► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘nation-building’

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood calls for intervention in Syria

by Phantom Ace Comments Off on Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood calls for intervention in Syria
Filed under Conservatism, Headlines, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Mitt Romney, Muslim Brotherhood, Republican Party at June 4th, 2012 - 8:32 pm

A growing number of Republicans/Conservatives are calling for intervention in Syria. These people should think long and hard about who they are supporting. These Conservatives are on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for foreign intervention in Syria.

CAIRO (Reuters) — Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood called on Arab and other world powers on Monday to intervene in Syria after 108 people were killed in the town of Houla in an attack it blamed on President Bashar Assad’s forces.

Images of the bloodied bodies of children and others slain in Houla have shocked the world and highlighted the failure of a six-week-old UN-backed ceasefire to stop the violence in the 14-month uprising against Assad’s rule.

“The Muslim Brotherhood calls on Arab, Islamic and international governments … and the people of the free world to intervene to stop these massacres, especially after the failure of international forces and international monitoring to stop them,” spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan said in a statement.

Conservative should not support the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda. On one side you have Assad, Hizb’Allah and Iran. On the other side its the Muslim Brotherhood and AL-Qaeda. The Free Syrian Army is a front group for the Brotherhood and has ethnically cleansed Christians. These are not freedom fighters, they are Jihadists.

 

Wake up Conservatives, you are being deceived.

Essential VDH: Can the US still win wars?

by Phantom Ace ( 26 Comments › )
Filed under Military, Progressives, Tranzis at May 22nd, 2012 - 8:00 am

WWII was the last war we won decisively. We thoroughly crushed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Yet since that war we have not fought total war style. We were mostly retrained by the Soviet Union’s nuclear umbrella but that ended in 1989. In 1991, we totally destroyed the Iraqi Army, but Saddam survived to fight another day. Then 9/11 happened and instead leveling the Middle East as we did Germany and Japan, Bush decided to engage in Progressive nation building projects that would make Woodrow Wilson and LBJ proud. Make no mistake, militarily, our armed forced carried out their missions flawlessly. But our Progressive establishment has a soft spot for Islam and we fought them with velvet gloves when we should have hit them with an Iron Fist!

Victor Davis Hanson feels we have the capability to win wars decisively. The problem is that the Progressive/Globalist disease our elites have prevents us from doing so. He also thinks that we have gown too complacent and and merciful, rather than the ruthless nature we had during WWII.

Given that the United States fields the costliest, most sophisticated, and most lethal military in the history of civilization, that should be a silly question. We have enough conventional and nuclear power to crush any of our enemies many times over. Why then did we seem to bog down in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The question is important since recently we do not seem able to translate tactical victories into long-term strategic resolutions. Why is that? What follows are some possible answers.

[…]

But in the last twenty years there is an even greater restraint to operations—a moral, if not smug, self-restraint that has turned fighting from a quest for victory into a matter of jurisprudence in which how we fight a war is more important than what we actually achieve. The old Neanderthal formula — we will level your cities, defeat and humiliate your military, impose our system of government upon you, and then give you our aid and friendship as you reinvent yourself as a free-market capitalist democracy — certainly worked with Germany, Japan, and Italy.

But does anyone believe that we could have bombed Saddam as we did those in Hamburg? The country that tore itself apart over waterboarding three confessed terrorists who had an indirect hand in the murder of 3,000 Americans seems ill-equipped to inflict the sort of damage on enemies that in the past made them accept both defeat and redemption. War is now a matter of legality, or nation-building before, not after, the enemy is fully defeated, and that means, given the unchanging nature of man, that it is very difficult to win a war as in the past. Note, in this context, Obama’s drone campaign, which he expanded seven- or eight-fold upon inheriting it from Bush. Is it not the perfect liberal way of war? There is no media hand-wringing over collateral damage; no burned faces, charred limbs, headless torsos on the evening news; no U.S. losses; no prisoners at Guantanamo. There is only a postmodern murderous video game and a brief administration chest-thump that “we’ve take out 20 of the top 30 al-Qaeda operatives.”

[…]

We are forgetting yet another wild card: since World War II, all our serial fighting in Asia, Central America, the Pacific, and Africa has involved optional wars—fighting that did not question the very existence of the U.S. Other than a few stand-offs with the Cold War Soviets at places like Berlin or Cuba, the United States had not faced an existential threat since the end of World War II. September 11 might have posted such a challenge, since had bin Laden or his epigones been able to repeat the initial attacks, then air travel as we know it would have ceased, along with the idea of an open, modern commercial economy.

But other than the efforts to go after al-Qaeda, most of our fighting has been optional—whether in Somalia or Libya—and that makes it hard to galvanize the American public. (Which also explains why administrations try to hype WMD, or Saddam, or al-Qaeda, or Gaddafi, or the monstrous Assad in order to turn these peripheral threats into existential enemies.) In optional wars, the public can disconnect, as fighting can be conducted without disruption of the civilian economy. Victory or defeat does not immediately either please or endanger the public at home. And the result is that our leaders do not necessarily wage these wars all out, with the prime directive of winning them. (Note how the monster-in-rehab Gaddafi, whose children were buying off Western academics and putting on art shows in London, by 2011 was back in our imaginations to the 1986 troll, and how the Assads of Vogue magazine are once again venomous killers.)

