Threshold of War

Months without writing and here I am with two posts in as many days.

But this Saturday before Easter is a weighty moment. We stand at the brink of war. And it will be an ugly one. Only a miracle can prevent a major conflict. Christians...on your knees.

Everyone is in an impossible position, particularly relating to the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Kim Jong-Un has been strutting and huffing and puffing, as well as ignoring and/or taunting its neighbors, the UN and the US for years. Now the hard point has come and he cannot back down without losing a large amount of “face”. It might end his regime.

He must fight if the US doesn't back down. He will lose. But it will be expensive for the rest of us.

At the same time the US cannot bluff and cannot allow Jong-Un to call its bluff. To do so would cede almost all influence in Asia to North Korea. A nuclear capable North Korea, with a half-crazy dictator at the helm and no one capable and/or willing to stand up to him, could call all the shots in the region.

Not good.

How did we get here? Well, it is the result of a hapless and limp-wristed US foreign policy. No. It is not all Barack Obama's responsibility. It merely culminated with his wandering policies and his penchant for getting rolled by foreign leaders.

It really started with Jimmy Carter and his kid-glove handling of the socialist regime in North Korea. Well, in other places as well. But the war will start on the Korean Peninsula. It won't end there, but that is where it will start.

When the US goes weak at the knees, the dictators and international bullies of the World are emboldened and start to flex their muscles. Though the situations got tamped down some during the Reagan and G.W. Bush years (Saddam Hussein getting dragged out of his hidey-hole and hanged cooled the ardor of a lot of troublemakers) the only way to really re-can a can of worms is to get a bigger can.

And we have gotten to the point in North Korea, and are close to it in the Middle East, where the only bigger can available is the use of force.

I wish to be wrong. I pray for a miracle. I see no other way out.

First Visit

If this is  your first visit, please go to "archives" and read the "Introduction" in November, 2014.

Exceptionalism

It appalls me the lack of understanding of the elements that make the United States of America different from any other country in the World and in history.

When we who are characterized as conservative talk of American “exceptionalism” we are not talking about the US being better than every other country or that Americans are better people that those living elsewhere. But without abandoning the observation that the US is the greatest country in the World and probably in history.

American exceptionalism is all about the US being the historical exception. It is different. The US is founded on thinking that is radically different from the founding philosophies of any other country, now or in the past. It is this exceptionalism that has created an environment that, to a greater degree than anywhere else, sets the human spirit free.

In looking for the components of American exceptionalism, and there are many, it is instructive to start at the very foundation.

Everywhere else in the World, and throughout history, governments, be they small scale tribal organizations or vast empires, the founding assumption is that the government takes care of the people and the people obey the government. Even the most tyrannical regimes have attempted to base their legitimacy on the concept of taking care of the people.

The Renaissance is a period generally accepted as starting in the 14^th Century and generally ending in the 17^th Century. The Renaissance was a period in which there was a renewed interest in “The Classics”, meaning Greek and Roman philosophy, thinking, and art. Of particular interest were the writings of the great classic philosophers, particularly in their focus on observation, deduction and logic.

The focus on these elements lead to an intense interest, moving into the 18^th century, in applying the principals of observation, deduction and logic to all aspects of life. One of the more radical philosophies to emerge was the “Age of Reason” and the rise of Deism. Though short-lived in their popularity, they did contribute to an interest in applying logical philosophy to government.

Late in the 17^th Century and into the early 18^th, there was, particularly here in North America (the USA did not exist at the time) a great Christian revival. This revival served, in a cultural sense, to focus attention on the value and worth of the individual. A radical concept.

There were thinkers, who were also leaders, at that time in America who developed new concepts around a logical approach to governance, as opposed to accepting the status quo, and the Christian concept that every life, not only has value, but has equal value to every other life. Another radical concept.

One of those thinkers was a young man from the Virginia colony...Thomas Jefferson. Though it is difficult to credit one individual, since so many great men signed on early, it was Thomas Jefferson that embodied the thinking in a very remarkable document, the Declaration of Independence.

It is in this document, the document that gave us a country, that the governing philosophy that would make the USA the greatest nation on earth was so eloquently stated. Today we have lost sight of how radical a document the Declaration of Independence is.

In that document, though not specifically stated, is the founding principal that the people would take care of themselves and the government would obey the people. That is a wildly radical idea even today. To the extent that no other country has dared to found a government upon it.

It is this founding principal that we are in danger of losing. If, indeed, we have not already lost it.

I can hear all the “progressives” (there is nothing progressive about the progressive movement. It is highly and intensely regressive) listing all the evils committed by us Americans. Evils that surely exist, but pale in comparison to the evils committed by every other culture on earth.

As an aside, it is the progressive movement, especially socialism, that strives to return the US to a governing philosophy, a philosophy demonstrably less successful than that expressed in the Declaration of Independence, of an earlier time.

