There seems to be great Republican resistance to the idea that their interventions in Iraq and the Muslim world are the main cause of both the mess in Iraq and the growing and increasingly powerful worldwide Islamist movement. To the extent that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic senators and congressmen joined the Republicans in illegally delegating the war-declaring power to George W. Bush there is a point to the Republicans’ resistance. The correct formulation of the statement is that both parties are equally responsible for the mess in Iraq and for the formidable Islamist foe that now exists. Also a correct statement is that the bulk of both parties now want the United States to become an even stronger motivator of and recruiter for the Islamists by expanding the military re-intervention in Iraq that began in the summer of 2014. Before that occurs it would be best to review a few facts:
Those men who wrote our Constitution made it perfectly intelligible to anyone who cared to read it. They also left some flexibility in its articles to ensure that as time passed and circumstances changed the document would remain viable as the indispensable protector of the republic they created and of the liberty of citizens who delegated a limited amount of their sovereign power to the national government through its provisions. And after a long and often angry ratification debate, the first congress added a bill of rights to the Constitution as that document’s first ten amendments. These amendments were fully as clear as the text — perhaps more so — but less flexible than the body of the document because they dealt with the tenets of republican liberty which, if regularly and deliberately violated by the national government, would require that Americans, to paraphrase Jefferson, demolish the existing government and erect a new one that would better safeguard their liberties and their republic’s security.
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.