Joanne Moudy
As Christians all around the world watched Dr. Meriam Ibrahim Ishag bravely endure unthinkable horrors of her captivity, release, re-arrest and now tenuous future, Americans in particular can take away one critical piece of knowledge. We absolutely do not want any form of the barbaric Shari’a law introduced into our U.S. courts.
Except it’s too late.
Thanks to efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Shari’a law is well on it’s way to becoming the new standard in civil court cases. As usual, the ACLU is playing the ‘guilt’ card and working against the intent of our First Amendment rights of free speech.
Attempting to get the jump on Shari’a, many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.
The ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.
Proponents of Shari’a law also seem to forget that when foreigners come to America, they are supposed to assimilate into our culture, not the other way around.
Consider the case of the 2008 arranged marriage in Morocco between S.D., a 17 year-old girl, and M.J.R., a man she did not know. Born to a Muslim father, S.D. was by default forced into Islam and had no choice but to accept her fate of the prearranged marriage.
The teenager was introduced to the man at their wedding and one month later they moved to New Jersey so that M.J.R. could pursue his career in accounting.
Apparently it wasn’t ‘love at first sight’ or ‘wedded bliss’ because by 2010, S.D. (still a teenager) had filed for a restraining order against her ‘husband’ on the grounds of rape, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Apparently the man repeatedly forced her to have non-consensual sex and abused her when she tried to refuse.
Eventually M.J.R. took the teen to the home of an Imam and verbally divorced her in accordance with Shari’a law. However, the sexual assaults and abuse continued, even after the divorce.
Believing the laws of New Jersey would protect her, S.D. did what any logical abuse victim would do to defend herself. She lodged complaints with the police, filed for a restraining order against the assailant and sought permanent intervention through the courts.
Imagine her surprise when Hudson County Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles refused to uphold the restraining order because he felt the man brutalizing the teen was doing so out of a desire to live his faith. Furthermore, the Judge found that even though the religious customs clashed with the New Jersey law, Muslim beliefs took precedence.
In Judge Charles’ opinion he wrote, “This court does not feel that … this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when … he wanted to … was something that was not prohibited.”
Interestingly enough, the leftists chanting the ‘war on women’ mantra were silent on this case. Perhaps they momentarily forgot that women don’t actually enjoy being raped or assaulted, even if it is by a man they are quasi ‘married’ to.
Fortunately S.D. had the financial resources to force an appeal of the case and eventually Judge Charles’ despicable decision was overturned by the appellate court. M.J.R. was then charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault and criminal restraint.
Even though this case was almost four years ago it brings forth the ever-present concern that Shari’a law is slowly and silently encroaching upon our U.S. Constitution and individual state’s rights. While this case was eventually made right, the very notion that any sitting judge would consider Shari’a law in an American court – should scare the pants off every American citizen.
As the world around us implodes with barbaric Muslim radicals and sympathizers on the march to eradicate all Judeo-Christian people everywhere, we must be ever vigilant to prevent it taking over at home. Stand firm for American laws. Stand firm for America.
30 Jun 2014
WORLD LEADERS PRETEND
Mike Adams
Dear Michael (Stipe):
You don't know me but I feel like I know you because I know your music so well. Back in the '80s, R.E.M. was easily my favorite band. In fact, in 1989 I joined a band that played a lot of your music. The job financed my PhD and made it possible for me to become a college professor. Naturally, I thank you for writing those songs. Your music inspired me and countless others.
Just last week, I ordered a copy of the 25th Anniversary reissue (released in 2013) of your 1988 album Green. I listened to it twice in one afternoon and reflected back on the time period when you and I shared a similar worldview. The song "World Leader Pretend" brought back vivid memories of what I now consider to be a glorious time in our nation's history. I've reprinted the lyrics of the song below and made some comments about how history has shed new light on your now 26-year old observations:
I sit at my table and wage war on myself
It seems like it's all, it's all for nothing
I know the barricades
And I know the mortar in the wall breaks
I recognize the weapons, I've used them well
When I first heard the opening verse of this song, I was thrilled. I was a member of the Democratic Party and a supporter of Michael Dukakis. Your album was released around the time of the 1988 election and I recognized it as a scathing indictment of the Reagan Administration as well as a dire warning that we could not continue with Reagan's foreign policy by electing George Bush to what would amount to a third Reagan term.
This is my mistake
Let me make it good
I raised the wall
And I will be the one to knock it down
I was never exactly sure what every line in your songs was saying because I was almost always intoxicated when listening to them. However, I always sensed that this verse was a reference to alleged deleterious effects of Reagan's policies on our image around the world. I also thought it was a call to repair that image by electing Dukakis - and, believe me, I was on board with the plan. I voted for him proudly - even though I knew he would lose by a wide margin.
I've a rich understanding of my finest defenses
I proclaim that claims are left unstated
I demand a rematch
It appeared to me then, as it does now, that your principal complaint with Reagan was the military buildup of the 1980s. This particular paragraph also seemed to contain a barb against the much maligned SDI missile defense system that was derisively referred to as the "Star Wars" program.
I decree a stalemate
I divine my deeper motives
I recognize the weapons
I've practiced them well
I fitted them myself
Part of the genius of this song is that it juxtaposes two interesting themes. The first is criticism of Reagan for fancying himself to be the leader of the entire world. The next is that of you imagining yourself to be the leader of the entire world and also declaring how you would do things differently. There are religious overtones attached to each idea. Reagan is seen as a religious crusader who equates his own motives with the will of God. But your humanist solution to the Reagan build-up was a crusade of a different sort - no less religious in nature.
It's amazing what devices you can sympathize
Empathize
This is my mistake, let me make it good
I raised the wall
And I will be the one to knock it down
The wall imagery was the most fascinating aspect of your writing in this song. At times, it sounds like you are referring to a metaphorical wall erected by Reagan foreign policy. But at other times it seems as if you are referring an actual wall. I'll come back to the actual will later in my commentary.
Reach out for me
Hold me tight
Hold that memory
Let my machine talk to me
Let my machine talk to me
I have no idea what this verse is saying. I got off drugs back in 1991.I'll just move on to the next verse.
This is my world, and I am the World Leader Pretend
This is my life, and this is my time
I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit
Its high time I razed the walls that I've constructed
In this verse it seems clear that you are referring to metaphorical walls. It is also clear that you are referring to nuclear disarmament as a way of repairing the damage inflicted by the Reagan administration on the rest of the world. The transition from "raising walls" and "razing walls" is clever wordplay, indeed.
It's amazing what devices you can sympathize
Empathize
This is my mistake, let me make it good
I raised the wall
And I will be the one to knock it down
The only question I have when I read this verse repeat is whether you really think that just one man, positioned as a world leader, can knock down walls (real or metaphorical) on his own. The next verse seems to supply an answer.
You fill in the mortar
You fill in the harmony
You fill in the mortar
I raised the wall
And I'm the only one
I will be the one to knock it down
As you know, Michael Dukakis, was not elected in 1988. Instead, George Bush was elected. Consequently, Reagan's basic foreign policy continued. And just one year later something very interesting happened. A wall fell down. It wasn't a metaphorical wall. It was a real wall that separated East and West Berlin. It was a testament to a failed view of the world.
As I look back on those days of being a leftist atheist and listening to R.E.M. in a drunken and drug- induced stupor, I realize just how truly lost and naive I was. I hated my own country and I sympathized with our enemies. I also imagined a new world order that had its basis in the worship of humanity, not in the worship of God.
Historical events have led me to conclude that my view of the world was wrong. But how about you, Michael? Have you ever considered changing your view of the world now that history has spoken and the Cold War ended through strength, rather than unilateral disarmament?
In other words, is your view of the world one that is based in reality? Or is it only make believe?
Dear Michael (Stipe):
You don't know me but I feel like I know you because I know your music so well. Back in the '80s, R.E.M. was easily my favorite band. In fact, in 1989 I joined a band that played a lot of your music. The job financed my PhD and made it possible for me to become a college professor. Naturally, I thank you for writing those songs. Your music inspired me and countless others.
Just last week, I ordered a copy of the 25th Anniversary reissue (released in 2013) of your 1988 album Green. I listened to it twice in one afternoon and reflected back on the time period when you and I shared a similar worldview. The song "World Leader Pretend" brought back vivid memories of what I now consider to be a glorious time in our nation's history. I've reprinted the lyrics of the song below and made some comments about how history has shed new light on your now 26-year old observations:
I sit at my table and wage war on myself
It seems like it's all, it's all for nothing
I know the barricades
And I know the mortar in the wall breaks
I recognize the weapons, I've used them well
When I first heard the opening verse of this song, I was thrilled. I was a member of the Democratic Party and a supporter of Michael Dukakis. Your album was released around the time of the 1988 election and I recognized it as a scathing indictment of the Reagan Administration as well as a dire warning that we could not continue with Reagan's foreign policy by electing George Bush to what would amount to a third Reagan term.
This is my mistake
Let me make it good
I raised the wall
And I will be the one to knock it down
I was never exactly sure what every line in your songs was saying because I was almost always intoxicated when listening to them. However, I always sensed that this verse was a reference to alleged deleterious effects of Reagan's policies on our image around the world. I also thought it was a call to repair that image by electing Dukakis - and, believe me, I was on board with the plan. I voted for him proudly - even though I knew he would lose by a wide margin.
I've a rich understanding of my finest defenses
I proclaim that claims are left unstated
I demand a rematch
It appeared to me then, as it does now, that your principal complaint with Reagan was the military buildup of the 1980s. This particular paragraph also seemed to contain a barb against the much maligned SDI missile defense system that was derisively referred to as the "Star Wars" program.
I decree a stalemate
I divine my deeper motives
I recognize the weapons
I've practiced them well
I fitted them myself
Part of the genius of this song is that it juxtaposes two interesting themes. The first is criticism of Reagan for fancying himself to be the leader of the entire world. The next is that of you imagining yourself to be the leader of the entire world and also declaring how you would do things differently. There are religious overtones attached to each idea. Reagan is seen as a religious crusader who equates his own motives with the will of God. But your humanist solution to the Reagan build-up was a crusade of a different sort - no less religious in nature.
It's amazing what devices you can sympathize
Empathize
This is my mistake, let me make it good
I raised the wall
And I will be the one to knock it down
The wall imagery was the most fascinating aspect of your writing in this song. At times, it sounds like you are referring to a metaphorical wall erected by Reagan foreign policy. But at other times it seems as if you are referring an actual wall. I'll come back to the actual will later in my commentary.
Reach out for me
Hold me tight
Hold that memory
Let my machine talk to me
Let my machine talk to me
I have no idea what this verse is saying. I got off drugs back in 1991.I'll just move on to the next verse.
This is my world, and I am the World Leader Pretend
This is my life, and this is my time
I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit
Its high time I razed the walls that I've constructed
In this verse it seems clear that you are referring to metaphorical walls. It is also clear that you are referring to nuclear disarmament as a way of repairing the damage inflicted by the Reagan administration on the rest of the world. The transition from "raising walls" and "razing walls" is clever wordplay, indeed.
It's amazing what devices you can sympathize
Empathize
This is my mistake, let me make it good
I raised the wall
And I will be the one to knock it down
The only question I have when I read this verse repeat is whether you really think that just one man, positioned as a world leader, can knock down walls (real or metaphorical) on his own. The next verse seems to supply an answer.
You fill in the mortar
You fill in the harmony
You fill in the mortar
I raised the wall
And I'm the only one
I will be the one to knock it down
As you know, Michael Dukakis, was not elected in 1988. Instead, George Bush was elected. Consequently, Reagan's basic foreign policy continued. And just one year later something very interesting happened. A wall fell down. It wasn't a metaphorical wall. It was a real wall that separated East and West Berlin. It was a testament to a failed view of the world.
As I look back on those days of being a leftist atheist and listening to R.E.M. in a drunken and drug- induced stupor, I realize just how truly lost and naive I was. I hated my own country and I sympathized with our enemies. I also imagined a new world order that had its basis in the worship of humanity, not in the worship of God.
Historical events have led me to conclude that my view of the world was wrong. But how about you, Michael? Have you ever considered changing your view of the world now that history has spoken and the Cold War ended through strength, rather than unilateral disarmament?
In other words, is your view of the world one that is based in reality? Or is it only make believe?
SERBS, SARAJEVO AND SELF-DETERMINATION
George Mano
On this one-hundredth anniversary of the beginning of World War I, we have a chance to look back with a historian’s eye at the assassination in Sarajevo, at the people involved, and the broader meaning of the incident for the world today.
In a nutshell, on June 28, 1914, six young men stood in positions on street corners and sidewalks in Sarajevo with the intent to kill the Austrian Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg Empire. The six young men belonged to a group called Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia), which hoped to free Bosnia-Hercegovina from Austro-Hungarian rule and unite it with Serbia in a nation of South Slavs. Five of the men were ethnic Serbs. One, Muhamed Mehmedbasic, was a Bosnian Muslim.
On that sunny day, as the Archduke’s motorcade rolled down the streets, it passed the first assassin, Mehmedbasic, who lost his nerve and did not throw his bomb. The second assassin also failed to act, but the third one, a young man named Nedeljko Cabrinovic, tossed his bomb at the passing car. His bomb, however, bounced off the archduke’s vehicle and exploded under a following car in the motorcade, destroying that vehicle and wounding more than a dozen people. Hearing the explosion, the last three assassins were surprised to see the archduke’s car speed past them, and they failed to act. Franz Ferdinand, angry that someone had just tried to kill him, gave the mayor of Sarajevo a piece of his mind as they met at the City Hall, the final destination. Trying to calm her husband, the archduke’s wife, Duchess Sophie, suggested that they abandon their plans for the day and visit the wounded bomb victims in the hospital instead. Franz Ferdinand agreed, and they got back into their car and headed back onto the road. It was then, as they were on their way to the hospital that their driver turned onto a side street and the sixth assassin, a nineteen-year-old kid named Gavrilo (i.e., Gabriel) Princip, still waiting on the corner, saw his chance, stepped forward and fired two shots which resulted in the death of the archduke and his wife.
The immediate consequences of the assassination were anti-Serbian riots and pogroms. Incited by the Austrian Governor and Croatian nationalists, for several days mobs attacked Serbs, their homes, their businesses, and their churches. Reports submitted by the Austrian Governor Oskar Potiorek two days later said that all Serbian shops in Sarajevo had been destroyed. Many prominent Serbs were expelled or imprisoned, and 460 were executed. Sarajevo, for the first time in its history, was divided by ethnicity.
Next came power-politics. The alleged mastermind of the plot, Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, known as Apis, was head of Serbian Military Intelligence. That was enough for the Austrians to blame the government of Serbia for the assassination and issue a ten-part ultimatum. For many in Europe, it looked like a call to war. Winston Churchill wrote, “The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia (is) the most insolent document of its kind ever devised.” Edward Grey, British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said, “Any nation that accepted conditions like that would really cease to count as an independent nation.” The Serbian government denied being involved in the plot and accepted all demands of the ultimatum except for the part which would have allowed Austrian agents to do their own investigations on Serbian soil. The K-und-K government was not satisfied; a month after the assassination, on July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and World War I began.
What does it all mean? For many people, today’s anniversary is another chance to disparage the Serbs. And why not? The Serbs are politically weak and unlikely to retaliate, no matter what is said about them. When Yugoslavia broke up, the news media put black hats on the Serbs for years, and now Hollywood regularly chooses them as villains. Anyone who has seen American movies or TV shows in the past twenty years is likely to have noticed that many of the bad guys are Serbs (or Russians or educated Englishmen). In the 1996 movie The Rock, FBI bomb expert Nicholas Cage tries to disarm an explosive device containing sarin gas packed in a box labeled “Aid to Bosnia” and “Sloboda ili Smrt”—“Freedom or Death”—the slogan of the Serbian Chetniks. Also in 1996, the Steven Seagal action flick “Glimmer Man” features our hero trying to prevent Russians from supplying Serbian terrorists with chemical weapons (although it is never explained why they would buy them in the US instead of Russia). More recently, the Ice Cube-Kevin Hart, comedy-action film Ride Along concerns Serbian arms dealers, and recent TV shows like Burn Notice, Sherlock, and Flashpoint treat us to Serbian arms dealers or terrorists. In between 1996 and 2014 Hollywood also gave us Behind Enemy Lines, Diplomatic Siege, The Fourth Angel, Extreme Ops 2, The Hunted, Hunt for Justice, The Hunting Party, The Peacemaker, The Filthy War, and Storm, among others, in which Serbs are the people we are supposed to hate. Ironically, the last time a Serb committed a terrorist act was exactly one hundred years ago—in Sarajevo.
Today is also an opportunity for self-styled Balkan experts to sound wise. These people tend to be anti-Serbian as well and say things like “ISIS, the Sunni extremists in Iraq, are just like those Serbian nationalists back in 1914.” Really? ISIS seems more like the Austrian government of Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Croatian nationalists who inflicted a pogrom on the Serbs.
Perhaps, the real lesson we can apply today is about nationalism and our double-standard regarding it. We look down on some people. Self-determination is for people we like, not for those we don’t. An Englishman waving a Union Jack is a “patriot,” but a man in Crimea waving the Russian tricolor is an “ultranationalist.” Both are in their homeland among a majority of their own people, but we despise the latter and do not allow him to determine his own fate. He is required to live under a foreign power, like the South Slavs in Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1914.
On this one-hundredth anniversary of the beginning of World War I, we have a chance to look back with a historian’s eye at the assassination in Sarajevo, at the people involved, and the broader meaning of the incident for the world today.
In a nutshell, on June 28, 1914, six young men stood in positions on street corners and sidewalks in Sarajevo with the intent to kill the Austrian Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg Empire. The six young men belonged to a group called Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia), which hoped to free Bosnia-Hercegovina from Austro-Hungarian rule and unite it with Serbia in a nation of South Slavs. Five of the men were ethnic Serbs. One, Muhamed Mehmedbasic, was a Bosnian Muslim.
