Archive for War on Terror

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Thank goodness we have our betters to explain our lesser selves to ourselves. Mummy and daddy know best.

Mummy:

“I do think [Obama brayed] that when you combine that demographic change with all the economic stresses that people have been going through — because of the financial crisis, because of technology, because of globalization, the fact that wages and incomes have been flat-lining for some time, and that particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck — you combine those things, and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear.

“Some of it justified, but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That’s what he’s exploiting during the course of his campaign.”

My first impression is that the economy sure sucks! Flat wages and incomes, economic stresses, financial crises—trouble—does he hold anyone responsible after his nearly seven years in office? (And what is the “bargain” of toiling in a factory all day?)

But let’s look at his claim that Donald Trump’s support comes from “blue-collar men”. He’s not wrong.

But he sure isn’t right, either:

His support remains strongest among those who earn less than $50,000 a year, those who identified themselves as conservatives, and white non-evangelicals.

And male. But as the accompanying chart at the WaPo shows, his support is remarkably broad. Strongest among “blue-collar men” to be sure, but significant among women, college-educated, and self-identified liberal. Indeed, Trump leads all other Republicans in all categories, and it’s not even close. An intellectually honest Obama (two things he could never be) would have acknowledged the whole truth.

Now Daddy:

Scientists have been studying reactions to terrorist events, and how those reactions shape public policy. They found emotional response to terror attacks is often out of proportion to actual risk.

The full story (as heard on NPR) is embargoed until later this morning, but here’s the gist: we all respond emotionally to perceived threats, men with anger, women with fear. And our responses are irrational, out of proportion to the actual risk.

To which we say no sh*t, Sherlock. We don’t need no pointy-headed Harvard intellectuals to tell us that our fight-or-flight instinct is separate from our rational brain. Watching people hurl themselves from the windows of the World Trade Center did not make me fear for myself, but it made me resolve to support efforts to bring to justice the people responsible.

Pardon me for being human, but so are you. I don’t know what species the apologists, the why-do-they-hate-us crowd, is. I have acknowledged from the beginning of this blog that I underwent a psychological, physiological change while watching TV on 9/11. I had voted for Al Gore ten months earlier, but that morning I heard myself thanking God that George Bush was president. And I was not alone.

The apologists are at it again. San Bernardino? So what? Paris? [Gallic shrug.] It could never happen here (wherever here happens to be).

We get it, experts. We are more likely to die of lightning or ebola than we are to die of terrorism. But that doesn’t mean we accept with actuarial resignation the slaughter of others, no matter how distant. When we see James Foley’s head hacked off in the Arabian desert, our response is empathic, not impulsive. Which means we believe he is we and we are he. When Arabs stone a little Israeli girl, leading to brain damage and her eventual death, Adelle Biton is not my daughter, but she might as well be. Our anger or fear is not irrational, it is our most human self. You might as well ask us not to identify with a homeless person freezing to death on the corner.

War is not the answer, the bumper stickers preach (along with eating more kale), but that is manifestly not true. It may not always be the right answer, but war is very often the answer to a garnly question, from Afghanistan to Yemen. War is also hell, which, by contrast, is true. Our experieces over the past dozen or so years have reminded us if we’d forgotten. I would say therein lies a healthy balance (even if the word “healthy” seems out of place).

What Obama and the NPR story have in common—along with knee-jerk reactions fearing anti-Muslim backlash after every act of Islamic terrorism, along with knee-jerk calls for univesal disarmament after every gun massacre (many of them Islamic-inspired)—is fear of the common man and woman. Our instincts are base; they must be managed, defused, legislated. To some extent they must. But they are also the most honest things about us—infinitely more so than the lies and nonsense disgorged by our self-appointed betters.

Comments

How Many Folks Have Died In The Obama Wars?

I woke up with dark thoughts. How many people have lost their lives due to the policies of the Obama administration? We assume that around 350,000 Syrians have died. But how many died in Libya when we cavalierly decided to take out Moammar Khadafi? Just to remind you of the depth of thought that went into that decision:

And she will be the next President of the United States. So how many people died because of that decision, not just those who died in Benghazi, but normal Libyan civilians?

