The Economist Believes In Magic

The Economist Believes In Magic

As I’ve said before, The Economist is a wonderful magazine if you want to see the insanity of liberalism presented in pure form. This time, they go all out to demonstrate how insanely stupid liberal foreign policy is in an article ludicrously titled “How To Set Syria Free.” Watch as they demand that we enter an unjustified war, and then they come up with a plan of action which relies on magic.

The Economist starts by trying to overwhelm your logic with emotion by talking about victims, butchery, dead being buried under cover of darkness, mourners, makeshift clinics, and floors slick with blood. They are trying to paint a picture so emotionally horrible that you put aside your reasoning and just accept that something must be done. Then they say the Syrian people have the “fire of conviction” that they will win, but “the outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve.” In other words, victory is inevitable and you are shameful to oppose intervention. These are peer pressure arguments.

Having set you up emotionally, they now give the “logical” case for intervening:

Argument No. 1: Almost 7,000 people have died and “the people of Syria deserve better. . . the world has a responsibility to act.” Uh. For starters, the number is actually half that. And if world-intervention is justified just because people are being killed, then why not invade Brazil? Don’t the 55,000 people killed there each year “deserve better” too? Why isn’t The Economist demanding the world invade Mexico where 30,000 people have been killed in the past few years in a drug war?

Argument No. 2: “[The world] also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.” Holy cow! That’s the argument? The mere fact that Syria has neighbors is now considered an interest which justifies an attack? What country doesn’t have neighbors? Using this logic, there is literally nowhere on Earth that doesn’t have some vital world interest. And yet these people said we had no interest in Iraq and have no interest in Iran?

That’s it for the justification, by the way. Clearly, the case for intervention is unassailable, so let’s talk about what the world should do.

Right out of the gates, The Economist shows that it has no stomach to do anything real: “shifting Mr. Assad from power as fast as possible is essential.” Talk about a mealy euphemism. We’ve gone from defeating and killing to eliminating to regime change to shifting from power. That sounds like retirement. And it’s ominously passive, like they want Assad to agree to quit. In fact, they do. Observe.

First, they claim that it’s too late for Assad to “negotiate an accommodation” to oversee “an increase in democracy.” In other words, they’re sick of talking and he needs to be taken out -- notice how this flies in the face of their positions on Iraq and Iran where they demand never-ending talk. And why must he go? Because he’s lost the will of the people and if he gave them democracy, they would only use it against him violently. Translation: we can’t not-kill him because if we don’t kill him, the people would kill him, and we can’t have them killing him, so we are forced to kill him. Try figuring that one out.

But don’t worry about an actual attempt to kill or dethrone him, because The Economist doesn’t have the cojones for that. Indeed, watch them crumble.

See, Assad’s military is loyal and is willing to kill civilians. That’s a big advantage which we must overcome. So how do we stop them? “The most direct answer is. . . bombing Mr. Assad’s troops.” This would satisfy “outsiders’ urge to do something to show their outrage.” BUT, The Economist notes, Russia and China will stop the UN from doing that. Also, Syria’s terrain isn’t like Libya and there are no front lines, so The Economist says bombing won’t work. Ergo, take bombing off the list.

What about arming the rebels? That might work, EXCEPT the rebels are disorganized and lack unity and “such a policy would not suddenly turn the opposition into a fighting force.” Also, The Economist warns us that “a country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence the world was seeking to avoid.” It then argues that giving the rebels guns would create another situation like Afghanistan, where the flood of guns “helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.” This is, of course, ludicrous. First, it was a civil war which spawned the Taliban, not the presence of guns. Secondly, the Syrian regime has more than enough guns to cause this to happen if they fall.

So what do we do? Well, The Economist has the answer. It would be “far better to attack Mr. Assad’s regime where it is vulnerable – by peeling away his support.” Specifically, we need to SOMEHOW convince Russia to stop defending Assad in the UN because that would let us do a bombing campaign (which The Economist already said won’t work). We also need to convince all of the minorities in Syria to rise up as one. Yep. There it is: the Kumbaya Plan.

How stupid can you get?! When faced with a dictator killing his own people, the liberal response is to wish that people would stand up to them. Doesn’t The Economist realize that’s what’s happening in Syria right now and it’s not working? And how in the world can they think this will work when they just said the following a couple paragraphs before about Assad’s advantages:

“One is his willingness to do whatever it takes to put down the rebellion. . . Syrian soldiers are steeped in blood [and] Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps.”

In other words, Assad doesn’t care how many people stand up to him, he’ll kill them all. Yet, The Economist’s plan is to hope enough people stand up that Assad gives up? Insane.

And The Economist isn’t done yet. See, to make this happen, “Syria’s fractious opposition must unite. . . with a single voice and credible leader.” In other words, they need a Magic Syrian they can all trust. Then this leader can talk to “the Kurds and Christians who back Mr. Assad.” Oh oh. Wait. The Kumbaya Plan relies on everyone rising up and “isolating” Assad, but now we’re hearing that chunks of the population support Assad? Doesn’t that doom the Kumbaya Plan? Oh, that’s right, the Magic Syrian can heal the sick and bring everyone together.

