Radical Islam vs the West

I have concluded that the West has lost control of the Middle East and those parts of the world, North Africa and other places, that are beset with Radical Islam played out in the Sunni-Shia-anti-Infidel conflict. The West is both unable and unwilling to confront this menace and it will only end with a MAJOR conflict.

Israel will act on any real threat to its existence and no amount of Kerry diplomacy will thwart the players driven by Islamist religious differences. This situation can only end in the Biblical Armageddon. Many prophecies foretell this conflict.

We may delay it, but the threat cannot be eliminated. War will inevitably happen and, IMHO, it will be nuclear.

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made - NYTimes.com

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made - NYTimes.com:

The President has no good options. The trick will be to muster enough votes in the House and Senate to approve what he intends to do. The risk of unintended consequences must be addressed in detail.

With all the talk of moral outrage, I think this Syria incursion, should we undertake it, is more about Iran.

What's missing in this discussion is the refusal of the President and the media to talk about the reality that this Middle East unrest is first and foremost a religious war within Islam. This is far less a political struggle than an Islamic sectarian conflict where radical Islamists seek to destabilize existing governments in the hopes of establishing a caliphate in the region. This is not merely a civil war.

TeamObama surely does not want to be seen as taking sides in the this ideological struggle, but he has boxed himself into a corner and whichever course is chosen in Syria will be interpreted by the Arab 'street' as interfering in Islamic affairs.

One Great Big War - NYTimes.com (David Brooks)

One Great Big War - NYTimes.com: "What’s the biggest threat to world peace right now? Despite the horror, it’s not chemical weapons in Syria. It’s not even, for the moment, an Iranian nuclear weapon. Instead, it’s the possibility of a wave of sectarian strife building across the Middle East."

David Brooks hits the nail on the head. While most of the talking heads and commentators in the popular media seem to talk and bloviate about the problems in the Middle East as political with political solutions, it's patently clear that this is first and foremost an Islamist sectarian conflict that is based in their religious splintering.

Political boundaries of these Islamist countries mean little in this conflagration.  The battles are about religious ideologies, not borders and about religious belief and practice, not about economics or politics.

The West has precious few options, as Mr. Brooks points out.  I believe TeamObama has made a mess of it by believing naively that the revolutionary forces at work would produce democracies, when many of the rabid rebel forces prefer theocracies or caliphates.

Perhaps if we became energy independent, the U.S. could avoid being the policeman in that area, but what of the other Western nations that depend on the region's oil? And Israel?

VJ Day Video in Hawaii

A special thank-you to my childhood friend, Mike, now an accomplished graphics artist, for sharing this superb video of the spontaneous celebration when the news broke in August 1945 that Japan had surrendered after years of of bitter warfare in the Pacific region.

As a child, I distinctly remember my father celebrating by blasting the leaves off a tree in the yard with his shotgun. America was ecstatic after so much bloodshed and sacrifice by the 'Greatest Generation' in WWII.

VJ Day, Honolulu Hawaii, August 14, 1945 from Richard Sullivan on Vimeo.

Smart Power Setback - NYTimes.com

Smart Power Setback - NYTimes.com:

Will we ever learn that western-style nation-building in tribal societies like Afghanistan cannot be done quickly...if at all?

"Violence doesn’t stem from poverty. It stems from grudges, tribal dynamics and religious fanaticism — none of which can be ameliorated by building new roads. The poorest parts of the country [Afghanistan] are not the most violent.

Meanwhile, the influx of aid has, in many cases, created dependency, fed corruption, contributed to insecurity and undermined the host government’s capacity to oversee sustainable programs.

In the district of Nawa, for example, Usaid spent $400 per person last year. The per-capita income before aid was $300. According to the World Bank, 97 percent of Afghanistan’s G.D.P. derives from spending related to the military and donor community presence." [emphasis added]

Guantanamo Remains Open - Reality Trumps Campaign Promises

Will his supporters realize, As Obama has, that confirmed terrorists must be kept out of circulation and tried for their crimes by military tribunals? Obama's campaign promise was nothing more than unrealistic vote-getting rhetoric. Far too many people fell for it.

Now, he should really get serious and appoint a new Attorney General to replace the hapless Eric Holder who wanted to hold civilian trials for terrorists in New York. What a foolish proposal.

Radical Islamic terrorists are evil people rightly named enemy combatants who should be tried as such.

