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.
John R. Houk
© November 21, 2011
Tony Newbill sent an email that contained an article written by Paul Joseph Watson entitled “It’s The End Of The Eurozone As We Know It”. Displaying my ignorance of European politics and economics I equated “Eurozone” with European Union (EU). After reading the Watson article I had a feeling there was a difference between the Eurozone and the EU.
When discussing the Euro (€ or EUR for short), the scope of Europe referred to is that covered by the European Union (EU), this is a more restricted area, for example it excludes Russia.
This geographical region using the Euro is known as the Eurozone (sometimes hyphenated as in Euro-zone) or Euro area.
There are 16 countries that are regarded as officially part of the Euro and others that have adopted the Euro but do not have a full representation within the European Central Bank.
It is important to get the differences between Europe, the European Union (EU), the Euro, and Eurozone.
· Some countries in Europe chose to use the Euro but are not official members of the Eurozone: Kosovo, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Vatican City, and Montenegro.
· Some countries that are part of the EU (European Union) system but do not use the Euro: Denmark, Sweden, the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.
· Countries that have pegged their currencies to the Euro with a view to joining the Euro: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Denmark.
· The European Union (EU) is a project of common economic and political union. This covers a more restricted region than the geographical area of Europe. That is, EU excludes countries to the eastern and southern regions of wider Europe: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Macedonia. (Europe for Beginners – European Union (EU), Eurozone, Euroarea, and the Euro (€))
In essence the EU is the loose confederation of European nations both politically and economically. I say loose confederation because each member nation still has their national sovereignty, national laws and national taxes.
The Eurozone are those nations that have committed to make the Euro currency its legal tender. Not all EU nations thus are a part of the Eurozone (e.g. the UK), yet some non-EU nations are in the Eurozone (e.g. micro-States like Andorra, Kosovo, Montenegro, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City).
A collapse of the EU would entail the disintegration of that political confederation.
A collapse of the Eurozone would entail a crisis surrounding the Euro currency.
Most people that are watching this European crisis unfold believe the collapse of the Eurozone would send Europe into a catastrophic depression making economic standards of living comparable to Latin American nations. This would freak out Europeans of the EU that have become quite accustomed to a government managed socialized life. Latin American standards of living would terminate entitlements in Europe in such a way that would make the USA look like a socialist nation to Europeans.
What would happen in Europe?
Undoubtedly social chaos would ensue. Does anyone know what happens in Europe when social chaos overtakes the capability of governments to manage their internal affairs? Can anyone say that a national savior was sought whose name was Adolf Hitler? Hitler came to power in Germany after the depression made currency worthless and rebuilt the German economy. Unfortunately for Jews and others considered inferior by Nazis, Hitler rebuilt the German military also.
Is there a Hitler waiting in the wings looking for a Eurozone collapse to be the man everyone looks to lead Europeans out of chaos? At this time I would have say no.
However, there are indications the governments of France and Germany are working some back-door politicking that might include a couple of possibilities:
1. There is talk of making the Eurozone more elite by eliminating slacker economic nations like Greece and Italy.
2. There is also talk of allowing the Euro to collapse enabling stronger economic members of the Eurozone (i.e. France and Germany) to dictate terms that anemic economies give up significant portions of their national sovereignty making a stronger central government within the EU that looks more like a United States of Europe with a federal style government.
I am a novice to the nuances of modern back-door politicking in Europe so I am certain there are different layers of elitist ruling possibilities that relate to a coalescing One-Europe Order.
If France and Germany intend on saving the Euro (hence the Eurozone) by limiting nations to the European Central Bank (ECB) then that would make France and Germany the de facto powers of the EU, right? If the ECB becomes elitist in membership yet EU nations continue to use the Euro as their legal tender, then that will have significant repercussions to non-ECB members of the EU. The ability to manage monetary concerns for an EU member nation would be in the hands of the non-State ECB. The ECB might actually have the ability to force economic policy for a member EU State that is not part of the Eurozone. This might be a step to uniting Europe under one government via monetary policy rather than the age old act of war.
Then there is the outright goal of making a United States of Europe with a central government. There are some that believe allowing a Euro crisis to continue to its worst possible outcome will allow the guidance of France and Germany to institute a one government United States of Europe.
The UK is a member of the EU but has gone to great lengths to maintain its national sovereignty. For example the UK does not use the Euro because it still has its own national bank (Bank of England) with the Pound Sterling as the British currency. I am not quite certain how British national interests would deal with the French and Germans dominating a U.S. of E.
History has shown that the UK has not liked the idea of continental Europe calling the shots of British policy. I predict if Continental Europe draws toward a central government that the UK will not participate in a United States of Europe. So then Geopolitics comes into question. If the scenario is an independent UK, a central government of the USE and various Eastern Europe nations not a part of the USE but are a part of NATO then a different relational balance of power must ensue.