Then The Economist goes into all-out fantasy mode. Once this Magic Syrian appears, “the Russians would also begin to shift ground.” Why? Because Russia would then know that defeat for Assad would be inevitable, and unless Russia wants to lose a naval base it has in Syria and its arms export business to the country, then it would clearly shift sides. As this happened, naturally, the Syrian military will change sides too because the Magic Syrian is just unstoppable. . . somehow.

So let’s put this together. We need to enter a civil war without provocation because people are dying. And to defeat a military that is willing to kill as many of its own people as needed, we need only hope that a Magic Syrian arises who can unite all the people, including those who have a vested economic and social interest in backing Assad, and can convince the Syrian military and Russians to abandon Assad. And like that, the world will have solved the Syria problem.

Nice work Economist, you’ve solved everything.

Finally, for good measure, while we wait for the Magic Syrian, The Economist suggests that we kind of, sort of ask someone to create a safe haven somewhere near Turkey where Syrians can flee. Why? Because “a free patch of Syria would be powerful evidence that Mr. Assad’s brutal days are numbered.” Yes, refuge camps always defeat dictators.

Idiots.

As I’ve said before, The Economist is a wonderful magazine if you want to see the insanity of liberalism presented in pure form. This time, they go all out to demonstrate how insanely stupid liberal foreign policy is in an article ludicrously titled “How To Set Syria Free.” Watch as they demand that we enter an unjustified war, and then they come up with a plan of action which relies on magic.

The Economist starts by trying to overwhelm your logic with emotion by talking about victims, butchery, dead being buried under cover of darkness, mourners, makeshift clinics, and floors slick with blood. They are trying to paint a picture so emotionally horrible that you put aside your reasoning and just accept that something must be done. Then they say the Syrian people have the “fire of conviction” that they will win, but “the outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve.” In other words, victory is inevitable and you are shameful to oppose intervention. These are peer pressure arguments.

Having set you up emotionally, they now give the “logical” case for intervening:

Argument No. 1: Almost 7,000 people have died and “the people of Syria deserve better. . . the world has a responsibility to act.” Uh. For starters, the number is actually half that. And if world-intervention is justified just because people are being killed, then why not invade Brazil? Don’t the 55,000 people killed there each year “deserve better” too? Why isn’t The Economist demanding the world invade Mexico where 30,000 people have been killed in the past few years in a drug war?

Argument No. 2: “[The world] also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.” Holy cow! That’s the argument? The mere fact that Syria has neighbors is now considered an interest which justifies an attack? What country doesn’t have neighbors? Using this logic, there is literally nowhere on Earth that doesn’t have some vital world interest. And yet these people said we had no interest in Iraq and have no interest in Iran?

That’s it for the justification, by the way. Clearly, the case for intervention is unassailable, so let’s talk about what the world should do.

Right out of the gates, The Economist shows that it has no stomach to do anything real: “shifting Mr. Assad from power as fast as possible is essential.” Talk about a mealy euphemism. We’ve gone from defeating and killing to eliminating to regime change to shifting from power. That sounds like retirement. And it’s ominously passive, like they want Assad to agree to quit. In fact, they do. Observe.

First, they claim that it’s too late for Assad to “negotiate an accommodation” to oversee “an increase in democracy.” In other words, they’re sick of talking and he needs to be taken out -- notice how this flies in the face of their positions on Iraq and Iran where they demand never-ending talk. And why must he go? Because he’s lost the will of the people and if he gave them democracy, they would only use it against him violently. Translation: we can’t not-kill him because if we don’t kill him, the people would kill him, and we can’t have them killing him, so we are forced to kill him. Try figuring that one out.

But don’t worry about an actual attempt to kill or dethrone him, because The Economist doesn’t have the cojones for that. Indeed, watch them crumble.

See, Assad’s military is loyal and is willing to kill civilians. That’s a big advantage which we must overcome. So how do we stop them? “The most direct answer is. . . bombing Mr. Assad’s troops.” This would satisfy “outsiders’ urge to do something to show their outrage.” BUT, The Economist notes, Russia and China will stop the UN from doing that. Also, Syria’s terrain isn’t like Libya and there are no front lines, so The Economist says bombing won’t work. Ergo, take bombing off the list.

What about arming the rebels? That might work, EXCEPT the rebels are disorganized and lack unity and “such a policy would not suddenly turn the opposition into a fighting force.” Also, The Economist warns us that “a country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence the world was seeking to avoid.” It then argues that giving the rebels guns would create another situation like Afghanistan, where the flood of guns “helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.” This is, of course, ludicrous. First, it was a civil war which spawned the Taliban, not the presence of guns. Secondly, the Syrian regime has more than enough guns to cause this to happen if they fall.

So what do we do? Well, The Economist has the answer. It would be “far better to attack Mr. Assad’s regime where it is vulnerable – by peeling away his support.” Specifically, we need to SOMEHOW convince Russia to stop defending Assad in the UN because that would let us do a bombing campaign (which The Economist already said won’t work). We also need to convince all of the minorities in Syria to rise up as one. Yep. There it is: the Kumbaya Plan.