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Monday approved the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.

The approval was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility Mr. Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office will remain open for some time.

"I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system—including Article III courts—to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened," the president said in a statement. Article III courts are military commissions.

Under Mr. Obama's order, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban on bringing new cases against the terrorism suspects at the detention facility.

Closure of the facility has become untenable because of questions about where terrorism suspects would be held.

U.S. to Send Carrier for Joint Exercises Off Korea - NYTimes.com

TeamObama has few good options with North Korea. They are in a similar situation as both Bush and Clinton. Nothing seems to work. North Korea and the rogue nuts who run the country always have the advantage because they can do nearly anything they want to provoke South Korea, the U.S. and the neighbors in the region with impunity.


China loves that its ally jabs one stick after another into our side and they do nothing to prevent the craziness.


I'm sure the military has a strategic war plan for North Korea. The problem is no one wants to use it because the downside is too awful to contemplate. The North Koreans know this and play it for all it's worth.


Eventually, the people are likely to revolt but the army supports the nutjob leaders because the troops are well-fed and taken care of compared to the rest of the population. This cannot go on indefinately.


I wonder where North Korea got all the new centrifuges for enriching uranium? Did they build them or buy them? If they bought them, who sold them? So much for sanctions and embargoes. Has the media followed up on this? Perhaps I missed it.

Lake George Bike Ride

While son, Karl and a friend, Samantha, along with their eight kids were at the Great Escape amusement park, Carol and I went for a bike ride on a beautiful bike path adjoining the Lake George RV Park, where we're staying.

This beautiful trail follows the route of an old colonial path, corduroy toll road, electric trolley route, old road and now is a bike path. On this comfortably sunny day, we had a splendid ride on a 12 foot wide paved trail with mown grass shoulders. The trail is nearly level so the ride along a meandering brook in the cool forest shade was wonderful!

Of historical note, this very place was the site of a major battles on September 8, 1755 between the British Colonialists and the French with their respective Abenaki, Iroquois and Mohawk allies. The trail has historic markers briefly explaining those September battles known as the Battle of Lake George, a bloody month indeed.

I realize I know little to nothing of the pre-Revolutionary battles between the British and the French for eastern North America, part of the broader conflict known as the Seven Years War.

While researching some of this, it struck me that only two decades later American Colonials were fighting the British and Loyalists again, with French assistance. So the British in North America must have been somewhat war-weary which may have made our revolutionary struggle a bit 'easier.'

It also struck me that last year when we visited Fort Louisbourg in Nova Scotia, that the Seven Years War raged there too with the fort changing hands on more than one occasion with the resulting forced exodus of the Acadians to other parts of North America, including Louisiana.

It seems we in the U.S. have been at war ever since the settling of the country...a trait shared by most of mankind, it seems. Power and ideologies are forever violently clashing. That is the nature of Man.

The President Chose the Correct Course

As I blogged yesterday, any President cannot let stand the remarks made by a general [McChrystal in this instance] and his top aides as reported in Rolling Stone magazine. Whatever a magazine's sentiment, anti or pro war/policy in Afghanistan, personal derogatory remarks published and not rebutted as false cannot be allowed to stand by a Commander-in-Chief.

The response to this episode should be professional by people in active or retired military status whether they agree with TeamObama's politics or not. We cannot allow the bedrock Constitutional principle of civilian control of our military erode regardless of our political leanings.

The President acted properly and his statement is correct:

"I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with Gen. McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general, it undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of ourdemocratic system and it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan."

Mineral Wealth Estimate Excites Afghan Officials - NYTimes.com

Mineral Wealth Estimate Excites Afghan Officials - NYTimes.com:

Here's a game-changer! If mineral assets in Afghanistan are worth a trillion or more dollars, economic opportunity may soon trump radical Islam as the driving force determining the future of the country.

Wouldn't the radical Islamic fundamentalists love to get their hands on this wealth to fund their jihad against the West! The stakes in the Aghan war just rose dramatically!

"According to the report, which was described Monday in The New York Times, Afghanistan has at least $1 trillion in mineral deposits that have yet to be unearthed. It is a potential income source so vast that if it were tapped and the wealth handled in a way to benefit the whole population, the country could be transformed. It would also turn Afghanistan into a mining center.

