U.S.-NATO military interventions caused Europe’s migrant disaster

The leaders and bureaucrats of the European Union (EU) are fortunate that they have largely disarmed the citizens of EU member states. If the citizens of Europe had personal weapons, all officials at all levels of the increasingly authoritarian EU organization might well be under fire — and rightly so — for causing the horde of unwanted, unneeded, and non-assimilable migrants that is now inundating Europe.

The migrants will produce further lawlessness, a debilitating level of societal tensions, enormous increases in the expense of social services and public housing, and contribute nothing worth having to the nations of the EU. The migrants also will wreck the status quo in EU security as the many hundreds of thousands of incomers are mixed with a goodly number ISIS and al-Qaeda organizers, recruiters, fighters, and suicide attackers who will make the job of EU security and intelligence services even more undoable. Indeed, the only upside of the migrant flood is that elected and appointed EU officials will feel proud of themselves for spending the money of the EU’s wildly overtaxed citizens for a “humanitarian purpose” that, to anyone with commonsense, clearly carries the seeds of terrorism, the end of the EU, fascism, and civil war.

EU leaders also should be deliriously happy that most of the region’s media are urging that Europe take in as many of the migrants as possible and are keeping their readers from asking why the migrants are flowing into Europe. Many European politicians and pundits are blaming Bashir al-Assad and the Syrian regime. The British finance minister George Osborne, for example, said last weekend that the world needs to focus on dealing with the migrant “problem at source, which is this evil Assad regime and the ISIL (Islamic State) terrorists, and you need a comprehensive plan for a more stable, peaceful Syria.” Mr. Osborne must be crazed.

And then there is the Pope Francis who wants to get all the migrants possible into Europe and wants Catholics to defy the law and put them up. The mindless, do-gooding interventionism of this Pope will not be sated until he helps to turn the EU into a gigantic Greece, and ensures the impoverishment of the rest of the Western world, while the Vatican’s art collection and property holdings remain intact.

The major and nearly only cause of the EU’s overwhelming influx of unwanted migrants is the relentless interventionism of the EU, NATO, and the United States in the Islamic world, and their refusal to win the wars they start there. Although such Western interventionism has been a constant since 1945, it has become the tool of first resort since the attacks of 9/11 and it is the direct and primary cause of the migrant tide now destabilizing the EU. From 1996 until this day, the four following realities lead in a direct, unambiguous, and causal line to the current migrant onslaught.

  • The Islamist began to wage their religious war against the United States and its Western allies in 1996 because of what they saw as a half-century of reliable Western intervention — especially by the United States — on the side of Israel’s ambitions and the preservation of Arab world’s tyrants. Nearly 20 years later, the United States, NATO, and the EU continue their unnecessary and largely unwanted intervention in the Islamic world on behalf of both, fighting on the side of the Gulf tyrants in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria and supporting an increasingly authoritarian Egyptian government that seized power by military coup. In addition, Washington is publicly bragging about the higher-than-ever flow of U.S.-made arms to Israel, apparently to compensate it for an Iran deal that will not stop Tehran completing its nuclear weapon, but will greatly expand Sunni Muslim hatred toward the United States and the West.
  • The U.S.-NATO invasion and 15-year occupation of Afghanistan that not only was militarily defeated by the Islamists, but which allowed al-Qaeda to proliferate around the world, facilitated the accelerating Arabization of Afghan and Pakistani Islam in the direction of Salifism and Wahhabism, nurtured a new generation of Sunni mujahideen, and strengthened the Muslim world’s confidence that Islamist fighters are more than a match for any opponent, given their defeat of first the Russian and then the U.S.-NATO militaries in Afghanistan.
  • The unprovoked, unnecessary, and ultimately defeated U.S.-led military intervention and occupation of Iraq. This act of Western insanity destroyed the only reliably durable obstacle — Saddam Hussein and his regime — that blocked the westward expansion of the Islamist army that had been incubating in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the Soviet’s Afghan invasion in 1979. Saddam’s demise (a) opened an easily traveled, westward-heading highway for the Islamist to move from Pakistan’s tribal region to Morocco’s Atlantic coast; (b) removed a mujahideen-hating Sunni tyranny in Iraq, replaced it with an incompetent, Sunni-persecuting Shia tyranny, and along the way created the environment that allowed birth, development, and expansion of the Islamic State (IS); (c) yielded the Islamists’ second defeat of the U.S. superpower; and (d) ultimately created the Islamist forces that attacked Assad’s regime and caused the Syrian-Islamist war which has provided the first batch of migrants is now pouring into Europe.
  • The final direct cause of the EU’s migrant disaster is the destruction of the Qaddafi regime in Libya, and that action is the sole responsibility of David Cameron, Nicholas Sarkozy, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The U.S.-NATO military annihilation of the Libyan regime gave the mujahideen more ordnance than ever before; a large reinforcement of veteran and skilled jihadis; laid open all of North Africa, Egypt, and the Sahel region to the Islamists’ exploitation; gave IS a place to territorially expand and so add to the credibility of its caliphate; and provided nearly 5,100 miles of coastline from which people-smugglers, IS, and al-Qaeda can dispatch a mass of migrants salted with Islamist fighters to the EU.