How stupid can you get?! When faced with a dictator killing his own people, the liberal response is to wish that people would stand up to them. Doesn’t The Economist realize that’s what’s happening in Syria right now and it’s not working? And how in the world can they think this will work when they just said the following a couple paragraphs before about Assad’s advantages:

“One is his willingness to do whatever it takes to put down the rebellion. . . Syrian soldiers are steeped in blood [and] Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps.”

In other words, Assad doesn’t care how many people stand up to him, he’ll kill them all. Yet, The Economist’s plan is to hope enough people stand up that Assad gives up? Insane.

And The Economist isn’t done yet. See, to make this happen, “Syria’s fractious opposition must unite. . . with a single voice and credible leader.” In other words, they need a Magic Syrian they can all trust. Then this leader can talk to “the Kurds and Christians who back Mr. Assad.” Oh oh. Wait. The Kumbaya Plan relies on everyone rising up and “isolating” Assad, but now we’re hearing that chunks of the population support Assad? Doesn’t that doom the Kumbaya Plan? Oh, that’s right, the Magic Syrian can heal the sick and bring everyone together.

Then The Economist goes into all-out fantasy mode. Once this Magic Syrian appears, “the Russians would also begin to shift ground.” Why? Because Russia would then know that defeat for Assad would be inevitable, and unless Russia wants to lose a naval base it has in Syria and its arms export business to the country, then it would clearly shift sides. As this happened, naturally, the Syrian military will change sides too because the Magic Syrian is just unstoppable. . . somehow.

So let’s put this together. We need to enter a civil war without provocation because people are dying. And to defeat a military that is willing to kill as many of its own people as needed, we need only hope that a Magic Syrian arises who can unite all the people, including those who have a vested economic and social interest in backing Assad, and can convince the Syrian military and Russians to abandon Assad. And like that, the world will have solved the Syria problem.

Nice work Economist, you’ve solved everything.

Finally, for good measure, while we wait for the Magic Syrian, The Economist suggests that we kind of, sort of ask someone to create a safe haven somewhere near Turkey where Syrians can flee. Why? Because “a free patch of Syria would be powerful evidence that Mr. Assad’s brutal days are numbered.” Yes, refuge camps always defeat dictators.

Idiots.

The Economist Believes In Magic

View Detail

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

I always enjoy it when The Economist presents insanely stupid liberal arguments with a straight face. That’s high entertainment, like exquisite parody. The latest example involves an attempt to explain why Obama is doing just fine in his efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This argument is so awful that a child could see the problems with it. But apparently, The Economist can’t.

The Economist’s argument runs like this. First, they claim that Obama is on the verge of solving the Iranian problem because he just signed a measure into law which imposes “sanctions of unprecedented severity.” Yep. Specifically, these sanction will “ban” sales of Iranian oil to Europe, Japan and South Korea, who currently account for 40% of Iran’s sales. It will also “punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran’s central bank.” This is meant to pressure Iran into stopping its development of nuclear weapons and “to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack.” This is important because a military attack would raise tensions and might not actually work.

Makes sense, right?

Well, that depends on whether or not you keep reading the article. For in the very next breath, The Economist admits that skeptics “are entitled to ask” if sanctions will really work, “given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran’s behavior.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. This 30-years-of-failure fact tells us that the skeptics have been 100% right for 30 years now and what The Economist proposes has a miserable track record of absolute failure. Hence, the skeptics are more than just “are entitled to ask.” To the contrary, they are entitled to laugh uproariously at this idiotic suggestion. Indeed, what The Economist is doing fits Einstein’s definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Also, let’s be clear, this is the same Economist which claims that sanctions against Cuba can’t work but which now says they will work in Iran.

So why does The Economist think these will work? Because these sanctions are different. These are “sanctions of unprecedented severity” (sounds like “rodents of unusual size”). Indeed, according to The Economist, these sanctions will finally hurt the regime because they will stop Iran from selling its oil! Ah ha! Take that you Iranians! And take that too you dirty “Republican candidates” who are cynically trying to “depict Mr. Obama as weak.”

Yep, Obama is great. The end.

Oh wait, there are more words in this article. Words like this: “China, which is Iran’s biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and America’s Asian allies.” Hmm. So Iran will shift its sales from Europe to China and Iranian sales will decrease by exactly 0%. Interesting. And no one at The Economist thought this might make their description of these as “sanctions of unprecedented severity” suddenly seem rather ridiculous? No one thought that Iran suffering NO economic consequences at all from these sanctions meant their estimate that “the latest sanctions will cause [Iran] more pain,” could perhaps be completely and utterly wrong?

It gets worse.

See, it turns out that this could be bad for Europe and the US: “the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran’s oil exports disappeared from the world market.” Now think about this. This means these powerful sanctions will result in ZERO harm to Iran, but could tip the West into recession, thereby weakening Iran’s enemies. Yet The Economist, with a straight face, says this is “nevertheless worthwhile.”