On that sunny day, as the Archduke’s motorcade rolled down the streets, it passed the first assassin, Mehmedbasic, who lost his nerve and did not throw his bomb. The second assassin also failed to act, but the third one, a young man named Nedeljko Cabrinovic, tossed his bomb at the passing car. His bomb, however, bounced off the archduke’s vehicle and exploded under a following car in the motorcade, destroying that vehicle and wounding more than a dozen people. Hearing the explosion, the last three assassins were surprised to see the archduke’s car speed past them, and they failed to act. Franz Ferdinand, angry that someone had just tried to kill him, gave the mayor of Sarajevo a piece of his mind as they met at the City Hall, the final destination. Trying to calm her husband, the archduke’s wife, Duchess Sophie, suggested that they abandon their plans for the day and visit the wounded bomb victims in the hospital instead. Franz Ferdinand agreed, and they got back into their car and headed back onto the road. It was then, as they were on their way to the hospital that their driver turned onto a side street and the sixth assassin, a nineteen-year-old kid named Gavrilo (i.e., Gabriel) Princip, still waiting on the corner, saw his chance, stepped forward and fired two shots which resulted in the death of the archduke and his wife.
The immediate consequences of the assassination were anti-Serbian riots and pogroms. Incited by the Austrian Governor and Croatian nationalists, for several days mobs attacked Serbs, their homes, their businesses, and their churches. Reports submitted by the Austrian Governor Oskar Potiorek two days later said that all Serbian shops in Sarajevo had been destroyed. Many prominent Serbs were expelled or imprisoned, and 460 were executed. Sarajevo, for the first time in its history, was divided by ethnicity.
Next came power-politics. The alleged mastermind of the plot, Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, known as Apis, was head of Serbian Military Intelligence. That was enough for the Austrians to blame the government of Serbia for the assassination and issue a ten-part ultimatum. For many in Europe, it looked like a call to war. Winston Churchill wrote, “The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia (is) the most insolent document of its kind ever devised.” Edward Grey, British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said, “Any nation that accepted conditions like that would really cease to count as an independent nation.” The Serbian government denied being involved in the plot and accepted all demands of the ultimatum except for the part which would have allowed Austrian agents to do their own investigations on Serbian soil. The K-und-K government was not satisfied; a month after the assassination, on July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and World War I began.
What does it all mean? For many people, today’s anniversary is another chance to disparage the Serbs. And why not? The Serbs are politically weak and unlikely to retaliate, no matter what is said about them. When Yugoslavia broke up, the news media put black hats on the Serbs for years, and now Hollywood regularly chooses them as villains. Anyone who has seen American movies or TV shows in the past twenty years is likely to have noticed that many of the bad guys are Serbs (or Russians or educated Englishmen). In the 1996 movie The Rock, FBI bomb expert Nicholas Cage tries to disarm an explosive device containing sarin gas packed in a box labeled “Aid to Bosnia” and “Sloboda ili Smrt”—“Freedom or Death”—the slogan of the Serbian Chetniks. Also in 1996, the Steven Seagal action flick “Glimmer Man” features our hero trying to prevent Russians from supplying Serbian terrorists with chemical weapons (although it is never explained why they would buy them in the US instead of Russia). More recently, the Ice Cube-Kevin Hart, comedy-action film Ride Along concerns Serbian arms dealers, and recent TV shows like Burn Notice, Sherlock, and Flashpoint treat us to Serbian arms dealers or terrorists. In between 1996 and 2014 Hollywood also gave us Behind Enemy Lines, Diplomatic Siege, The Fourth Angel, Extreme Ops 2, The Hunted, Hunt for Justice, The Hunting Party, The Peacemaker, The Filthy War, and Storm, among others, in which Serbs are the people we are supposed to hate. Ironically, the last time a Serb committed a terrorist act was exactly one hundred years ago—in Sarajevo.
Today is also an opportunity for self-styled Balkan experts to sound wise. These people tend to be anti-Serbian as well and say things like “ISIS, the Sunni extremists in Iraq, are just like those Serbian nationalists back in 1914.” Really? ISIS seems more like the Austrian government of Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Croatian nationalists who inflicted a pogrom on the Serbs.
Perhaps, the real lesson we can apply today is about nationalism and our double-standard regarding it. We look down on some people. Self-determination is for people we like, not for those we don’t. An Englishman waving a Union Jack is a “patriot,” but a man in Crimea waving the Russian tricolor is an “ultranationalist.” Both are in their homeland among a majority of their own people, but we despise the latter and do not allow him to determine his own fate. He is required to live under a foreign power, like the South Slavs in Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1914.
INDIA - BANGLADESH: HOPE FOR A NEW BEGINNING
Haruna Ur Rashid
The 38-hour trip of Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka from 25 June was remarkable for various reasons.
First, it demonstrated the priority the Narendra Modi government places on India’s relations with Bangladesh. Second, Swaraj promised to remove the obstacles in order to strengthen relations with Bangladesh – irrespective of the party in power in the country; and emphasised on people-to-people relations. Third, Swaraj stated that the Indian government would work with the Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh to further strengthen relations and at the same time by meeting with the Chairperson, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) , the largest opposition party outside the parliament , she showed her prudence and sense of pragmatism. Fourth, she was found straightforward, plain-speaking, pleasant, and indeed a very likeable person.
The people of Bangladesh did not expect the first foreign visit by Swaraj to resolve pending issues with India; but they are the respective citizens’ issues because these issues – such as the Teesta Water Sharing Agreement and the Land Boundary Agreement – directly affect the people on the ground. Her telephone call to the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee before the visit reflected the Modi government’s keen desire to reach a consensus with the various stakeholders in India to resolve the issues.
The people of Bangladesh believe that the Modi government has an excellent opportunity to build a new era of relationship with Bangladesh – similar to what Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, did during her New Delhi visit in January 2010.
The Hasina government had cooperated in removing the threat of insurgency to India’s northeastern states by expelling the insurgents who operated out of sanctuaries in Bangladesh. She had allowed, without a transit agreement, transit facility to the India’s northeastern states – including the transportation of heavy duty equipment for ONGC Tripura Power Company’s 727 MW gas-based project located at Palatana, and the transportation of 10,000 tons of food grains for Tripura through its territory.
However, in return, Bangladesh did not get what India has promised and this has been a severe disappointment for Bangladeshi citizens. The trust-deficit with India remains high in Bangladesh and it needs to be removed to usher in a new invigorated bilateral relationship.
The Minister laid bare some of the policies in a speech at the Bangladesh International Institute of Strategic Studies on 26 June. She expressed gratitude for the cooperation her country received from Bangladesh in combating trans-boundary crime, insurgency and terrorism.
The Minister reportedly said democracy needed strong institutions and a culture of tolerance, inclusion and respect for differences. She used the weighty words which have enough food for thought and meaning for all about the need of observance of democratic norms in a country.
Observers say that this statement appears to have been made in the context of non-inclusive 5 January parliamentary elections which returned the Hasina government in power for the third time. Many observers say that the statement is a stark contrast to the view held by the former Congress-led government in New Delhi regarding the 5 January elections.
On a major irritant in relations – such as the killing/abduction of Bangladeshi civilians at the Indo-Bangladesh border – she stated that India’s objective must not only be to reduce incidents along the border but also enhance peace, stability and goodwill.
Bangladesh was looking forward to the Minister’s endorsement for the proposed new economic corridor among Bangladesh-China-India- Myanmar (BCIM) in her speech but the visiting Indian Minister did not mention it. Does that mean the Modi government has lost interest in the BCIM corridor?
Swaraj said India's development could not be complete and sustainable unless they successfully partnered with their immediate neighbours. It is noted that the 2011 Indo-Bangladesh Framework Agreement on Cooperation and Development opened up possibilities in cooperation on bilateral, sub-regional and regional level on areas such as, water, energy, food security and environmental safety. Furthermore, the Modi government may take initiative in constituting a sub-regional unit comprising Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, and the northeastern states of India. If their economy is integrated to the region, it could turn into hub of economic activities and when people have money into their pockets, they are happy and are not lured towards militancy or insurgency.
Bangladeshi people are hopeful that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to the SAARC leaders for his swearing-in ceremony in New Delhi, on 26 May, will generate productive spirit of regional cooperation in which South Asia can be an economic powerhouse.
The 21st century has been described as “Asian century” because both economic and strategic weights are shifting toward Asia; and South Asia, under the new strong and imaginative leadership of India, could contribute to translating that into reality, and Bangladesh will fully cooperate with India to this end.
The 38-hour trip of Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka from 25 June was remarkable for various reasons.
First, it demonstrated the priority the Narendra Modi government places on India’s relations with Bangladesh. Second, Swaraj promised to remove the obstacles in order to strengthen relations with Bangladesh – irrespective of the party in power in the country; and emphasised on people-to-people relations. Third, Swaraj stated that the Indian government would work with the Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh to further strengthen relations and at the same time by meeting with the Chairperson, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) , the largest opposition party outside the parliament , she showed her prudence and sense of pragmatism. Fourth, she was found straightforward, plain-speaking, pleasant, and indeed a very likeable person.
The people of Bangladesh did not expect the first foreign visit by Swaraj to resolve pending issues with India; but they are the respective citizens’ issues because these issues – such as the Teesta Water Sharing Agreement and the Land Boundary Agreement – directly affect the people on the ground. Her telephone call to the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee before the visit reflected the Modi government’s keen desire to reach a consensus with the various stakeholders in India to resolve the issues.
The people of Bangladesh believe that the Modi government has an excellent opportunity to build a new era of relationship with Bangladesh – similar to what Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, did during her New Delhi visit in January 2010.
The Hasina government had cooperated in removing the threat of insurgency to India’s northeastern states by expelling the insurgents who operated out of sanctuaries in Bangladesh. She had allowed, without a transit agreement, transit facility to the India’s northeastern states – including the transportation of heavy duty equipment for ONGC Tripura Power Company’s 727 MW gas-based project located at Palatana, and the transportation of 10,000 tons of food grains for Tripura through its territory.
However, in return, Bangladesh did not get what India has promised and this has been a severe disappointment for Bangladeshi citizens. The trust-deficit with India remains high in Bangladesh and it needs to be removed to usher in a new invigorated bilateral relationship.
The Minister laid bare some of the policies in a speech at the Bangladesh International Institute of Strategic Studies on 26 June. She expressed gratitude for the cooperation her country received from Bangladesh in combating trans-boundary crime, insurgency and terrorism.
The Minister reportedly said democracy needed strong institutions and a culture of tolerance, inclusion and respect for differences. She used the weighty words which have enough food for thought and meaning for all about the need of observance of democratic norms in a country.
Observers say that this statement appears to have been made in the context of non-inclusive 5 January parliamentary elections which returned the Hasina government in power for the third time. Many observers say that the statement is a stark contrast to the view held by the former Congress-led government in New Delhi regarding the 5 January elections.
On a major irritant in relations – such as the killing/abduction of Bangladeshi civilians at the Indo-Bangladesh border – she stated that India’s objective must not only be to reduce incidents along the border but also enhance peace, stability and goodwill.
Bangladesh was looking forward to the Minister’s endorsement for the proposed new economic corridor among Bangladesh-China-India- Myanmar (BCIM) in her speech but the visiting Indian Minister did not mention it. Does that mean the Modi government has lost interest in the BCIM corridor?
Swaraj said India's development could not be complete and sustainable unless they successfully partnered with their immediate neighbours. It is noted that the 2011 Indo-Bangladesh Framework Agreement on Cooperation and Development opened up possibilities in cooperation on bilateral, sub-regional and regional level on areas such as, water, energy, food security and environmental safety. Furthermore, the Modi government may take initiative in constituting a sub-regional unit comprising Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, and the northeastern states of India. If their economy is integrated to the region, it could turn into hub of economic activities and when people have money into their pockets, they are happy and are not lured towards militancy or insurgency.
Bangladeshi people are hopeful that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to the SAARC leaders for his swearing-in ceremony in New Delhi, on 26 May, will generate productive spirit of regional cooperation in which South Asia can be an economic powerhouse.
The 21st century has been described as “Asian century” because both economic and strategic weights are shifting toward Asia; and South Asia, under the new strong and imaginative leadership of India, could contribute to translating that into reality, and Bangladesh will fully cooperate with India to this end.
29 Jun 2014
MORE UNRAVELING
Stephen F. Hayes
As the Obama administration’s case for the Bowe Bergdahl-Taliban prisoner exchange further unraveled last week, the geo-political implications of the deal became clearer. They’re not pretty.
In the hours before Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel clicked on the microphone to testify about the swap on June 11, Obama administration officials told reporters to expect a forceful defense of the exchange and an aggressive refutation of the criticism that has attended it.
That didn’t happen. Instead, Hagel walked members of the House Armed Services Committee through the administration’s well-worn talking points, which had already failed to satisfy many members of Congress. And on several occasions he contradicted explanations administration officials had offered over the previous 10 days — including some arguments that Hagel himself had made.
In the early stages of the controversy, the administration defended the decision, and its choice not to inform Congress as required by law, by pointing to the failing health of Bowe Bergdahl. The captive soldier’s “health was deteriorating,” Hagel said during a June 1 interview on Meet the Press. “This was essentially an operation to save the life of Sgt. Bergdahl.”
Administration officials had pressed this case aggressively in the days following the swap, culminating in a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal reporting that the final proof-of-life video provided by the Taliban showed Bergdahl looking frail. “Rapid deterioration of soldier’s health persuaded leaders to back exchange,” the paper reported. A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper pointed to Bergdahl’s condition as a key reason for the urgency of the exchange, telling the Journal that the intelligence community had “evidence that Sgt. Bergdahl’s health was failing and that he was in desperate need of medical attention.”
But 10 days later, after several news outlets noted that the video was shot in December and that intelligence officials had privately disclaimed any such evidence, the administration backed off. In his June 11 testimony, Hagel sounded almost like an administration critic. “We didn’t know what kind of health Bergdahl was in,” he said. “All we had was a six-month [old] video.”
Another problem for the administration is its insistence, simultaneously, that the war in Afghanistan is just like other wars that the United States has engaged in, and that it is unlike any other war we’ve ever fought.
Hagel spent much of his testimony insisting that the Obama administration had not, technically, negotiated with terrorists. The United States negotiated this deal with the Qataris, he argued, who merely served as an intermediary for the Taliban, who merely spoke on behalf of the actual terrorists of the Haqqani network, who had held Bergdahl for much of his captivity in Pakistan. Despite the fact that he was held by terrorists, who were represented by the Taliban, a nongoverning nonstate actor, Hagel insisted that Bergdahl was “not a hostage; he was a prisoner of war.”
And yet, when Republicans pressed Stephen Preston, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, on whether members of the Taliban could be held legally after the conflict ended, he acknowledged that the “Taliban [could be] held as associates of al Qaeda.”
Hagel also continued to insist that the U.S. government had “substantially mitigated” the threat that the freed Taliban commanders would pose to the United States despite two additional reports confirming that senior U.S. intelligence officials believe they will return to the fight.
While much of the focus at home remained on the Obama administration’s shifting justifications for the swap, the potential damage the deal has done overseas is significant. The Afghan government publicly embraced the exchange, but it had little choice. With the dramatic drawdown of U.S. troops well underway and a full departure of combat troops scheduled to take place by 2016, Hamid Karzai and other Afghan leaders are racing to find some reconciliation with the Taliban — or at least with segments of the Taliban, however small, that may be reconcilable.
Administration officials have gone out of their way to say that they hope this deal revives those efforts. The opposite seems more likely. Hamid Karzai has been a challenging and uneven ally. But by cutting his government out of these talks and dealing directly with the Taliban (and later indirectly through the Qataris), the Obama administration has badly undermined the government in Kabul.
As the Obama administration’s case for the Bowe Bergdahl-Taliban prisoner exchange further unraveled last week, the geo-political implications of the deal became clearer. They’re not pretty.
In the hours before Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel clicked on the microphone to testify about the swap on June 11, Obama administration officials told reporters to expect a forceful defense of the exchange and an aggressive refutation of the criticism that has attended it.
That didn’t happen. Instead, Hagel walked members of the House Armed Services Committee through the administration’s well-worn talking points, which had already failed to satisfy many members of Congress. And on several occasions he contradicted explanations administration officials had offered over the previous 10 days — including some arguments that Hagel himself had made.
In the early stages of the controversy, the administration defended the decision, and its choice not to inform Congress as required by law, by pointing to the failing health of Bowe Bergdahl. The captive soldier’s “health was deteriorating,” Hagel said during a June 1 interview on Meet the Press. “This was essentially an operation to save the life of Sgt. Bergdahl.”
Administration officials had pressed this case aggressively in the days following the swap, culminating in a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal reporting that the final proof-of-life video provided by the Taliban showed Bergdahl looking frail. “Rapid deterioration of soldier’s health persuaded leaders to back exchange,” the paper reported. A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper pointed to Bergdahl’s condition as a key reason for the urgency of the exchange, telling the Journal that the intelligence community had “evidence that Sgt. Bergdahl’s health was failing and that he was in desperate need of medical attention.”
But 10 days later, after several news outlets noted that the video was shot in December and that intelligence officials had privately disclaimed any such evidence, the administration backed off. In his June 11 testimony, Hagel sounded almost like an administration critic. “We didn’t know what kind of health Bergdahl was in,” he said. “All we had was a six-month [old] video.”
Another problem for the administration is its insistence, simultaneously, that the war in Afghanistan is just like other wars that the United States has engaged in, and that it is unlike any other war we’ve ever fought.
Hagel spent much of his testimony insisting that the Obama administration had not, technically, negotiated with terrorists. The United States negotiated this deal with the Qataris, he argued, who merely served as an intermediary for the Taliban, who merely spoke on behalf of the actual terrorists of the Haqqani network, who had held Bergdahl for much of his captivity in Pakistan. Despite the fact that he was held by terrorists, who were represented by the Taliban, a nongoverning nonstate actor, Hagel insisted that Bergdahl was “not a hostage; he was a prisoner of war.”
