Category Archives: Foreign Policy

UPDATE III: Can General (Stanley) McCrock (Chris’s Episode)

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

BHO ought to accept General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation. He must. If he doesn’t, the president will be in even more trouble than he already is.

The Telegraph:

The US commander in Afghanistan was ordered to fly back from Kabul for a carpeting after he and his aides were quoted in “Rolling Stone” magazine mocking the president and senior officials. … Although the worst barbs came from the lips of aides, they indicated that the general did not respect Mr Obama. One was quoted as saying Mr Obama appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the military and “didn’t seem very engaged” when he first met Gen McChrystal.

What is it about the American memory? It’s non-existent.

What is it about the Neocons-cum-Republicans? They have no core principles other than to line up behind their man and against Obama. They cheered this McChrystal chap when, in October of 2009, he sojourned to London to lobby for more troops.

At the time I wrote that, “It’s got to be obvious that the general knows nothing about the chain of command. He lacks discipline or a code of conduct. McChrystal’s a lobbyist in fatigues, guarding his fiefdom.”

As is my habit—it hasn’t rubbed off on our valued blogger James Huggins, who carries the torch for GOP fraudsters—I reminded my readers at the time that “Gen. David Petraeus conducted himself similarly. Although he didn’t lobby abroad for his cause, Petraeus assumed a decidedly political role. However, back then, Republicans and their Bush boy were on board with Petraeus’ push for more war.

The difference between Petraeus and McChrystal is that the first was successful in establishing the illusion of a successful surge in Iraq—quite a feat given that the Democrats were not yet in power. So useless is this McChrystal that he has not even been able to win the PR war, and persuade the ruling Obamamaniacs that his war wank is working.

It goes without saying that both O’Reilly and Hannity have already dictated received Republican opinion: BHO must forgive McChrystal and let this loser win their war. (And BHO’s war)

UPDATE I: “I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor — showed poor judgment,” the president said in his first comments on the matter, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. “But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions.”

UPDATE II (June 23): “The Runaway General: Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”

That’s the title of the Rolling Stone article. What would a crappy Stone feature be without the expletives? So raw and real. The cussing is all the “writer’s” repertoire; he’s not even parroting the army men, whom you’d expect to cuss. Clearly a requirement of a job with RS. Imbibe from the masters: “Fuck this; fuck that, be shit-faced, piss-off.”

McChrystal is molding the military into a cross between the “Green Berets” and an “armed Peace Corps”—killing tempered by nation building—with a view to carving out a permanent place for himself over there, and taking his showcase war on the road, when the gig is up.

The guy is as evil as he looks. Not as stupid as McMussolini, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets, but a serious underachiever, “ranking 298 out of a class of 855.”

This man McChrystal is a riot of fuck-ups to use Rolling Stone lingo. Hey, this is easy. I think I’ve got it, Enry Iggins.

UPDATE III (June 23): CHRIS HAS AN EPISODE. This is the second momentous time Chris Matthews felt an-Obama induced thrill up his leg. Although Chris spends his days in sexual delirium over BHO, like in a boy who reaches maturity, the thrill manifests only on very special occasions. Emasculated left-liberals don’t often allow themselves to revel in the masculine—it represents oppression. But when an all-round good guy like the president shows a bit of that manly magic, “girlie boys” get giddy.

Obama sacking Stanley: now that was a good day for Chris, who managed to disguise arousal with folderol about the act instantiating the genius of the Constitution; the beauty of our country’s landscape, blah, blah.

Here’s the wreck himself:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE III: Then There Were Three (Sane Paleos)

Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Justice, Middle East, Paleoconservatism

Serbian historian Srdja Trifkovic is one of the finest writers on Islam. Because he tells the truth about Islam, he also tells the truth about Israel. The latter follows from the former. Sane Serbs, Nebojsa Malic is another, have clashed with Islam’s emissaries and view Israel has having been “serbed.” The rest of the paleos are in contradiction: They acknowledge Islam’s aims but refuse to see its workings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I highlighted their inconsistencies in “Paleos Must Defend the West…And That Means Israel Too.” Trifkovic’s “Israel, the West, and the Rest” continues a tradition of three:

“… our primary interests in the Middle East … are not to defend human rights, or to promote democracy, or to build a Palestinian state, or to treat Israel as an existential American ally … Secondary and peripheral [interests] must remain subordinate to the primary interests when policy outcomes come into conflict. Should we promote ‘democracy’ even if its beneficiaries are Osama and Ahmadinejad? Should we seek ‘justice’ for the Palestinians — however defined — at the cost of risking the disappearance of the state of Israel? No, heck no!