Soooooo, let me see how this logic works. Doing something that hurts you but not the person you want to hurt is worthwhile because it will somehow force them to change their behavior. Hmm. Well, in that light, I think we should shoot pineapples up the rear ends of everyone who works for The Economist. That might just be what’s needed to stop Iran. Sure, I can guarantee you that it won’t actually do anything to Iran and it will certainly hurt the staff at The Economist, but it’s “nevertheless worthwhile” because. . . well, because it is. Problem solved, crack the bubbly!

Idiots.

Anyways, the pineapple sitters at The Economist aren’t done supporting their argument. They say, it’s clear that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is proof that the mere threat of these sanctions has put the regime under strain.

Of course, it’s more likely the Hormuz threat is a direct response to Israel fueling up its jets. But let’s not confuse The Economist with facts or logics as they clearly are not equipped the handle either. Also, for the record, this is the same threat Iran makes whenever something displeases it. They made it during the Iran-Iraq war, in response to the 30-years of ineffective sanctions, in response to UN reports, in response to Gulf Wars I & II, Saudi saber rattling, movies they didn’t liked, etc. In other words, thinking this threat shows a regime under pressure is purely wishful thinking.

The Economist also thinks Iran is worried about the Arab Spring. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that Iran already had its spring and the springers lost.

Finally, it suggests offering Iran “a carrot” by telling it everything it stands to gain if it just starts playing nice. This is idiocy. Can they really believe that Iran doesn’t know what it could gain or lose either way and hasn’t made a rational decision that it has more to gain going this route? “Wait Ahmed, you mean the Americans will open a McDonalds in Tehran if we stop trying to kill them? Why has no one told me this before?!”

The Economist also suggests we could promise to enrich their uranium for them. Yay! Never mind that this was only ever a temporary suggestion to slow Iran’s own enrichment and it’s been offered twice, by France the first time and then Brazil and South Africa the second, and Iran laughed it off because they want to build a bomb.

Liberalism is a mental condition and articles like this prove it. No human being with even a hint of intelligence could think that a plan which would do no harm except to the person proposing the plan will cause a bad guy to become a good guy. Yet here it is. I am honestly at a loss for words to describe how stupid this is.

I swear I’ve been punked.

I always enjoy it when The Economist presents insanely stupid liberal arguments with a straight face. That’s high entertainment, like exquisite parody. The latest example involves an attempt to explain why Obama is doing just fine in his efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This argument is so awful that a child could see the problems with it. But apparently, The Economist can’t.

The Economist’s argument runs like this. First, they claim that Obama is on the verge of solving the Iranian problem because he just signed a measure into law which imposes “sanctions of unprecedented severity.” Yep. Specifically, these sanction will “ban” sales of Iranian oil to Europe, Japan and South Korea, who currently account for 40% of Iran’s sales. It will also “punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran’s central bank.” This is meant to pressure Iran into stopping its development of nuclear weapons and “to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack.” This is important because a military attack would raise tensions and might not actually work.

Makes sense, right?

Well, that depends on whether or not you keep reading the article. For in the very next breath, The Economist admits that skeptics “are entitled to ask” if sanctions will really work, “given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran’s behavior.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. This 30-years-of-failure fact tells us that the skeptics have been 100% right for 30 years now and what The Economist proposes has a miserable track record of absolute failure. Hence, the skeptics are more than just “are entitled to ask.” To the contrary, they are entitled to laugh uproariously at this idiotic suggestion. Indeed, what The Economist is doing fits Einstein’s definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Also, let’s be clear, this is the same Economist which claims that sanctions against Cuba can’t work but which now says they will work in Iran.

So why does The Economist think these will work? Because these sanctions are different. These are “sanctions of unprecedented severity” (sounds like “rodents of unusual size”). Indeed, according to The Economist, these sanctions will finally hurt the regime because they will stop Iran from selling its oil! Ah ha! Take that you Iranians! And take that too you dirty “Republican candidates” who are cynically trying to “depict Mr. Obama as weak.”

Yep, Obama is great. The end.

Oh wait, there are more words in this article. Words like this: “China, which is Iran’s biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and America’s Asian allies.” Hmm. So Iran will shift its sales from Europe to China and Iranian sales will decrease by exactly 0%. Interesting. And no one at The Economist thought this might make their description of these as “sanctions of unprecedented severity” suddenly seem rather ridiculous? No one thought that Iran suffering NO economic consequences at all from these sanctions meant their estimate that “the latest sanctions will cause [Iran] more pain,” could perhaps be completely and utterly wrong?

It gets worse.

See, it turns out that this could be bad for Europe and the US: “the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran’s oil exports disappeared from the world market.” Now think about this. This means these powerful sanctions will result in ZERO harm to Iran, but could tip the West into recession, thereby weakening Iran’s enemies. Yet The Economist, with a straight face, says this is “nevertheless worthwhile.”