And yet, when Republicans pressed Stephen Preston, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, on whether members of the Taliban could be held legally after the conflict ended, he acknowledged that the “Taliban [could be] held as associates of al Qaeda.”
Hagel also continued to insist that the U.S. government had “substantially mitigated” the threat that the freed Taliban commanders would pose to the United States despite two additional reports confirming that senior U.S. intelligence officials believe they will return to the fight.
While much of the focus at home remained on the Obama administration’s shifting justifications for the swap, the potential damage the deal has done overseas is significant. The Afghan government publicly embraced the exchange, but it had little choice. With the dramatic drawdown of U.S. troops well underway and a full departure of combat troops scheduled to take place by 2016, Hamid Karzai and other Afghan leaders are racing to find some reconciliation with the Taliban — or at least with segments of the Taliban, however small, that may be reconcilable.
Administration officials have gone out of their way to say that they hope this deal revives those efforts. The opposite seems more likely. Hamid Karzai has been a challenging and uneven ally. But by cutting his government out of these talks and dealing directly with the Taliban (and later indirectly through the Qataris), the Obama administration has badly undermined the government in Kabul.
THEIR 9/11 ROLE
Thomas Joscelyn
One of the five senior Taliban leaders transferred to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl played a key role in al Qaeda’s plans leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban’s army chief of staff and deputy defense minister prior to his detention at Guantánamo, did not have a hand in planning the actual 9/11 hijackings. Along with a notorious al Qaeda leader, however, Fazl did help coordinate a military offensive against the enemies of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan the day before. And Osama bin Laden viewed that September 10 offensive as an essential part of al Qaeda’s 9/11 plot.
The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackings in the United States on September 11, 2001, were the culmination of al Qaeda’s three-step plan. First, on September 9, 2001, al Qaeda assassinated Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Massoud in a suicide bombing. Massoud’s death was a major gift to the Taliban because he was their chief rival and still controlled parts of the country. The assassination was also intended to weaken opposition to the Taliban and al Qaeda within Afghanistan before the United States could plan its retaliation for the most devastating terrorist attack in history. The Northern Alliance did, in fact, play a role in America’s response.
The following day, September 10, al Qaeda and the Taliban took their second step. A “delayed Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance was apparently coordinated to begin as soon as [Massoud] was killed,” the 9/11 Commission found. Fazl and one of bin Laden’s chief lieutenants, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, played key roles in this setup for 9/11. At the time, al Iraqi oversaw what al Qaeda called the Arab 55th Brigade, which was Osama bin Laden’s chief fighting force inside Afghanistan and fought side by side with Mullah Omar’s forces.
According to a leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment of Fazl, al Iraqi met with Fazl “on several occasions to include immediately following the assassination of [Massoud] in September 2001.” Al Iraqi “stated the Northern Alliance was demoralized after the assassination and [he] met with [Fazl] to immediately coordinate an attack with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.”
Al Qaeda viewed both the assassination of Massoud and the offensive launched the following day as necessary components of the 9/11 plot. At first, Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders were said to be wary of any spectacular attack against the United States, as it would likely draw fierce retaliation from the world’s lone superpower. (The 9/11 Commission did find “some scant indications” that Omar “may have been reconciled to the 9/11 attacks by the time they occurred.”) The plan to attack the United States was controversial even within al Qaeda, with some senior leaders objecting to the idea.
But Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders believed, correctly, that the first two steps of their plan would ensure the Taliban’s continuing support. The 9/11 Commission found that as Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s military chief at the time, Mohammed Atef, “deliberated” the 9/11 hijackings “earlier in the year,” they “would likely have remembered that Mullah Omar was dependent on them for the Massoud assassination and for vital support in the Taliban military operations.” And, while the commission’s sources were “not privy to the full scope of al Qaeda and Taliban planning,” bin Laden and Atef “probably would have known, at least,” that the “general Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance” on September 10 “would rely on al Qaeda military support.”
The 9/11 Commission’s final report goes on to say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, remembers Atef “telling him that al Qaeda had an agreement with the Taliban to eliminate Massoud, after which the Taliban would begin an offensive to take over [all of] Afghanistan.”
Mohammad Fazl’s cooperation with al Iraqi was, therefore, part of the plan KSM remembered.
As controversy over the deal for Sgt. Bergdahl has continued to swirl, current and former Obama administration officials have sought to draw a sharp distinction between the threat posed by the Taliban Five and al Qaeda.
“These five guys are not a threat to the United States,” former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during an interview on NBC News last week. “They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.”
One of the five senior Taliban leaders transferred to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl played a key role in al Qaeda’s plans leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban’s army chief of staff and deputy defense minister prior to his detention at Guantánamo, did not have a hand in planning the actual 9/11 hijackings. Along with a notorious al Qaeda leader, however, Fazl did help coordinate a military offensive against the enemies of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan the day before. And Osama bin Laden viewed that September 10 offensive as an essential part of al Qaeda’s 9/11 plot.
The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackings in the United States on September 11, 2001, were the culmination of al Qaeda’s three-step plan. First, on September 9, 2001, al Qaeda assassinated Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Massoud in a suicide bombing. Massoud’s death was a major gift to the Taliban because he was their chief rival and still controlled parts of the country. The assassination was also intended to weaken opposition to the Taliban and al Qaeda within Afghanistan before the United States could plan its retaliation for the most devastating terrorist attack in history. The Northern Alliance did, in fact, play a role in America’s response.
The following day, September 10, al Qaeda and the Taliban took their second step. A “delayed Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance was apparently coordinated to begin as soon as [Massoud] was killed,” the 9/11 Commission found. Fazl and one of bin Laden’s chief lieutenants, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, played key roles in this setup for 9/11. At the time, al Iraqi oversaw what al Qaeda called the Arab 55th Brigade, which was Osama bin Laden’s chief fighting force inside Afghanistan and fought side by side with Mullah Omar’s forces.
According to a leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment of Fazl, al Iraqi met with Fazl “on several occasions to include immediately following the assassination of [Massoud] in September 2001.” Al Iraqi “stated the Northern Alliance was demoralized after the assassination and [he] met with [Fazl] to immediately coordinate an attack with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.”
Al Qaeda viewed both the assassination of Massoud and the offensive launched the following day as necessary components of the 9/11 plot. At first, Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders were said to be wary of any spectacular attack against the United States, as it would likely draw fierce retaliation from the world’s lone superpower. (The 9/11 Commission did find “some scant indications” that Omar “may have been reconciled to the 9/11 attacks by the time they occurred.”) The plan to attack the United States was controversial even within al Qaeda, with some senior leaders objecting to the idea.
But Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders believed, correctly, that the first two steps of their plan would ensure the Taliban’s continuing support. The 9/11 Commission found that as Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s military chief at the time, Mohammed Atef, “deliberated” the 9/11 hijackings “earlier in the year,” they “would likely have remembered that Mullah Omar was dependent on them for the Massoud assassination and for vital support in the Taliban military operations.” And, while the commission’s sources were “not privy to the full scope of al Qaeda and Taliban planning,” bin Laden and Atef “probably would have known, at least,” that the “general Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance” on September 10 “would rely on al Qaeda military support.”
The 9/11 Commission’s final report goes on to say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, remembers Atef “telling him that al Qaeda had an agreement with the Taliban to eliminate Massoud, after which the Taliban would begin an offensive to take over [all of] Afghanistan.”
Mohammad Fazl’s cooperation with al Iraqi was, therefore, part of the plan KSM remembered.
As controversy over the deal for Sgt. Bergdahl has continued to swirl, current and former Obama administration officials have sought to draw a sharp distinction between the threat posed by the Taliban Five and al Qaeda.
“These five guys are not a threat to the United States,” former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during an interview on NBC News last week. “They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.”
CAN INDIA'S MILITARY BE FIXED?
Gary Schmitt, Sadanand Dhume
American strategists are taken with the idea of India’s strategic potential: a large democracy with a blue-water navy and the world’s third-largest armed forces that happens to be jammed between an imploding Pakistan and an expansionist China. But a deeply dysfunctional Indian defense community has frustrated efforts to turn that potential into reality. Will the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month with the strongest mandate of any Indian leader in 30 years jumpstart much-needed reforms? The answer will help determine whether India begins to fulfill its vaunted potential as a U.S. strategic partner in Asia and beyond.
On the face of it, Modi’s election augurs well for India’s defense preparedness. On the campaign trail, Modi promised a strong India able to stand up to its adversaries. He deplored what he called the then-ruling Congress party’s lack of respect for soldiers, and promised to devote his government to long-overdue military modernization.
But the list of problems he faces is a long one. The Indian defense budget has declined to less than 2 percent of the country’s GDP, the lowest in five decades. This might be tolerable if the country’s security environment had gotten appreciably better in recent years—but it hasn’t. Though India hasn’t witnessed a major terrorist strike since the carnage in Mumbai in 2008, Pakistan remains a threat, and the prospect of terrorist attacks has not gone away. As the United States draws down its troops in the region, Afghan instability is likely to be of increasing concern, and India faces on land and at sea a rapidly rising military power in China, with which the country shares a disputed 2,500-mile border.
The challenges, however, run much deeper than a lack of resources. The procurement system is broken, corruption a constant problem, and tensions between the various military services and the civilian defense bureaucracy are serious and longstanding. Politically appointed defense ministers have had little time for—and, more important, little interest in—straightening out all that ails the Indian defense effort.
The last defense minister, A. K. Antony, was so worried that corruption associated with military procurement would tarnish his image that he brought India’s acquisition process to a virtual halt. At the slightest hint of scandal, purchases would be stalled and companies blacklisted until investigations could be completed. The result: tens of billions of dollars in new equipment not acquired, with existing platforms growing outdated and more expensive to maintain.
Indians themselves point to the history of multiple on-again, off-again attempts to procure aerial refuelers, transport aircraft, and light utility helicopters. For example, even though India’s air force is replete with older (in some cases, relatively ancient) fighter aircraft like the MiG-21, there seems little urgency in replacing them. After a drawn-out bidding process, the government finally opted in 2012 to buy 126 of Dassault’s Rafale aircraft for $11 billion, but it still hasn’t finalized the contract. As a result, the full complement of Rafales probably will not enter the Indian Air Force’s inventory until well into the next decade.
Similarly, before the turn of the century, plans were approved for India to acquire 24 new diesel-electric attack submarines, both to increase the size of the submarine fleet and to replace an aging fleet. Yet it’s possible that over the next year only 9 of the current fleet of 14 attack submarines will be operational, with the rest needing overhauls—a reality reinforced by repeated accidents onboard Indian Navy submarines, including the total loss, with crew, of a Russian-made submarine last August. Yet plans to build the new submarines have been delayed time and again. Inevitably, delays mean higher costs, and, with a budget dominated by personnel expenses, this means even fewer rupees to buy needed equipment.
Already, the army is facing shortages in ammunition, field artillery, night-vision capabilities, specialized counterterrorism equipment, and antitank weapons.
American strategists are taken with the idea of India’s strategic potential: a large democracy with a blue-water navy and the world’s third-largest armed forces that happens to be jammed between an imploding Pakistan and an expansionist China. But a deeply dysfunctional Indian defense community has frustrated efforts to turn that potential into reality. Will the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month with the strongest mandate of any Indian leader in 30 years jumpstart much-needed reforms? The answer will help determine whether India begins to fulfill its vaunted potential as a U.S. strategic partner in Asia and beyond.
On the face of it, Modi’s election augurs well for India’s defense preparedness. On the campaign trail, Modi promised a strong India able to stand up to its adversaries. He deplored what he called the then-ruling Congress party’s lack of respect for soldiers, and promised to devote his government to long-overdue military modernization.
But the list of problems he faces is a long one. The Indian defense budget has declined to less than 2 percent of the country’s GDP, the lowest in five decades. This might be tolerable if the country’s security environment had gotten appreciably better in recent years—but it hasn’t. Though India hasn’t witnessed a major terrorist strike since the carnage in Mumbai in 2008, Pakistan remains a threat, and the prospect of terrorist attacks has not gone away. As the United States draws down its troops in the region, Afghan instability is likely to be of increasing concern, and India faces on land and at sea a rapidly rising military power in China, with which the country shares a disputed 2,500-mile border.
The challenges, however, run much deeper than a lack of resources. The procurement system is broken, corruption a constant problem, and tensions between the various military services and the civilian defense bureaucracy are serious and longstanding. Politically appointed defense ministers have had little time for—and, more important, little interest in—straightening out all that ails the Indian defense effort.
The last defense minister, A. K. Antony, was so worried that corruption associated with military procurement would tarnish his image that he brought India’s acquisition process to a virtual halt. At the slightest hint of scandal, purchases would be stalled and companies blacklisted until investigations could be completed. The result: tens of billions of dollars in new equipment not acquired, with existing platforms growing outdated and more expensive to maintain.
Indians themselves point to the history of multiple on-again, off-again attempts to procure aerial refuelers, transport aircraft, and light utility helicopters. For example, even though India’s air force is replete with older (in some cases, relatively ancient) fighter aircraft like the MiG-21, there seems little urgency in replacing them. After a drawn-out bidding process, the government finally opted in 2012 to buy 126 of Dassault’s Rafale aircraft for $11 billion, but it still hasn’t finalized the contract. As a result, the full complement of Rafales probably will not enter the Indian Air Force’s inventory until well into the next decade.
Similarly, before the turn of the century, plans were approved for India to acquire 24 new diesel-electric attack submarines, both to increase the size of the submarine fleet and to replace an aging fleet. Yet it’s possible that over the next year only 9 of the current fleet of 14 attack submarines will be operational, with the rest needing overhauls—a reality reinforced by repeated accidents onboard Indian Navy submarines, including the total loss, with crew, of a Russian-made submarine last August. Yet plans to build the new submarines have been delayed time and again. Inevitably, delays mean higher costs, and, with a budget dominated by personnel expenses, this means even fewer rupees to buy needed equipment.
Already, the army is facing shortages in ammunition, field artillery, night-vision capabilities, specialized counterterrorism equipment, and antitank weapons.
THE IRANIAN REGIME'S MR. FIX IT
Lee Smith
Qassem Suleimani is apparently the most interesting man in the world. To judge by the profiles in major Western media outlets—including the New Yorker, BBC, and the Guardian—the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ external operations unit, the Quds Force, is the most feared and ruthless military strategist since Rommel. He’s also a fixer, a cleaner, like a figure out of a Quentin Tarantino film. Just last week, Suleimani was on call to help out a troubled client in Baghdad. After the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) overran Mosul, Suleimani landed with a cadre of Iranian advisers to lend a steady hand and reinforcements to Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Some call Suleimani the Iranian proconsul in Iraq, but these days, Hajj Qassem, as he is known to friends and admirers, is everywhere around the Middle East. As he reportedly texted the American commander of coalition forces in Iraq in 2007: “General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.” And now there’s Syria, too, where Suleimani is gathering fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, as well as Iranian troops from the IRGC and Basij to build a Shiite International to defend another Iranian ally, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Some say Hajj Qassem is Iran’s real powerbroker, and Hassan Rouhani is just the happy, so-called moderate, face of the clerical regime. Indeed, there are rumors floating around Shiite circles in Beirut that Suleimani recently attempted a coup against Rouhani, blocked at the last moment by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Maybe Suleimani really did try to topple Rouhani—it’s no secret he favored a rival, Tehran mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, a fellow IRGC field commander from the war with Iraq whose son is believed to be married to Suleimani’s daughter. However, it’s just as likely that the rumors are the latest installment in an Iranian public relations blitz intended to brand Suleimani as the Middle East’s indispensable man. The campaign is directed at the Obama White House: If you want anything done in the Middle East, you’ll have to go through Iran and you’ll have to deal with Qassem Suleimani. If Rouhani and Javad Zarif are the regime’s moderates, Suleimani is its pit bull at the gate.
Suleimani is a serious person. “He’s considered a hero in Iran,” says Ali Alfoneh, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “He defended Iran in the face of Iraqi invasion in the 1980s, fought the drug cartels close to the Afghan border in the 1990s, and is now defending the Shia against Sunni terrorists like ISIS.”
According to Alfoneh, Suleimani is one of the instruments the Islamic Republic has used to foment a permanent state of crisis in Iraq, making Iraqis, especially the Shiites, dependent on his good will. It seems the White House is equally eager to stay on his good side, says Alfoneh. “I’m sure Suleimani enjoys the fact that the United States government, which has formally designated him a terrorist, now depends on his help to restore security in Iraq and save Baghdad from ISIS.”
Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has swallowed the bait from Tehran. Last week the White House indicated that it wanted Iraq’s political parties to form a new government—a positive step insofar as Maliki is one of the key sources of Iraq’s problems, and his failures paved the way for the ISIS blitzkrieg through Mosul. However, the administration also let on that it would be working with the regional power that controls Maliki. “We are interested in communicating with Iran,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. So that “the Iranians know what we’re thinking, that we know what they’re thinking, and there is a sharing of information so people aren’t making mistakes.”
The White House believes it has no choice but to coordinate with Iran since there’s no getting around Tehran’s power on the ground. The administration has reportedly pursued the same policy in Lebanon: through the Lebanese Armed Forces, it has shared intelligence on Sunni extremists with Hezbollah, Tehran’s division in the eastern Mediterranean. Because Obama will not devote sufficient assets to stopping Sunni jihadists fighting from Beirut to Baghdad, the administration believes it has little choice but to work with the only actor with men on the ground that shares an interest in stopping groups like ISIS. Who else but Qassem Suleimani? According to his PR offensive, he sees everything and knows everything. Hajj Qassem is everywhere.