Turning to Egypt, remember the Arab Spring? The removal of Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood rule, and then the military takeover? Egypt is lucky; they have a military capable of restoring order.

How many people have died so far in Iraq as a result of the decision to pull troops out, against the advise of the generals? Where are the grim milestone watches when we speak of civilians?

How many know that just under 75% of US casualties in Afghanistan happened under Obama’s watch?

Fifty-five U.S. servicemen were killed in Afghanistan in 2014, bringing the total number of American fatalities in the 13-year war to 2,232, according to a CNSNews.com database.

Of those 2,232 deaths, 1,663 – 74.5 percent – occurred since President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. The deadliest years for U.S. personnel were 2010, when 495 were killed; 2011, when there were 404 casualties; and 2009 when the death toll was 306.

You didn’t know because NPR, the NY Times, et. al. chose not to mention it. But just looking at total human lives, how many civilians have died in Afghanistan in the Obama years?

So far 130 people have died from the recent terror attacks in France, and at least one of the perpetrators was a refugee. The number is small, compared to the carnage in the Middle East. How many people have died there? If the refugees pouring into Europe are any indication, if we assume that people fleeing Syria and Libya and Iraq and other war zones are running for their lives, the answer is several hundred thousand, perhaps a million. We will never know for sure, but the base number is 300,000 in Syria, and that is an old estimate. What happens as ISIS – let’s just call it The Caliphate – expands?

Obama finally owned up to the terror attacks in the US under his watch. Fort Hood is now officially a terror attack, as is last summer’s Chattanooga attack. I am not sure how many innocents on US soil have died under his watch, maybe around 30-40. Certainly a small number compared to 9/11. But a very strong argument can be made that this administration learned nothing from the 9/11 attacks. Instead of maintaining the fledgling stability that the Bush administration left behind, we have created chaos. And ISIS was born. We could end up going through a period similar to what the Israelis endured in the first few years of this century, terror attacks in grocery stores, cafes, restaurants, busses, school cafeterias, etc.

Nobody wants war. It is infuriating that the US begins wars and refuses to finish them. It is entirely possible that we will end up back in the Middle East, that a whole new generation of young Americans will lose lives and limbs, because we couldn’t finish what we started. Perhaps we should never engage outside of our own borders, period?

Will Hillary be up to the task? Who thinks that she can do a better job than “Her Predecessor”?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Aggie—What’s That Behind You?!

[Pssst, guys! Keep Aggie’s attention away from this post. She’d go ape if she read it.]

French police on Wednesday in their raid of an apartment in north Paris fired no less than 5,000 bullets, leading many in Israel to question the double standard of the West demanding Israel show “restraint” in the face of terror.

Reportedly 110 officers took part in the raid on an apartment in the suburb of St. Denis, where the Islamic State (ISIS) mastermind of Saturday’s lethal attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was believed to be hiding out.

Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins revealed that police pumped 5,000 rounds of ammo into the apartment in a shootout with terrorists, and likewise chucked in grenades, leaving the building riddled with bullet holes and with windows blown out, reports Reuters.

One hundred ten gendarmes, rattling off 45 bullets each: that musta looked like the end of Bonnie and Clyde; or Sonny at the tollbooth in The Godfather. Google says the French word for restrain is retenue, but a reverse translation yields “detention” (another meaning of restraint). So we must urge the French to show modération.

Comments (1)

You Cannot Be Syria’s! [UPDATED]

I’m not sure even an amoral sicko like your humble correspondent can find a ray of sunshine in this story…but I’ll try:

The Kremlin insists it’s hitting militants from the so-called Islamic State. But the locations of the aerial strikes imply otherwise—that Russia’s bombing civilians and U.S.-backed rebels instead. Chillingly, video and photographs from Russia’s new air war seem to indicate that the attacks are inaccurate and indiscriminate.

Instead of dropping precision-guided munitions like the U.S.-led coalition does, the Russians are joining the Syrian air force in deploying unguided “dumb” bombs, apparently including deadly cluster munitions, which are much more likely to kill bystanders.

