’s Muslims and India’s Hindus as well as other ethnic and religious people that were neither Muslim nor Hindu. The non-Muslim/non-Hindu population pretty much stayed with the Hindu side of India. The foolish non-Muslim populations that determined to live in the Muslim majority areas which became known as Pakistan found themselves a persecuted people. The Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims of the new Pakistan fled to India or became exploited in Pakistan. For the most part Christians that could not afford to flee remained in Pakistan. In 1947 Pakistan was one nation separated by the immense Indian Sub-Continent. East Pakistan eventually became the independent nation of Bangladesh. It is the Pakistan of the west that is a nuclear power that is the arch-enemy of India which also is a nuclear power.
The one thing that unites the byzantine elements of Pakistan is the hatred of India. The Pakistan military over the years since 1947 has taken a secular approach to its contribution in governance. The ISI appears to be more inclined toward the religious interests of the Pakistan people; i.e. the religious interests of Islamic Supremacism.
I would be surprised if the Pakistan military actively hid Usama bin Laden but I am certain that ISI interaction with the military provided elements that were aware bin Laden was in Pakistan. I am absolutely convinced the ISI was actively hiding bin Laden in Pakistan AND that means keeping bin Laden from America. Getting bin Laden is one of the primary objectives in going to war with the then Taliban dominated Afghanistan.
So what would be the reason that the ISI pretend to be a friend with America and hide UBL? I speculate that reason was hatred of India. The ISI wanted to protect the Taliban in case they could be used as an agent of subversive activities if the American supported Afghan government began to show favorable relations with India. In the ISI’s eyes an economic-trade situation between Afghanistan and India might lead to the Indian military establishing bases of operation under the auspices of protecting Afghanistan but surrounding Pakistan with the threat of military action. AND the threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India has been on the precipice over the years.
Ultimately Pakistan cannot be trusted because their National Interests are focused on India and Pakistan Foreign Policy as it concerns the USA is at best an element of manipulation. It would behoove America to begin secret negotiations of a military alliance with India. Pakistan will eventually sell-out America especially if there is a drawdown of the American military in Afghanistan as the perception grows that America has down all it can for the Afghan government. It is at this point the Taliban will test the Afghan government to see if it is too corrupt to sustain administrative control of the Afghan nation. If the Taliban finds success, you can count on Pakistan probably through the ISI will begin planning with the Taliban to bring down the American supported Afghan government.