Qassem Suleimani is apparently the most interesting man in the world. To judge by the profiles in major Western media outlets—including the New Yorker, BBC, and the Guardian—the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ external operations unit, the Quds Force, is the most feared and ruthless military strategist since Rommel. He’s also a fixer, a cleaner, like a figure out of a Quentin Tarantino film. Just last week, Suleimani was on call to help out a troubled client in Baghdad. After the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) overran Mosul, Suleimani landed with a cadre of Iranian advisers to lend a steady hand and reinforcements to Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Some call Suleimani the Iranian proconsul in Iraq, but these days, Hajj Qassem, as he is known to friends and admirers, is everywhere around the Middle East. As he reportedly texted the American commander of coalition forces in Iraq in 2007: “General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.” And now there’s Syria, too, where Suleimani is gathering fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, as well as Iranian troops from the IRGC and Basij to build a Shiite International to defend another Iranian ally, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Some say Hajj Qassem is Iran’s real powerbroker, and Hassan Rouhani is just the happy, so-called moderate, face of the clerical regime. Indeed, there are rumors floating around Shiite circles in Beirut that Suleimani recently attempted a coup against Rouhani, blocked at the last moment by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Maybe Suleimani really did try to topple Rouhani—it’s no secret he favored a rival, Tehran mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, a fellow IRGC field commander from the war with Iraq whose son is believed to be married to Suleimani’s daughter. However, it’s just as likely that the rumors are the latest installment in an Iranian public relations blitz intended to brand Suleimani as the Middle East’s indispensable man. The campaign is directed at the Obama White House: If you want anything done in the Middle East, you’ll have to go through Iran and you’ll have to deal with Qassem Suleimani. If Rouhani and Javad Zarif are the regime’s moderates, Suleimani is its pit bull at the gate.
Suleimani is a serious person. “He’s considered a hero in Iran,” says Ali Alfoneh, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “He defended Iran in the face of Iraqi invasion in the 1980s, fought the drug cartels close to the Afghan border in the 1990s, and is now defending the Shia against Sunni terrorists like ISIS.”
According to Alfoneh, Suleimani is one of the instruments the Islamic Republic has used to foment a permanent state of crisis in Iraq, making Iraqis, especially the Shiites, dependent on his good will. It seems the White House is equally eager to stay on his good side, says Alfoneh. “I’m sure Suleimani enjoys the fact that the United States government, which has formally designated him a terrorist, now depends on his help to restore security in Iraq and save Baghdad from ISIS.”
Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has swallowed the bait from Tehran. Last week the White House indicated that it wanted Iraq’s political parties to form a new government—a positive step insofar as Maliki is one of the key sources of Iraq’s problems, and his failures paved the way for the ISIS blitzkrieg through Mosul. However, the administration also let on that it would be working with the regional power that controls Maliki. “We are interested in communicating with Iran,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. So that “the Iranians know what we’re thinking, that we know what they’re thinking, and there is a sharing of information so people aren’t making mistakes.”
The White House believes it has no choice but to coordinate with Iran since there’s no getting around Tehran’s power on the ground. The administration has reportedly pursued the same policy in Lebanon: through the Lebanese Armed Forces, it has shared intelligence on Sunni extremists with Hezbollah, Tehran’s division in the eastern Mediterranean. Because Obama will not devote sufficient assets to stopping Sunni jihadists fighting from Beirut to Baghdad, the administration believes it has little choice but to work with the only actor with men on the ground that shares an interest in stopping groups like ISIS. Who else but Qassem Suleimani? According to his PR offensive, he sees everything and knows everything. Hajj Qassem is everywhere.
MIRROR, MIRROR
Henrik Bering
In the history of art, self-portraiture constitutes a world of its own, presenting us with moods ranging from the lighthearted to the sordid. There is sheer delight in Rubens’s painting of himself and his first wife Isabella Brant in a bower of honeysuckle bliss; acute menace when Caravaggio decks himself out as Bacchus, looking like some exceedingly poisonous rent boy, and veering into grisliness when he lets the severed head of Goliath carry his own likeness. Self-mockery is on offer in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment (1536-41), in which the artist has given his own melancholy features to the flayed skin of St. Bartholomew. Edward Munch’s androgynous self-images are exercises in toe-curling exhibitionism.
Here, James Hall provides a lively cultural interpretation of the genre from the Middle Ages to today. But rather than provide a series of “greatest hits,” he is more concerned with the reasons why artists create self-portraits, pursuing themes such as the role of the self-portrait as a vehicle for self-promotion and self-exploration; its use as therapy; and sex and the self-portrait. Whereas a portrait painter often has to conform to the wishes of his client, the self-portrait leaves him free to do as he pleases.
Almost until the end of the 15th century, self-portraits were rare, notes Hall. The medieval artist might insert a vignette of himself in an illuminated manuscript, or include himself in a biblical crowd scene (he is the one who looks directly at us). But things change dramatically from 1490 onwards, when sculptors and masons started calling attention to themselves, as did painters such as Parmigianino, Raphael, and Giorgione in Italy and Dürer—the most prolific creator of self-images in the Renaissance—in Germany.
Known across Europe for his engravings and woodcuts, Dürer proved an expert in self-advertisement and status affirmation. No mere artisan he! One oil portrait shows him as a fashion plate, clad in the finest fabrics; another shows him as a Christ-like figure. In both, his hair gets special attention, hair being regarded as indicative of the brain activity below. This marks Dürer “not as a proto hippie, but a supremely fertile and versatile thinker,” writes Hall.
Common to Dürer and his Italian colleagues, Hall believes, is the fact that they subscribed to the notion of the child prodigy popular in the Renaissance: the idea that genius is something innate rather than acquired. They positively reveled in their youth and their gift. To an early drawing of himself, done at the age of 12, Dürer later proudly added, “This I drew myself from a mirror in the year 1484, when I was still a child.” To Dürer, a gifted artist’s quick sketch “on half a sheet of paper” or engraving on “a tiny piece of wood” will always beat the painting of a poor plodder who works “with the utmost diligence for a whole year.”
After this outburst of youthful exuberance, notes Hall, a shift occurs with Michelangelo and Titian. Decades before bestowing his own likeness onto St. Bartholomew, Michelangelo produced the first-ever self-cartoon sketch, next to a sonnet grumbling about the working conditions in the Sistine Chap-el. (As Hall notes, the ability to mock oneself is the hallmark of the supremely confident.) Titian, on the other hand, had the courage to portray himself in extreme old age, the first to do so. Of his two late self-portraits, the second shows Titian in a mood of “punitive piety,” with a faraway gaze and translucent, parchment-like skin; he is a man no longer of this world.
With Rembrandt, the genre reaches a high point, both as a vehicle for self-advertisement and for self-examination: One of every five of his productions is a self-portrait. In The Artist in his -Studio (ca. 1628), Rembrandt presents his credentials as a prodigy, a tiny figure “swallowed up by his voluminous working clothes and wide-brimmed hat, and dwarfed by the giant wooden easel with its elephantine legs.” In his etchings, he experiments with expressions and grim-aces, while his oils, featuring himself in fancy costumes, prove to costumers what he is capable of doing.
However, it is in the self-portraits produced in his last decade (which included his bankruptcy) that Rembrandt goes further than any of his predecessors in subjecting himself to intense scrutiny. No longer the hot name in art, his 1665 self-portrait with palette and brushes, and arm on hip, shows him magnificently defiant—the very coarseness of his style a taunt to smoother newcomers.
In the history of art, self-portraiture constitutes a world of its own, presenting us with moods ranging from the lighthearted to the sordid. There is sheer delight in Rubens’s painting of himself and his first wife Isabella Brant in a bower of honeysuckle bliss; acute menace when Caravaggio decks himself out as Bacchus, looking like some exceedingly poisonous rent boy, and veering into grisliness when he lets the severed head of Goliath carry his own likeness. Self-mockery is on offer in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment (1536-41), in which the artist has given his own melancholy features to the flayed skin of St. Bartholomew. Edward Munch’s androgynous self-images are exercises in toe-curling exhibitionism.
Here, James Hall provides a lively cultural interpretation of the genre from the Middle Ages to today. But rather than provide a series of “greatest hits,” he is more concerned with the reasons why artists create self-portraits, pursuing themes such as the role of the self-portrait as a vehicle for self-promotion and self-exploration; its use as therapy; and sex and the self-portrait. Whereas a portrait painter often has to conform to the wishes of his client, the self-portrait leaves him free to do as he pleases.
Almost until the end of the 15th century, self-portraits were rare, notes Hall. The medieval artist might insert a vignette of himself in an illuminated manuscript, or include himself in a biblical crowd scene (he is the one who looks directly at us). But things change dramatically from 1490 onwards, when sculptors and masons started calling attention to themselves, as did painters such as Parmigianino, Raphael, and Giorgione in Italy and Dürer—the most prolific creator of self-images in the Renaissance—in Germany.
Known across Europe for his engravings and woodcuts, Dürer proved an expert in self-advertisement and status affirmation. No mere artisan he! One oil portrait shows him as a fashion plate, clad in the finest fabrics; another shows him as a Christ-like figure. In both, his hair gets special attention, hair being regarded as indicative of the brain activity below. This marks Dürer “not as a proto hippie, but a supremely fertile and versatile thinker,” writes Hall.
Common to Dürer and his Italian colleagues, Hall believes, is the fact that they subscribed to the notion of the child prodigy popular in the Renaissance: the idea that genius is something innate rather than acquired. They positively reveled in their youth and their gift. To an early drawing of himself, done at the age of 12, Dürer later proudly added, “This I drew myself from a mirror in the year 1484, when I was still a child.” To Dürer, a gifted artist’s quick sketch “on half a sheet of paper” or engraving on “a tiny piece of wood” will always beat the painting of a poor plodder who works “with the utmost diligence for a whole year.”
After this outburst of youthful exuberance, notes Hall, a shift occurs with Michelangelo and Titian. Decades before bestowing his own likeness onto St. Bartholomew, Michelangelo produced the first-ever self-cartoon sketch, next to a sonnet grumbling about the working conditions in the Sistine Chap-el. (As Hall notes, the ability to mock oneself is the hallmark of the supremely confident.) Titian, on the other hand, had the courage to portray himself in extreme old age, the first to do so. Of his two late self-portraits, the second shows Titian in a mood of “punitive piety,” with a faraway gaze and translucent, parchment-like skin; he is a man no longer of this world.
With Rembrandt, the genre reaches a high point, both as a vehicle for self-advertisement and for self-examination: One of every five of his productions is a self-portrait. In The Artist in his -Studio (ca. 1628), Rembrandt presents his credentials as a prodigy, a tiny figure “swallowed up by his voluminous working clothes and wide-brimmed hat, and dwarfed by the giant wooden easel with its elephantine legs.” In his etchings, he experiments with expressions and grim-aces, while his oils, featuring himself in fancy costumes, prove to costumers what he is capable of doing.
However, it is in the self-portraits produced in his last decade (which included his bankruptcy) that Rembrandt goes further than any of his predecessors in subjecting himself to intense scrutiny. No longer the hot name in art, his 1665 self-portrait with palette and brushes, and arm on hip, shows him magnificently defiant—the very coarseness of his style a taunt to smoother newcomers.
IN DUBIOUS BATTLE
J. Harvie Wilkinson III
Back then, it was not known as World War I, for the obvious reason that the Second World War still lay in the future. It was simply the Great War, for the world had never seen anything like it.
We’re close to the centennial of the Guns of August, which has brought forth all sorts of discussions of the causes and consequences of the war. The focus of this book by Peter Hart, historian at the Imperial War Museum, is quite different: He sees the war through the eyes of those who fought it. The result is a riveting account from those on both sides of the conflict, those for whom the larger disquisitions on the meaning of the war yielded utterly to the daily struggle for survival.
The Great War featured an unusual number of highly literate soldiers for both the Allies (chiefly the Triple Entente of France, Britain, and Russia, and, much later, the United States) and the Central Powers (chiefly Germany and Austria-Hungary), who had no inkling of the inferno that awaited them. We know of the remarkable trio of war poets—Rupert Brooke, Wilfred Owen, and Siegfried Sassoon—and we expect that generals would convey their accounts and impressions. But it is the insight and sensitivity of innumerable junior officers and enlisted men that bring home the terrors of bombardment, from which there seemed no exit, and the eternal presence of mud.
Sadly, the description of Lieutenant Richard Dixon of the 14th Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery, at the Third Battle of Ypres (1917) is not the worst:
All around us lay the dead, both friend and foe, half in, half out of the water-logged shell holes. Their hands and boots stuck out at us from the mud. Their rotting faces stared blindly at us from coverlets of mud; their decaying buttocks heaved themselves obscenely from the filth with which the shell bursts had smothered them. Skulls grinned at us; all around us stank unbelievably. These corpses were never buried, for it was impossible for us to retrieve them. They had lain, many of them, for weeks and months; they would lie and rot and disintegrate foully into the muck until they were an inescapable part of it to manure the harvests of a future peace-time Belgium.
The Great War marked the progression of precision killing. The weapons may seem quaint or primitive to us now, but what they presaged was ominous for mankind. The first German U-boats were often lethal, but above all they were cramped, with the bunks of some officers so small they lay only on their sides. The machine guns made a killing field of No Man’s Land; poison gases took aim at eyes, throats, and lungs: “We choked, spit, and coughed, my lungs felt as though they were being burnt out, and were going to burst. Red-hot needles were being thrust into my eyes.” The air war featured celebrated aces, such as Germany’s Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron, and Canada’s William Barker, but the main initial use of planes was for reconnaissance—namely, to locate opposing artillery batteries. Indeed, it was those ever-more-massive artillery barrages that may have posed the greatest threat, as described by a German lieutenant:
The earth roared, trembled, rocked—this was followed by an utterly amazing crash and there, before us in a huge arc, kilometres long, was raised a curtain of fire about one hundred metres high. The scene was quite extraordinary; almost beyond description. It was like a thunderstorm magnified one thousand times!
The carnage of the Great War dwarfed any previous conflict, and the casualty figures are chillingly rounded-off here. Hart estimates that “just under 9,722,000 soldiers died through military action in the war.” Another 21 million were injured, many “scarred or maimed for life.” Germany alone lost two million soldiers; France almost a million-and-a-half. By contrast, the United States lost “only” 116,000. The Great War was hardly the first to take a heavy toll on civilians, but approximately 950,000 “died from direct military action” and almost six million more from “war-related famine and disease.” As the conflict wore on, the numbers mounted, to no apparent purpose or effect. An inch gained one day was often given back the next.
The seemingly senseless carnage understandably sparked a search for scapegoats, the most available of whom were inept commanders: The epithet of “lions led by donkeys” was meant to contrast the valor of the ordinary fighting men with the obtuseness of those who ordered them over the top. Hart attempts a modest rehabilitation of the reputations of several commanders, one of whom was the German general Erich von Falkenhayn.
Back then, it was not known as World War I, for the obvious reason that the Second World War still lay in the future. It was simply the Great War, for the world had never seen anything like it.
We’re close to the centennial of the Guns of August, which has brought forth all sorts of discussions of the causes and consequences of the war. The focus of this book by Peter Hart, historian at the Imperial War Museum, is quite different: He sees the war through the eyes of those who fought it. The result is a riveting account from those on both sides of the conflict, those for whom the larger disquisitions on the meaning of the war yielded utterly to the daily struggle for survival.
The Great War featured an unusual number of highly literate soldiers for both the Allies (chiefly the Triple Entente of France, Britain, and Russia, and, much later, the United States) and the Central Powers (chiefly Germany and Austria-Hungary), who had no inkling of the inferno that awaited them. We know of the remarkable trio of war poets—Rupert Brooke, Wilfred Owen, and Siegfried Sassoon—and we expect that generals would convey their accounts and impressions. But it is the insight and sensitivity of innumerable junior officers and enlisted men that bring home the terrors of bombardment, from which there seemed no exit, and the eternal presence of mud.
Sadly, the description of Lieutenant Richard Dixon of the 14th Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery, at the Third Battle of Ypres (1917) is not the worst:
All around us lay the dead, both friend and foe, half in, half out of the water-logged shell holes. Their hands and boots stuck out at us from the mud. Their rotting faces stared blindly at us from coverlets of mud; their decaying buttocks heaved themselves obscenely from the filth with which the shell bursts had smothered them. Skulls grinned at us; all around us stank unbelievably. These corpses were never buried, for it was impossible for us to retrieve them. They had lain, many of them, for weeks and months; they would lie and rot and disintegrate foully into the muck until they were an inescapable part of it to manure the harvests of a future peace-time Belgium.
The Great War marked the progression of precision killing. The weapons may seem quaint or primitive to us now, but what they presaged was ominous for mankind. The first German U-boats were often lethal, but above all they were cramped, with the bunks of some officers so small they lay only on their sides. The machine guns made a killing field of No Man’s Land; poison gases took aim at eyes, throats, and lungs: “We choked, spit, and coughed, my lungs felt as though they were being burnt out, and were going to burst. Red-hot needles were being thrust into my eyes.” The air war featured celebrated aces, such as Germany’s Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron, and Canada’s William Barker, but the main initial use of planes was for reconnaissance—namely, to locate opposing artillery batteries. Indeed, it was those ever-more-massive artillery barrages that may have posed the greatest threat, as described by a German lieutenant:
The earth roared, trembled, rocked—this was followed by an utterly amazing crash and there, before us in a huge arc, kilometres long, was raised a curtain of fire about one hundred metres high. The scene was quite extraordinary; almost beyond description. It was like a thunderstorm magnified one thousand times!
The carnage of the Great War dwarfed any previous conflict, and the casualty figures are chillingly rounded-off here. Hart estimates that “just under 9,722,000 soldiers died through military action in the war.” Another 21 million were injured, many “scarred or maimed for life.” Germany alone lost two million soldiers; France almost a million-and-a-half. By contrast, the United States lost “only” 116,000. The Great War was hardly the first to take a heavy toll on civilians, but approximately 950,000 “died from direct military action” and almost six million more from “war-related famine and disease.” As the conflict wore on, the numbers mounted, to no apparent purpose or effect. An inch gained one day was often given back the next.