[T]he Kremlin’s methods in Syria are worryingly similar to those of Assad’s own regime, which has relentlessly and indiscriminately bombed cities and towns under rebel control, killing thousands of civilians. The regime’s warplanes lack sensors for accurate targeting and the kind of guided munitions that the U.S. military famously sent streaking through buildings’ air vents during the 1991 Gulf War.

Don’t forget Israel! Some of our own military brass were in awe of the efforts Israel put into protecting Arab civilians while at war. (passing up legitimate targets in the process). Even as the enemy took even greater efforts to put civilians in harm’s way.

But grow up. What part of Russia do you not understand? When did Russia or the Soviet Union ever display finesse in warfare? Not under the czars, not under the commies, not under KGB thugs. And Putin bears a resemblance to all three.

War is awful. It is brutal, cruel, and bloody, as well as “dumb” and “inaccurate and indiscriminate”. And this is guerre a la russe.

The Center for Analysis of Strategies and Tactics, a Moscow think tank, has criticized the Russian government for its “strange” and “unacceptable” failure to develop satellite-guided bombs and new long-range precision air-to-ground missiles, plus the targeting systems to direct them. “Russian air force bombers and tactical fighters rely on air-to-surface targeting technologies that are 30 years old,” Alexander Mladenov, a Russian aviation expert, pointed out in Combat Aircraft magazine.

In borrowing methods—and targets—from the Syrian regime’s own bloody air war, Russia is likely to kill more civilians, create more refugees, and make an already terrible conflict even worse. “The result of this kind of action will inevitably, simply be to inflame the civil war in Syria,” Carter said.

Pity there was nothing we could have done to prevent this “inflammation”. No red line, say, that, had it been crossed, would have led to our decisive action. We would have carpet-bombed the bad guys with our laser-satellite-precision-guided-smart-bombs that only occasionally take out entire wedding parties.

PS: I’m serious about Israel. They would have dropped leaflets and set up loudspeakers annoncing exactly when and where they would bomb the terrorist scum. Ugly as war is, a few of Assad’s barrel bombs would probably end hostilities in Gaza.

UPDATE
Oy. As I was jsut saying:

Airstrikes killed nine staff workers of medical aid group Doctors Without Borders in the Afghan city of Kunduz, the charity said. U.S. forces said they conducted airstrikes in the area.

Sometimes, there is no joy in being right.

Comments (3)

Yet Another Muslim Terrorist Sentenced to Death

This one won’t have a chance to appeal:

U.S. special operations forces killed a senior Islamic State leader, who helped direct the group’s oil, gas and financial operations, during a raid in eastern Syria, the Pentagon and White House said on Saturday.

The White House said President Barack Obama ordered the raid that killed the man identified as Abu Sayyaf. U.S. officials said his wife, Umm Sayyaf, was captured in the raid and was being held in Iraq.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement that U.S. personnel based out of Iraq conducted the operation in al-Amr in eastern Syria.

“During the course of the operation, Abu Sayyaf was killed when he engaged U.S. forces,” Meehan said.

“The president authorized this operation upon the unanimous recommendation of his national security team and as soon as we had developed sufficient intelligence and were confident the mission could be carried out successfully and consistent with the requirements for undertaking such operations,” Meehan said.

Meehan said the operation was conducted “with the full consent of Iraqi authorities” and “consistent with domestic and international law”.

So what if it wasn’t?

But spare me the “Obama ordered the raid” crap. Unless by “ordered” you mean “didn’t dither” until it was too late.

Still, what’s to quibble? Three Islamic radicals—Sayyaf, Morsi, and Tsarnaev—in one happy day!

Comments

He’s Ba-a-a-ck

Sy Hersh, where have you been when your country needed you?

The White House is dismissing as “baseless” a controversial report alleging President Barack Obama’s administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden.

“There are too many inaccuracies and baseless assertions in this piece to fact check each one,” White House National Security spokesman Ned Price said in a statement to reporters.

He took aim specifically at journalist Seymour Hersh’s assertion that the administration collaborated with Pakistani officials to kill the al Qaeda leader, saying that “the notion that the operation that killed Usama Bin Ladin was anything but a unilateral U.S. mission is patently false.”

