Commentary on the News
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
The word “crazy” has a whole raft of different definitions: one can be crazy about a girl, crazy after a favorite team victory, crazy over a favored hobby, come up with a crazy get-rich-quick scheme or just be crazy (mentally deranged).
There is only one definition of crazy that is applicable to our planet at this moment in history. That would be the last one; mentally deranged. There really isn’t an adjective that has a better fit.
It is almost as if the various Western administrations review a list of options until hitting on the heading labeled, “Crazy”-- like that was the category it was looking for all along.
For example, the administration has been bending over backwards in its efforts to extricate itself from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The desperation to get out of Iraq is predicated by the inaccurate belief that it was an ‘unjust’ war.
For it to be an “unjust” war, several things would have to be missing, not the least of which, obviously, would be justification.
The justification for the war against Saddam Hussein was that credible intelligence information from all Western governments were unanimous their assessment that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq represented a nuclear threat to the rest of the world.
Granted, that would also justify war with Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran – but Saddam was a special case since Saddam had actually used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. So the thinking was, “if he used WMD against his own people, he’d probably use them against mine.”
Plus, there was the whole first Gulf War thingy, and twelve years of skirmishing over the no-fly zone. Although there was evidence then – evidence that continues to mount to this day – that Saddam transferred his nuclear program via convoy to Syria in the months leading up to the invasion.
The world went crazy over Iraq, along with significant portions of the US population. Had there been a global popularity contest between George Bush and Saddam Hussein in 2003, Saddam Hussein would have won it hands-down.
As far as the war itself was concerned, Saddam lost. So did everybody else and seven years later, the war still rages. It’s crazy.
Then there is the war in Afghanistan. This was, allegedly a ‘just’ war, because the Taliban refused to give up Osama bin Laden who had attacked the US on September 11. But it has being going on now for nearly three times as long as the US involvement in WWII and five times as long the US fought in WWI.
The enemy is a collection of undisciplined 7th century religious zealots numbering no more than 25,000. Arrayed against them are 140,000 NATO troops – two-thirds of them American – and 200,000 members of the Afghan security forces.
It would be crazy to think we might lose. And even crazier to think that we might be forced to sit cross-legged on the floor of some tent somewhere to negotiate peace with them.
They don’t want peace – they attacked us. What the Taliban wants is the unconditional surrender of the West. Crazy, isn’t it?
What is even crazier is being engaged in two wars we cannot win and then involving ourselves in a third. This third war is so crazy that it defies description. Let’s run it down and see how crazy it really is.
Whose side are we on? Well, it isn’t Ghadaffi, but the mission isn’t to remove him. So are we on the rebel’s side? Not really, since the rebels are primarily al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Who authorized the use of US troops in combat in Libya? The Arab League and the United Nations. Congress was not consulted.
Whose side are we on? According to the White House, America is neutral. Neutral? How can we be neutral and in combat at the same time?
How will we know when we win? Will it be when Ghadaffi is removed? That’s not part of the mission. When Libya is divided in two? When the rebels take over? What if the rebels are worse? Does anybody care?
Throughout its term, the administration has gone out of its way to discredit and marginalize Fox News by denying it practices real journalism and referring to it as Faux News and refusing to grant Fox access.
But according to Politico, that doesn’t mean that the administration’s favorite news outlet is CNN. In her recent Senate testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that if Americans want to get REAL news, the best source is -- al Jazeera!
The Secretary’s staff, together with those of the CIA and Obama White House attended the Congressional Correspondents Dinner as al Jazeera’s guests! When one walks through the State Department, says Tony Burman, Al Jazeera English’s chief strategic adviser for the Americas;
“you see it [al Jazeera] on virtually every TV and computer.”
The Obama administration ignored the Iran protests, saying it didn’t want to interfere with Iraq’s sovereignty, but actively worked to topple US ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, turning that country over to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Crazy? I dunno. You tell me. After eight years and uncounted billions, we’ve lost Iraq completely. Instead of creating a US ally in the region, we’ve created a new client state for Iran.
In Afghanistan, the most powerful military force the world has ever seen is stalemated by 25,000 guys who live in caves, eat goats and wear bedsheets for clothing.
Obama refused to involve America in Tunisia or Yemen, but leaped into Libya at the command of the Arab League. We don’t know who we are fighting, so we won’t know if we won. We don’t know what our goals are so we can’t tell when they’ve been reached.
And Obama’s early assurances to the Ghadaffi regime that the US military would not step up its involvement turned the tide in favor of the Ghadaffi regime. Obama was forced to admit Friday that the Libyan crisis had entered a military stalemate.
While nobody is sure what the mission IS, the administration has been more or less firm on what it is NOT. The mission is NOT about regime change.
As a consequence, NATO is falling apart. Spain said it would not participate further. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi announced that “we have done enough.” Canada says it will NOT increase its military contribution.
Former German intelligence chief Bernd Schmidbauer last week went to Tripoli on a peace mission which guaranteed that Qaddafi would stay in Libya. Britain and France are on record saying that their mission is regime change, even if NATO’s isn’t.
Finally, the World Tribune is reporting that the administration is backing the Syrian regime in Damascus.
“Administration sources and analysts said the White House was arguing over whether Washington should support the Syrian opposition against Assad. They said senior members of the National Security Council were debating whether Assad still marked a U.S. foreign policy asset.
"Right now, supporters of the status quo have the upper hand," an administration source said. "Their argument is that if Assad falls then the entire U.S. policy of arranging an Israeli-Palestinian peace and establishing a Palestinian cell will be threatened."
Obama, who has assured Arab leaders that the Arab revolt would not hamper U.S. policy, was said to side with the Assad supporters in NSC and the State Department.
On April 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration, amid the Arab revolt, would launch another diplomatic offensive to establish a Palestinian state throughout the West Bank."
Let’s recap. Starting from the top, we lost Iraq to the Iranians and are doing our best to lose Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Meanwhile, we are engaged in a war in Libya over something, although we are not sure what, and are siding with we’re not sure who in hopes of not defeating Ghadaffi, because we’re not sure how or why or what comes after.
The one news source that the Obama administration trusts the most is al Jazeera. When it comes to foreign policy, our foreign policy is to:
- shore up enemy regimes like Iran;
- stay neutral on regimes that are somewhat neutral with the West, (Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, etc);
- help bring down regimes friendly to the West like in Egypt;
- promote enemy propaganda while opposing pro-American news sources;
- start wars at the behest of the Arab League or the UN;
- hide US involvement behind NATO and then throw NATO under the bus.
Did I miss anything? Oh, yes.
Remedy the falling US dollar is to flood the market with unbacked US currency with which America can buy its own debt.
Hamstring any efforts to get the border under control. File a lawsuit against Arizona for passing a law making it illegal to be illegal. (And then report Arizona to the UN Human Rights Council as a human rights abuser.)
According to the New York Times, while our military is trying to kill Ghadaffi while our government is trying to find him a good home.
The US Department of Justice is suing a Chicago school board for not allowing a probationary teacher time off to attend a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. A similar lawsuit aimed at, say, allowing a Catholic to take three weeks off to go to the Vatican for Lent would be just crazy.
|Current Article Ranking:
|Rank This Article: ||
It's an article.|
I liked it.
It's a home run!
No Forum Comments on this Article yet.
If you have already Registered, then
Login and start a discussion.