The seemingly senseless carnage understandably sparked a search for scapegoats, the most available of whom were inept commanders: The epithet of “lions led by donkeys” was meant to contrast the valor of the ordinary fighting men with the obtuseness of those who ordered them over the top. Hart attempts a modest rehabilitation of the reputations of several commanders, one of whom was the German general Erich von Falkenhayn.
WHAT ABOUT THE BOOK?
Geoffrey Norman
Nobody has time to read these days. Everybody says so, anyway. So in the case of Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices, is there any good reason to buy the book and read it? Not much, going by the reviews. None has called it a page turner and, at more than 600 of them, you’d like to have a reason to keep turning. Life is short, and there are many, many books still to read.
Maureen Dowd describes the book as “inert, a big yawn.” Others are kinder, but none is enthusiastic. There is no review that makes you think that you can buy this book and count on it to deliver the satisfactions enjoyed by literate people.
Now there is absolutely nothing contingent about this. Mrs. Clinton wasn’t broke any longer when she wrote the book. She wasn’t trying to turn out a bodice ripper to pay some bills in the fashion of William Faulkner when he wrote Sanctuary. She got close to a $14 million advance for this book. She could have found herself a little studio somewhere, shut down the phone and the email, splurged on a top-shelf coffeemaker and a comfortable desk chair and gone to work, making it her goal to write the kind of book that, in the contemporary argot, would “change people’s lives.” A book that an ordinary reader, not consumed by the politics of the moment, would find pleasure and enlightenment in reading.
She chose, manifestly, not to do that, and the choice says something about her. Nobody can write a good book as the result of merely having decided to. But one can make an effort not to write a bad book, and Mrs. Clinton is certainly intelligent enough to recognize flaws in a book that would keep it from being good, or great, and might even make it bad.
You don’t, for instance, write about how Canada “our northern neighbor is an indispensable partner.”
Readers hoping for a book that will be a kind of companion for many hours aren’t looking for the sort of thing they can get from any canned political speech. Which is to say, passages like this:
Ultimately, what happens in 2016 should be about what kind of future Americans want for themselves and their children — and grandchildren. I hope we choose inclusive politics and a common purpose to unleash the creativity, potential, and opportunity that makes America exceptional. That’s what all American people deserve.
Even great books include the occasional clunker. But an accumulation reveals either a tin ear or, worse, contempt for literary standards. If the author couldn’t even take the trouble to clean up this kind of mush, one thinks, why should I bother to keep up my end and read the damned thing?
And then there is the matter of proportion. You don’t include in the same autobiographical work a chapter on how much you love your mother and your daughter along with one on the controversial murder of an American ambassador who worked for you. You don’t do this, that is, unless your aim is not to write a good book but one that contains material that you can place in Vogue to soften your image along with something that will work in Politico and help “position” you for a coming political campaign.
Constructing (as opposed to writing) a book that can be excerpted in both Vogue and Politico will likely result in one that recalls the Winston Churchill line: “Pray remove this pudding. It has no theme.” Churchill had an actual pudding in mind, but the line can be applied to Hard Choices and to many less-celebrated books belonging to this unfortunate genre. In fact, Churchill himself provides the proof that it is not some iron law of nature that such books should be a bore and chore to read, that it is possible to write a political/historical memoir that succeeds as a book and even a work of literature.
This thought occurred to me during the week when all the talk was of Mrs. Clinton’s book. Why not, thought I, read an actual book that is right for the moment? This is the 100th summer since the Guns of August, and Churchill’s The World Crisis is still one of the indispensable books on that catastrophe. So I spent the week rereading the one-volume, abridged edition.
Nobody has time to read these days. Everybody says so, anyway. So in the case of Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices, is there any good reason to buy the book and read it? Not much, going by the reviews. None has called it a page turner and, at more than 600 of them, you’d like to have a reason to keep turning. Life is short, and there are many, many books still to read.
Maureen Dowd describes the book as “inert, a big yawn.” Others are kinder, but none is enthusiastic. There is no review that makes you think that you can buy this book and count on it to deliver the satisfactions enjoyed by literate people.
Now there is absolutely nothing contingent about this. Mrs. Clinton wasn’t broke any longer when she wrote the book. She wasn’t trying to turn out a bodice ripper to pay some bills in the fashion of William Faulkner when he wrote Sanctuary. She got close to a $14 million advance for this book. She could have found herself a little studio somewhere, shut down the phone and the email, splurged on a top-shelf coffeemaker and a comfortable desk chair and gone to work, making it her goal to write the kind of book that, in the contemporary argot, would “change people’s lives.” A book that an ordinary reader, not consumed by the politics of the moment, would find pleasure and enlightenment in reading.
She chose, manifestly, not to do that, and the choice says something about her. Nobody can write a good book as the result of merely having decided to. But one can make an effort not to write a bad book, and Mrs. Clinton is certainly intelligent enough to recognize flaws in a book that would keep it from being good, or great, and might even make it bad.
You don’t, for instance, write about how Canada “our northern neighbor is an indispensable partner.”
Readers hoping for a book that will be a kind of companion for many hours aren’t looking for the sort of thing they can get from any canned political speech. Which is to say, passages like this:
Ultimately, what happens in 2016 should be about what kind of future Americans want for themselves and their children — and grandchildren. I hope we choose inclusive politics and a common purpose to unleash the creativity, potential, and opportunity that makes America exceptional. That’s what all American people deserve.
Even great books include the occasional clunker. But an accumulation reveals either a tin ear or, worse, contempt for literary standards. If the author couldn’t even take the trouble to clean up this kind of mush, one thinks, why should I bother to keep up my end and read the damned thing?
And then there is the matter of proportion. You don’t include in the same autobiographical work a chapter on how much you love your mother and your daughter along with one on the controversial murder of an American ambassador who worked for you. You don’t do this, that is, unless your aim is not to write a good book but one that contains material that you can place in Vogue to soften your image along with something that will work in Politico and help “position” you for a coming political campaign.
Constructing (as opposed to writing) a book that can be excerpted in both Vogue and Politico will likely result in one that recalls the Winston Churchill line: “Pray remove this pudding. It has no theme.” Churchill had an actual pudding in mind, but the line can be applied to Hard Choices and to many less-celebrated books belonging to this unfortunate genre. In fact, Churchill himself provides the proof that it is not some iron law of nature that such books should be a bore and chore to read, that it is possible to write a political/historical memoir that succeeds as a book and even a work of literature.
This thought occurred to me during the week when all the talk was of Mrs. Clinton’s book. Why not, thought I, read an actual book that is right for the moment? This is the 100th summer since the Guns of August, and Churchill’s The World Crisis is still one of the indispensable books on that catastrophe. So I spent the week rereading the one-volume, abridged edition.
FORBIDDEN THOUGHTS
Leslie Lenkowsky
In late April, a 70-year-old Chinese journalist, Gao Yu, was taken into custody, one of several human rights activists rounded up to keep them from observing the 25th anniversary of the massacre of student protesters by government troops in Tiananmen Square. Shortly afterwards, Gao appeared on television, confessing to a specific offense: leaking what the Chinese news agency Xinhua described as a “highly confidential document” to a foreign website.
“I admit that what I have done touched on legal issues and threatened national interests,” she said, according to the BBC. “My actions were very wrong.”
What had she revealed? Not the plans for a new Chinese warplane or cyberattack. Not even details about the real health of China’s economy or major industries. Rather, as her lawyer has all but acknowledged, the secret paper Gao made public was “Document Number 9,” issued a year earlier by the main administrative office of China’s Communist party. Entitled “Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere,” it demonstrates what the leadership of China regards as truly threatening: not the West’s economic or military might but its political and philosophical ideas.
Pronouncements such as this—the ninth issued in 2013—aim to instruct the party faithful throughout China on official doctrine as promulgated by the Central Committee and, importantly at that time, newly chosen President Xi Jinping. Like the others, Document Number 9 was meant to be discussed at local party meetings and inform party-run publications and websites, but was not for public consumption. It opens a window into what China’s normally secretive government officials are thinking, or at least want loyalists to think, which, thanks to the unfortunate Gao Yu, everyone can now know.
The communiqué focuses on seven “false ideological trends, positions, and activities” that the party leadership believes are spreading in the country and endangering “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” Foremost among them is “Western Constitutional democracy,” the idea that good governance requires a separation of powers, general elections, a multiparty system, an independent judiciary, and other features. According to Document Number 9, China’s system of government should reflect “Chinese characteristics.” It should place “the Party’s leadership” and “the People’s Democracy” ahead of the political and legal processes championed by the West.
Likewise, in the eyes of China’s leaders, advocating for “universal values” amounts to claiming “that the West’s value system defies time and space, transcends nation and class, and applies to all humanity.” Such arguments are “confusing and deceptive,” they contend, because China—and “Socialism”—should subscribe to fundamentally different values.
These include rejecting individual and economic freedom. Document Number 9 dismisses “promoting civil society” as based on the idea that “in the social sphere, individual rights are paramount and ought to be immune to obstruction by the state”; it pits “the Party against the masses.” Nor does “neoliberalism,” defined as relying on private property and markets to shape economic activity, fare any better. The “catastrophic consequences” that have occurred in “Latin America, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe” show its flaws, the authors write, and underscore the dangers of efforts “to weaken the government’s control of the national economy.”
Also disparaged is freedom of the press. It is an idea, says Document Number 9, which challenges “China’s principle that the media and publishing system should be subject to Party discipline.” Those who embrace it “gouge an opening through which to infiltrate our ideology.”
Writing about the past is suspect as well. “Historical nihilism,” which Document Number 9 defines as the repudiation of the “historical purpose” of the Chinese revolution, such as by rejecting “the scientific and guiding value of Mao Zedong thought,” is not only mistaken, but also “tantamount to denying the legitimacy of the CCP’s long-term political dominance.”
Finally, the communiqué makes clear that questioning public policies, even in the name of “reform” or of “opening,” is impermissible. Raising doubts about the direction or pace of the government’s current course will “disturb people’s existing consensus on important issues like which flag to raise, which road to take, which goals to pursue, etc.,” ultimately retarding China’s “stable progress.” Not least of all, Document Number 9 warns that this could encourage “Tibetan self-immolation,” “terrorist attacks in Xinjiang,” and the breakup of China along ethnic and religious lines, among other dire consequences.
In late April, a 70-year-old Chinese journalist, Gao Yu, was taken into custody, one of several human rights activists rounded up to keep them from observing the 25th anniversary of the massacre of student protesters by government troops in Tiananmen Square. Shortly afterwards, Gao appeared on television, confessing to a specific offense: leaking what the Chinese news agency Xinhua described as a “highly confidential document” to a foreign website.
“I admit that what I have done touched on legal issues and threatened national interests,” she said, according to the BBC. “My actions were very wrong.”
What had she revealed? Not the plans for a new Chinese warplane or cyberattack. Not even details about the real health of China’s economy or major industries. Rather, as her lawyer has all but acknowledged, the secret paper Gao made public was “Document Number 9,” issued a year earlier by the main administrative office of China’s Communist party. Entitled “Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere,” it demonstrates what the leadership of China regards as truly threatening: not the West’s economic or military might but its political and philosophical ideas.
Pronouncements such as this—the ninth issued in 2013—aim to instruct the party faithful throughout China on official doctrine as promulgated by the Central Committee and, importantly at that time, newly chosen President Xi Jinping. Like the others, Document Number 9 was meant to be discussed at local party meetings and inform party-run publications and websites, but was not for public consumption. It opens a window into what China’s normally secretive government officials are thinking, or at least want loyalists to think, which, thanks to the unfortunate Gao Yu, everyone can now know.
The communiqué focuses on seven “false ideological trends, positions, and activities” that the party leadership believes are spreading in the country and endangering “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” Foremost among them is “Western Constitutional democracy,” the idea that good governance requires a separation of powers, general elections, a multiparty system, an independent judiciary, and other features. According to Document Number 9, China’s system of government should reflect “Chinese characteristics.” It should place “the Party’s leadership” and “the People’s Democracy” ahead of the political and legal processes championed by the West.
Likewise, in the eyes of China’s leaders, advocating for “universal values” amounts to claiming “that the West’s value system defies time and space, transcends nation and class, and applies to all humanity.” Such arguments are “confusing and deceptive,” they contend, because China—and “Socialism”—should subscribe to fundamentally different values.
These include rejecting individual and economic freedom. Document Number 9 dismisses “promoting civil society” as based on the idea that “in the social sphere, individual rights are paramount and ought to be immune to obstruction by the state”; it pits “the Party against the masses.” Nor does “neoliberalism,” defined as relying on private property and markets to shape economic activity, fare any better. The “catastrophic consequences” that have occurred in “Latin America, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe” show its flaws, the authors write, and underscore the dangers of efforts “to weaken the government’s control of the national economy.”
Also disparaged is freedom of the press. It is an idea, says Document Number 9, which challenges “China’s principle that the media and publishing system should be subject to Party discipline.” Those who embrace it “gouge an opening through which to infiltrate our ideology.”
Writing about the past is suspect as well. “Historical nihilism,” which Document Number 9 defines as the repudiation of the “historical purpose” of the Chinese revolution, such as by rejecting “the scientific and guiding value of Mao Zedong thought,” is not only mistaken, but also “tantamount to denying the legitimacy of the CCP’s long-term political dominance.”
Finally, the communiqué makes clear that questioning public policies, even in the name of “reform” or of “opening,” is impermissible. Raising doubts about the direction or pace of the government’s current course will “disturb people’s existing consensus on important issues like which flag to raise, which road to take, which goals to pursue, etc.,” ultimately retarding China’s “stable progress.” Not least of all, Document Number 9 warns that this could encourage “Tibetan self-immolation,” “terrorist attacks in Xinjiang,” and the breakup of China along ethnic and religious lines, among other dire consequences.
BETWEEN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE
David Devoss
They came from the west through the Syrian Desert, across the Euphrates River, and down off the Nineveh Plain. Mosul, Baiji, Tikrit, Samarra—cities held by the U.S. military just two and a half years before—fell almost without a fight, absorbed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a prospective terrorist caliphate based on sharia law and governed by Salafist militants who make even al Qaeda shudder.
For the moment, America’s $3 trillion attempt to plant a pluralist democracy in the heart of the Middle East lies in ruins. Trained and equipped at a cost of $25 billion, Iraq’s army is in disarray, the Humvees, tanks, and field artillery it inherited from the United States now in enemy hands. Al Anbar sheikhs like Mohammed Khamis Abu Risha who joined the Sunni Awakening in 2007 at the behest of Gen. David Petraeus are being hunted down and killed. Captured government officials who happen to be Shiite face the possibility of summary execution.
No armed foreign intervention will quell the enmity that divides Sunni and Shiites. In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi disdain for Shiites is such that an inadvertent handshake requires ablutions. Pakistani Sunni disparage fervent Shiites with nicknames like “mosquitoes.” In Iraq, where the collision of the Persian and Arab worlds has left a 60/40 Shiite to Sunni divide, American options are limited. “The initial impulse is to take short-term military action, but the problems in Iraq are political,” says American Academy of Diplomacy president Ron Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador who served in Iraq with the Coalition Provisional Authority. “Sending in American troops will just redirect all the anger toward us.”
Much of the blame for the current chaos goes to Iraq’s 64-year-old premier, Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite who came to power in 2006 after promising George W. Bush and U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad he would form a government of national reconciliation. After twice building coalitions with Sunni support, Maliki denied Sunni political parties the ministries he had promised. His biggest mistake, however, was dismissing from government service the former al Qaeda sympathizers Petraeus had employed at minimal expense during the surge.
A dour politician, Maliki is no man of the people. Instead of shaking hands with voters, he moves through a crowd head bowed, enveloped by a flying wedge of bodyguards with linked arms. “In return for military assistance, Maliki once again has promised to form an inclusive government, but I suspect he will break his promise,” says Marina Ottaway, a senior scholar of Middle East affairs at the Wilson Center. “Maliki has no credibility left. There can be no reconciliation as long as he heads the government.”
Iraq’s constitution requires Maliki, who has already served two terms as premier, to relinquish power. But there is little chance of that happening since last year cronies on Iraq’s Supreme Court voided that part of the constitution.
ISIS has no chance of taking over Iraq. The Shiites will fight to the death to protect the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf that lie south of Baghdad. With massive support from Iran, Maliki might even survive politically. Washington’s reasons for saving Maliki and befriending Iran are less compelling given the fact the United States has an alternative, alliance with a more prosperous and stable partner in northern Iraq’s Kurdish population.
Spend more than a few days in the Kurdish capital of Erbil and you’ll hear Kurds say, “We love America but it doesn’t love us.” From an American perspective, it is hard to see what’s not to love. The Kurds have a booming capitalist economy, a functioning court system, two political parties that manage to compromise on most issues, and a regulatory environment that favors Western investment. Though officially part of Iraq, the three Kurdish provinces function as a quasi-independent nation in that they collectively issue visas, control border crossings, and pursue a foreign policy independent of Baghdad. Though largely Sunni in orientation, the Kurds maintain friendly relations with Tehran’s Shiite government and close business ties with Ankara.
All this is possible because of oil, a commodity Washington fears might prompt Iraq’s Kurds to proclaim independence.
They came from the west through the Syrian Desert, across the Euphrates River, and down off the Nineveh Plain. Mosul, Baiji, Tikrit, Samarra—cities held by the U.S. military just two and a half years before—fell almost without a fight, absorbed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a prospective terrorist caliphate based on sharia law and governed by Salafist militants who make even al Qaeda shudder.
For the moment, America’s $3 trillion attempt to plant a pluralist democracy in the heart of the Middle East lies in ruins. Trained and equipped at a cost of $25 billion, Iraq’s army is in disarray, the Humvees, tanks, and field artillery it inherited from the United States now in enemy hands. Al Anbar sheikhs like Mohammed Khamis Abu Risha who joined the Sunni Awakening in 2007 at the behest of Gen. David Petraeus are being hunted down and killed. Captured government officials who happen to be Shiite face the possibility of summary execution.