In the US there is greater prosperity, greater distribution of wealth (oh yes there is), greater innovation, and greater freedom for individuals to follow their dreams than anywhere else in the World because the people are free to take care of themselves.

In the US evils are more likely to be corrected because the people hold dear the concept that every life has equal value to every other and the government is (was?) required to obey the people.

Every time I hear of those who subscribe to basic American thinking on government as “conservative” and those promoting socialism as “progressive”, I cringe.

There is no more radical concepts than every life having equal value, the government shall obey the people, and the people are free to take care of themselves.

There is also no concept in existence that is demonstrably so successful.

Bush, Trump & ISIS

I have not been posting to this blog very much recently. The main reason is that there are other sources that have been saying what I would have said, often better than I would have said it. The “Patriot Post” is a good example. Google it and check them out.

However, I have been moved to action by the repeated concept, obviously by the bumper sticker left, that ISIS would not exist if George W. Bush had not gone to war against Saddam Hussein.

It is perfectly true. But not in the way you might think.

I want to point out, that, contrary to leftist ideology, truth is not subjective. Or, at least, not all truth is subjective. For the dedicated leftist something is true if it is in agreement with the liberal narrative. In contrast, those not dedicated to leftist ideology typically try and figure out what is real and what is not independent of ideologies and narratives. (I am aware that my left-leaning friends will not accept that statement.)  The degree to which they succeed depends on how dedicated they are to digging through all the related information. Will conclusions be colored by personal perspectives? Of course. But one is going to arrive closer to a true picture if one does not start out with the conclusion.

As an historian who once was a leftist and no longer is, I prefer to go looking for data and draw my conclusions from that data, rather than start with a conclusion and go looking for data that supports the conclusion. An example is the recent flap over Donald Trump's supposed statement that he strongly favors a database of all Muslims. I have liberal friends, none of whom can be accused of being dimwitted, who listen to the interview assuming beforehand that he indeed proposed a Muslim database, and conclude that is what he definitely said and meant. However, if you listen to the interview with the mindset that you want to find out exactly what he said, and probably meant, you come to a very different conclusion. It is not exactly a subtle difference.

As an aside, I wouldn't be greatly surprised if Trump had intended to state that he favored a Muslim database. I am not a big fan of Donald Trump.  He has done one very positive thing. He has demonstrated that opposing political correctness is a winning strategy.

In returning to the question of whether ISIS would exist if Bush had not defeated Saddam Hussein, we have to look at what the region might, indeed, probably would, have looked like had Bush not set the dogs of war loose.

It must be remembered that, prior to the first Gulf War, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam had the fourth most capable military in the world, behind the U.S., China and Russia. The only reason he was turned back from Kuwait, and all the rest of the countries in that direction including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, was the U.S. Military. H.W. Bush bowed to political pressure, both international and domestic, and did not finish the job. During the Clinton years Saddam was allowed to rebuild his military strength to at least its pre-Gulf War I strength and begin the development of WMD's.

A brief rabbit trail, here. Contrary to the US leftist narrative, and in the opinion of every intelligence service in the free World, Saddam was definitely in the process of developing chemical, biologic and nuclear WMD's.

In all probability, and almost without doubt, had W. Bush not finished the job his father started, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and maybe Lebanon) would all have been under Saddam Hussein rule. Iran and Libya would have remained under the tyrannies to which they were subject at the beginning of Gulf War II, and Egypt would have been under the dictatorship of someone similar to Gamal Abdel Nasser.

But W. Bush went to war and defeated Saddam Hussein, spoiling all of his expansionist ambitions. It is important to note that Saddam patterned his Bath party after Hitler's Nazis party and his determination to expand Iraqi territory after Hitler's plans for German expansion.

Following Gulf War II, a sizable military presence remained in Iraq in order to provide security within which a new form of government could be created, and to serve as a deterrent to the re-emergence of Al'Qaeda, the Taliban, or other “radical” Islamic groups in the region. “Radical” is in quotes for a reason. More on that later.

Along comes Barak Hussein Obama who campaigned on ending the military presence in Iraq, and did as he promised. With the result that the security bubble Iraq needed to stabilize collapsed and a power vacuum into which “radical” Islamic groups could form or re-group was created.

In parallel with that, was the rise of additional "radical" Islamic groups during the wildly misnamed "Arab Spring".  Two of the results of the US supporting that movement was the destabilization of Egypt and the complete destruction of the Libyan government.

I put “radical” in quotes because the term communicates a false impression. The claim that “most Muslims are peaceful” is mainly true. Most Muslims are like everybody else in the World. They just want to be left alone to live their lives and raise their families. Most Muslims did not grow up Muslim by choice. While it is possible to live as an infidel (non-Muslim) in Islamic countries, it is not the least bit pleasant. If you want to prosper in an Islamic country you have to be Muslim.

“Radical” Muslims are those that, well, radically adhere to the Quran and Sharia Law. Jihad is very much a part of both.