[…]

With all this in mind, consider Bashar al-Assad. There is a growing movement in the press and Congress to go into Syria—either by arming the rebels, training them, or providing them air cover. But while we know that we have the power to do so (or rather can borrow the money from the Chinese to do so), do we have a strategic aim? What should Syria look like after the war (a constitutional state that would not support Iran, fund Hezbollah, undermine Lebanon, start a war with Israel, or build another reactor)?

Are U.S. arms and influence without ground troops able to see those laudable aims realized, or would a post-Assad Syria end up like Libya or Egypt—and would that still be better or worse than the present-day Syria, for us, for Christians and other minorities, for Israel, etc.?

The usual gang of Wilsonian Tranzi Progressives like McCain, Ms. Lindsey, Bush, Clinton and Lieberman are drooling to go after Assad. Once again The US military will be used to remove a secular dictator and put in place an Sharia Muslim Brotherhood Regime. I am no pacifist or isolationist but I am tired of our armed forces being used as enablers of the Islamic agenda under the guise of nation building.

One of the reasons the US has not won a war decisively is because we fight wars wrong and for the wrong causes. If China threatened the Philippines, I would be totally in favor of using the military to make China back off. That nation was an American protectorate for 50 years and fought with us in WWII. They are a western nation and in our sphere of influence. I do not, however, support using the American military to nation build in the Islamic world nor to help the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mitt Romney would be wise to back off his calls for intervention in Syria. The majority of Americans oppose it and should he become President, he should focus on rebuilding our economy and getting our fiscal house in order. The US military should be used only to protect our interest and crush our enemies. If Romney gets us involved in Syria, many Conservatives will turn on him and he will be a one term President. Hopefully he ignores people like McCain, Ms. Lindsey, Bush and Lieberman and focuses just on bringing back prosperity to America.

Victor Davis Hanson is a true intellect and historian. Its a shame he gets our Geo-strategic situation better than out naive and corrupt Islamic loving elites.

(Hat Tip: Iron Fist)

Rolling Stone is a Seditious Rag

by 1389AD ( 188 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, Islam, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Media, Military, Sharia (Islamic Law), Tranzis at March 1st, 2011 - 2:00 pm

First of all…

It is long past time for us to decide exactly what we are fighting for in Afghanistan. And when it comes to that, the infamous lefty rag, Rolling Stone, does all it can to add to the confusion.

Awhile back, Rolling Stone caused a major brouhaha by exposing the internal dissention between Gen. McChrystal and the Obama Administration regarding the war in Afghanistan. Though the problems were real, the intent of Rolling Stone was to undermine our military and thereby help our enemies.

To give the devil his due, the US was, and is, on a self-defeating path. I would be the first to admit that I am no fan of the way in which the war in Afghanistan is being fought. The difference is that Rolling Stone wants the US, and Judaeo-Christian civilization, to lose the war against the jihad, while I want us to win.

I am fundamentally opposed to the Wilsonian pipe-dream of “nation-building.” No country can bestow give liberty and a functioning civil society to anyone else; they have to be earned, and they can never be earned by a predominantly Muslim population. That is because Islam is not a religion in the sense that we understand it, but rather, it is an expansionist, enemy, totalitarian political philosophy that requires perpetual warfare against unbelievers, and that seeks to rid the world of everything but itself. Any people espousing Islam cannot govern themselves without bringing in a totalitarian system of shari’a law. They regard it as sinful to do otherwise. Enacting this as part of a new constitution simply sets it in stone. The new constitutions enacted under US hegemony in both Afghanistan and Iraq are specifically Islamic and implement shari’a law. Why did we send our troops to fight for this?

The purpose of warfare is to defeat enemies so that they cannot and will not do us any further harm. It will always be beyond our power as a nation to turn foreign evildoers into decent human beings.

The current US “rules of engagement” (ROE) are nothing short of suicidal. It makes no sense to run what amounts to a day care center for our enemies who are stuck in a mindset that reflects the worst that the seventh century has to offer. Our enemies (including those who are supposedly “civilian”) do not play by any rules whatsoever, while our side is hogtied by rules that make it impossible to retaliate effectively or even to protect our own troops from enemy attack.

Rolling Stone beclowns itself again

Rolling Stone has made one more attempt to undermine and smear the US military in Afghanistan. But it turns out that they believed an ex-officer who is, to put it bluntly, an openly adulterous, self-promoting, and disloyal ignoramus. So now Rolling Stone has egg on its face.

Big Peace: Psyops on Senators in Afghanistan? Not Hardly

Posted by Jim Hanson Feb 28th 2011 at 4:34 am

…Rolling Stone is out hunting for Generals again and they have found a willing dupe in LTC Michael Holmes. Although calling him a dupe is unfair, he is a willing participant in this grotesque farce. Let’s tee this up in case you missed it. He claims that while on the staff of LTG Caldwell in Afghanistan he was tasked with coming up with ways to influence the opinions of visiting Senators. Seriously, that’s it. The massive outcry from the media was over something that anyone with an above room temperature IQ, including the Senators, knew happens all the time. The problem is that Holmes’ IQ is well below room temperature.