No armed foreign intervention will quell the enmity that divides Sunni and Shiites. In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi disdain for Shiites is such that an inadvertent handshake requires ablutions. Pakistani Sunni disparage fervent Shiites with nicknames like “mosquitoes.” In Iraq, where the collision of the Persian and Arab worlds has left a 60/40 Shiite to Sunni divide, American options are limited. “The initial impulse is to take short-term military action, but the problems in Iraq are political,” says American Academy of Diplomacy president Ron Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador who served in Iraq with the Coalition Provisional Authority. “Sending in American troops will just redirect all the anger toward us.”
Much of the blame for the current chaos goes to Iraq’s 64-year-old premier, Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite who came to power in 2006 after promising George W. Bush and U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad he would form a government of national reconciliation. After twice building coalitions with Sunni support, Maliki denied Sunni political parties the ministries he had promised. His biggest mistake, however, was dismissing from government service the former al Qaeda sympathizers Petraeus had employed at minimal expense during the surge.
A dour politician, Maliki is no man of the people. Instead of shaking hands with voters, he moves through a crowd head bowed, enveloped by a flying wedge of bodyguards with linked arms. “In return for military assistance, Maliki once again has promised to form an inclusive government, but I suspect he will break his promise,” says Marina Ottaway, a senior scholar of Middle East affairs at the Wilson Center. “Maliki has no credibility left. There can be no reconciliation as long as he heads the government.”
Iraq’s constitution requires Maliki, who has already served two terms as premier, to relinquish power. But there is little chance of that happening since last year cronies on Iraq’s Supreme Court voided that part of the constitution.
ISIS has no chance of taking over Iraq. The Shiites will fight to the death to protect the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf that lie south of Baghdad. With massive support from Iran, Maliki might even survive politically. Washington’s reasons for saving Maliki and befriending Iran are less compelling given the fact the United States has an alternative, alliance with a more prosperous and stable partner in northern Iraq’s Kurdish population.
Spend more than a few days in the Kurdish capital of Erbil and you’ll hear Kurds say, “We love America but it doesn’t love us.” From an American perspective, it is hard to see what’s not to love. The Kurds have a booming capitalist economy, a functioning court system, two political parties that manage to compromise on most issues, and a regulatory environment that favors Western investment. Though officially part of Iraq, the three Kurdish provinces function as a quasi-independent nation in that they collectively issue visas, control border crossings, and pursue a foreign policy independent of Baghdad. Though largely Sunni in orientation, the Kurds maintain friendly relations with Tehran’s Shiite government and close business ties with Ankara.
All this is possible because of oil, a commodity Washington fears might prompt Iraq’s Kurds to proclaim independence.
THIS LEGAL IMMIGRANT WANTS THE OLD AMERICA
Michael Youssef
As we pause to celebrate the birth of this blessed nation, many among us are sad and even disgusted over what has happened to it.
Millions of Americans who have known “the old America”—the one they were born in and grew up in—feel a deep disappointment that their grandchildren will not grow up to know the country that valued morality and biblical ethics.
From the White House to the schoolhouse, we see forces that reject biblical values. From our government, we even see the outlawing of the name of Jesus from public prayers, especially from the military, which owes all victories to Him.
And there are also those, such as my family and me, who immigrated to this blessed land and long for the original America—the America as envisioned by the founding fathers.
I came to this country because, as a boy living under the tyranny of dictatorship and socialism, I longed to be free. I read the writings of America’s founders and dreamed of breathing the air of freedom—the air that was purchased with the blood of many American patriots.
That desire echoes the desire of the silent majority of millions of immigrants who legally came here, or were brought by their forebears. People who valued America and could never take it for granted because they had experienced oppressive political systems in their home countries.
In my article series, The Price of Liberty, I described what those millions of legal immigrants want. It is a refrain that goes something like this:
We want the America that feared God.
We want the America whose foundation was the Bible.
We want the America of which George Washington said: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
We want the America of which Abraham Lincoln said: “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.”
We want the America of the Founding Fathers who said: “When the importance of religion is diminished … so is the effectiveness of government.”
We want the America of which the Supreme Court in 1844 said: “The Bible, and especially the New Testament [should] be read and taught as divine revelation in the [schools, otherwise] … where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”
We want the America of which New York Supreme Court Chief Justice Kent said in 1811: “We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters [other religions].”
We want the America of which the Supreme Court of New York in 1811 also said: “Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of the civil government … because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.”
We want the America of which Daniel Webster said: “The principles of all genuine liberty and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man, therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be an accessory to all of the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.”
Today we are seeing Webster’s prophetic words come to life; we are witnessing all the “public disorders” of which we are now “doomed to suffer.”
This race to the bottom must stop. We want the old America back.
We want the America that reflects the beliefs of most of the country, not the vocal and belligerent minority. We want an America of those earlier courts, not the courts of the last fifty years that have been busy striking at the Christian cornerstone of our nation.
As we celebrate America’s birth, let us not become weary of praying and working for our Judeo-Christian foundation to be reestablished.
As we pause to celebrate the birth of this blessed nation, many among us are sad and even disgusted over what has happened to it.
Millions of Americans who have known “the old America”—the one they were born in and grew up in—feel a deep disappointment that their grandchildren will not grow up to know the country that valued morality and biblical ethics.
From the White House to the schoolhouse, we see forces that reject biblical values. From our government, we even see the outlawing of the name of Jesus from public prayers, especially from the military, which owes all victories to Him.
And there are also those, such as my family and me, who immigrated to this blessed land and long for the original America—the America as envisioned by the founding fathers.
I came to this country because, as a boy living under the tyranny of dictatorship and socialism, I longed to be free. I read the writings of America’s founders and dreamed of breathing the air of freedom—the air that was purchased with the blood of many American patriots.
That desire echoes the desire of the silent majority of millions of immigrants who legally came here, or were brought by their forebears. People who valued America and could never take it for granted because they had experienced oppressive political systems in their home countries.
In my article series, The Price of Liberty, I described what those millions of legal immigrants want. It is a refrain that goes something like this:
We want the America that feared God.
We want the America whose foundation was the Bible.
We want the America of which George Washington said: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
We want the America of which Abraham Lincoln said: “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.”
We want the America of the Founding Fathers who said: “When the importance of religion is diminished … so is the effectiveness of government.”
We want the America of which the Supreme Court in 1844 said: “The Bible, and especially the New Testament [should] be read and taught as divine revelation in the [schools, otherwise] … where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”
We want the America of which New York Supreme Court Chief Justice Kent said in 1811: “We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters [other religions].”
We want the America of which the Supreme Court of New York in 1811 also said: “Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of the civil government … because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.”
We want the America of which Daniel Webster said: “The principles of all genuine liberty and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man, therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be an accessory to all of the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.”
Today we are seeing Webster’s prophetic words come to life; we are witnessing all the “public disorders” of which we are now “doomed to suffer.”
This race to the bottom must stop. We want the old America back.
We want the America that reflects the beliefs of most of the country, not the vocal and belligerent minority. We want an America of those earlier courts, not the courts of the last fifty years that have been busy striking at the Christian cornerstone of our nation.
As we celebrate America’s birth, let us not become weary of praying and working for our Judeo-Christian foundation to be reestablished.
GOOGLE DECLARES WAR ON FIREARM INDUSTRY
Michael Schaus
Google is taking a Bloomberg inspired step toward “curbing gun violence”. Once again demonstrating the level of ignorance that is prevalent in liberal corporate settings, the software company has decided to expand their ban on firearm-related content. Breitbart reported:
According to Google Support's "Dangerous Products or Services" page, the company "[wants] to keep people safe both online and offline, so [they] won't allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury."
Right. Google (ya know, the company that tracks your every move online) is trying to keep us safe. God bless those left coast liberals who are suddenly embracing the manipulative power of big business. Of course Google seems woefully ignorant of the fact that such “dangerous” items, actually keep many people safe every day. . I understand it could be chalked up to a difference in corporate culture, but I would encourage Google to promote safety and concealed carry classes if they are serious about keeping people safe offline.
The tech giant also decided that such a ban would be ineffective if utilized exclusively against firearms… Which is why they have embraced the idea of expanding their policy to include accessories, ammunition, magazines, clips, scopes, attachments, slings, et al.
Also included is a ban on ads for "any part or component that's necessary to the function of a gun or intended for attachment to a gun." This covers "gun scopes, ammunition, ammunition clips or belts."
Whew… I know I feel safer, don’t you? I mean, clearly the lack of advertising on firearm-related accessories will cut down on all those Chicago drive bys. Right? Apparently, this is the culture of California Leftists and liberal corporatism… Guns are bad. The only use for a firearm is to promote inexplicable violence and oppression. Those who own, handle, or carry firearms are merely psychopaths waiting for an excuse to unleash a wave of bloody violence at unsuspecting victims…
Well, unless we’re talking about cops, or Bloomberg’s body guards. Those guys are obviously special. The rest of you commoners, however, aren’t responsible enough to be exposed to an advertisement for a hunting scope from Cabela’s while surfing the interwebs.
So, what’s the solution? Boycott Google?
I’m generally not a fan of boycotts. Besides, Google is a pretty intuitive and helpful product. I mean, sure, I find it kinda creepy when my phone alerts me to head out for work because there’s some traffic issues (I never told it where I work, or what route I like to take… It just picked up on those details while it spied on me through my android phone). But, overall, the company has opened the web to limitless possibilities. The dissemination of information is in a renaissance never before seen in human history; and companies like Google are largely responsible for the facilitation of such an environment.
And yet, Google manages to be that neighbor who has every tool you ever need – while still being the most obnoxious human being in the cul-de-sac. He might have that reverse-thread bolt, specialty vice grips, or that silly tool used to remove oil filters… but you just can’t quite get past his Obama bumper sticker and inappropriate political jokes about John Boehner (actually, some of those are kinda funny). So the question is, how much do you really need what Google has to offer?
Google has declared a war on gun owners, the firearm industry, and related self-defense products. Because, obviously, a defenseless population will be much safer, right? Bing, on the other hand, has no such restrictions. So, go ahead… Bing away. But don’t expect to cut Google out of your life completely.
Google is taking a Bloomberg inspired step toward “curbing gun violence”. Once again demonstrating the level of ignorance that is prevalent in liberal corporate settings, the software company has decided to expand their ban on firearm-related content. Breitbart reported:
According to Google Support's "Dangerous Products or Services" page, the company "[wants] to keep people safe both online and offline, so [they] won't allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury."
Right. Google (ya know, the company that tracks your every move online) is trying to keep us safe. God bless those left coast liberals who are suddenly embracing the manipulative power of big business. Of course Google seems woefully ignorant of the fact that such “dangerous” items, actually keep many people safe every day. . I understand it could be chalked up to a difference in corporate culture, but I would encourage Google to promote safety and concealed carry classes if they are serious about keeping people safe offline.
The tech giant also decided that such a ban would be ineffective if utilized exclusively against firearms… Which is why they have embraced the idea of expanding their policy to include accessories, ammunition, magazines, clips, scopes, attachments, slings, et al.
Also included is a ban on ads for "any part or component that's necessary to the function of a gun or intended for attachment to a gun." This covers "gun scopes, ammunition, ammunition clips or belts."
Whew… I know I feel safer, don’t you? I mean, clearly the lack of advertising on firearm-related accessories will cut down on all those Chicago drive bys. Right? Apparently, this is the culture of California Leftists and liberal corporatism… Guns are bad. The only use for a firearm is to promote inexplicable violence and oppression. Those who own, handle, or carry firearms are merely psychopaths waiting for an excuse to unleash a wave of bloody violence at unsuspecting victims…
Well, unless we’re talking about cops, or Bloomberg’s body guards. Those guys are obviously special. The rest of you commoners, however, aren’t responsible enough to be exposed to an advertisement for a hunting scope from Cabela’s while surfing the interwebs.
So, what’s the solution? Boycott Google?
I’m generally not a fan of boycotts. Besides, Google is a pretty intuitive and helpful product. I mean, sure, I find it kinda creepy when my phone alerts me to head out for work because there’s some traffic issues (I never told it where I work, or what route I like to take… It just picked up on those details while it spied on me through my android phone). But, overall, the company has opened the web to limitless possibilities. The dissemination of information is in a renaissance never before seen in human history; and companies like Google are largely responsible for the facilitation of such an environment.
And yet, Google manages to be that neighbor who has every tool you ever need – while still being the most obnoxious human being in the cul-de-sac. He might have that reverse-thread bolt, specialty vice grips, or that silly tool used to remove oil filters… but you just can’t quite get past his Obama bumper sticker and inappropriate political jokes about John Boehner (actually, some of those are kinda funny). So the question is, how much do you really need what Google has to offer?
Google has declared a war on gun owners, the firearm industry, and related self-defense products. Because, obviously, a defenseless population will be much safer, right? Bing, on the other hand, has no such restrictions. So, go ahead… Bing away. But don’t expect to cut Google out of your life completely.
OH! FOUNDING FATHERS
Terry Paulson
In Oh, God, that engaging and thought-provoking comedy, John Denver played the part of a grocery store manager who was visited by God in the form of George Burns, as a senior citizen with an attitude. His mission was to change the world.
Approaching July 4th, permit me to imagine a similar encounter with some Founding Fathers. After reading one of my columns, they come to help me do a better job of saving our country from debt, dependence and eventual tyranny.
Paulson: "Why are you coming to me? I just write a column. Why don't you show up in Washington at one of the presidential news conferences?"
Franklin: "They wouldn't listen. We have to reach the people. It was 'We the People' who made the difference in establishing this republic. They can do it again."
Jefferson: "Besides, we've been reading your columns. At times you get it right. We've come to add some weight to your writing. We want you to use our words, not yours."
Franklin: "We're good with words. The quotations you use will need to ring true with what we've already said. So let's start men!"
Adams: "The debt is out of control. Government is way too big...."
Franklin: "We saw what such policies can do. I saw what the out-of-control welfare system of King George did to England. Their system centered on 'a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor.' As a result, there was no country in the world in which the poor were more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. In America, our system of government was committed to not making the poor easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. By offering a premium for the encouragement of idleness, the English system engendered an increase in poverty."
Jefferson: "If this continues, our democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Madison: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, the powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of limited government established by the people of America."
Adams: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
Paulson: "You're talking about things that are no longer popular--God, property rights, limited government, not providing welfare. It's no longer equal rights; it's equal outcomes. Citizens today are owed a 'fair' salary and subsidized healthcare. There are more women on food stamps than women working full time. Our economic recovery is anemic because small businesses are over-regulated and over-taxed."
Jefferson: "I place economy among the first and more important virtues and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
Paulson: "Our debt is over $17 trillion and growing, and that doesn't even cover the unfunded pension and entitlement debt that no one wants to face."
Franklin: "That's why we had to come."
Jefferson: "The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Paulson: "I wish more could be here to listen to you. I wish more even remembered history and the price you paid to give us a country like no other."
Adams: "You'll tell them what we've said in one of your columns?"
Paulson: "Certainly, but if they don't listen, would you visit them? Hearing your words reminds me what Ronald Reagan kept saying--our freedoms must be fought for and earned in every generation."
Jefferson: "I told you we should have brought Reagan with us."
Franklin: "Too young, and he was an actor for Poor Richard's sake!"
In Oh, God, that engaging and thought-provoking comedy, John Denver played the part of a grocery store manager who was visited by God in the form of George Burns, as a senior citizen with an attitude. His mission was to change the world.
Approaching July 4th, permit me to imagine a similar encounter with some Founding Fathers. After reading one of my columns, they come to help me do a better job of saving our country from debt, dependence and eventual tyranny.
Paulson: "Why are you coming to me? I just write a column. Why don't you show up in Washington at one of the presidential news conferences?"
Franklin: "They wouldn't listen. We have to reach the people. It was 'We the People' who made the difference in establishing this republic. They can do it again."
Jefferson: "Besides, we've been reading your columns. At times you get it right. We've come to add some weight to your writing. We want you to use our words, not yours."
Franklin: "We're good with words. The quotations you use will need to ring true with what we've already said. So let's start men!"
Adams: "The debt is out of control. Government is way too big...."
Franklin: "We saw what such policies can do. I saw what the out-of-control welfare system of King George did to England. Their system centered on 'a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor.' As a result, there was no country in the world in which the poor were more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. In America, our system of government was committed to not making the poor easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. By offering a premium for the encouragement of idleness, the English system engendered an increase in poverty."
Jefferson: "If this continues, our democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Madison: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, the powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of limited government established by the people of America."
Adams: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
Paulson: "You're talking about things that are no longer popular--God, property rights, limited government, not providing welfare. It's no longer equal rights; it's equal outcomes. Citizens today are owed a 'fair' salary and subsidized healthcare. There are more women on food stamps than women working full time. Our economic recovery is anemic because small businesses are over-regulated and over-taxed."
Jefferson: "I place economy among the first and more important virtues and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
Paulson: "Our debt is over $17 trillion and growing, and that doesn't even cover the unfunded pension and entitlement debt that no one wants to face."
Franklin: "That's why we had to come."
Jefferson: "The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Paulson: "I wish more could be here to listen to you. I wish more even remembered history and the price you paid to give us a country like no other."
Adams: "You'll tell them what we've said in one of your columns?"
Paulson: "Certainly, but if they don't listen, would you visit them? Hearing your words reminds me what Ronald Reagan kept saying--our freedoms must be fought for and earned in every generation."
Jefferson: "I told you we should have brought Reagan with us."
Franklin: "Too young, and he was an actor for Poor Richard's sake!"