For one thing the existence of an American led NATO would not be in the national interests of a new USE. The NATO as we know it would have to be disbanded or realigned. For there to be a viable NATO it might look like the USA, the UK, the USE and various new NATO members of Eastern Europe (of the old Soviet bloc). Frankly because a more powerful centralized USE, I doubt that the one Europe order would enjoy playing the back-up role in NATO.
I see two possible shifts in geopolitical alignments that might even further change if the first tier is successful.
· The USE would withdraw as an active member of NATO and begin to take on its own defensive strategy that would at least be friendly to the USA in the beginning.
· The USA, the UK and Eastern Europe nations would continue in NATO or develop a new charter redefining an alliance strategy for belligerent invaders from the East like Russia or nuclear armed nations perhaps like Iran or even Pakistan.
Then the U.S. foreign policy ticket might be completely overhauled.
Perhaps the USA would begin to view the USE as a viable buffer. This would mean the USE would be the buffer between a reemerging Russia and American national interests in European markets. America would begin to solidify Latin America as being off limits Western and Eastern powers as in the old Monroe Doctrine updated to the 21st century. With Russia buffered by Europe then American would be able to focus its interests on America’s greatest Eastern competitor – China.
It would behoove America to drop untrustworthy Pakistan and cultivate a friendship with India. Cultivation with India could be tricky since Russia has been an ally for India for some time; however except for a penchant for socialism India has nothing in common with Russia.
India is a nation of democratic institutions with a huge infusion of socialistic government management. India’s natural enemy is Muslim Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan are nuke powers. Pakistan’s government is ironically a bit byzantine and unstable as to who calls the shots on policy. India demonstrates all the growing pains of a third world nation moving up the later to economic strength yet with a stable government which is amazing considering the diversity of religious elements inside India. Hinduism is the big dog, yet Islam is still a large element in India.
I bring the plusses and minuses of India to attention because of the Global War on Terrorism, Iranian saber rattling, Russian demands to be a geopolitical military player and China’s desire to be a shaker and mover economically on a global level which in turns would require a shaking and moving military back-up Chinese national interests. This in turn connects to America’s national interest to protect her citizens physically and economically which again goes to military power.
To bring my rambling all together I need to point out that a collapsing Eurozone and a restructured European Union has a definite affect on America’s future via the policy choices America would have to make. Let’s be clear. Those America choices are more than just concerns over deficits and debt and the economy. Those American choices will determine America’s traditional strengths of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which in turn frame Constitutional Rights and laws that have become embedded in the American psyche almost like a spiritual persona.
Just as a side note I realize these thoughts gravitate more toward nationalism and American Exceptionalism than toward global elites pulling strings to form a One World Government or New World Order under an international power. Personally I believe the NWO conspiracy theory has some viability as an agenda; however as far as human nature goes I also believe human differences of opinion cannot sustain a One-Government NWO. Even in an oligarchical fashion, spheres of influence that will look more like cooperating nations will happen in Earth’s future rather than the executive power of One World Government.
Many will find another irony in my belief system. I BELIEVE IN A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
My view of a One World Government/New World Order is not at the hand or hands of mankind. Rather my view is that of the Parousia of Jesus Christ that will initiate the thousand year rule of the Lord’s Kingdom on earth. After the thousand year rule of Christ, human nature will again be tempted away from God’s covenant with Satan’s release from his supernatural prison to again deceive humanity into believing that Satan’s leadership can defeat the Creator’s power to make twisted ungodliness normal and godliness to look like evil.
Once again that old dragon Satan will get whooped upon and his deceived followers. God Almighty then creates the New Earth and the New Heaven which merge together as Jerusalem as the capital city. Then human nature will longer be tainted by the fallen nature of the first Adam but will be like the nature of the last Adam – Jesus Christ the Son of God and Savior.
So, do I think a Eurozone collapse is imminent? A lot of pundits think so. There is disagreement though. Niall Ferguson senses the European Union will collapse while the Eurozone survives by restructuring somewhat as I mentioned earlier. Making a strong Euro thus means making the European Central Bank an elitist organization expelling or refusing to allow weak links (i.e. weak economic nations) to be a part of the ECB Board of Directors. Incidentally the ECB Board of Directors functions somewhat like America’s Federal Reserve. The weak links that continue to use the Euro as their currency would in essence make their economic policy subservient to the ECB Board of Directors.
Whether the EU collapses or the Eurozone collapses, the most likely outcome will be a restructuring of Europe. If everything goes south then Europe returns to a bunch of fractured nations. I am guessing on a global scale this would not be beneficial for the global economy affecting big economies outside of Europe. This is why people should pay attention to the other alternative; i.e. the existence of a United States of Europe fits the bill to keep global economic standards on an even keel.
