Middle East

The Republicans in opposition

by

Bill Kristol (corrected thanks to Joe) has an excellent column today on where Republicans could go in the next four years. I have little confidence that the House GOP can bend Obama to their will on the deficit or spending. He is riding high with the aid of the mainstream press and TV. The public does not understand the spending issue, or at least not enough of us do. The Republicans represent the “Eat your vegetables or there will be no dessert” philosophy and that is not popular right now. What do we do ? Here is one suggestion.

He quotes UN Ambassador Pat Moynihan in 1975.

The United States goes into opposition. This is our circumstance. We are a minority. We are outvoted. This is neither an unprecedented nor an intolerable situation. The question is what do we make of it. So far we have made little—nothing—of what is in fact an opportunity. We go about dazed that the world has changed. We toy with the idea of stopping it and getting off. We rebound with the thought that if only we are more reasonable perhaps “they” will be. .”‰”‰.”‰”‰. But “they” do not grow reasonable. Instead, we grow unreasonable. A sterile enterprise which awaits total redefinition.

I feel much the same way. I would have much preferred the GOP to have voted “present” when the “fiscal cliff” matter was before the House. I would like to see them do the same when the debt ceiling issue is voted on. Let Obama have his way but show that we do not agree.

Read more

How About Gun Control for Terrorist-Sympathizing Anti-Semitic National Leaders?

by

Well, it took a few days, but the news about Egyptian leader Mohamed Morsi’s anti-Semitic rant (from late 2010..he referred to Israeli Jews as “bloodsuckers” and “descendents of apes and pigs”) has finally been picked up by traditional media outlets. (A video of the speech, with English subtitles, can be found here.)

We already knew about Morsi’s demands that the U.S. release  Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Morsi is considered to be “one of the world’s leading theologians of terrorism.”

We already knew about Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood connections, about his centralization of power, about his affinity for Sharia law. We already knew about the increasing oppression of Christians in Egypt.

So why is the U.S. proceeding with plans to give Egypt 20 F-16 fighters and 200 Abrams tanks?

Hey President Obama–you want to talk about guns?

The F-16 carries an M61A1 Vulcan gun, which fires 20mm projectiles at the rate of 6000 rounds per minute, in addition to various ground-attack and air-to-air missiles.

The Abrams tank carries a 120mm smoothbore gun with a muzzle velocity of more than a mile per second…even with an earlier generation of ammunition it could penetrate 22 inches of armor at more than a mile, and this performance has since been improved. The Abrams also carries three machine guns and a sophisticated ballistic computer system.

So, Mr Obama…do you think Mohamed Morsi can pass the background check to qualify for the ownership of such weapons?

 

The Coming Dangerous Decade

by

We now have a re-elected president Obama who no longer has to face another election. He has “more flexibility”” as he assured Russian president Medvedev. His cabinet appointments so far give us a good view of what the next four years, at least, will bring. David Ingatius gives us the leftist view of the future in a Washington Post story.

Thinking about Eisenhower’s presidency helps clarify the challenges and dilemmas of Barack Obama’s second term. Like Ike, Obama wants to pull the nation back from the overextension of global wars of the previous decade. Like Ike, he wants to trim defense spending and reduce the national debt.

I would hardly call Obama an example of Eisenhower-like determination in national defense. Ignatius seems to believe that Israel is an ally best abandoned.

Read more

Syria, Iran and the Wars Ahead

by

David P. Goldman:

Is there a better way to handle the Syrian calamity? I believe so.
 
First, neutralize Iran, by which I mean air strikes to destroy its nuclear weapons program and a few other military capabilities. That would remove the Assad regime’s main source of support. It would also make the Turks dispensable: without the Iranian threat, the Turkish army is just a makework program with obsolete weapons. Let the Alawites have their enclave, and let the Sunni Arabs have a rump state, minus the Syrian Kurds, whose autonomy would be an important step towards an eventual Kurdish state. The Turks and the Russians would be the biggest losers.

The USA isn’t likely to do this, which was probably Goldman’s point. It’s possible that the Iranian regime will collapse or that Israel will attack. The near-term odds of the regime falling on its own seem slim. The odds of an Israeli attack are probably increasing as the Israeli Right seems likely to increase its parliamentary majority. But an Israeli attack is far from certain and might not succeed in any event. It therefore seems likely that Syria will continue to fester, that Iran’s imperial ambitions will remain unchecked until there is a regional war, and that nuclear weapons will spread at a faster rate than otherwise. Eventually someone will use a nuke, or two or three, and then what? Richard Fernandez points out that we haven’t been thinking seriously about such things. Maybe it’s time to start. It doesn’t look like containment is going to work this time.

Suckas

by

American Jews who voted for Obama, here’s your thanks. Enjoy. You can rationalize your foolishness by blaming everything on Bibi and those nasty Likudniks (never mind that Israeli voters, who paid a high cost in blood for the harebrained appeasement policies implemented between 1993 and 2005, now keep giving the Likud governing pluralities).

As Israel’s “peace partners” become increasingly hostile, Obama and his crew of leftist ideologues, Islamist apologists and Israel haters double down on pressing Israel to risk more lives and treasure while demanding nothing of Israel’s adversaries. But hey, we don’t want anyone to accuse us Jews of having dual loyalties, do we? Better to support Obama’s failed policies that weaken the USA and its allies. Or something. Intellectually, I sort of understand how leftist Jews can put partisan politics above national interest and self-interest, or (most likely, I think) can define national and self-interest as synonymous with the goals of leftist partisan politics. But emotionally, I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t you eagerly support a democratic country run by your own people and allied with the USA, against the warlords, dictatorships and gangster satrapies that would destroy it? Another one of life’s mysteries.