Before we explore the sad little world of LTC Holmes let’s remember that Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone Jackwagon, also wrote the hit piece that took down Stan McChrystal…

Back now to Holmes. He pitched this story to a newspaper or two, but couldn’t get them to bite. But he threw it at Rolling Stone and it stuck to their wall and obviously fit their agenda. Sadly keeping their rag afloat with tabloid level journalism is their only real option. So we have this spy movie sounding scenario where our Generals are plotting a la Dr. Strangelove and using psychological operations against visiting Senators. The reason they can conjure up this fiendish plot is because of a lack of understanding about Psy Ops, which is one part of Information Operations (IO) and the separate field of Public Affairs (PA). The simplest explanation is IO works to affect the enemy and the theater of operations and PA tells our stories to Americans and the press. Holmes was part of the IO staff and so normally he would have been working on information aimed at the enemy. But the mission he was part of on LTG Caldwell’s staff was to train the Afghan Army, so there was no need for IO operations. Consequently LTC Holmes was given a new assignment, part of which involved helping influence the opinions of visiting Senators.

…Holmes was sent home from Afghanistan in disgrace for multiple violations of orders and military law. Even worse, he was planning on cashing in on his experience with a civilian strategic communications company he had formed with a female officer who worked directly for him. That cunning plan crashed and burned when he and this officer, MAJ Laural Levine, made such a public nuisance of their “inappropriate relationship” that it became common knowledge among the staff. In addition to that, they were regularly heading off base in civilian clothes and were either weaponless, had surrendered them to the restaurants they frequented, or worse had carried them concealed. The first two are offenses against the General Orders for Afghanistan, the last is a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare. If they had been captured while carrying concealed out on the town, they would have been unlawful combatants.

Now how did we find these things out? Well in addition to being as discrete as Lady Gaga, Holmes is also an ultra maroon (yes I just quoted Bugs Bunny). He posted photos of he and his “far-too-intimate-female-associate” on Facebook. Then they go ahead and flirt like Junior High Schoolers in the comments while discussing photos that show them violating their orders. That’s right, a guy and gal who think they are smart enough to advise the government and corporations on strategic communications, busted themselves out on Facebook…

Read it all.

The bottom line? Never trust Rolling Stone or anything you read in it.

What has been missing from public discourse so far are constructive suggestions about how we should address the very real Islamic threat from a political and military perspective. Counterjihad blogger Sultan Knish offers some excellent ideas:

Canada Free Press: A Fourth Approach to the Muslim World

By Daniel Greenfield – Thursday, July 22, 2010

…The Fourth Way is Accountability and it is simple enough. Stop arguing over who will rule in which Muslim country. That is a decision that only the inhabitants of that country can make. And they won’t make it through elections, so much as through dealmaking among their oligarchy, tribal leaders and occasional outbursts of armed force. It would take a massive project of decades to have any hope of changing that. But we don’t need to. What we need to do is make very clear the consequences of attacking us to whoever is in charge.

Rather than trying to shape their behavior by shaping their political leadership, we can use a much more blunt instrument to unselectively shape all their leaders. A blunt instrument does not mean reconstruction. It doesn’t mean Marines ferrying electrical generators. It doesn’t mean nation building. It means that we will inflict massive devastation on any country that aids terrorists who attack us. If they insist on using medieval beliefs to murder us, we will bomb government buildings, roads, factories and power plants to reduce them back to a medieval state. We will not impose sanctions on them, we will simply take control of their natural resources and remove the native population from the area, as compensation for the expenses of the war.

Accountability means no more aid to tyrants or terrorists, and no grand democracy projects either. It means that we stop trying to pick a side, and just make it clear what happens when our side gets hurt. We gain energy independence and never look back. And when we’ve done that, the Muslim world will no longer be able to play America against Russia, against Asia and Europe. Instead it will suddenly find itself stuck with a predatory Russia looking for an energy monopoly, a booming China expanding into their part of the world, and no Pax Americana to protect them from either one.

America has provided the stability that kept many Muslim countries from imploding. It has protected others directly and indirectly from being conquered more times than anyone realizes. All the treachery and terrorism that has been carried out, has been done under an American umbrella. Now is the time to furl up the umbrella, and let the rain fall where it may.

It will be a cold day indeed, when Russia and China realize that they can do what they like in the Muslim world, without the US to stop them. And a colder day still, when European countries realize that there is nothing standing the way of deporting their insurgent Muslim populations, because the US will not lift a finger to protect them, as it did in Yugoslavia. That is accountability. And in both its active and passive forms it will exact a high price from the enemy, and none from us. To employ it, we must be prepared to use massive force casually without considering any collateral damage. We must achieve energy independence at any cost. And we must be prepared to realize that everything else we have tried has failed. Only by disengaging from the Muslim world, can we ever be free of it.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Read it all.


Originally published on 1389 Blog.