John R. Houk
© October 24, 2011
Ari Bussel has a well appreciated compliment (See Ari Bussel’s article at the end of this SlantRight post) for the nation of Canada for expelling a high level diplomat representing the Palestinian Authority (PA) posted a link in her twitter account of a young Arab girl expressing her patriotism for a non-existent Palestine by finishing with a call to exterminate Jews. Most MSM outlets and Independent Media outlets have been writing the offending part of the video entitled “I Am Palestinian” says: “destroy the Jews”. A cursory search via Google and YouTube did not provide the video with the English subtitle “destroy the Jews”. I don’t know if YouTube removed the particular video tweeted by Linda Sobeh Ali or if YouTube buried deep for searches. I do know that Ali’s account with Twitter and Facebook (or at least as of October 18) has been taken down making difficult to find the exact YouTube version of a young Arab girl calling for the destruction of Jews. Most of the English translations I found had something close to destroy the Zionists. If you choose to view the best translation I found you can listen to the poor propagandized girl HERE.
Bussel criticizes the critics of Israel like those in a movement to divest from investments in Israel and Jewish Leftists especially within Israel itself that support a policy that endangers Israel’s existence as a Jewish State available as a Homeland to the world’s Jews. I am 100% behind Bussel’s criticism.
There is a case that Bussel is committed to that I do not have a 100% agreement with. Bussel often expresses anger or disappointment that Hosni Mubarak was sold out by America (expressly the Obama Administration) noting the fact that Mubarak was an ally to American National Interests and Israeli National Interests.
The problem I have with Mubarak is that he was actually a brutal dictator; however it is well said that Mubarak was our brutal dictator.
One example is that Mubarak’s regime was probably the last call for Islamic terrorists that were able to resist American enhanced interrogation techniques. Egypt actually used real torture and nobody would step up to the plate to criticize Mubarak because he was from a rather powerful Muslim nation and it was politically incorrect for calling Muslim nations on the topic of torture especially if the torture was handed out to real bad guys committed to killing Westerners as much as Jews.
Another example of Mubarak as our dictator was that he was pretty solid in hunting down Islamic terrorists that were clients of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Mubarak considered those radical Muslims of evil as a threat to the Mubarak regime and so was more than willing to join Israel in thwarting evil adventures against Israel.
So I can say, I do see Ari Bussel’s point about Mubarak; however I believe Mubarak misses the nature of Mubarak’s intentions. I believe Mubarak aided America because of the military aid sent to Egypt’s military. I believe Mubarak allied itself to Israel not for the love of the Jewish State but rather as a means to the National Interests of the Mubarak Egyptian regime.
I am guessing that if Mubarak or a selected heir to continue the regime was around during a scenario in which it appeared that Israel would fall without superpower aid, that Mubarak would not have lifted a finger to help Israel and might have actually joined at the last minute any venture to take down Israel. Why?
It would be to the benefit of a Mubarak Egyptian National Interest to participate in the destruction of Israel in a joint venture, especially if there was also the appearance a super power (can you say America?) was not coming to Israel’s aid.
Mubarak was all about regime self-preservation. Mubarak was loyal to the swing of the pendulum.
On the other hand Mubarak was America’s dictator at the time of his fall. I am of the altruistic belief that America should honor those that help America. I believe that even if the ally of today could be the enemy of tomorrow. Mubarak had not entered into the projected scenario above. He still was helping American interests. I don’t believe Obama could have done anything short of supporting Mubarak in a bloody revolution in which Egyptian civilians would be the main losers. However, I believe Obama could have done more to convince Mubarak and his family to leave Egypt as a pawn against the future possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egyptian regime. Mubarak’s position should have been to live to fight another day.
Undoubtedly a Muslim Brotherhood led Egyptian regime will end up as repressive as the Shia-Muslim regime currently in Iran that won the day because of the Iranian people perception of the brutality of the Shah of Iran. Unlike in Iran, Egypt currently does not have a huge paratrooper element to keep the Egyptian military in check while the MB implements a societal purge terminating all intellectual elites that might raise opposition to a future repressive Sharia Law regime. Ayatollah Khomeini executed a bloody societal purge that would have made Stalin proud to prevent future organized uprisings that might be represented by known elite of Intellectuals, Politicians, or Military Heroes. Khomeini had them all executed.
The Egyptian military is not an organization that will be so easily pushed into a position of being purged by a Muslim Brotherhood regime. Certainly Mubarak’s fall had to do somewhat with MB infiltration within the Officer Corps of the Egyptian military in the lower Officer ranks; nonetheless the big dog Egyptian Officers have no desire to be a part of a military purge. I am certain there are still a large amount of Officers that are loyal to their Egyptian Commanders.