There are approximately 1.5 billion (with a “b”) Muslims in the World. There are credible estimates that about 25% of those Muslims sympathize with the “radical” Muslims. That would be about 375 million Muslims. In all numbers, that looks like this: 375,000,000. The entire US population is about 323 million.

Estimates, again, those that are credible, place active terrorist Muslims at about 5% of the Muslim population, or about 75 million.

So, if you create power vacuum just about anywhere in the Middle East, you are creating a huge opening for Jihadi Muslims to establish their much desired Caliphate backed up by 375 million sympathizers and a Worldwide guerilla army of about 75 million. Which is precisely what ISIS is attempting to do. So far they have been pretty successful.

The situation we have now is that we have a strong Iran, who is a major contributor to terrorist activity and is developing nuclear weapons; Syria partitioned between ISIS, the rebels opposed to Assad, and Assad; Egypt with a very shaky government attempting a balance between the “radical” Muslims and the rest of the population which is about as moderate as Muslims get; Iraq in utter disarray with various areas controlled by bordering countries, the Kurds in the north, and most of western Iraq controlled by ISIS; and Libya in complete chaos.

This is a very dangerous situation.

Returning to the opening premise, it is true that ISIS would not have existed if the US, under the leadership of George W. Bush, had not defeated Saddam Hussein.

It is equally true that ISIS would not have existed if Barak Hussein Obama had continued George W. Bush's initiatives.  

"Radical" Islam

I have been stewing on this for some time.

Let's get one thing straight.

What is going on in the Middle East, and rapidly spreading elsewhere, is NOT an aberration.  ISIL and all of the similar "radical" organizations are historically typical for the Muslim world. This is the face of Islam.  It is how Islam was spread in the first place.

The aberration is "moderate" Muslims who find themselves capable of living comfortably within pluralistic societies.

Rising Tide

If this is your first visit, look in the November archives for "Introduction".

I was reading a left wing article that was blazing on the bumper sticker bite "A rising tide lifts all boats."  For the life of me I couldn't figure out what the problem was, even having spent ten years on the left.

The ability for liberals to mis-understand is truly breath taking.  The writer was assuming that the bite was justifying the rich getting richer and that somehow conservatives believe that increasing wealth of the rich will benefit the poor.  Of course, that view is consistent with the liberal narrative that conservatives have no regard for the poor.

One must never forget that, for liberals, the truth is whatever is consistent with the ideologically driven liberal narrative. That is why just about everything liberals think they know about conservatives is erroneous. Nothing that is really true about conservatives fit the liberal narrative.

No. The bite refers to increasing the prosperity of the poor. If the poor prosper, that rising tide will lift the boats of the middle class and the rich.

The reason that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (if that really is happening) is because the rich continue to do those things that makes them rich, and the poor continue to make decisions and engage in activities that make them poor. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor will not change that.

Fifty years of "The Great Society" initiatives have proven that.  In fact, if you view the results of the "War on Poverty" you must conclude that poverty won.

Rabbit Trail: Always keeping in mind that we are talking about conditions here in the USA.  In countries where freedom and opportunity do not exist poverty is unavoidable. 

The view of the conservative is, that to truly benefit the poor, the poor should be given the tools to prosper.

The United States has proven that if you set the human spirit free unbelievable things will happen.

Shores of Tripoli

If this is your first visit, go to "Archives": "November 2014" and read "Introduction".

It is good to remember some history. 

In the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the Mediterranean Sea was in the grips of Muslim terror from the Ottoman provinces of North Africa generally referred to as the Barbary States. It should be noted that though the Barbary States were nominally a part of the Ottoman Empire, the Empire had little practical influence over the States. 

The practice was for Barbary pirates to capture European and American merchant ships, steal the ships and cargo, and hold the crews.  The Barbary States then demanded tribute to free the crews and curtail the practice.

The new born United States, having just fought the Revolutionary War, sent an ambassador to the region to try and reach an agreement with the Barbary States.  There is much history in all this that I do not intend to go into at this point, but the upshot was that the negotiations resulted in a treaty. It was during these negotiations that Thomas Jefferson, the above mention ambassador, uttered the famous words “millions for defense, not one penny for tribute”.

It is interesting to note that the Tripoli ambassador, during the negotiations, presented the following view point as reported by Thomas Jefferson:

“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

Stack this along side the recent statements of Imam Anjem Choudary.

Religion of Peace?  Well, provided you convert to Islam.

Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President, the Barbary States habit of infringing on the treaty became too numerous and blatant to ignore.  President Jefferson sent the new U.S. Navy in to the region following authorization from Congress to do all necessary to protect US ships and citizens.

The result was a two-year war with one of the Barbary States, Tripoli.  The Navy, along with the Marines (remember the hymn) prosecuted the war to a victory over Tripoli, which resulted in a treaty with the Ottoman Empire that ended the piracy (terror) of the Barbary States.

Perhaps there are some lessons for our current invertebrate leadership.