There, Mr. Osborne and Pope Francis, and not in a tinpot tyrant like Assad, are the self-inflicted causes of Europe’s migrant mess, and they are more than enough reason for you, all EU leaders, the Western media, and U.S. presidents and legislators to feel awfully lucky not to be swinging from tall oaks. The people of the United States and the EU are being bankrupted, having their soldier-children killed; and finding themselves becoming strangers in their own lands solely because of the arrogant, always losing, unconstitutional (at least in the United States), and democracy-mongering military interventions of their leaders. There is no credible evidence that any factor other than the foregoing caused the migrant tide.

But what will be the West’s answer to solving the migrant problem that its military interventionism has caused, and from which it is now slowly dying economically, militarily, demographically, and culturally? Mr. Osborne deceitfully said it all when he claimed that the problem had to be solved at its “source” in Syria, which means the West can solve the problem created by its military interventionism only by launching another military intervention in Syria. Such an action would, of course, end in yet another U.S.-NATO military defeat, the triumph of the Islamists, and an even larger wave of migration to Europe. Mr. Osborne and those who agree with him are quite simply mad.

At this point in time there seems only one agency by which EU and U.S. leaders can be stopped from destroying the West by their military interventionism in the Muslim world. Elections have proven to make no difference. One Western government or administration replaces another and the interventionism continues, the numbers of dead and maimed Western military and security personnel mount, the bankruptcy of national budgets deepen, and the hordes of unwanted, unneeded, and non-assimilable migrants destroy traditional society, free speech, and the societal bonds that can only be forged by a common language and history.

EU and U.S. leaders have forgotten — perhaps they never learned — that the West’s only obligation is to itself, its preservation, and its posterity. It has no obligation to commit suicide in an effort crafted and supported by the academy’s nation-killing, diversifying, and multicultural charlatans, their enablers in the media, and the likes of such authoritarian leaders as Obama, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, and Hollande.

Because Western elections now seem unable to kill the deadly plague of interventionism, it might well be time for EU and U.S. citizens to recall that they pay the politicians who are leading their societies to destruction without popular consent; that it is the citizens who own the government and its military tools; and that it is the citizens who have temporarily delegated to their leaders the power they are abusing, and have the right and duty take it back. Citizens are under no obligation to behave submissively, as if government owns them, and they have every right to seek alternate means of changing matters to their liking if the ballot box is no longer effectual and disaster impends.

A relatively unknown but important founder of the American republic precisely outlined the citizens’ obligation to loyally obey leaders who abide by the law and work for the public good, as well as their equally important obligation to resist them when they do not. “For, please to observe,” the Protestant divine Jonathan Mayhew wrote in 1750,

“that if the end of all civil government be the good of society, if this be the thing aimed at in constituting civil rulers, and if the motive and argument for submission to government be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority, it follows that when no such good end can be answered by submission there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; and if instead of this good end’s being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about and the ruin and misery of society effected by it, here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases a regard to the public welfare ought to make us withhold from our rulers that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render them. … For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously and to resist their prince, even to the dethroning him, is not criminal, but a reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means which God has put in their power for mutual and self-defense. And it would be highly criminal in them not to make use of the means.”

As politicians allow migrants to destabilize the EU and illegal Hispanic immigrants are permitted do the same to the United States, and as EU and U.S. leaders plan yet another military intervention in the Islamic world, Rev. Mayhew’s words ought to be given serious consideration by those among the citizenry of both who are interested in the survival of their nation, culture, free speech, and liberty.

In the meantime, EU leaders ought, for a change, give some thought to Europe’s survival and station their member-states’ navies along the coast of North Africa and order them to forcibly return refugee-filled boats to the shore, even as they direct the EU bureaucracy to prepare the migrants’ return to their home states.