G'DDAM THE LIBERALS
John Ransom
Flattus wrote: It's funny to watch Cons attempt to portray this disaster in Iraq as Obama's issue. Sorry, no sale. Thinking Americans know whose war this is. But it's not surprising to see you run from it.From Ron Paul's column today, referring to Necons:
"They cannot admit they were wrong about the invasion being a ‘cakewalk’ that would pay for itself, so they want to blame last week's events on the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq. But the trouble started with the 2003 invasion itself, not the 2011 troop withdrawal. Anyone who understands cause and effect should understand this."-- Welcome Our Newest Ally! Iran!
Dear Comrade Flattass,
Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul is an interesting man. Very smart too.
But he’s no historian. Or investor.
Half the time I don’t even think he’s sane.
Why is it that libertarians have given themselves over to a man that they treat more as Saint Paul than they do as just another man?
Because what "Saint" Paul has written about the Iraq war isn’t Gospel. It is even accurate.
The trouble in Iraq didn’t start in 2003, or in 1990—the First Gulf War—or with the toppling of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Or in operation “Ajax” in 1953 when we deposed the government of Iran and installed the Shah in its place.
Everything in history is part of what came before it.
I have no problem admitting that the Bush administration was wrong in portraying the war as a cakewalk. War should never be declared while dismissing “the many disappointments and many unpleasant surprises,” that Churchill warned was attendant upon any war. I said this at the time.
War rarely goes as one would wish.
As one Lt. General told me: “We had a plan. And it was almost like the purposefully [screwed] it up.”
If the second Bush administration made a long-lasting, salient case for American involvement in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, I don’t remember it.
But for Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul to sit back and say the THAT’S the problem in Iraq now, is either willful ignorance or lack of vision.
Here’s the problem in Iraq: They have ten percent of the world’s oil reserves. And there have been, in my lifetime, three powers tussling over the control of the region.
The first is the Soviet Union, popularly styled as “Russia” today.
The next is Islamic militants, who you can’t be rooting for—I mean you can be for them, but see the insanity defense about Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul above.
And finally there have been secular dictators, who from time to time have received support from the U.S.
Now you may argue that we should butt out of the Middle East, as Obama and Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul argue, saying: “Let them sort it out internally.”
But that ignores one reality you can’t get past: What is in the best interest of the United States of America?
My America is a great country. My America held fair and free elections in Iraq, a first in the Middle East outside of Israel. My America is a voice of peaceful—relatively speaking—change for Arabs who, just like you, covet freedom-- no matter what urban hipster doofuses like you say.
Is freedom just an American birthright that liberty snobs like you inherited from the blood bought by better men than you?
I don’t think so. I think freedom is inalienable.
That means it applies to Iraqis as it does to members of inconsequential third parties like libertarians, who too often just hide their mediocrity behind non-conformity.
Real reform is accomplished by staying and fighting.
There is only one right part of this debate.
If this world is to survive the next 100 years other countries would do better to imitate the United States—the totality of our national experience, not the last 20 years—than to stick to their outmoded, old fashioned concepts of global real-politik.
The worst misfortune to fall to Iraq was Saddam Hussein.
One might argue that invading Iraq to get rid of him was a mistake. But that doesn’t make leaving Iraq afterward right, either by logic or morality. Nor does it make it in the best interest of the United States.
I would like the rest of the world to enjoy the blessings that an old-fashioned butt whopping gave both Germany and Japan.
I want a world that looks more like America, not less.
That, not nuclear-free zones, or cutting carbon, or making marijuana legal, is how the next century will be decided.
And make no mistake: Withdrawing from the world won’t make it safer for us. It will just mean we have fewer allies, if any, when fight comes to your front door.
Or are you too busy reading that phony Ayn Rand to know this?
TG2711 wrote: you will never gain peace by dropping bombs or selling guns. -- Welcome Our Newest Ally! Iran!
Dear Comrade 2711,
History says that’s not true.
You are contending that great armies have fought and won, but peace just came accidentally after their victories?
That’s like saying you’ll never win a fist-fight by throwing a punch or defending yourself.
Why are liberals and libertarians so pathetically dumb?
Flattus wrote: Incoherent writing. And did you really think that "Swedish Bikini Model" line was funny? Really?-- Get Ready For Blood, Gore: 'Bear' Obama on the Loose
Dear Comrade Flattass,
Yes, I did think it was funny. And anyone who doesn’t think it’s funny is either: 1) a part of the Swedish Bikini Model lobby or 2) a Swedish Bikini Model sympathizer.
In either case you’re a fool and a tool of the Swedish Bikini Model conspiracy. Which by the way is real.
Anyone who tells you it’s not is a denier.
Maury Joseph wrote: Is to Politically Correct to INSULT Bears? --Get Ready For Blood, Gore: 'Bear' Obama on the Loose
Dear MJ,
No, it’s not. In a related note, in response to Obama the Chicago Bears have just renamed themselves the Chicago Injuns.
Soceress wrote: Hey, John, how dumb can these people be? They are the ones running the country.-- Media Gives Aid and Comfort to the Idiots
Dear Comrade Soceress,
As dumb as someone who stylizes herself a believer in magic spells perhaps?
The lesson now continues: History is littered with dumb rulers. In fact, a good ruler is a rare thing in history, not the “rule”.
Just because we elect them doesn’t make them less susceptible to the law of averages. Look at Obama as a reversion to the mean after a great man like Reagan.
ScrapIron wrote: Obama has presented to the senate, at least three budgets.
Now, I'm not saying these budgets had anything to do with reality, but the clown in chief at least did what he was supposed to do. -- Media Gives Aid and Comfort to the Idiots
Dear Brother Scrap,
I get your point, but this time, unfortunately, it’s at the top of your head.
I can do what Obama did. I can present a budget that will get no votes or won’t be voted on.
A president is known for getting legislation he wishes passed.That makes history.
The rest is just a work of historical fiction.
Jillocity wrote: hey John...there are actually those of us in CA (don't know about IL or MI) who actually care about what is happening to our Country...don't put us all in the same basket...-- Obama Gets GDP Bassackward
Dear Sister Jill,
I’m now a resident of California for one, whole week.
Yes, we moved the official HQ of Ransom Notes Radio and Townhall Finance to San Diego.
I don’t put you all in one basket.
Just most of you;-).
People have asked: “Hey, John, why you moving to California?” The answer is simple: You move to the sound of the guns.
DoctorRoy’s Greatest Misses: 1) Obama is a slightly left leaning Corporatist. 2) Well whenever I start to lose my perspective I know I can always fall back on the most trusted reporter in the business to help me get it back. 3) Yeah because things were so much better when the GOP was in charge. --Obama Losers
Dear Comrade Doctor,
1) So you agree with the Whole Foods CEO who said that Obama is basically a Fascist. That’s very progressive of you. You know, fascism and communism used to be thought of as the wave of the future. Thank God for Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan. And thank God for the United States of America.
2) You mean me, right Comrade?
3) Yeah, that whole 3.9 percent unemployment rate under Bush was sooooo hard. Seriously, Doctor: You gotta come up with something better than Bush did it too. Obama’s a freakin’ fascist. He’s against everything that old school liberals like you ought to hold dear. Give him up.
Ericynot wrote: Seems like if Ransom likes the word "presstitutes" so much, he could at least spell it correctly in his own headline.- Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Comrade Y,
Really? That’s all you have?
Going from having the greatest president since the Pliocene era, to typos? Doesn’t that strike you as an awful coming down?
Man I hope Soros pays you extra. Because material-wise you guys have to be working double time on message boards.
Rightmostofthetime wrote: Ransom generally doesn't fix mistakes, and usually gets defensive when you point them out. If he DOES fix the mistake, he will delete this thread. - Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Comrade WrongMostly,
I have not had to edit the pages for comments in over a year. We have a community editor for that. And I never delete comments except to annoy Hillinger and occasionally Comrade Y.
It makes them apoplectic.
It’s hilarious.
As to typos, eh, guilty. But truthfully I see it as a common fault. I see it on Huffington, Chicago Tribune, AP. And they all have copy editors. But still I would like to produce clean copy every time. I have some newer editorial methods that have cut down on the mistakes over the last year.
Don’t include this column though. ;-)
Hey: I'm moving.
More Freedom wrote: I think Ransom is losing it. Since when is not meddling with the military in other countries' civil wars and not creating enemies of half their population, "disengagement", not being a world leader, and "defeatist"? Isn't it more along the lines of minding one's own business? Isn't it leadership by example? Butting into others' conflicts with force is not a good example, and is not following the Golden Rule. It says it's OK for other countries to butt into our business. -- Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Comrade Freedom,
No, it actually doesn’t say that at all.
Since we let Hitler dismember Czechoslovakia and Austria we were temporarily shamed into taking responsibility for the freedom of others.
And to apply the Golden Rule here is immature.
The Golden Rule is a personal rule, not one that applies to countries.
And here’s why: Countries aren’t moral beings. They don’t know the difference between right and wrong. They only know what’s in their best interest.
And do you think that if somehow we disengaged from the rest of the world that countries wouldn’t seek to interfere in our affairs?
They would still. Anytime they wanted to.
That’s a fact.
Your argument is childish.
Dan107 wrote: You would think that the media would report on the logistics of how these children travelled across the breadth of Mexico to reach the U.S. Southern border. Who paid for this human cattle drive? Why didn't Mexico prevent them from crossing their border...? - - Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Brother Dan,
Reverend Wright said G@ddam America.
I say G@ddam Liberals.
They are the number one abusers of human rights ever.
They traffic in human beings just the same way a pimp does, getting them hooked and then defeated and demoralized. This is especially true with illegal immigration. Immigrants are here illegally for only one reason: Liberals from both parties wish for them to be here illegally.
Flattus wrote: It's funny to watch Cons attempt to portray this disaster in Iraq as Obama's issue. Sorry, no sale. Thinking Americans know whose war this is. But it's not surprising to see you run from it.From Ron Paul's column today, referring to Necons:
"They cannot admit they were wrong about the invasion being a ‘cakewalk’ that would pay for itself, so they want to blame last week's events on the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq. But the trouble started with the 2003 invasion itself, not the 2011 troop withdrawal. Anyone who understands cause and effect should understand this."-- Welcome Our Newest Ally! Iran!
Dear Comrade Flattass,
Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul is an interesting man. Very smart too.
But he’s no historian. Or investor.
Half the time I don’t even think he’s sane.
Why is it that libertarians have given themselves over to a man that they treat more as Saint Paul than they do as just another man?
Because what "Saint" Paul has written about the Iraq war isn’t Gospel. It is even accurate.
The trouble in Iraq didn’t start in 2003, or in 1990—the First Gulf War—or with the toppling of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Or in operation “Ajax” in 1953 when we deposed the government of Iran and installed the Shah in its place.
Everything in history is part of what came before it.
I have no problem admitting that the Bush administration was wrong in portraying the war as a cakewalk. War should never be declared while dismissing “the many disappointments and many unpleasant surprises,” that Churchill warned was attendant upon any war. I said this at the time.
War rarely goes as one would wish.
As one Lt. General told me: “We had a plan. And it was almost like the purposefully [screwed] it up.”
If the second Bush administration made a long-lasting, salient case for American involvement in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, I don’t remember it.
But for Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul to sit back and say the THAT’S the problem in Iraq now, is either willful ignorance or lack of vision.
Here’s the problem in Iraq: They have ten percent of the world’s oil reserves. And there have been, in my lifetime, three powers tussling over the control of the region.
The first is the Soviet Union, popularly styled as “Russia” today.
The next is Islamic militants, who you can’t be rooting for—I mean you can be for them, but see the insanity defense about Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul above.
And finally there have been secular dictators, who from time to time have received support from the U.S.
Now you may argue that we should butt out of the Middle East, as Obama and Doctor Ron “Buy Gold at Any Price” Paul argue, saying: “Let them sort it out internally.”
But that ignores one reality you can’t get past: What is in the best interest of the United States of America?
My America is a great country. My America held fair and free elections in Iraq, a first in the Middle East outside of Israel. My America is a voice of peaceful—relatively speaking—change for Arabs who, just like you, covet freedom-- no matter what urban hipster doofuses like you say.
Is freedom just an American birthright that liberty snobs like you inherited from the blood bought by better men than you?
I don’t think so. I think freedom is inalienable.
That means it applies to Iraqis as it does to members of inconsequential third parties like libertarians, who too often just hide their mediocrity behind non-conformity.
Real reform is accomplished by staying and fighting.
There is only one right part of this debate.
If this world is to survive the next 100 years other countries would do better to imitate the United States—the totality of our national experience, not the last 20 years—than to stick to their outmoded, old fashioned concepts of global real-politik.
The worst misfortune to fall to Iraq was Saddam Hussein.
One might argue that invading Iraq to get rid of him was a mistake. But that doesn’t make leaving Iraq afterward right, either by logic or morality. Nor does it make it in the best interest of the United States.
I would like the rest of the world to enjoy the blessings that an old-fashioned butt whopping gave both Germany and Japan.
I want a world that looks more like America, not less.
That, not nuclear-free zones, or cutting carbon, or making marijuana legal, is how the next century will be decided.
And make no mistake: Withdrawing from the world won’t make it safer for us. It will just mean we have fewer allies, if any, when fight comes to your front door.
Or are you too busy reading that phony Ayn Rand to know this?
TG2711 wrote: you will never gain peace by dropping bombs or selling guns. -- Welcome Our Newest Ally! Iran!
Dear Comrade 2711,
History says that’s not true.
You are contending that great armies have fought and won, but peace just came accidentally after their victories?
That’s like saying you’ll never win a fist-fight by throwing a punch or defending yourself.
Why are liberals and libertarians so pathetically dumb?
Flattus wrote: Incoherent writing. And did you really think that "Swedish Bikini Model" line was funny? Really?-- Get Ready For Blood, Gore: 'Bear' Obama on the Loose
Dear Comrade Flattass,
Yes, I did think it was funny. And anyone who doesn’t think it’s funny is either: 1) a part of the Swedish Bikini Model lobby or 2) a Swedish Bikini Model sympathizer.
In either case you’re a fool and a tool of the Swedish Bikini Model conspiracy. Which by the way is real.
Anyone who tells you it’s not is a denier.
Maury Joseph wrote: Is to Politically Correct to INSULT Bears? --Get Ready For Blood, Gore: 'Bear' Obama on the Loose
Dear MJ,
No, it’s not. In a related note, in response to Obama the Chicago Bears have just renamed themselves the Chicago Injuns.
Soceress wrote: Hey, John, how dumb can these people be? They are the ones running the country.-- Media Gives Aid and Comfort to the Idiots
Dear Comrade Soceress,
As dumb as someone who stylizes herself a believer in magic spells perhaps?
The lesson now continues: History is littered with dumb rulers. In fact, a good ruler is a rare thing in history, not the “rule”.
Just because we elect them doesn’t make them less susceptible to the law of averages. Look at Obama as a reversion to the mean after a great man like Reagan.
ScrapIron wrote: Obama has presented to the senate, at least three budgets.
Now, I'm not saying these budgets had anything to do with reality, but the clown in chief at least did what he was supposed to do. -- Media Gives Aid and Comfort to the Idiots
Dear Brother Scrap,
I get your point, but this time, unfortunately, it’s at the top of your head.
I can do what Obama did. I can present a budget that will get no votes or won’t be voted on.
A president is known for getting legislation he wishes passed.That makes history.
The rest is just a work of historical fiction.
Jillocity wrote: hey John...there are actually those of us in CA (don't know about IL or MI) who actually care about what is happening to our Country...don't put us all in the same basket...-- Obama Gets GDP Bassackward
Dear Sister Jill,
I’m now a resident of California for one, whole week.
Yes, we moved the official HQ of Ransom Notes Radio and Townhall Finance to San Diego.
I don’t put you all in one basket.
Just most of you;-).
People have asked: “Hey, John, why you moving to California?” The answer is simple: You move to the sound of the guns.
DoctorRoy’s Greatest Misses: 1) Obama is a slightly left leaning Corporatist. 2) Well whenever I start to lose my perspective I know I can always fall back on the most trusted reporter in the business to help me get it back. 3) Yeah because things were so much better when the GOP was in charge. --Obama Losers
Dear Comrade Doctor,
1) So you agree with the Whole Foods CEO who said that Obama is basically a Fascist. That’s very progressive of you. You know, fascism and communism used to be thought of as the wave of the future. Thank God for Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan. And thank God for the United States of America.
2) You mean me, right Comrade?
3) Yeah, that whole 3.9 percent unemployment rate under Bush was sooooo hard. Seriously, Doctor: You gotta come up with something better than Bush did it too. Obama’s a freakin’ fascist. He’s against everything that old school liberals like you ought to hold dear. Give him up.
Ericynot wrote: Seems like if Ransom likes the word "presstitutes" so much, he could at least spell it correctly in his own headline.- Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Comrade Y,
Really? That’s all you have?
Going from having the greatest president since the Pliocene era, to typos? Doesn’t that strike you as an awful coming down?
Man I hope Soros pays you extra. Because material-wise you guys have to be working double time on message boards.
Rightmostofthetime wrote: Ransom generally doesn't fix mistakes, and usually gets defensive when you point them out. If he DOES fix the mistake, he will delete this thread. - Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Comrade WrongMostly,
I have not had to edit the pages for comments in over a year. We have a community editor for that. And I never delete comments except to annoy Hillinger and occasionally Comrade Y.
It makes them apoplectic.
It’s hilarious.
As to typos, eh, guilty. But truthfully I see it as a common fault. I see it on Huffington, Chicago Tribune, AP. And they all have copy editors. But still I would like to produce clean copy every time. I have some newer editorial methods that have cut down on the mistakes over the last year.
Don’t include this column though. ;-)
Hey: I'm moving.
More Freedom wrote: I think Ransom is losing it. Since when is not meddling with the military in other countries' civil wars and not creating enemies of half their population, "disengagement", not being a world leader, and "defeatist"? Isn't it more along the lines of minding one's own business? Isn't it leadership by example? Butting into others' conflicts with force is not a good example, and is not following the Golden Rule. It says it's OK for other countries to butt into our business. -- Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Comrade Freedom,
No, it actually doesn’t say that at all.