Soooooo, let me see how this logic works. Doing something that hurts you but not the person you want to hurt is worthwhile because it will somehow force them to change their behavior. Hmm. Well, in that light, I think we should shoot pineapples up the rear ends of everyone who works for The Economist. That might just be what’s needed to stop Iran. Sure, I can guarantee you that it won’t actually do anything to Iran and it will certainly hurt the staff at The Economist, but it’s “nevertheless worthwhile” because. . . well, because it is. Problem solved, crack the bubbly!

Idiots.

Anyways, the pineapple sitters at The Economist aren’t done supporting their argument. They say, it’s clear that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is proof that the mere threat of these sanctions has put the regime under strain.

Of course, it’s more likely the Hormuz threat is a direct response to Israel fueling up its jets. But let’s not confuse The Economist with facts or logics as they clearly are not equipped the handle either. Also, for the record, this is the same threat Iran makes whenever something displeases it. They made it during the Iran-Iraq war, in response to the 30-years of ineffective sanctions, in response to UN reports, in response to Gulf Wars I & II, Saudi saber rattling, movies they didn’t liked, etc. In other words, thinking this threat shows a regime under pressure is purely wishful thinking.

The Economist also thinks Iran is worried about the Arab Spring. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that Iran already had its spring and the springers lost.

Finally, it suggests offering Iran “a carrot” by telling it everything it stands to gain if it just starts playing nice. This is idiocy. Can they really believe that Iran doesn’t know what it could gain or lose either way and hasn’t made a rational decision that it has more to gain going this route? “Wait Ahmed, you mean the Americans will open a McDonalds in Tehran if we stop trying to kill them? Why has no one told me this before?!”

The Economist also suggests we could promise to enrich their uranium for them. Yay! Never mind that this was only ever a temporary suggestion to slow Iran’s own enrichment and it’s been offered twice, by France the first time and then Brazil and South Africa the second, and Iran laughed it off because they want to build a bomb.

Liberalism is a mental condition and articles like this prove it. No human being with even a hint of intelligence could think that a plan which would do no harm except to the person proposing the plan will cause a bad guy to become a good guy. Yet here it is. I am honestly at a loss for words to describe how stupid this is.

I swear I’ve been punked.

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

View Detail

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

View Detail

With Friends Like Pakistan . . .

With Friends Like Pakistan . . .

Admiral Mike Mullen recently testified at the Senate Armed Services Committee that our "ally" Pakistan has allowed the Taliban-supported faction Haqqani to become nothing less than an arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. This testimony comes from the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It wasn't very politic, and it has caused quite a stir.

We have been buoying up our Pakistani “allies” for years, often to the detriment of our much firmer ally, India. The Afghanistan War has opened wounds we either didn’t know we had or thought were healing. Pakistan makes no pretense of being a purely secular state. After all, its capital is Islamabad (“the abode of Islam”). But we counted on the fact that after the first round of Islamists were ousted from power decades back, the military would suppress the major jihadist impulses of the government and the Muslim clerics. They even elected a woman as head of state. It worked for awhile and up to a point.

The war in Afghanistan, a nation which borders Pakistan, has ripped the bandage off the long-festering wound. After successfully driving the largest groups of Taliban out of Afghanistan, we quickly discovered they were being given safe harbor and assistance in Pakistan, particularly the border province of Waziristan. Waziristan is comprised of two administrative districts, North and South, but for all intents and purposes, South Waziristan is an independent state under the very loose administrative control of the central Pakistani government.

Both parts of the province are comprised largely of warring tribes. In the South, the population is largely comprised of Waziris, Mahasuds and Burki. They are not ethnically close to the Pakistani Punjabis, Sindhi or Pashtuns, and consider Pakistan to be an occupying force. In the North, the main tribe is the Darwesh Khel, alternatively known as the Utmanzai Waziris. They are ethnically Waziri, but often at war with the southern Waziris. Unlike the South, which is largely uncontrolled, the North is actually under some direct control from Islamabad, but also unlike the South, the North shares an open border with Afghanistan. In fact, both North and South Waziristan sound a lot like Afghanistan just before the Taliban took over the government.

The battles between the North, the South and the central Pakistani government make this a slippery situation for both Islamabad and Washington DC. The problem that has come to light in recent years is that despite their internal battles, Pakistan and Waziristan are extremely Taliban-friendly. Pakistan makes occasional forays into Waziristan to stamp out open rebellions or arrest terrorists who want to blow up Islamabad. But by their own admission, the Pakistanis are unable to gain effective control of the province.

Though the government of Pakistan is still largely in military hands, those at the top are now more militantly Islamic and bellicose toward India and hesitant toward the United States. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) has been the recipient of complaints from the White House for its complicity in Taliban-sponsored terrorism since early in the Clinton administration. The army’s failure to gain effective control of the Afghan border regions has also been a source of considerable diplomatic maneuvering.