Egypt’s immediate political future will be measured by somewhat dueling cooperating compromises between the MB influences and Egyptian Military Commanders. The outcome of such political cooperation is anyone’s guess to what will ultimately emerge as a stable Egyptian government.
Mubarak’s dictatorship then is not something I would place on a pedestal like Ari Bussel has; however only the future will tell if President Obama was another President Carter sell-out that drove the Shah out of Iran. In a crisis it would have been just as good a guess that Mubarak (or probably a male family leader) would have been invited back to Egypt as a symbol to unite Egyptians against MB future repression that will leave a sour taste in the mouths of the Egyptian people.
John R. Houk
© September 29, 2011
There are three (maybe four if one looks at Australia) big players in Asia-Pacific geopolitics: China, Japan and USA. China and Japan are Asian and the USA is the North America Super Power that has a big stake in Asian-Pacific geopolitics.
The decade long Global War on Terror (GWOT) has somewhat obscured the reality that China is a Communist dictatorship that has had an ongoing successful upgrade on their economy and military. China’s upgrading of its geopolitical status in a strong economy and a modernization of its military has shown China is willing to be more and more confrontational with its neighbors.
In my opinion China’s geopolitical growth has made Japan (the old WWII nemesis) important to American National Interests. Japan still has a strong economy although some believe a diminishing economy. Japan has a modern military yet its military is greatly tied to the WWII victor’s in the USA.
I personally have focused on the geopolitics of a militant Islam that threatens Western culture and have little knowledge of the specifics of Asian-Pacific geopolitics. Every once in a while I run across an article should alert me and you about a Chinese geopolitical agenda. One such article I found at AEI by Michael Auslin entitled “The Bleak Future of Sino-Japanese Relations”.
The Auslin title suggests that “Sino-Japanese” relations will remain strained; however Auslin planted some seeds that imply there are those in the Japanese government and military that may see things through different lenses. That implication suggests a slight moving away from American influence because China and Japan have mutual economic-natural resource needs that when withheld from each causes a prick in each of their sides. (If I am pricked, do I not bleed?)
The question for America has to be: How much can America trust Japan as an ally in the future as Japanese National Interests might gravitate toward a closer symbiotic relationship with China? Does America need to encourage Japan to focus more on their military defense needs rather than American power making up the military defense difference for Japanese security? If a self-militarizing Japan occurs that could act as a military competitor with China, allow America to view Japan as an effective counter-measure to China’s modernizing military? If Japan effectively modernizes into a more than competent geopolitical military power, might that militarization lead Japan down the path of asserting their National Interests in the Pacific viewing America as more of a global competitor and less of a friendly ally?
In other words are the unknown variables of militarizing Japan as a buffer to China in the future a good or bad thing?
John R. Houk
© June 16, 2011
You cannot tell me that Pakistan was harboring Osama bin Laden for years in protective comfort! The NY Times reports that a number of Pakistani informants relaying info to the CIA have been arrested by Pakistan. According to the NYT, one of the informants was a Pakistan army major.
Apparently the CIA is calling Pakistan on arresting informants for the CIA. Pakistan is quickly becoming exposed as an unreliable ally. Perhaps since the goal was to get the head of al Qaeda at the time of an Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil, it might be time to leave Afghanistan. Or perhaps there is a strategic purpose to be on Iran’s borders via Afghanistan and Iraq. In which case, American troops should secure strategic areas comparable to our enemy Iran. Then we can support Afghanistan’s current corrupt Karzai government only as it benefits American interests rather than Karzai’s interest.
Pakistan is becoming a villain in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) offering carrot and stick charity to the Taliban especially in Pakistan, but I have to assume also on the Afghanistan side of the border. Pakistan’s carrot and stick charity for the Taliban aids Pakistan’s National Interests and NOT America’s National Interest.
It would be to America’s National Interest to clandestinely search out Afghan leaders that have more care for an Afghan national government to benefit all its citizens rather than tribal exploitation competition. I am certain that is the attraction of the Taliban to many Afghanis. As ruthless and as purist Islam as the Taliban is, that Islamist collection of Muslims represent a consistent form of Islamic justice more than does the Karzai government which holds leadership mostly because of the power of American might. We need to find a collection of tribal leaders that do not appreciate the Taliban and is willing to work with the American government for a better Afghanistan rather than work for the American government based on monetary feudalism.
Apparently the Afghan tribal leaders are motivated by gain for their family areas of influence more than a sovereign Afghanistan nation among the global States unfortunately nominally aligned by the United Nations.
