|
July 12, 2007
Realpolitik is one thing, but this is ridiculous...
Former CIA Director James Woolsey has co-authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal that I think ought to be read by everyone. Basically, he says that the British finally get it, but the Americans don't. On the eve of his departure from office, Mr. Blair gave a television interview taking on those he once courted -- British Islamists who have been quick to level charges of Islamophobia and oppression against Britain and the United States: "The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle [against terror] is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, 'It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified.' . . . Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism."Meanwhile, Bush is busy not only inviting hateful Saudi Wahhabists to important outreach events in the U.S., he's letting them act as gatekeepers to keep out genuine moderate Muslims: ....they excluded the truly moderate, who are not Saudi-founded or funded: the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the American Islamic Congress, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the Center for Eurasian Policy, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the Islam and Democracy Project, the Institute for Gulf Affairs, the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia and many others.Reading the whole thing made me very angry. I can only hope that Bush still has some sort of secret plan to lull the Saudis into a false sense of security, the way he lured the suicidal Saudi Salafists into Iraq. (I can dream, can't I?) These days, there are plenty of reports and opinion pieces about al Qaeda. Predictably, the left focuses on al Qaeda in Aghanistan and Pakistan (and the "war we should have fought"), while the right focuses on al Qaeda in Iraq (which is, after all, the war we're fighting right now). But few mention the Saudi role in al Qaeda, even though the Saudis and al Qaeda are inextricably intertwined. Bret Stephens (also writing in the Wall Street Journal) understands that there's an ongoing, institutionalized problem of American cluelessness: Take the case of career diplomat Francis Riccardione, currently the U.S. ambassador to Egypt. In interviews with the Egyptian media, Mr. Riccardione has said that American officials have "no right to comment" on the case of Ayman Nour, the former opposition leader imprisoned on trumped-up charges; that faith in Egypt's judiciary is "well-placed," and that president Hosni Mubarak -- now in his 26th year in office -- "is loved in the U.S." and "could win elections [in America] as a leader who is a giant on the world stage." Mr. Riccardione also admits he "enjoyed" a recent film by Egyptian artist Shaaban Abdel Rahim, best known for his hit song "I Hate Israel."What nearly brought tears to my eyes was reasong about U.S. diplomats undermining the struggle by Indonesians against Wahhabism: Mr. Taylor, a former telecom executive who moved to Jakarta in the 1990s and speaks fluent Indonesian, has engaged influential and genuinely reform-minded Muslims -- as opposed to the faux "moderates" on whom Mr. Bush lavished praise at the Islamic Center -- to articulate and defend a progressive and tolerant version of Islam.That's pretty sickening. You'd almost think the State Department was being run by Rosie O'Donnell. Or Helen Thomas. Although in fairness (as Glenn also notes) she wasn't elected. It may be that Bush is no longer in control of the situation. Perhaps a basic history lesson is in order. I wish the president would read what Glenn linked earlier from Don Surber in response to the Byrd/Clinton axis (to which I'd add the Saudis, O'Donnell, and Thomas): "The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq," Byrd and Clinton wrote. "They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."Don Surber concludes by suggesting that Senator Byrd reread his Roman history -- especially "the parts about the fall of Rome." I doubt that would help. Besides, Byrd is 89. Rome will outlast him. Seriously, I don't think the fall of Rome is upon us yet, but I do think Bush would do better to listen to history than the Saudis. Or Helen Thomas. posted by Eric on 07.12.07 at 10:12 PM
Comments
Actually, In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. Since we had a defense treaty with South Korea we needed to get troops over there to bolster South Korean defenses. Big problem, our shipping was totally inadequate. Not because we didn't have the ships --- had plenty of those left over from the war, but because we didn't have the men. Japan had the men, just not the ships. So Tokyo approached Washington DC with a proposal. We'll man the ships that get your people over to Korea, you end the occupation. The armistice remains in place (technically, we were still at war), and we'll discuss basing rights etc. later on. After some dickering the Japanese got their country back, the Japanese navy helped man the cargo ships we needed to get troops and supplies to Korea, and the rest is history. Note also that while the American occupation of Japan lasted there were very few acts of anti-American violence, and no organized resistence. When the Emperor said we are going to accept the unacceptable and endure the unendurable, that's what you did. Not because the Emperor of Japan has any real power, but because a good Japanese citizen simply does not disappoint his Emperor. That would be rude. So throughout the Korean war shipments between Japan and Korea was basically the responsibility of the old Imperial Japanese Navy, and this at a time when we were still, pro forma, at war with each other. Aint politics wonderful? :) Alan Kellogg · July 13, 2007 03:45 PM In Germany as well, I doubt there many attacks against the occupying Americans. Comparing that period with today's occupation of Iraq is a bit blinkered. Neal J. King · July 17, 2007 03:01 PM The kernel of the problem is, and was, oil. Without oil, none of these conflicts would have global impact. Without oil, I think even the Arab-Israeli problem would have long ago run out of steam. None of the despotic regimes, which the U.S. has supported in the past and is supporting now, would have been able to maintain themselves without the economic and political clout bestowed by oil. Neal J. King · July 19, 2007 04:03 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
American Morality Will your blog be censored as "hate speech"? Or as "spam"? Magical new technology creates signs that work! America Fights The Jihadis 1776 - 2007 Pagan fertility aids disrespected by Homeric donut? Conventional wisdom -- please do not disturb! correlating co-rumination Whatever happened to "working class hero"? Or "day job"? Physicists Should Stick To Physics
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric,
Last year, I, too, wrote an article on American naivete using a book on the OSS in WWII as my source. If you're interested, it's here
Hope you enjoy it.