But it is only recently that a personage as important as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has publicly and clearly called Taliban-supported Pakistani terror group Haqqani a “veritable arm of the ISI.” American-Pakistani relations, already strained, were pulled to near-breaking by the honest words of an American Admiral. The official Pakistani response was very angry, indicating that the government believes America is interfering in internal Pakistani matters. The usual mad Muslims took to the streets in the thousands to warn America not to try to deal with Haqqani on its own (though there was no suggestion from any American official that America has any intention of doing anything faintly resembling acting independently on the Haqqani matter).

All that Admiral Mullen really did was point out the danger of an ally which officially claims to be doing its best, but in reality is at best neutral about Taliban/Haqqani terrorism and at worst, actively complicit. Having the truth pointed out in public caused the Pakistani government to announce that it would not tolerate American attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda bases in Waziristan without prior permission from Islamabad. This, even though the government admits outright that it has scant control of the border regions. It doesn’t help that the Pakistani government at its highest levels has more leaks than a sieve, and that any forewarning to Islamabad about a pending American attack on terrorist bases would get to the terrorists faster than the drones and the bombs.

This is clearly a thorny problem. But pretending that we don’t know how treacherous Pakistan has been is simply no longer viable. The best example of all was the capture and killing of the greatest terrorist of the last half of the twentieth century—Osama bin Laden. He had been living comfortably in a very obvious compound a mere sixty miles from Islamabad, in a security zone, and practically on the grounds of a nearby Pakistani military base.

When a sophisticated American helicopter went down during the operation, the Pakistani government made sure the first people to get to it were the Chinese military experts. Yet we are expected to believe that our ally didn’t know about bin Laden’s compound, had no idea he was in Pakistan, and was acting in the interest of our alliance by allowing Chinese military operatives to sort through highly-sensitive war-making machinery before allowing the Americans in.

So how does the Obama administration react to the admiral’s statement? Just about as you would expect. It wussed out. Barack Obama has refused to publicly endorse the admiral’s statement, and is presently hiding under his desk. He has sent his better-half, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to soothe the Pakistani savage breast.

Despite recent border incursions from Pakistan into Afghan war zones aiding the Taliban, the Taliban-led attack on the US embassy in Kabul, and attacks on NATO outposts near the border, Clinton failed to address the fact that Haqqani was clearly linked to the attacks. Instead, she met for three hours with the Pakistani ambassador, repeating platitudes about cooperation and vital strategic interests.

This flies in the face of the unrefuted testimony of Admiral Mullen who named names and tied Pakistan and the terrorists together: “With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack on September 10 which killed five and wounded seventy-seven coalition soldiers. We also have credible evidence that Haqqani was behind the June 28th attack on the International Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

So what did our brave Secretary of State do? Her department leaked a memo to the Washington Post that said: “Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week than an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington.” She doesn’t contradict the admiral’s statement with any evidence whatsoever, but makes it very clear we mustn’t upset our “allies.”

Admiral Mike Mullen recently testified at the Senate Armed Services Committee that our "ally" Pakistan has allowed the Taliban-supported faction Haqqani to become nothing less than an arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. This testimony comes from the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It wasn't very politic, and it has caused quite a stir.

We have been buoying up our Pakistani “allies” for years, often to the detriment of our much firmer ally, India. The Afghanistan War has opened wounds we either didn’t know we had or thought were healing. Pakistan makes no pretense of being a purely secular state. After all, its capital is Islamabad (“the abode of Islam”). But we counted on the fact that after the first round of Islamists were ousted from power decades back, the military would suppress the major jihadist impulses of the government and the Muslim clerics. They even elected a woman as head of state. It worked for awhile and up to a point.

The war in Afghanistan, a nation which borders Pakistan, has ripped the bandage off the long-festering wound. After successfully driving the largest groups of Taliban out of Afghanistan, we quickly discovered they were being given safe harbor and assistance in Pakistan, particularly the border province of Waziristan. Waziristan is comprised of two administrative districts, North and South, but for all intents and purposes, South Waziristan is an independent state under the very loose administrative control of the central Pakistani government.

Both parts of the province are comprised largely of warring tribes. In the South, the population is largely comprised of Waziris, Mahasuds and Burki. They are not ethnically close to the Pakistani Punjabis, Sindhi or Pashtuns, and consider Pakistan to be an occupying force. In the North, the main tribe is the Darwesh Khel, alternatively known as the Utmanzai Waziris. They are ethnically Waziri, but often at war with the southern Waziris. Unlike the South, which is largely uncontrolled, the North is actually under some direct control from Islamabad, but also unlike the South, the North shares an open border with Afghanistan. In fact, both North and South Waziristan sound a lot like Afghanistan just before the Taliban took over the government.

The battles between the North, the South and the central Pakistani government make this a slippery situation for both Islamabad and Washington DC. The problem that has come to light in recent years is that despite their internal battles, Pakistan and Waziristan are extremely Taliban-friendly. Pakistan makes occasional forays into Waziristan to stamp out open rebellions or arrest terrorists who want to blow up Islamabad. But by their own admission, the Pakistanis are unable to gain effective control of the province.

Though the government of Pakistan is still largely in military hands, those at the top are now more militantly Islamic and bellicose toward India and hesitant toward the United States. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) has been the recipient of complaints from the White House for its complicity in Taliban-sponsored terrorism since early in the Clinton administration. The army’s failure to gain effective control of the Afghan border regions has also been a source of considerable diplomatic maneuvering.