Let’s face it; there is a natural resource in the Middle East that drives the global economy. We all know that natural resource is petroleum. The oil rich nations of the Middle East and Muslim world are just as interested in keeping the global petro-economy flowing as they are to maintain any dar al-Islam beliefs of their region. Thus there are two big dog oil magnate nations in competition with each other: Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Iran is quickly pulling an Adolf Hitler by strengthening their regional military might. This military strengthening by Iran is mostly the result of technology exchanges and arms exchanges from Russia. Iran part of the exchange are petro-dollars and oil. Iran has already gone nuclear. If – probably when – Iran becomes a nuclear military power, a huge attribution will be due to the technological help of Russia.
Saudi Arabia has chosen the path of receiving military technology from America as well as American military support similar to America’s involvement as the big military dog of NATO. The irony is a significant amount of the Saudi Royal family are supportive of the purist Islam represented by the Islamist Wahhabi sect. Purist Islam takes it as a huge insult that the infidel/kafir (America) is deeply involved in Saudi Arabia’s defensive National Security.
This dar al-Islam (House of Islam) superiority complex against the dar al-Harb (House of War) individuals being on the holy Arabian Peninsula is an abhorrent offense. This is interesting since the Wahhabis think of themselves as Sunnis. Sunnis represent about 90% of Islamic thought. The other 10% is roughly the Shias. The two sects have a huge animosity toward each other over the succession of the Caliphate in the early days of Islam. I won’t go into the Sunni-Shia split except to say the Shias believe the Caliphate succession should be through the bloodline of the Islamic pseudo-prophet Mohammed.
Thus oil giants Saudi Arabia and Iran are vying for regional hegemony. The Saudis seem to like the status quo. The Iranians are thinking hegemonic control of oil to bring on the global economic chaos that will bring the clash of civilizations. The Twelver Shias of Iran (i.e. the Hojjatieh portion) expect chaos to bring back the occultic 12th Hidden Imam (the last known direct descendant of Mohammed) to manifest with Jesus and open up a medieval can of whup-ass on the kafir nations to bring Islam to the whole world. Sunni purists also have an apocalyptic picture that will bring one called the Mahdi (Short Version – Long Version) but the theology is different among Sunnis.
Now here is a scenario to think of. Sunni Saudis and Shia Iranians are vying for oil hegemony yet there is a nuke power in the region that has its own Interests above both the Saudis and Iranians. That nuke power is Pakistan.
Pakistan’s reason for becoming a nuke power originally has little to do with the dar al-Islam versus dar al-Harb thinking of purist radical Islam. Pakistan’s interests are to keep up with the hated Joneses next door; i.e. is the primarily Hindu nation of India. Pakistan and India hate each other with a passion and the two nations prepare their National Interests around being able to confront each other on an even basis. They kind of have a Cold War feel about them in which both nations ultimately rely on the old Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) military doctrine in order to NOT launch nukes at each other.
Pakistan was initially formed in 1949 as a secular State when the British gave India Independence. However, Independence did not result in one sovereign India. Rather India was divided with Hindu dominated India getting the bulk of the land mass and with Pakistan being given smaller (in comparison to India) land to the Northwest and Northeast of India but with nothing connecting both sides of the Pakistan nation. As time went on the portion called East Pakistan became dissatisfied with the rule of the government centered in the Pakistan of the West. Ultimately this resulted in independence for East Pakistan which included a new name more applicable to the language group living in the area – Bangladesh.
In case you were unaware, there were large minorities of Hindus in both Pakistans. Thus in 1949 there was a large population exchange between India and Pakistan of Muslims, Hindus and I believe Sikhs. Even after the exchange a large number of Hindus remained in the Pakistans and a large amount of Muslims remained in India. Islam became more and more radicalized in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This resulted in an exodus of Hindus that would otherwise live under threat of Sharia punishment for practicing their non-Muslim faith openly. Indeed this is part of the dispute between Pakistan and India today. When the 1949 division occurred there were a few semi-autonomous mini-nations under the protection of the British military. The order went out that forced these semi-autonomous regions to choose between forming with Muslim Pakistan and multi-religion but primarily Hindu India. The area of dispute became Kashmir. The area for hundreds of years had a Hindu Maharaja but a majority Muslim population. India claimed the area because the last Maharaja declared with India. Pakistan took umbrage because of the fact that the larger population was Muslim. Most of the problems that exists between India and Pakistan are around who should administrate Kashmir.
Then there is the issue of Muslim hate for Hindus in Bangladesh. Ethnic cleansing began in the future East Pakistan in 1947 with a large spike of genocide in 1971 (2.4 million) around the time East Pakistan became independent Bangladesh.