Even if an evenhanded and generous agreement were to be offered to the Arabs — including the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, an equitable sharing of natural resources, and a generous compensation package that would resolve the refugee problem — it would be unworkable in the long term — the notion of Israel’s legitimacy is simply unacceptable to traditional Islam…”

UPDATE I (June 16) : To Derek: “Israel” does not have to mimic paleos to deserve a defense against those intent on extinguishing it. However, it so happens that Israelis have “Sued NATO For 1999 Air Strikes On Serbia.” Read my post about this valiant, well-directed, self-interested effort.

We know that Israel was streaks ahead, as far as paleo political philosophy goes, in terms of its relationship not only with Serbia but with the old South Africa. Read about the latter comity.

Put it this way: Israel did not attempt to destroy these nations; the USA did.

Where does that leave paleo incongruity?!

UPDATE II (June 17): The idea, hinted at in the Comments Section, that this column privileges Israel over the US for “tribal” reasons is insulting—at least to those familiar with my positions. As I wrote to Myron the other day, when he asked that I apply the Israel test to an American issue: “I’m an American commentator, first.” I’m also the quintessential individualist. I’ve never belonged or worked for any group/tribe/church.

Why does this writer fight for the Afrikaner, Gringo Malo? Tribal affiliation? What bunk. If I knew what was good for me, I would indeed conform to Malo’s insulting caricature—the book deals would role in. I’d be rewarded for becoming what in Russel Kirk’s estimation the American mind craves: the banal and the mundane.

If anything, paleos work against their “tribe” when they agitate for the Palestinians. An Israeli did not assassinate an American senator; a Palestinian did. Muslim terrorists extolling the Palestinian cause killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. Yet it is Israelis that paleos warn us against.

And don’t dare mention the vast sums of money that go to that nest of vipers known as the Palestinian Authority. We only speak of the Jewish ponces who take from the US.

Equating my mere recognition of the justness of Israel’s existence and its struggle and what it has accomplished with tribal affiliation—this is plain pathetic, all the more so considering I have not ever recommended a foreign policy that does anything other than stay out of Israel’s affairs.

UPDATE IV: THEN THERE WERE FOUR. Thanks, Daniel, for alerting us to Derb’s brilliant piece, “Taking Israel’s Side”:

“Each of us has a mental map of the world colored by partiality, some of it reasonable, some merely emotional. If we are patriotic, we will feel more warmly towards a nation that trades fairly with us, cooperates to some degree in international projects we undertake, and shares some commonality of history, culture, or values with us. Contrariwise, of course, if you believe, as a liberal once told me he actually did believe, that your country is the most evil that ever existed, you will feel affinity with foreign nations whose leaders share that view. …

It remains the case that any fair-minded person must be an Israel sympathizer. A hundred years ago there were Jews and Arabs living in that part of the Ottoman Empire. After the Ottoman collapse both peoples had a right to set up their own ethnostates. It has been the furiously intransigent Arab denial of this fact, not anything Israelis have done, that has been the root cause of all subsequent troubles. It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.”

[SNIP]

The last very good point was one I made in LIAR, LIAR, ABAYA ON FIRE (2002), quoting Lorne Gunter:

“Cycle of violence” suggests a sequence of events that has no beginning or end. Do the media ever pause to pose the no-brainer the Edmonton Journal’s Lorne Gunter poses? “If Palestinians stopped their attacks today, tomorrow there would be no Israeli attacks. But if Israel stopped unilaterally, would you trust the Palestinians to follow?”

Rand’s Rational About Israel

Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, libertarianism, Liberty, The West

A doff of the hat to Aaron Biterman (read his just-published libertarian defense of Israel) for making me aware of Rand Paul’s eminently reasonable position with respect to Israel. The more I learn about Rand Paul, the more I like him, although I don’t support economic sanctions against any country or foreign aid to any country:

The United States Special Relationship with Israel
The American Spectator
By Dr. Rand Paul
Candidate, United States Senate

Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.

The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel.

I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.

The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex. The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.

I strongly object to the arrogant approach of Obama administration, itself a continuation of the failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push Israel to make security concessions behind thinly veiled threats.

Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations. Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.

As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.

Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.

It is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass judgment or to use our power or relationship to force Israel to go against her own interest for the sake of “peace.”
Peace is a laudable goal. But it is just that – a goal. It is not an end at any cost.

It makes no sense to me that the United States provides Arab countries hostile to Israel with $12 billion in annual financial and military aid. Many of the weapons that Israel would face in a Middle Eastern conflict would have come directly from our government. I find this appalling. In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.

Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.
Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.

Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.

We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling.”

[SNIP]

Go to our archives, and click on the Israel category for the case for Israel. Recommended:

THE NATURE OF THE JEWISH STATE
FOAMING AT THE MOUTH OVER ISRAEL
LIBERTARIANS WHO LOATHE ISRAEL
ISRAEL BELONGS TO THE JEWS
ISRAEL: ISLAND OF JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE FENCE
ISRAEL’S SANITY AMONG SAVAGERY
THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH STATE

Rand's Rational About Israel