But it is only recently that a personage as important as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has publicly and clearly called Taliban-supported Pakistani terror group Haqqani a “veritable arm of the ISI.” American-Pakistani relations, already strained, were pulled to near-breaking by the honest words of an American Admiral. The official Pakistani response was very angry, indicating that the government believes America is interfering in internal Pakistani matters. The usual mad Muslims took to the streets in the thousands to warn America not to try to deal with Haqqani on its own (though there was no suggestion from any American official that America has any intention of doing anything faintly resembling acting independently on the Haqqani matter).

All that Admiral Mullen really did was point out the danger of an ally which officially claims to be doing its best, but in reality is at best neutral about Taliban/Haqqani terrorism and at worst, actively complicit. Having the truth pointed out in public caused the Pakistani government to announce that it would not tolerate American attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda bases in Waziristan without prior permission from Islamabad. This, even though the government admits outright that it has scant control of the border regions. It doesn’t help that the Pakistani government at its highest levels has more leaks than a sieve, and that any forewarning to Islamabad about a pending American attack on terrorist bases would get to the terrorists faster than the drones and the bombs.

This is clearly a thorny problem. But pretending that we don’t know how treacherous Pakistan has been is simply no longer viable. The best example of all was the capture and killing of the greatest terrorist of the last half of the twentieth century—Osama bin Laden. He had been living comfortably in a very obvious compound a mere sixty miles from Islamabad, in a security zone, and practically on the grounds of a nearby Pakistani military base.

When a sophisticated American helicopter went down during the operation, the Pakistani government made sure the first people to get to it were the Chinese military experts. Yet we are expected to believe that our ally didn’t know about bin Laden’s compound, had no idea he was in Pakistan, and was acting in the interest of our alliance by allowing Chinese military operatives to sort through highly-sensitive war-making machinery before allowing the Americans in.

So how does the Obama administration react to the admiral’s statement? Just about as you would expect. It wussed out. Barack Obama has refused to publicly endorse the admiral’s statement, and is presently hiding under his desk. He has sent his better-half, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to soothe the Pakistani savage breast.

Despite recent border incursions from Pakistan into Afghan war zones aiding the Taliban, the Taliban-led attack on the US embassy in Kabul, and attacks on NATO outposts near the border, Clinton failed to address the fact that Haqqani was clearly linked to the attacks. Instead, she met for three hours with the Pakistani ambassador, repeating platitudes about cooperation and vital strategic interests.

This flies in the face of the unrefuted testimony of Admiral Mullen who named names and tied Pakistan and the terrorists together: “With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack on September 10 which killed five and wounded seventy-seven coalition soldiers. We also have credible evidence that Haqqani was behind the June 28th attack on the International Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

So what did our brave Secretary of State do? Her department leaked a memo to the Washington Post that said: “Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week than an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington.” She doesn’t contradict the admiral’s statement with any evidence whatsoever, but makes it very clear we mustn’t upset our “allies.”

With Friends Like Pakistan . . .

View Detail

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

Last week, the official White House site made a subtle but important change to one of the pictures it has been displaying. Previously, there was a shot taken in "Jerusalem, Israel." "Jerusalem" is now an island without a country, and "Israel" has been deleted from the photo. If Obama can make the victims of Fast and Furious into non-persons, I guess they can turn Jerusalem into a non-capital.



There has been a two-administration battle between Congress's insistence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the administration's insistence that such a determination belongs to the executive branch through its constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. As far as the executive branch is concerned through both the Bush and Obama administrations, the status of Jerusalem remains unsettled.



Fair enough. But the White House website has always shown the picture of Jerusalem in conjunction with the word Israel. The photo was a picture of Vice President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2010. It was entitled: "Biden and Peres meet in Jerusalem, Israel. Suddenly, Biden met with Peres in Jerusalem, (fill in the blank). Either that, or they met in just-plain-Jerusalem.



The whole brouhaha was set off when American naturalized citizens wanted their passports to read: "Birthplace--Jerusalem, Israel." Before removal of the word "Israel" from the photo, the state department issued a brief statement reiterating the administration's position that "US citizens born in Jerusalem may not have 'Israel' listed in their passports as their place of birth." Yet in another photo, still extant on the website, there is a story about a trainee foreign service officer whose "first assignment will be in Jerusalem, Israel, beginning August 2011."



The closest historical parallel I can think of is the airbrushing out of Nazis loyal to Hitler and communists loyal to Stalin when those same dictators decided that the loyalists had become a drug on their respective agendas. In 2002, Congress passed a law allowing naturalized American Jews to include the word "Israel" on their passports if they chose to do so. The representatives who supported the move claim it had no foreign policy significance whatsoever, and merely addressed the concerns of naturalized American Jews that a simple elementary truth be imprinted on the passports.