The point is radical Islamic factions in Pakistan have slowly garnered the hearts of the Pakistani populace with the secular minded Pakistanis quickly becoming the minority. This radical Islamizing is also mirrored in the Pakistani government in the form of byzantine struggles by the government bureaucracy, most notably Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ISI is supposed to be the big dialogue point between American Intelligence (particularly the CIA) and Pakistan in the GWOT.
The mixed bag of support and non-support from the ISI and the recent arrests of Pakistani citizens for being informants to the CIA relating to our recent raid inside a cushy compound for Osama bin Laden which resulted in his death might mean it is time to begin severing our close so-called relationship to Pakistan. Now I didn’t say abandon that relationship with Pakistan because there probably are a few venues that benefit both America’s National Interests and Pakistan’s National Interests. Nonetheless, it is time to dial back the trust with a Pakistan partnership to a big dose of trust but verify. Without verification of a deal we must stop the aid based on trust.
John R. Houk
© May 5, 2011
Sarah Palin correctly wonders how in the world Usama bin Laden could live in a life of luxury for quite some time near the Pakistani capital city of Islamabad when the public shpeel was UBL was hiding in caves along the AfPak border which suggested a life of asceticism. Well anyway she questioned Pakistan not knowing where UBL was. I was wondering the rest.
Pakistan looks extremely foolish and deceptive when that nation denies there was any knowledge of bin Laden’s whereabouts.
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said bin Laden’s ability to live undetected in the compound, apparently for years, “is an intelligence failure of the whole world, not of Pakistan alone.” He made the comment Wednesday during a visit to Paris.
U.S. officials also have demanded answers as to how the al-Qaida leader could have lived at a luxury complex in Abbottabad without the knowledge of Pakistani authorities or help from a support network inside Pakistan. The area around the compound remained sealed off Wednesday by Pakistani police and soldiers. (“Afghanistan: Pakistan Must Have Known bin Laden Was Living in Abbottabad,” VOA News 5/4/11)
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi also accuses Pakistan of knowingly keeping bin Laden’s luxury compound a secret:
Speaking at a news conference Wednesday, Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said the location of the house in the military garrison town of Abbottabad would have ensured that Pakistani authorities knew who was living there.
Azimi said bin Laden’s hideout would have been known not only to a “strong” intelligence agency such as Pakistan’s ISI but even to a “very weak government with a weak intelligence service”. He said the ISI faces many questions that need answers. (Ibid.)
Obviously Pakistan is covering its geopolitical butt with lies. UBL’s existence in a luxury compound in Pakistan shows a few possibilities.
One possibility is the government of Pakistan under the authority of either its President and/or Prime Minister is operating a duplicitous policy of favoring Islamists while pretending to be an ally with America in the fight against the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).
Another possibility is that the Pakistan government is a byzantine-like government. This is to say internal government factions actively work against each other in the formation of policy. An example might be Pakistan’s intelligence community of which the Inter-Services Intelligence has been known to favor the Taliban by extension al-Qaeda.
I am guessing there is still a large element in Pakistan that is closely aligned to maintain a secularist Islamic State. I know it sounds like an oxymoron to use the term “secular” and “Islamic” as a singular form of government but that the doctrines of Islam demonstrate that government and religion are an intertwined entity in the Muslim world. Thus a secularist-Islamic State would be secular in actions but Islamic in nature as in the code or rule of law.
The secularist element in Pakistan has this world view: Hindu majority ruled India is the enemy because Islam once dominated all of India by conquest. Pakistan Muslims thus are well aware that is a deep seeded animosity among Hindus who were the recipients of genocide, slave trade (including sex slavery) and when it became clear that killing all the Hindus that refused to convert to Islam would dry up the booty-cow that India represented to Islamic conquerors began to establish extremely harsh dhimmitude upon the population. In the long run the harsh dhimmitude probably won more converts to Islam than the typical Islamic axiom of for polytheists which was (and is) convert or die. The extremely harsh dhimmitude eventually converted large swaths of Hindus to Islam around emerging Islamic power centers built by attrition in India.
There thus is little surprise that there were horrendous acts of violence between India Muslims and India Hindus as the 1947 independence proceeded to emerge. Incidentally Israel was a tiny sliver in an ocean of hostile Muslims also in 1948. The same rage existed among Muslims toward a Jewish existence established by once Islamic conquerors. The difference between Jewish Israel and Hindu India is that the number of Hindus is in the hundreds of millions while the Jews represented a little less than a million in 1948 (Of course the Jewish population nearly doubled after Israeli independence because nearly 800,000 Jewish refugees received a vicious boot from Muslim lands after losing in 1948).