“As we said at the time, knowledge of this operation was confined to a very small circle of senior U.S. officials. The President decided early on not to inform any other government, including the Pakistani Government, which was not notified until after the raid had occurred,” Price said.

That’s it? That’s all you got? What a gyp! Who cares?

Hersh also reports on boasting from some SEALs that bin Laden wasn’t given a burial at sea that adhered to Islamic religious traditions as the administration had claimed — rather, his remains “were thrown into a body bag and, during the helicopter flight back to Jalalabad, some body parts were tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains.”

Now, that’s what I’m talking about! That’s good stuff.


We don’t mean to do no harm,
Look out for Osama’s arm!
Don’t get hurt, don’t get dead,
Watch out for bin Laden’s head!

Hersh also alleges Obama’s speech announcing the successful mission was “put together in a rush,” not vetted or cleared by national security officials and created “chaos in the weeks following.”

“This series of self-serving and inaccurate statements would create chaos in the weeks following,” he said.


Should I wear a red tie or a blue one when I take my victory lap?

Will this be serialized in the New York Times and the WaPo, and on the Today Show and Frontline? Especially the part about “self-serving and inaccurate statements”?

Comments

Oops

Thoughts and prayers:

Dr. Warren Weinstein, an American aid worker held hostage by al Qaeda, was accidentally killed in a U.S. counter-terrorism operation, along with an Italian hostage and another American who was an al Qaeda leader, the White House announced on Thursday. Officials also announced that a separate operation killed Adam Gadahn, another American who became a prominent al Qaeda member.

The White House said it was unaware the four were present at the sites targeted.

This is a developing story. Check back for more details.

As long as Gadahn is still dead. Sorry about the others.

Comments

The Smartest Man in Washington

Jay Carney, of course, for getting out of the no-win job of trying to spin Obama’s serial failures. Now, poor Josh Earnest has to explain how on earth Yemen and Somalia are models of US counterterrorism strategy.

Yemen is a complete cluster, as everyone but the earnest Earnest concedes.

But Somalia is no day at the beach, either, as if it ever has been:

A siege that started with gunmen detonating a bomb and spraying bullets in a hotel in Somalia ended Saturday with at least 20 people dead, authorities said.

The attack, which lasted hours, began when gunmen raided the hotel in Mogadishu on Friday evening.

Yusuf Mohamed Ismail Bari-Bari, Somalia’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, was among those killed in the attack, the Somali government said.

Not so permanent, then, was he?

Sorry.

Somali president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud condemned the attack as a “heinous and inhuman act” in an interview with state-run Radio Mogadishu during an official visit to Egypt.

In a statement, Somali Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke said Al-Shabaab’s “talk of ‘legitimate targets’ and ‘justification'” exposes “the sham logic behind their lust for terror.”

“These terrorists contradict Islam and betray Somalia,” he said.

If you say so. I think they feel the same about you.

Al-Shabaab said it targeted the hotel because its guests are spies and government officials.

The terror group has been active in Somalia for years.

Initially, its goal was implementing a stricter form of Islamic law, or Sharia, by warring against the Somali government. It has since shifted its focus to launching terror attacks in Somalia and beyond.

“We reiterate again that there will be no safe haven for the crusaders and apostates in Somalia, and that our attacks on them will continue until the enemy of Allah (is) defeated and his law is implemented fully in Somalia,” the group said in a statement.

Maybe they could resolve their differences if they sat down together and chewed the fatwa.

Sorry.

Comments

Every Obama Statement Comes With an Expiration Date

I’ve eaten yogurt older than this one:

Once hailed by President Barack Obama as a model for fighting extremism, the U.S. counterterrorism strategy in Yemen has all but collapsed as the country descends into chaos, according to U.S. and Yemeni officials.

Operations against militants have been scaled back dramatically amid the fall of the American-backed government and the evacuation of U.S. personnel. What had been consistent pressure on Yemen’s dangerous al-Qaida affiliate has been relieved, the officials say, and a safe haven exists for the development of an offshoot of the Islamic State group.