That would, however, require a substantial change in the country’s circumstances, since many of the reserves were found in politically unstable areas, said Mr. Omar, the Mines Ministry spokesman.

“Mining is not like a shop that you can open and immediately take advantage of,” he said, adding that it would most likely take five to 10 years before the country could begin to use those reserves."

The full Times story is here.

Drones are Effective Against Al Qaeda Leaders

A quote from the Wall Street Journal describes one bright spot in Th U.S. war against terrorists (whatever TeamObama chooses to call it). Drone technology is good and getting better. The article also contains this quote: "Able to go where American soldiers can't, the Predator and Reaper have since 9/11 killed more than half of the 20 most wanted al Qaeda suspects, the Uzbek, Yemeni and Pakistani heads of allied groups and hundreds of militants. Most of those hits were in the last four years."

This capability is a very effective weapon and keeps Al Qaeda leadership from moving freely. We should use it as often as it will be effective. Collateral damage, while frustrating and difficult, can be mostly avoided because of the precision of these weapons. However, If 'civilians' choose or are forced to be close to these evil radical Islamists, then some will, unfortunately, die. This is a fact of life in warfare of any kind. President Obama would be wise to continue describing our war against Islamic radicals intent on destroying us as...a WAR. They will not be won over by our choice of words.

"The Obama Administration has with good reason taken flak for its approach to terrorism since the Christmas Day near-bombing over Detroit. So permit us to laud an antiterror success in the Commander in Chief's first year in office.

Though you won't hear him brag about it, President Obama has embraced and ramped up the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. As tactic and as a technology, drones are one of the main U.S. advantages that have emerged from this long war. (IEDs are one of the enemy's.) Yet their use isn't without controversy, and it took nerve for the White House to approve some 50 strikes last year, exceeding the total in the last three years of the Bush Administration.

Associated Press

Supporters of Pakistani Labour Party rally against the United States and drone attacks on militants in Pakistani tribal areas along the Afghanistan border.

From Pakistan to Yemen, Islamic terrorists now fear the Predator and its cousin, the better-armed Reaper. So do critics on the left in the academy, media and United Nations; they're calling drones an unaccountable tool of "targeted assassination" that inflames anti-American passions and kills civilians. At some point, the President may have to defend the drone campaign on military and legal grounds."

TeamObama Apparently Discombobulated

Aides in the Obama administration must be beside themselves with the political pain that foreign affairs is wreaking on their domestic agenda. His United Nations appearance, the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the public revelation of Iran's secret underground nuclear facility (certainly not a secret to the players involved) [One wonders why now is the right time to go public with it?], and the quandary of Afghanistan have all served to push the domestic agenda away from the public consciousness.

Or is that all part of a grand diversion scheme to take pressure off Congress to enable them to push through health care reform, cap and trade, and card check while Americans are absorbed in foreign policy issues?

TeamObama clearly has its hands full. They have failed to convince Americans that their health care reform is the right way to go and they have to make a strong public case for whichever course of action he decides for Afghanistan. That won't be easy regardless of his decision. I sense that most of the softening up that's happening in the liberal media is preparing the way for a decision not to send the troops the Pentagon is requesting for a counterinsurgency strategy.

Vermont's junior Senator has this to say about the war in Afghanistan:



We do need to have that debate!

In Cyberweapons Race, Questions Linger Over U.S. Offensive Capability - Series - NYTimes.com

In Cyberweapons Race, Questions Linger Over U.S. Offensive Capability - Series - NYTimes.com

The prospects of cyberwar are chilling. But the U.S. seems to fully understand the threat even though we may not yet have settled on the policies to guide our actions.

In any event, we seem to be devoting the necessary resources to both the offensive and defensive measures to successfully engage any enemy.

This is a non-stop effort. I certainly hope the very best minds are targeted at this endeavor. But think of the awesome risk we create when we have key people who know extraordinary details of this necessarily top-secret work. How can we ever insure the loyalty of our cyber geniuses? The very best minds tend to be quirky at best and potentially vulnerable to the lures on the enemy. Will we isolate them as did the British who created a top secret, highly successful code-breaking cadre in WWII?

“The fortress model simply will not work for cyber,” said one senior military officer who has been deeply engaged in the debate for several years. “Someone will always get in.”

That thinking has led to a debate over whether lessons learned in the nuclear age — from the days of “mutually assured destruction” — apply to cyberwar.