Hindu-Muslim violence or more precisely India-Pakistan violence has a 1947 pretext for occurring. The area known as Kashmir is roughly between Pakistan and India. In 1947 when a partition plan was devised by the exiting British, the princely States that governed themselves autonomously were forced to choose between merging with either Pakistan or India. Kashmir’s case was it was ruled by a Hindu Maharaja while the majority population was Islamic.
At any rate India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war since both nations have nuke WMDs. In this paradoxical geopolitical world of lesser nations aligning with more powerful nations for their national interests, the largest democratic natured government in the world India gravitated toward the Communist Soviets and despotic Islamic Republic of Pakistan gravitated toward the Americans. I can understand that Pakistan’s government has become ironically byzantine because of the need to play off internal affairs and international affairs to maintain an Islamic Pakistan with a powerful neighbor India (comparatively powerful between India and Pakistan). However, the question becomes: Can America afford or count on a byzantine style government in Pakistan for our nation’s National Interests?
America has had a history of being burned when there was an expectation from another nation to agree with an American agenda. The Taliban and al-Qaeda evolved from American aid funneled through Pakistan in a long war that resulted in Soviet occupiers from leaving Afghanistan in disgrace. These terrorists then turned on their American supporters because as non-Muslims we are the despised kafir. Even though it was American aid that preeminently freed Afghanistan from Soviet oppression the Taliban and al-Qaeda called us the big Satan oppressors of Islam. Usama bin Laden’s leadership of al-Qaeda got the ball rolling for the moment when Muslim terrorists seized four jet airliners on American soil crashing three into building and one in a Pennsylvanian field resulting in the deaths of civilian noncombatant primarily Americans.
So should some kind of investigation as in Congressional or American Intelligence of Pakistan’s commitment to cooperation in the GWOT occur? I SAY YES! THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW IF PAKISTAN HELD UP THE NEAR DECADE LONG SEARCH FOR USAMA BIN LADEN!
John R. Houk
© March 25, 2011
I finished reading a Norma Zager post that begins with a bit of sarcasm of President Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to establish a No-Fly Zone in Libya that enables the Libyans that wish to be free of a nutcase dictator like Moammar Qaddafi to have a chance at freedom.
Frankly I find it a little amusing that BHO’s Leftist base and Conservatives alike are castigating BHO for this act. The Leftists are upset that Obama may have gotten America involved in a Middle War ala President George Bush. Many Conservatives who correctly do not trust the President Obama agenda rail about the abuse of the Constitution because the President neither had Congressional approval nor a Congressional declaration of war.
Here’s the thing for me. Libyan civilians were being fired upon by Qaddafi’s loyal contingent in the Libyan army as well as by mercenaries hired for the very purpose of killing anti-Qaddafi Libyans. The thing that became too much for Europeans, Americans and the Arab League was that Qaddafi was slaughtering Libyans with aircrafts and big guns such as tanks. It was beginning to look like genocide.
Now I am sure that Europeans (really the French and the British) and the U.S. government began to weigh Qaddafi’s genocide instrumentation in the light of the flow of oil to Western markets – especially Europe. Considerations were probably based on if Qaddafi quickly beat down his opposition perhaps the oil would flow. However, if the Libyans rebelling against Qaddafi’s 40 year despotism succeeded in a protracted civil war perhaps the flow of oil would be stopped up like a dam. I am guessing it was decided that if a protracted period was involved it would be ultimately profitable to get rid of Qaddafi; ergo the decision to wipe out Qaddafi’s air force and to seriously damage Qaddafi’s big guns especially land to air defenses became the politically correct consensus.
As a lowly no-name blogger I can’t prove the reason for America, France and the UK to defend Libyans from genocide was based on the effect of oil flow but I am betting it is a pretty good guess.
Regardless of a coalition of National Interests deciding to attack Qaddafi, the decision to get rid of Qaddafi is just as morally good as it was for President Bush to bring down the butcher of Bagdad Saddam Hussein. I can understand the consistency of American Leftists railing at Obama; however Conservatives should be getting behind BHO’s decision. To not do so is morally reprehensible.
I still regard President BHO as a deceptive Leftist with an agenda to transform America away from its Christian roots and the intentions of the Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whatever the reasoning that inspired the President to proceed with the act of attack, it is a humane action.
On September 25, 2001 the Deputy Counsel in the Justice Department wrote a memorandum to then President G.W. Bush that provided legal precedent, Constitutional analysis and marked events in history in which Presidents acted without a formal declaration of war. It is a quite lengthy memorandum justifying GW’s ability to launch an attack on Afghanistan to seek the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on American soil. In full disclosure I have to admit I only read half of it.