It’s a swift and striking transformation for an anti-terror campaign Obama heralded just six months ago as the template for efforts to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Ah yes, six months ago:

“This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground,” Obama said. “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Maybe he’s failing so spectacularly because he insists on calling them ISIL. They answer to ISIS and just plain IS, too, sir.

Or maybe he’s failing so spectacularly because he refuses to acknowledge that he’s failing so spectacularly:

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: The case that we have made is that Yemen did serve as a sort of template for the kind of strategy that we would employ to mitigate the threat from extremists around the world.

Whatever, dude. Just as long as they’re killing each other over there and no one over here gets hurt. Good, clean Arab-on-Arab murderous fun is one thing; airplanes into buildings is quite another.

Comments

To War, To War, Freedonia’s Going to War

And Sylvania’s never gonna know what hit it:

I try to let a few years pass between viewings of Duck Soup and the other early Marx Bros. It’s hard to appreciate their improvisatory brilliance when one remembers it too well. It pays rediscovery.

Anyhow, on to more serious matters. War with ISIS—yay or nay?

Here’s a nay:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): I think the president is doing everything that he can in trying to defeat ISIS. But when I hear words like enduring conflict, it makes me very, very nervous. I think it opens a door wider than it should be. I think we’ve got to continue air strikes. I think we’ve got to use special operations forces when we can. But I do not want to see a never-ending quagmire in the Middle East where our troops die, come back with terrible illnesses and we end up spending trillions of dollars.

Once again, this war is a battle for the soul of Islam and it’s going to have to be the Muslim countries who are stepping up. These are billionaire families all over that region. They’ve got to get their hands dirty. They’ve got to get their troops on the ground. They’ve got to win that war with our support. We cannot be leading the effort…

I want to make sure that our young men and women are not fighting a never-ending war in the region, not getting killed.

Agree or disagree, you have to agree he’s clear.

Not so much here:

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: The language is fuzzy, is it not?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Intentionally so. And the intent is —

ACOSTA: Intentionally so?

EARNEST: Yes.

ACOSTA: It’s intentionally fuzzy?

EARNEST: Yes, Jim, because we believe it’s important that there aren’t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander-in-chief who needs the flexibility to be able to respond to contingencies that emerge in a chaotic military conflict like this.

Remember when this administration touted a “time-limited, scope-limited military action”? Those were the days. Of course, that was in Libya, and that didn’t turn out so well.

So, maybe this is the better approach:

BILL O’REILLY: 10-year-old girls are getting raped and killed, people are getting set on fire and beheaded. You can theorize all you want. We have a disagreement. You and the president believe that it’s working–.

AXELROD: What do you think the answer is though? Let’s make you president of the United States for a second, which your viewers may want.

O’REILLY: I put forth the answer, that you have to basically get a ground force. There’s 40,000 of these people. Go in and kill them. It should be an international force, but this should have been convened months ago.

AXELROD: The question is, what then? What happens then, Bill?

O’REILLY: They’re dead, and then we bury them.

AXELROD: Are we going to stay in perpetuity?

O’REILLY: No. We kill them, and then we leave. And if we have to go back we kill them, and then we leave.

AXELROD: And your assumption is — and that’s it, there’s no more anywhere else? This doesn’t inflame the situation–.

O’REILLY: Where they are, you seek and destroy.

AXELROD: If they don’t have recruits coming in, this doesn’t inflame — does it add to our security or does it detract from our security?

O’REILLY: You really want to use the word inflame after the Jordanian guy got set on fire? Is that the word you want to use? Come on.

You know what they say: opinions are like a**holes—everyone has one. Even a**holes.

Speaking of whom:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Our coalition is on the offensive, ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose. Its barbaric murders of so many people, including American hostages, are desperate and revolting attempts to strike fear in the hearts of people that it can never possibly win over by its ideas or its ideology because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction.

With vile groups like this, there is only one option. With our allies and partners we are going to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group.

Two questions come to mind: if we’re going to “destroy” them, who gives a fig that we’re also going to “degrade” them? Why does he keep repeating that? Bill O’Reilly may not be president, but his rhetoric of “kill them, bury them” (which is twice as much work as I’d invest) is a lot more presidential.