"...But in cyberwar, it is hard to know where to strike back, or even who the attacker might be. Others have argued for borrowing a page from Mr. Bush’s pre-emption doctrine by going into foreign computers to destroy malicious software before it is unleashed into the world’s digital bloodstream. But that could amount to an act of war, and many argue it is a losing game, because the United States is more dependent on a constantly running Internet system than many of its potential adversaries, and therefore could suffer more damage in a counterattack.

In a report scheduled to be released Wednesday, the National Research Council will argue that although an offensive cybercapability is an important asset for the United States, the nation is lacking a clear strategy, and secrecy surrounding preparations has hindered national debate, according to several people familiar with the report.

The advent of Internet attacks — especially those suspected of being directed by nations, not hackers — has given rise to a new term inside the Pentagon and the National Security Agency: “hybrid warfare....”

It describes a conflict in which attacks through the Internet can be launched as a warning shot — or to pave the way for a traditional attack.

The Global Economy Unravels - Forbes.com

The Global Economy Unravels - Forbes.com:

Scary thoughts, indeed!

"...A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

One has to hope that ahead of the next G-20 summit in London this April, global policymakers will get real about the gravity of the present global economic and political situation. For only with a coordinated and forceful economic policy response is there any hope of extricating ourselves from what is turning out to be the most serious global economic slump since the Great Depression."

Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan - NYTimes.com

Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan - NYTimes.com:

President Obama sees the need to continue the polices of the Bush Administration in fighting terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. His foolishness about closing Guantanamo to satisfy his liberal constituency without a plan to deal with the prisoners smacks of political opportunism, rather than sound policy.

Meanwhile, saying little publicly, Obama, Clinton and Holbrooke seem to be working their private channels to step up the killing of terrorist leadership via drones. But wait, don't their liberal backers believe that killing terrorists merely creates more terrorists?

The time will come when American forces, in addition to Special Operations, will be placed on the ground in force in this part of Pakistan to go after the leaders that they don't kill with drones. Some Army Special Ops troops are there now as advisers to Pakistani troops. Obviously, the Pakistanis are unwilling or unable to do it on their own.

A friend of mine likens the actions in the 'tribal areas' of Pakistan as 'another Vietnam.' That implies we will be mired for years, then ultimately give up trying to win. I hope not.

"...While the administration has not publicly criticized the Pakistanis, several American officials said in interviews in recent days that they believe appeasing the militants would only weaken Pakistan’s civilian government. Mr. Holbrooke said in the interview that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others would make clear in private, and in detail, why they were so concerned about what was happening in Swat, the need to send more Pakistani forces to the west, and why the deteriorating situation in the tribal areas added to instability in Afghanistan and threats to American forces.

Past efforts to cut deals with the insurgents failed, and many administration officials believe that they ultimately weakened the Pakistani government.

But Obama administration officials face the same intractable problems that the Bush administration did in trying to prod Pakistan toward a different course. Pakistan still deploys the overwhelming majority of its troops along the Indian border, not the border with Afghanistan, and its intelligence agencies maintain shadowy links to the Taliban even as they take American funds to fight them...

...American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan’s tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence."

Obama's energy pick endorses nukes, clean coal | Politics and Law - CNET News

Obama's energy pick endorses nukes, clean coal | Politics and Law - CNET News


Dr. Chu will not be embraced by some rabid greenies who believe the forecast for energy's future is all windy and sunny. He makes sense with his initial remarks. There's no question that efficiency will be the low-hanging fruit and that coal and nuclear will be with us for a very long time.

On Vermont's nuclear front, the Legislature should quickly decide the fate of Vermont Yankee. Their best bet would be to repaeal the authority thay have previously given themselves to decide VY's fate. They would be better served and off the hook by leaving the decision where it belongs...with the NRC and the Public Service Board.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Winning Isn't News

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Winning Isn't News

Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Let's choose to believe this account (July 2008) that we are winning/have won in Iraq. It really is a symptom of the onerous bias of the liberal media in the U.S. that they fail to report it. They are so infatuated with the Obama thing and the recession that the Iraq war dropped off their radar screen.

Here are some of the reasons they would give for not fully reporting this:

• The recession is absolutely the biggest news story now.
• The Obama victory is so important that we must cover it fully (ad nauseum).
• Iraq is just not news anymore. (I wonder how many 'embedded' reporters are still there [story below reports NONE]?)
• From the publishers: we are focused on our financial difficulties...we can't afford to spread our news staff too thin.
• Americans aren't interested in the Iraq war anymore.

