Since 9/11, Americans have been treated to an ongoing tutorial by the self-professed best-and brightest from America’s universities, media, Christian clergy, and national government explaining how American Muslims become radicalized into Islamist militants. These Muslims, say the country’s brains-trust, are discriminated against by other U.S. citizens; are disenfranchised by poverty; have a hard time transitioning to U.S. society from the Muslim culture they lived in abroad;hate all non-Muslims, or are brain-washed by cynical Islamist leaders and so learn to hate America and become eager to waste their lives in attacking it. These same explanations have been spewed forth by the aforementioned elites ever since the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and now fourteen years they later they are again being served up to explain to the citizenry — really, to mislead the citizenry — what radicalized the Garland, Texas, attackers.
During his term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has shown a decided inability to differentiate between truth and falsehood when talking to Americans and their congressional representatives, more often than not erring on the side of the latter. Those paying attention, for example, will recall General Dempsey repeatedly telling the media, the citizenry, and the Congress that the U.S. military’s training of the Afghan National Army (ANA) had gone splendidly and the ANA would be ready to operate on its own when President Obama’s withdrawal date arrived. Now, we see that Obama’s deadline has been extended and the stay-behind force increased. General Dempsey, unless he has learned nothing in a long taxpayer-funded military career or is plainly brain dead, knew that what he was saying about the ANA was an absurd lie, but he tugged his forelock and lied for the administration.
Americans and Westerners generally have been bombarded with good news, bad news, worried news, optimistic news, and no news about the negotiations of the United States and its partners with Iran aimed at denying Tehran the ability to complete its pretty much built nuclear weapon. The multiple rounds of talks have provided much fodder for the media in their endless search for two things that do not exist: (a) the diplomatic brilliance of President Obama, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton and (b) a gang of powerful fools in Tehran who are willing to allow their nation to be defenseless against three nuclear powers — the U.S., the UK, and Israel — that have threatened Iran’s destruction daily for thirty years. It is funny how we always hear about the Ayatollah’s threat to destroy Israel, but very seldom about Hillary Clinton’s promise to incinerate Iran if it touched a hair on Israel’s pretty little head.
One of the more reality-free themes to come out of the story of the Islamic State’s growing strength and purposeful expansion in Libya and North Africa generally has been the frantic claims by European statesmen — especially those from Italy — that IS intends to use North Africa as a “gateway” to invade Europe. These hysterical fears have even moved the Italians to offer to lead a NATO intervention into Libya to defeat the Islamists. This is the same Italy, remember, that skedaddled from Iraq after a few of its soldiers were killed there by the Islamist fighters. One can only surmise that a Rome-led NATO invasion of Libya would go just fine so long as the invading force suffered no casualties.
This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about “Israel’s right to exist” is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A state’s ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant — and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive — to genuine U.S. national security interests.
The Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran’s Ayatollah is addressed as much to Barack Obama as to the cleric; neither man has a clue about how the American constitutional system works. In his self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, and thin skin, Obama resembles no other president so much as Thomas Woodrow Wilson. In fact, one must wonder if Wilson has not returned from the grave, this time as a Black man but still determined to do as much damage as he can to America in the fields of foreign affairs, national security, and fidelity to the Constitution.
Since the Islamic State (IS) arose in Syria and then Iraq in 2011 it has killed few Americans. Most of those killed chose to be on or near the battlefield, either reporting the war or working in civilian activities. They were where they wanted to be, knew the chances they were taking, bet they would survive, and lost the bet. In other words, these Americans were killed because they wanted to be in a battle zone dominated by a brutal enemy, knew the danger attendant thereto, and paid the price of going to a war as a non-combatant. Too bad, but hardly surprising.
Mayor Giuliani and all Neoconservatives too often confuse the sound of their own voices with the voice of God and therefore expect the great unwashed American citizenry to believe what they have said and do what they have ordered without a second-thought. When Giuliani said that President Obama does not love America, he may have expected the citizenry to collectively stand up and agree. Well, much of it has not done so, and probably will not unless Giuliani can tie an unmeasurable — “love” — to some recognizable metric. Needless to say, he will not be able to do so. One could, I suppose, turn the table on Mayor Giuliani and his Neoconservative brethren and argue that they do not “love” the United States and are disloyal to it because they are always eager to expend American lives, honor, and treasure to support Israel, a nation which is irrelevant to U.S. national security. American patriots, after all, generally do not knowingly waste American money and lives to serve foreign interests that are counterproductive for U.S. national security.
Despair for America’s future security is a difficult sentiment to subdue as events in the Middle East continue unfolding. The U.S. military can neither win wars — hopefully because of political restraint — nor effectively train Arab armies. The leaders of both U.S. political parties refuse to recognize that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and like organizations are indeed — according to 20-years of their own public words and a quick check of the Koran — waging an increasingly popular religious war against the United States, in large part as a response to Washington’s relentless intervention in the Muslim world. The same political leaders and President Obama and his administration have set themselves up as expert Islamic theologians to endlessly assert that the Islamists are madmen and nihilists who have nothing to do with Islam, which is, more than anything else, a signal that they are determined to help the United States commit suicide by refusing to level with Americans and tell them that they are up to their hips in a deadly religious war in which their own government is the enemy’s main motivator.
Now, if someone told you that the Congress of the United States invited a foreign leader to address it without coordinating with the president and seeking his approval, the natural reaction, I think, would be to respond that while such an invitation might be legal, it clearly is a case of the legislative branch arrogantly ignoring the executive’s prerogatives in the conduct of foreign policy. Even though the Obama administration does not have a coherent or commonsense foreign policy, the Congress’s action can only make the Obama-made overseas mess worse and thereby further undermine U.S. security. Constitutional prerogatives ought to be honored — in letter and spirit — by all three branches of government, and so this unilateral congressional invitation ought to set off some alarm bells.