Since we let Hitler dismember Czechoslovakia and Austria we were temporarily shamed into taking responsibility for the freedom of others.
And to apply the Golden Rule here is immature.
The Golden Rule is a personal rule, not one that applies to countries.
And here’s why: Countries aren’t moral beings. They don’t know the difference between right and wrong. They only know what’s in their best interest.
And do you think that if somehow we disengaged from the rest of the world that countries wouldn’t seek to interfere in our affairs?
They would still. Anytime they wanted to.
That’s a fact.
Your argument is childish.
Dan107 wrote: You would think that the media would report on the logistics of how these children travelled across the breadth of Mexico to reach the U.S. Southern border. Who paid for this human cattle drive? Why didn't Mexico prevent them from crossing their border...? - - Obama Losing It as ‘Press-titutes’ Flee
Dear Brother Dan,
Reverend Wright said G@ddam America.
I say G@ddam Liberals.
They are the number one abusers of human rights ever.
They traffic in human beings just the same way a pimp does, getting them hooked and then defeated and demoralized. This is especially true with illegal immigration. Immigrants are here illegally for only one reason: Liberals from both parties wish for them to be here illegally.
28 Jun 2014
5 MUST-WATCH HAPPY RELATIONSHIP TIPS
It's like walking into a candy store. Every eye color, profession, height, geography, spirituality, sense of humor and passion wait for you when you log in to the site. In a way, it's a fantasy coming true – all you have to do is choose.
There's no longer a need to go out to a pub or the library and hope your perfect one walks through the door. You can decide in detail who to search for, up to the size of her or his shoe.
Yet once you meet away from the screen, reality sets in. How can you know if your date's a good fit?
1) Values
We all have guideposts to help us move through life and create a path we can be proud of and happy about. Consider which values are non-negotiable and which have wiggle room.
Some vegetarians, for example, lead happy lives with carnivores while others wouldn't go out on a date with them. Similarly, if you and your date have conflicting religious or political believes, you might face additional challenges. It doesn't mean the relationship won't work, yet it's definitely something to consider.
2) Sense of Humor
A sense of humor is one of the more diverse traits humanity has. People find different things funny and they bring up humor at all kinds of times.
A sense of humor can reflect how a person lives her or his life, how they treat others and themselves and what they value, so pay attention to your partner's sense of humor and to how she or he responds to yours.
3) The Way You Express Love
Some people like to talk and others like to show. Some view expressing love as buying each other elaborate gifts while others prefer simple, daily gestures. Some are romantics and others mix love with cynicism. Some goof around all the time and others need serious moments.
Think of how you'd like to express your love for your partner and how you'd like your partner to express love for you. You could teach each other how to treat you, but don't go into a relationship hoping you'll change them down the line.
4) Your Goals and Dreams
Whether you want to have kids, where you want to live and how much money you're comfortable having are just the beginning. Are you career-driven and your partner is not? Do you love the thrill of entrepreneurship while they need the security of a regular job? Are you all about self-growth and they don't deal well with change? Do you want to travel the world and live a nomadic lifestyle and your partner prefers the community that comes with setting roots?
You don't need to have identical goals and dreams for the relationship to last – and compromise is part of any relationship – yet consider in advance what you're willing to compromise and what you can't live without.
5) Your Relationships With Yourselves
How much you love yourself and invest in your own life is how much you'll be truly emotionally available to love another. Don't look to be someone's better half, but your own full person building a richer life with another full person.
Create a healthy relationship with your body, your mind and your soul, and choose someone who's creating a healthy relationship with her or himself. That's ingredient number one for a healthy relationship with each other.
TEMPTATION OF WISHFUL THINKING ON IRAN
Mona Charen
PARIS -- An estimated 50,000 Iranian exiles and supporters from Europe and North America are here to remind the world that no cooperation with the brutal, expansionist regime in Tehran can possibly advance Western interests.
This annual gathering of MeK (People's Mujahedin of Iran), an Iranian resistance group, was already scheduled. But it might have been called just to rebut Secretary of State John Kerry's comments about possible cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq. "I think we need to go step by step," Kerry mused, "and see what, in fact, might be a reality, but I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the election process, and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq, not one sectarian group over another. It has to be inclusive, and that has been one of the great problems of the last few years."
The administration has walked back a bit from that flabbergasting comment, but the confusion it reflects is typical.
Does the Obama administration understand what it's dealing with in Iran?
The Weekly Standard reports that President Barack Obama's "spiritual adviser," Pastor Joel Hunter, recently traveled to Iran to discuss "religious tolerance" with the speaker of Iran's parliament, officials of Iran's Academy of Sciences, Christian and Jewish leaders, and grand ayatollahs in Qom. Hunter will brief Obama.
Who can object to talks, right? Dialogue promotes peace, doesn't it? Only if your partner has a semblance of integrity. Dialogue with brutal, vicious revolutionaries, who lie as a matter of policy, signals only an eagerness to deceive oneself, which is what is arguably happening now in Geneva, Switzerland.
The mullahs are practiced in deception. While Obama was ignoring Iraq, Tehran encouraged Nouri al-Maliki to oppress all opposition. The Sunnis, who had made common cause with the U.S. against al-Qaida, were forced out of government, arrested and sometimes murdered -- all while Washington issued bland endorsements of Maliki's inclusive reign.
Among Maliki's non-Sunni targets is a group of 3,000 Iranian ex-patriots, members of MeK, currently housed in a facility called (the irony was unintentional) Camp Liberty. MeK is the best-organized and largest domestic opposition to Iran's regime. Maliki's units have repeatedly entered the camp, and they have assassinated 52 people after handcuffing them. The fate of the remainder remains very much in doubt.
The whole world's got trouble. Why should this group compel particular concern? Because, as a letter to Obama signed by 30 prominent Americans details, these opponents of Iran's regime voluntarily disarmed and cooperated with U.S. forces starting in 2003. " ... The MeK worked hard to help protect the lives of our service members ... providing invaluable information about not only Iran's concealed nuclear enrichment activities, but also threats inside Iraq." Each MeK member was vetted by U.S. Forces and promised security.
The letter continues: "Over the last three years, while your administration was committed to keeping the residents secure ... a total of 135 have been murdered or died while being denied access to medical treatment ... In the pocket of each deceased resident was a Protected Person Status identity card."
The hand of the mullahs can be seen in a worldwide disinformation campaign to discredit the MeK. Though they stand for women's rights (one of the leaders is a woman), democracy, religious pluralism, free markets, freedom of expression, abolition of the death penalty, and separation of church and state, they have been tarred as "terrorists" and a cult.
In a carefully researched analysis of these old smears (the U.S. State Department listed MeK as a terrorist group until 2012), Lincoln Bloomfield writes, "A large part of what credentialed authorities in the U.S. have been saying about the MeK's past ... is either demonstrably untrue, factually unsupportable or misleading to the point of intellectual dishonesty." Human Rights Watch, Bloomfield argues, issued a report on MeK that relied on several sources who were secretly in the pay of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. HRW's conclusions were, in turn, relied upon by the RAND Corporation and State Department.
It's one deception among thousands -- starting with 20 years of denials that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Let's ask again, as tens of thousands of Iranian exiles gather in Paris to plea for regime change: Does the Obama administration know what they're dealing with?
PARIS -- An estimated 50,000 Iranian exiles and supporters from Europe and North America are here to remind the world that no cooperation with the brutal, expansionist regime in Tehran can possibly advance Western interests.
This annual gathering of MeK (People's Mujahedin of Iran), an Iranian resistance group, was already scheduled. But it might have been called just to rebut Secretary of State John Kerry's comments about possible cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq. "I think we need to go step by step," Kerry mused, "and see what, in fact, might be a reality, but I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the election process, and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq, not one sectarian group over another. It has to be inclusive, and that has been one of the great problems of the last few years."
The administration has walked back a bit from that flabbergasting comment, but the confusion it reflects is typical.
Does the Obama administration understand what it's dealing with in Iran?
The Weekly Standard reports that President Barack Obama's "spiritual adviser," Pastor Joel Hunter, recently traveled to Iran to discuss "religious tolerance" with the speaker of Iran's parliament, officials of Iran's Academy of Sciences, Christian and Jewish leaders, and grand ayatollahs in Qom. Hunter will brief Obama.
Who can object to talks, right? Dialogue promotes peace, doesn't it? Only if your partner has a semblance of integrity. Dialogue with brutal, vicious revolutionaries, who lie as a matter of policy, signals only an eagerness to deceive oneself, which is what is arguably happening now in Geneva, Switzerland.
The mullahs are practiced in deception. While Obama was ignoring Iraq, Tehran encouraged Nouri al-Maliki to oppress all opposition. The Sunnis, who had made common cause with the U.S. against al-Qaida, were forced out of government, arrested and sometimes murdered -- all while Washington issued bland endorsements of Maliki's inclusive reign.
Among Maliki's non-Sunni targets is a group of 3,000 Iranian ex-patriots, members of MeK, currently housed in a facility called (the irony was unintentional) Camp Liberty. MeK is the best-organized and largest domestic opposition to Iran's regime. Maliki's units have repeatedly entered the camp, and they have assassinated 52 people after handcuffing them. The fate of the remainder remains very much in doubt.
The whole world's got trouble. Why should this group compel particular concern? Because, as a letter to Obama signed by 30 prominent Americans details, these opponents of Iran's regime voluntarily disarmed and cooperated with U.S. forces starting in 2003. " ... The MeK worked hard to help protect the lives of our service members ... providing invaluable information about not only Iran's concealed nuclear enrichment activities, but also threats inside Iraq." Each MeK member was vetted by U.S. Forces and promised security.
The letter continues: "Over the last three years, while your administration was committed to keeping the residents secure ... a total of 135 have been murdered or died while being denied access to medical treatment ... In the pocket of each deceased resident was a Protected Person Status identity card."
The hand of the mullahs can be seen in a worldwide disinformation campaign to discredit the MeK. Though they stand for women's rights (one of the leaders is a woman), democracy, religious pluralism, free markets, freedom of expression, abolition of the death penalty, and separation of church and state, they have been tarred as "terrorists" and a cult.
In a carefully researched analysis of these old smears (the U.S. State Department listed MeK as a terrorist group until 2012), Lincoln Bloomfield writes, "A large part of what credentialed authorities in the U.S. have been saying about the MeK's past ... is either demonstrably untrue, factually unsupportable or misleading to the point of intellectual dishonesty." Human Rights Watch, Bloomfield argues, issued a report on MeK that relied on several sources who were secretly in the pay of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. HRW's conclusions were, in turn, relied upon by the RAND Corporation and State Department.
It's one deception among thousands -- starting with 20 years of denials that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Let's ask again, as tens of thousands of Iranian exiles gather in Paris to plea for regime change: Does the Obama administration know what they're dealing with?
IRAQ AND IDEOLOGY
Jack Kerwick
That the vast majority of Republicans remain as committed as ever to a strong American military presence in Iraq has everything to do with the neoconservative ideology that dominates their party.
Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives subordinate the contingencies of history and culture to such abstract universal “principles” as “human rights” and/or “Liberty”—principles in which they locate America’s unique, supra-historical origins. The latter, in turn, endows America with it special, indeed, messianic, mission to protect “Liberty”—to promote what neoconservatives call, “liberal democracy”—for peoples everywhere.
It is this ideological creed of theirs that accounts for why neoconservatives have always favored an American presence in Iraq.
And it is this creed that explains why neoconservatives favor the presence of the American military, not just in those places where “liberal democracy” is absent; but even in those places—like Japan, Germany, and South Korea—where it has been present for decades but is, presumably, insufficiently stable and in dire need of American soldiers to prop it up.
Let’s see how this ideology plays out in the current discussion over the disaster that is Iraq.
When President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was “over” in 2011, his neoconservative critics blasted him. Obama, being as much of an ideologue as anyone, had his own reasons for making this declaration: it was a pretext that gave him cover for making the politically advantageous decision to begin withdrawing American soldiers. Neoconservatives opposed Obama’s call, contending that there wasn’t any basis for his claim.
But now, it is they who insist that the war really was over, even if neoconservatives instead choose to speak of the war as having been “won” prior to the troop withdrawal. This semantics trickery, though, is unconvincing, for if victory had been achieved in Iraq, as we are now being told, then Obama was correct and the war was over.
However, if the war in Iraq had been won, then what would be the point in continuing to deploy more American lives and treasure to that region? To this, the neoconservative can respond easily enough: We remain in Iraq for the same reason that we’ve remained in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.: To insure that our victory is not lost.
Let’s us now spell out the implications of the neoconservative ideology.
First, the neoconservative is theoretically committed to expending American resources in blood, time, and treasure all around the globe and until the end of time. The belief that America exists for the sake of promoting and defending, not the liberties of Americans, but the abstraction of “Liberty,” the “Liberty” of Earthlings, necessarily leads to this conclusion.
Secondly, though he routinely rails against “Big Government,” the neoconservative is just as much a friend to it as are his enemies to his left. In fact, it is arguable that neoconservatives are actually more wedded to Big Government. The neoconservative vision, after all, requires an American military possessed of potentially limitless power. The military is government, and big military is Big Government.
Indeed, without the military, the (national) government would be but the proverbial paper tiger.
Thirdly, insofar as neoconservatives believe that “America” ought to fight for “Liberty” wherever around the globe it happens to be threatened, they believe that the American taxpayer—you and I—have a duty to work extra hours, to part with our hard earned dollars, to say nothing of parting with the lives of our sons and daughters, to defend the “Liberty” of non-Americans throughout the Earth.
The American citizen, the neoconservative would have us think, exists to sacrifice life, limb, and treasure for the citizens of the world.
But it’s critical to grasp that neoconservatives aren’t just telling Americans that this is what they ought to do.
Since the mission to fight for “Liberty” is a government enterprise that, like all other government exploits, is subsidized by citizens, neoconservatives are saying that this is what Americans must be compelled to do.
Finally, as long as “victory” requires a perpetual American military presence in the lands of those who the United States “defeated,” then there is no victory. Think about it: Suppose someone razes your old house and builds you a new one in its stead. Would you consider the job completed, a success, if the only way to keep your new house from collapsing is for the builder or his team of construction workers to move in with you and indefinitely prop it up? And wouldn’t it be that much more horrible of a deal if you knew that you would have to continue to pay them to live in and sustain your home?
This is the neoconservative ideology that underwrote the war in Iraq.
That the vast majority of Republicans remain as committed as ever to a strong American military presence in Iraq has everything to do with the neoconservative ideology that dominates their party.
Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives subordinate the contingencies of history and culture to such abstract universal “principles” as “human rights” and/or “Liberty”—principles in which they locate America’s unique, supra-historical origins. The latter, in turn, endows America with it special, indeed, messianic, mission to protect “Liberty”—to promote what neoconservatives call, “liberal democracy”—for peoples everywhere.
It is this ideological creed of theirs that accounts for why neoconservatives have always favored an American presence in Iraq.
And it is this creed that explains why neoconservatives favor the presence of the American military, not just in those places where “liberal democracy” is absent; but even in those places—like Japan, Germany, and South Korea—where it has been present for decades but is, presumably, insufficiently stable and in dire need of American soldiers to prop it up.
Let’s see how this ideology plays out in the current discussion over the disaster that is Iraq.
When President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was “over” in 2011, his neoconservative critics blasted him. Obama, being as much of an ideologue as anyone, had his own reasons for making this declaration: it was a pretext that gave him cover for making the politically advantageous decision to begin withdrawing American soldiers. Neoconservatives opposed Obama’s call, contending that there wasn’t any basis for his claim.
But now, it is they who insist that the war really was over, even if neoconservatives instead choose to speak of the war as having been “won” prior to the troop withdrawal. This semantics trickery, though, is unconvincing, for if victory had been achieved in Iraq, as we are now being told, then Obama was correct and the war was over.
However, if the war in Iraq had been won, then what would be the point in continuing to deploy more American lives and treasure to that region? To this, the neoconservative can respond easily enough: We remain in Iraq for the same reason that we’ve remained in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.: To insure that our victory is not lost.
Let’s us now spell out the implications of the neoconservative ideology.
First, the neoconservative is theoretically committed to expending American resources in blood, time, and treasure all around the globe and until the end of time. The belief that America exists for the sake of promoting and defending, not the liberties of Americans, but the abstraction of “Liberty,” the “Liberty” of Earthlings, necessarily leads to this conclusion.
Secondly, though he routinely rails against “Big Government,” the neoconservative is just as much a friend to it as are his enemies to his left. In fact, it is arguable that neoconservatives are actually more wedded to Big Government. The neoconservative vision, after all, requires an American military possessed of potentially limitless power. The military is government, and big military is Big Government.
Indeed, without the military, the (national) government would be but the proverbial paper tiger.
Thirdly, insofar as neoconservatives believe that “America” ought to fight for “Liberty” wherever around the globe it happens to be threatened, they believe that the American taxpayer—you and I—have a duty to work extra hours, to part with our hard earned dollars, to say nothing of parting with the lives of our sons and daughters, to defend the “Liberty” of non-Americans throughout the Earth.
The American citizen, the neoconservative would have us think, exists to sacrifice life, limb, and treasure for the citizens of the world.
But it’s critical to grasp that neoconservatives aren’t just telling Americans that this is what they ought to do.
Since the mission to fight for “Liberty” is a government enterprise that, like all other government exploits, is subsidized by citizens, neoconservatives are saying that this is what Americans must be compelled to do.
Finally, as long as “victory” requires a perpetual American military presence in the lands of those who the United States “defeated,” then there is no victory. Think about it: Suppose someone razes your old house and builds you a new one in its stead. Would you consider the job completed, a success, if the only way to keep your new house from collapsing is for the builder or his team of construction workers to move in with you and indefinitely prop it up? And wouldn’t it be that much more horrible of a deal if you knew that you would have to continue to pay them to live in and sustain your home?
This is the neoconservative ideology that underwrote the war in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)