One reason they wouldn't give is:

• Bush did the right thing in approving the 'surge.' Obama can't bring himself to say it because he opposed it and ...well, 'we' love Obama and hate Bush. To give Bush credit, well, it's just not in 'our' repertoire.

Today's (12/29/08) New York Times has this story on the subject. Opening paragraphs below.

TV News Winds Down Operations on Iraq War

By BRIAN STELTER

Published: December 28, 2008

Quietly, as the United States presidential election and its aftermath have dominated the news, America’s three broadcast network news divisions have stopped sending full-time correspondents to Iraq.

NBC

Richard Engel, a top correspondent for NBC, is rotating in and out of Baghdad.

“The war has gone on longer than a lot of news organizations’ ability or appetite to cover it,” said Jane Arraf, a former Baghdad bureau chief for CNN who has remained in Iraq as a contract reporter for The Christian Science Monitor.

Joseph Angotti, a former vice president of NBC News, said he could not recall any other time when all three major broadcast networks lacked correspondents in an active war zone that involved United States forces.

Except, of course, in Afghanistan, where about 30,000 Americans are stationed, and where until recently no American television network, broadcast or cable, maintained a full-time bureau.

Israeli Strikes on Gaza Kill Scores - WSJ.com

Israeli Strikes on Gaza Kill Scores - WSJ.com

Welcome to the Presidency Senator Obama. The Israelis and Palestinians would dearly love to have some of that "Change We Can Believe In" stuff that you've been so adept at promoting. I read your powerful speech supporting Israel during your campaign. Now your resolve and friendship with Israel will be be tested.

I believe you will support Israel and renounce the terrorists calling themselves Hamas. If you don't, we'll have to rethink your resolve. I'll be watching for your statements.

Oh, and if you have the inclination, there's that Pakistan-India-Afghanistan mess for you to sink your teeth into come January 20.

Op-Ed Contributor - From Beirut to 9/11 - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Contributor - From Beirut to 9/11 - NYTimes.com

While McFarlane may have some axes to grind, both presidential candidates must take to heart his admonition:

"Since 9/11 we have learned a lot about the threat from radical Islam and how to defeat it. Our commitment to Iraq is now being vindicated and, if sustained, will enable us to establish an example of pluralism in a Muslim state with a flourishing economy.

First, however, we must win in Afghanistan — truly the decisive battleground in this global struggle. Never has there been a greater need for experience and judgment in the White House. Unless our next president understands the complexity of the challenge as well as what it will take to succeed, and can lead his cabinet and our country in resolute execution of that strategy, we will lose this war."

Obama Fuels Debate on Iraq Pullout With Remarks - NYTimes.com

Obama Fuels Debate on Iraq Pullout With Remarks - NYTimes.com

It is almost comical, but sad, that the Times reporter goes to great lengths trying to nuance what is clearly becoming another Obama flip-flop, this time on the Iraq war. While campaigning for the Democratic nomination he was "the" anti-war candidate. End the war and bring the troops home in 16 months was the mantra when it suited him politically. He was obviously pandering to people. Perhaps his nickname should be the 'Pandering Flip-Flopper.'

The Democrats, including Obama, have consistently refused to acknowledge that significant progress has been made in Iraq by our military (for our troops and their leaders I am thankful) and the 'surge' strategy by any measure must be judged successful. But the Democrats are invested in defeat, it seems, because that suits their political agenda. How is it that any thinking voter cannot see this obvious political pandering by Obama. Change is his mantra, but flip-flop is his demonstrated style.

Even the Times editorial writers are not happy with the Pandering Flip-Flopper. Today they had this to say:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Another story in the Times describes his flip-flop on the FISA surveillance issue. He now suppoerts the proposed FISA bill including a provision that would grant telecom companies immunity for their role in post-9/11 surveillance activities. I support immunity, but thousands of his supporters do not and are unhappy with Obama's flip-flop on that issue, too. Character matters!

I have said that I am not satisfied with the choices we are presented for Presidential candidates this year. But of the two, Obama is the one I would see as worse for our country. The ability to inspire via syrupy rhetoric is important, but I prefer substance and character. He, unlike McCain, has shown me neither.