There's an old Borscht-belt comedian's joke that somewhat fits the situation. An angry husband comes home to find a man hiding in his wife's closet. He asks: "What are you doing in there?" The man replies: "Everybody's gotta be somewhere." Likewise, every city has to be somewhere. So where is Jerusalem--Mars? The State Department is consistently inconsistent. Its address for the US Consulate is officially in zip code 91002--no country. But in applications for social security deposits and its official guidebook to Jerusalem, it gives "Jerusalem, Israel" as its address.



The department has not been nearly so scrupulous about its unitary authority on diplomatic documents when it comes to other disputed homelands. Since 1994, naturalized Americans from Taiwan have been allowed to state their birthplace as simply Taiwan, or alternatively, Taiwan, China. It seems the State Department is less worried about offending a superpower than it is about offending Jihadistan and the Palestinians. China has never acknowledged Taiwan as a separate nation, and continues to deem it an unlawful breakaway province. Officially, the US does not recognize Taiwan as a formal state or country either, but it's a whole lot looser about what can be written on a passport.



To put another exclamation point on the silliness, the State Department is not nearly so doctrinaire about certain other "disputed homelands" in the Middle East. Naturalized American citizens from the Golan Heights are free to declare Syria as their birth nation. This is in spite of the fact that the Golan Heights have been under Israel's control since 1967, and were formally annexed into Israel in 1981. Before that time, the Golan Heights were Syrian for only twenty-three years, previously having been a French protectorate and part of the Ottoman Empire.



So now the question becomes, "is this change on the White House website a reflection of a genuine difference of position between the executive and legislative branches, or merely a prelude to another Obama apology tour of the Middle East?" It also raises the question "why now?"

Last week, the official White House site made a subtle but important change to one of the pictures it has been displaying. Previously, there was a shot taken in "Jerusalem, Israel." "Jerusalem" is now an island without a country, and "Israel" has been deleted from the photo. If Obama can make the victims of Fast and Furious into non-persons, I guess they can turn Jerusalem into a non-capital.



There has been a two-administration battle between Congress's insistence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the administration's insistence that such a determination belongs to the executive branch through its constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. As far as the executive branch is concerned through both the Bush and Obama administrations, the status of Jerusalem remains unsettled.



Fair enough. But the White House website has always shown the picture of Jerusalem in conjunction with the word Israel. The photo was a picture of Vice President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2010. It was entitled: "Biden and Peres meet in Jerusalem, Israel. Suddenly, Biden met with Peres in Jerusalem, (fill in the blank). Either that, or they met in just-plain-Jerusalem.



The whole brouhaha was set off when American naturalized citizens wanted their passports to read: "Birthplace--Jerusalem, Israel." Before removal of the word "Israel" from the photo, the state department issued a brief statement reiterating the administration's position that "US citizens born in Jerusalem may not have 'Israel' listed in their passports as their place of birth." Yet in another photo, still extant on the website, there is a story about a trainee foreign service officer whose "first assignment will be in Jerusalem, Israel, beginning August 2011."



The closest historical parallel I can think of is the airbrushing out of Nazis loyal to Hitler and communists loyal to Stalin when those same dictators decided that the loyalists had become a drug on their respective agendas. In 2002, Congress passed a law allowing naturalized American Jews to include the word "Israel" on their passports if they chose to do so. The representatives who supported the move claim it had no foreign policy significance whatsoever, and merely addressed the concerns of naturalized American Jews that a simple elementary truth be imprinted on the passports.



There's an old Borscht-belt comedian's joke that somewhat fits the situation. An angry husband comes home to find a man hiding in his wife's closet. He asks: "What are you doing in there?" The man replies: "Everybody's gotta be somewhere." Likewise, every city has to be somewhere. So where is Jerusalem--Mars? The State Department is consistently inconsistent. Its address for the US Consulate is officially in zip code 91002--no country. But in applications for social security deposits and its official guidebook to Jerusalem, it gives "Jerusalem, Israel" as its address.



The department has not been nearly so scrupulous about its unitary authority on diplomatic documents when it comes to other disputed homelands. Since 1994, naturalized Americans from Taiwan have been allowed to state their birthplace as simply Taiwan, or alternatively, Taiwan, China. It seems the State Department is less worried about offending a superpower than it is about offending Jihadistan and the Palestinians. China has never acknowledged Taiwan as a separate nation, and continues to deem it an unlawful breakaway province. Officially, the US does not recognize Taiwan as a formal state or country either, but it's a whole lot looser about what can be written on a passport.



To put another exclamation point on the silliness, the State Department is not nearly so doctrinaire about certain other "disputed homelands" in the Middle East. Naturalized American citizens from the Golan Heights are free to declare Syria as their birth nation. This is in spite of the fact that the Golan Heights have been under Israel's control since 1967, and were formally annexed into Israel in 1981. Before that time, the Golan Heights were Syrian for only twenty-three years, previously having been a French protectorate and part of the Ottoman Empire.



So now the question becomes, "is this change on the White House website a reflection of a genuine difference of position between the executive and legislative branches, or merely a prelude to another Obama apology tour of the Middle East?" It also raises the question "why now?"

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

View Detail