Second, if ISIS “can never possibly win over by its ideas or its ideology because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction”, why do we need to fight them? By Obama’s reasoning, ISIS’ ideology will defeat its arms. If you’ll allow the analogy, Lord Voldemort, too, offered only “misery and death and destruction”, yet he was winning; he had no shortage of death-eaters at his beck and call. But for Harry Potter, his ideology would have won—twice.

ISIS is winning, but only because we—or another suitable force—are not fighting them. The Kurds are proof that if you shoot an ISIS maggot, he will die. Shoot more of them, with more guns. To complete the analogy above, instead of “the boy who lived” standing against “barbaric, desperate, revolting” terrorists, we have “the boy who smoked a lid”.

He was elected president in 2008 largely on a no-war platform. How fitting he has become an “endless wartime” president. An absence of strategy will do that.

Comments

Shh! Don’t Mention the Jews!

What’s missing from this picture?

Bipartisan criticism of President Barack Obama’s proposed authorization of force against ISIS mostly has to do with the use of U.S. troops and limits on the commander-in-chief. But one Republican lawmaker noticed something else that he calls quite troubling – omission of the word “Jews.”

Freshman Lee Zeldin is the only Republican Jewish member of Congress, and says it immediately leapt off the page that the President’s proposed resolution specifically singles out several ethnic groups threatened by ISIS: Iraqi Christians, Yezidis and Turkmens, but says nothing about Jews.

“I see an understanding, a recognition in the resolution with regards to ISIS attacks on Muslims, on Christians and others, and I didn’t see a reference to Jews,” Zeldin told CNN in an interview. “And one of the efforts I’ve been involved in is trying to raise awareness for the rising tide of anti-semitism.”

The New York Republican questioned whether the White House deliberately left out Jews as an ethnic group that ISIS has threatened.

Of course they did. As we reported yesterday, they refuse to acknowledge the murder of “folks” in a kosher deli by a bunch of “zealots” as anything but “random”. As I wrote, “Do they hate Israel (apparently) and Netanyahu (absolutely) so much that they would deny a narrative that makes Jews sympathetic?”

Yup.

Comments

Disproportionate Response

It looks like it’s not just France betraying a lack of restraint (see post below).

Really, Jordan?

An official says Jordan has launched dozens of air strikes against the Islamic State group since the militants released a video last week showing the killing of a Jordanian fighter pilot.

Jordan has said it would retaliate harshly for the slaying of the pilot, who was burned to death in a cage.

Jordan has been a member of a U.S.-led military coalition against the Islamic State group since September. After the release of the video, it said it would intensify bombing raids.

Since Thursday, Jordan has carried out daily attacks. Government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani said Sunday that Jordan has launched dozens of airstrikes since the pilot’s death, without elaborating.

Presumably the late Jordanian pilot was captured by ISIS after being shot down. That would have made him a prisoner of war. There are rules about that, but the key word is “war”. Suppose he had burned to death in his jet, rather than in a cage: would Jordan be going so ape-s**t? Or suppose his savage execution had been reported, but not filmed? Haven’t we heard dozens of similar reports—about ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, whomever—but without the snuff film to post to YouTube?

Isn’t Jordan acting out of a surfeit of emotion, in this case, blind rage?

And what of the victims on the ground of these bombing runs? Are there no civilian casualties? ISIS is just standing in the open, saying come and get us? Where are the human rights organizations, the EU, the UN to condemn indiscriminate killing? Will there be an official inquiry into Jordanian war crimes—led by an anti-Jordanian zealot, who in the past has declared he hoped to see King Abdullah in the dock some day?

If you haven’t guessed (and of course you have), these are the trials to which Israel is put when exercising its right to self-defense. In place of Jordan, we could have highlighted Egypt and the Sinai—and we have—but you get the point. The world is morally bankrupt. It’s every country for itself. That’s when true allegiances are formed. Israel is probably more allied with its past mortal enemies—Jordan, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia—than it is with ObAmerica now.

And ObAmerica is friendlier to Iran than it is to Israel.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »