Anti-Americanism has Always been in Vogue

With how bad the world--and many Americans--hate America today, you'd think it was all George W. Bush's fault. In reality, it's mostly democracy's fault. A lot of people don't like the fact that America taught people to think for themselves.

We protest not just against any nuclear weapons. We protest against America's.

We protest not just against any death penalty. We protest against America's.

We protest not against fanatic Jihadists who think it nothing to kill their fellow Iraqis and Muslims. It's America's fault.

Why? People have hated America nearly since its inception, because they despise liberty and free markets. The BBC delves into this fetish in a piece called "Death to US: Anti-Americanism Examined".

In the article I read on the subject, the author said

...this is not a recent migration brought on by Mr Bush. In May 1944 (just weeks before American GIs landed on the beaches of Normandy), Hubert Beuve-Mery, the founder of Le Monde newspaper - certainly no mouthpiece of the right - wrote this: "The Americans represent a real danger for France, different from the one posed by Germany or the one with which the Russians may - in time - threaten us. The Americans may have preserved a cult of Liberty but they do not feel the need to liberate themselves from the servitude which their capitalism has created. "

It is time that we understood that this attitude, this contempt for what democracy can do, is at the heart of at least some of the anti-Americanism we see in the world today.

The Cost of Abandonment

The Tet Offensive was a major American defeat in the Viet Nam war, right? Wrong. It came to be seen as such because Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, and others convinced a significant portion of Americans that such was the case. From that point on, public opinion went downhill, and the ability of the US military to serve its purpose in Indochina went with it.

Then Richard Nixon became hounded by the Democrats. Seeing potential impeachment on his horizon, President Nixon resigned. Thereafter, there was no more stomach for the Viet Nam war. So we just packed up and left. And the Vietnamese lived happily ever after, right?

Wrong.

Liberals never cared about the Vietnamese. They only cared about winning. And that meant that that America had to lose in Vietnam. The only Vietnamese that liberals really ever cared about were the relatively few who were just like them--who lusted for power and domination over their fellow man.

American liberals got just what they wanted, and they never apologized for the mayhem. Because they won!

Following the unceremonious departure of America from Vietnam, thousands of Vietnamese were rounded up, tortured, and killed. Tens of thousands were forcibly relocated. Tens of thousands more fled the country on makeshift boats, many of which were not seaworthy, causing thousands more to die. The carnage of man's domination over man spilled over into neighboring Cambodia, where terrorists forced nearly everyone (but themselves) from their homes. Ultimately the lives of 2 million Cambodians were taken from them by the relative few who knew what was best for them. This amounted to nearly one third of the entire Cambodian population.

Abandonment is costly. Is Iraq different? It's pretty hard to say, but I think not. Will the same thing happen in Iraq when we leave? The likelihood is much greater that it will than is the likelihood that man is causing global warming. But which problem are liberals focused on?

I don't know for sure what would happen if the US and coalition forces exercised as precipitous an exit from Iraq as we did from Vietnam. But liberals don't care. Because they will have won.

The Tet Offensive was a major setback for the Vietcong--until Walter Cronkite convinced the American media, and the media in turn convinced the American people--that it wasn't. In much the same way, today, liberals highlight the negative incidents in Iraq, unfairly convincing a majority of Americans that Operation Iraqi Freedom has no chance for success. Our resolve is flagging in just the same manner as it did in Vietnam.

Because liberals don't care about Iraqis, except to use them as poster children when they are in pain. Liberals only care about winning. And in their minds, that means that America must lose the OIF campaign.

More Guantanamo Revelations

More revelations are coming from the Guantanamo Bay facility about treatment of prisoners. And it's not pretty. If it's really happening, we should be outraged. But it's hard to tell because there is so much dissimulation when it comes to the facts.

Prisoners tell of being isolated for long periods of time. They speak of being physically abused. They speak of being mentally abused. They speak of having to sleep on stone floors with nothing but thin blankets.

Their torturers were becoming "aggressive and unstable". It became clear to some of them that if they didn't cooperate with their captors, they would not live to see the next day.

Because of such irrational behavior, the prisoners feel forced to admit their guilt, and any pictures of them at all are shown only in rare times of relaxation, when the cameras can catch smiles on their faces.

On at least one occasion, a group of prisoners was lined up along a wall, their heads blindfolded, and the thugs behind them could be heard loading their rifles. Several of this group of prisoners were sure that they were about to be executed.

For acts as despicable as these, the handlers at Guantanamo should be...wait...

Just a sec...

Oh, this happened in Iran? To British hostages?

Well, never mind. It's okay then.

No, it's really not. If someone did this to you, would you think it was okay?

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'."

"After that comment someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut."

It's beyond the height of irony that liberals chastise the Bush administration for supposed torture in Guantanamo, but give the Iranian regime a free pass! If it's wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter who does it. So let's see, liberals, if you have any integrity.

Call the Iranians out! I dare you.

Whether or Not to "Insert [Ourselves] into an International Crisis"

Prior to leaving for its two-week spring break, the US House of Representatives was not able to consider a resolution condemning Iran for taking 15 British hostages. The Senate passed a resolution of condemnation, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not let a similar resolution come to a vote in the House.

Pelosi's press secretary had this to say about the failure to introduce the resolution:

The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful.

Shortly thereafter, Speaker Pelosi flew off to the Middle East to insert herself into an international crisis.

At least the whole Congress wasn't involved, I guess...

Do you think her insertion was "helpful"?

Iraqi Oil Contracts Likely Not to Go to Western Firms

I'm not sure how this one will pan out, but it's interesting that CNN Money is reporting that Iraqi oil contracts will go not to the United States or other Western firms, but to companies from such places as China, India, Indonesia, and Viet Nam.

The Iraqi government is putting the finishing touches on the policy that will determine who gets those contracts, but are they doing this independently?

A couple of possible reasons exist for awarding the contracts to Asian firms:

• An obligation to fulfill "agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government."
• They did not participate in the UN sanctions against Iraq, and continued to work in Iraq's oil fields during that period.
• The initial contracts awarded will be small, and western firms "are just biding their time".

Some claim that these contracts are proof that the Bush Administration was not in Iraq for the oil. However, the Bush Administration and representatives from the International Monetary fund had a chance to look at the draft law before it went to the Iraqi parliament.

The initial contracts are for relatively small volumes of oil. It is alleged that western firms are sitting back, waiting for when larger contracts are awarded.

It's too early to tell what's up.

Secretary of State Pelosi Solves Iranian Hostage Crisis

The Associated Press implied in a story today that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in getting the 15 British hostages released from Iran. That actually may be the case, but pay no attention to the 'man behind the curtain' which is that Speaker Pelosi's actions are bordering on treasonous.

Imagine if, during the civil war, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax would have visited the south and negotiated behind Abraham Lincoln's back. Such chicanery as Mrs. Pelosi's has never before been attempted, and there are many who think that it can somehow have a healthy result.

It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Executive department to be the Commander in Chief during wartime. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Executive department to deal in affairs of state. By implication, even though she is only two heartbeats away from the presidency, it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Speaker of the House to keep their nose out of such business, especially when it comes to cavorting with a declared terrorist state.

These sentiments have nothing to do with whether the current Executive, George W. Bush is doing a good job. In fact, in most instances, I think he and his administration are doing a poor job.

But he is the president. If someone (several people) don't want him to be the President, because he lied or tortures people or says "nukyaler" or whatever, then they need to draw up impeachment proceedings. Far worse than the supposed problems being caused by the Bush Administration currently (one opinion I recently heard is that Americans have now killed 650,000 Iraqis, and that is a conservative estimate) is the absolute chaos that is brewing in America due to the thoughts of enough Bush haters who think Bush should either be thrown out of office or ignored, the Constitution apparently be damned.

Stop for a moment to think how vulnerable the United States becomes when, in effect, two diametrically opposed foreign policies are being promulgated in the most volatile region of the planet.

Terrorist groups have spoken, and they love what they are seeing.

It's working. Pandora is stirring. Pelosi, Syria's Bashar Assad, Iran's Ahmadinejad, and the terrorists they support are getting the last laugh. Yes they place blame for the capture and ill-treatment of the British sailors--on President George W. Bush.

When Britain and the European Union, who influence 40% of Iran's trade, had a chance to make a difference, they flinched.

A travesty.

Iranian Lunacy and the Counterattack Options Available to Us

It is now becoming clear that the Iranian government is a pariah among nations. What's important to remember is that the Iranian people aren't. If, in reaction to the latest smooth move by the Iranian government, we attack Iran with guns and bombs, we will be taking exactly the wrong action.

Kenneth Timmerman was a guest commentator on The Right Balance with Greg Allen this morning, and he reminded us of this looming fact. Timmerman's sources inside Iran state that the kidnapping of the Brits was a carefully planned and coordinated effort. He reports that they are also "trolling" for any Americans they can find in Iran to hold as pawns as well. He also reminded us that many economic options exist for Britain and the world to put the thumb screws to Iran.

For example, forty percent of Iran's gasoline needs are provided from outside the country. Iran has very little refining capacity. It would not be difficult to shut of a significant portion of their resources.

The Iranian people are very pro-American. To attack Iran with military materiel would very likely cause them to turn against us.

Accent Radio Network News reported this morning the reaction of several Iranians to the kidnapping of the British Marines and sailors. Several Iranians were baffled by their government's decision to kidnap the Brits as Iran was not at war with them. Many rank and file Iranians wish their government would release the hostages posthaste.

As it stands, many Iranians are on our side. I hope the Bush administration doesn't go off half cocked again and give them something to hate us for.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis 28 Years Later

The Iranians have taken hostages. And judging by the world's actions toward previous provocations, they're banking that we'll act just as stupidly as we did the last time. Will the United States use this event as another 'Gulf of Tonkin' provocation to attack Iran?

What are the chances that the British vessel from which 15 sailors were captured by the Iranian military was actually in Iranian waters? If you ask Rosie O'Donnell, that is a fact beyond dispute. I'm not so sure. But what is the chance that the Bush Administration will use the international incident to further fan the flames of American hatred toward Iran and use it as further provocation that we attack Iran? Fairly high, as they have already used a great many incidents as provocation to widen the Iraq war, and they have already made detailed plans for attack.

I hope that Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress do not abdicate their duty this time, but rather tell Bush that he does not have carte blanche authority to attack Iran.

Interestingly, President Jimmy Carter, in his attempt to be humanitarian, helped the current regime to gain power. The Ayatollah Khomeini's government killed more people in its first year than the Shah killed in its quarter century of rule.

But that is as beside the point as is the point that Bush lied to the American people to get us into Iraq. In both cases, the facts of the present require us to deal with them rather than worry and whine about what could have been. However, we still can stop what might be. And it is incumbent upon Congress to act with a firm resolve this time around.

The New American Magazine (linked above) makes the following interesting observations:

Denials notwithstanding, the evidence suggests that the Bush administration is fully committed to a “pre-emptive” war against Iran, possibly as early as April. Though the administration claims that it is pursuing all diplomatic means available to avert a war with Iran, President Bush has been concentrating naval, air, and missile forces on Tehran’s doorstep. Almost any provocation or pretext could now trip the hair trigger that has been put in place and unleash a full-scale war that would quickly dwarf the war in Iraq...

The build-up has been ominous. In early January President Bush deployed a Patriot Missile battalion from Fort Bliss, Texas, to the Middle East. Why? The Patriots are for shooting down missiles. But the Sunni insurgents don’t have missiles....

Which brings us to the gathering American armada in the Persian Gulf region. On February 20, the USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier, and its accompanying strike group joined the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group in the Sea of Oman. The Stennis strike group also includes the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam and guided-missile destroyers USS O’Kane and USS Preble. The USS Nimitz carrier group is headed to the area, ostensibly to replace the USS Eisenhower. But there is good reason to suspect that rather than replace the Eisenhower, the plan may actually be for it to join the gathering naval firepower, which also includes British and Australian vessels.

In addition, U.S. Air Force units in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the region reportedly have been gearing up for major action. Special operations teams have also reportedly stepped up activities inside Iran over the past several months, including ops teams that provide laser guidance to direct precision bombs to their targets.

For now, I think Bush has made terrible mistakes in Iraq from which we can recover. But if he decides to attack Iran, I will conclude that he wants to create problems from which America likely can't recover.

9/11: An Islamic Counter Attack

Following the attacks on America on September 11, 2001, many Americans divided themselves neatly into two camps. Camp 1 said, 'We deserved to be attacked because American government meddles in the affairs of too many other nations.' Camp 2 countered with 'We deserved to be attacked because God is punishing us for our sins.' The reality is somewhere in the middle, but interestingly there are hints of truth in the statements of both Camp 1 and Camp 2 .

Over the past several years I have worked with a few computer programmers who are from foreign countries. I've asked some of them what is their impression of America. What strikes me is their explanation of what their impression was of America before the came here, and how it has changed since they got here. Prior to coming to America their only perspective was what they saw at the movies and on television, which was (and still is) predominantly immoral. But when they came to America, they realized that our entertainment media reflected the reality for only a tiny sliver of our society, and that most Americans are basically good, honest, respectful, respectable people.

While I was in Iraq, one of my fellow soldiers told me of the experience of having been asked by an American reporter visiting Iraq if he had ever thought what it must be like to be an insurgent. I told my buddy at the time that my opinion would have been that I didn't give a [crap] what an insurgent felt like, because he has no business being an insurgent. Although I still think there is no excuse for killing innocent people, as insurgents often do, I now think it is interesting to delve into the thoughts of members of the insurgency. I find their thoughts are very rational. There are things that Americans and other westerners who have no ties whatsoever to the military have done to incite the Islamic insurgency.

Could 9/11 have been prevented? By many means. But there is one clear way that America could have avoided even the contemplation of being attacked. This way is presented clearly in the writings and sayings of every well-known representative of radical Islam. It is the reason why so many Muslims rejoiced on that poignant September day nearly 6 years ago.

The opinion of "Camp 1" is correct insofar that we were attacked because we have too much influence on other nations. Ironically, the influence that encouraged the 9/11 attackers was not that of American foreign policy as so many in Camp 1 believe. Rather it is the influence that many in Camp 1 themselves exert.

The perspective of "Camp 2" is correct insofar that we were attacked because of our sins. God was not our punisher, however. Radical Muslims anointed themselves to be.

Whether right or wrong, the reason that America was attacked on 9/11 is that the Islamic world feels like it was attacked first. They attacked us with airplanes because we first attacked them with debauchery.

To be continued...

Back on The Right Balance

I was invited to appear on The Right Balance with Greg Allen again yesterday. We continued right where we left off a few weeks ago, and I was very pleased with the outcome. I hope you will be, too. We were able to talk about the spiritual aspect of the war on terrorism, and how our faith makes us want to serve.

Greg is a member of the Society of Quakers, the other guest, Dave Jeffers, is an Evangelical, and I am a Mormon. But it was an interesting meeting of the religious minds during the segment. Dave's son Eddie is currently serving in Iraq.

We agreed that everyone--Quaker, Evangelical, Muslim, Mormon, so on and so forth--is a child of God, and that we should treat one another as such.

We talked about how it seems, despite the problems with the war in Iraq, caused largely by the mismanagement of the Bush Administration, we feel like we're part of something big, something magnificent that can ultimately bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

We discussed the concept that everyone was born with a conscience, and nearly everyone can distinguish good from evil. And that nearly everyone yearns for freedom, because freedom feels good.

So take a listen. (It's broken up into 3 segments, because my hosting service charges me for larger than 10MB files!)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

The best counter-insurgency tactic is to let the people know you care.

The second best counter-insurgency tactic is to let the people know you share their values.