The key point of that memorandum was a distinction of the Constitution’s use of Congress “declaring war” as opposed to the Executive Branch – President – “making war” without Congressional consent. The distinction being that Congress validates a war by declaring which enables the President to prepare money allocation as seen fit to make war as the Chief Executive and the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. Of course extra funding needed would still need Congressional Approval but the declaration of war enables the President to not have to justify every dot and penny being spent in the execution of a war.
The memorandum also clarifies that the President has authority to defend the Homeland and American interests outside of the nation militarily without Congressional authorization. After the lengthy Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act (WPA) with the intention of limiting the broad way in which a Chief Executive can embroil America in a war without Congressional input. However later, many critics realized that the WPA actually gave a President unbridled power to wage war for 60 days without Congressional input. This alone would empower President Obama to execute the military operation in Libya; however critics of the WPA maintain there is a Constitutional issue with the WPA not being in the Constitution ergo cannot exist without a Constitutional Amendment.
The memorandum in 2001 pretty much justifies the WPA act in the case of responding to attacks at home and attacks abroad of American National Interests. For example President Carter would have been well within his Executive Power to launch a military attack on Iran without Congressional approval because Iranian lackeys of Ayatollah Khomeini attacked American sovereign space provided for the U.S. Embassy in 1979. Of course Carter did not do so.
Carter won his 1976 election because of the bad taste of the Vietnam War and of President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal which left a huge mistrust of Presidential power in the American public’s mind. Even I voted for Carter. My vote was not based on a Leftist/Right Wing political spectrum but purely on Nixon’s criminal activities which disparaged the Office of President which had a further picture of corruption when unelected President Gerald Ford gave President Nixon a blanket Executive Pardon so that Nixon could never be prosecuted in a non-Presidential capacity.
With great hopes in a President Carter that would transform the Office of President into a trusted Office again, America elected him over Gerald Ford in 1976. Carter’s continuous flip-flopping on domestic and foreign policy soon became evidence of President Carter’s Presidential incompetence. The final nail in the Carter Administration came into fruition of his handling of Iranian unrest over the Shah of Iran that led to the eventual Islamic purist psycho-dictatorship of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini overcame the rivalry of Marxist revolutionaries and secular republic factions to wrest absolute control of Iran from the Shah. How did Khomeini get there?
The Khomeini/Marxist/Secularists received a boost from President Carter who sold out American ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi because the Shah used vicious police state tactics of the SAVAK secret police to get rid of anti-Shah Iranians via persecution, torture and murder. Carter was correct that the Shah’s methods were evil; however instead of slow reform Carter pushed for immediate reform which led to displeased Iranians to get behind a greater evil in Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini went on to allow the U.S. Embassy to be invaded which resulted in torture of American citizens that had diplomatic immunity for about a year until the last day of Carter’s Presidency in which President Reagan assumed Office. My evident displeasure with the Carter Presidency is a digressive story of failure. The point is Carter failed to use his power of Commander-in-Chief to plan an aggressive punitive plan to make Khomeini and his supporters suffer for a major breach of international protocol of State sovereignty. There were no contingency plans for the first use of a special force that came into existence to rescue the Embassy Hostages. When it failed Carter was left in the weak position of accepting humiliation from the psycho-Ayatollah about the release of American Embassy hostages. (Incidentally one of the leaders of the Embassy assault was none other than Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)
Presidents Reagan and Clinton both used Commander-in-Chief Privilege denying the limitations of the WPA although ultimately both consulted with Congress within the 60-90 period of WPA rendering moot any Constitutional Executive-Legislative confrontations. President George H.W. Bush ultimately had Congressional approval in the First Gulf War against Iraq even though it was not a declared war. President G.W. Bush ultimately had full Congressional approval for Afghanistan and the hotly debated support for the second Iraq War.
In this era when communication is near instantaneous and information about genocide and slaughters are difficult to hide, it is incumbent upon the leader of the most power military in the world to demonstrate acts of military humanitarianism. In America, humanitarianism and Constitutional authority for the Chief Executive are not necessarily a compatible proposition. However, the Constitution does allow the Chief Executive to use military action Constitutionally to protect American National Interests. Arguably the Libyan civil war hampers the oil market which in turns affects everything from gas prices to Wall Street. It is easy to sell the voters on the fact it is a humanitarian military expedition in which America helped initiate but intends to transfer military operations to another military authority. To comply with the U.S. Constitution the President has to demonstrate that the psycho-Qaddafi refusal to leave Libya’s leadership position hurts the American National Interests.
President Obama is a Leftist transformationist in the style of Antonio Gramsci; nonetheless any effort to stop the genocide of Libyan people no matter the actual reasons is a good thing. Let us all pray that BHO does not slip back into appeasement ideology thinking things will mysteriously work itself out via negotiated diplomacy. Negotiated diplomacy rarely if ever works with insane leaders or leadership blocs.