Get PJ Media on your Apple

Faster, Please!

Obama and the Red Queen

September 11th, 2013 - 7:53 am

It all makes sense, but it does not get us to a proper policy. Maybe, as many experts have been saying for some time, there really is no good outcome possible in Syria?

That, too, makes sense to me, and it suggests that we may be trying to solve the wrong problem.  It’s better to ask the strategic question:  “What is the best way to advance American interests in the region?”

That question forces us to look at a broader war.  The slaughter in Iraq may be greater, and there’s plenty of fighting in Afghanistan.  Moreover, there’s a common leitmotif:  As in Syria, Iran is a major actor, sometimes sending its own military (the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force) or its foreign legion (Hezbollah), sometimes arming, training, funding and guiding terror groups, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  We recently learned that Iranian General Suleimani, the Quds Force commander, had ordered killers in Iraq to prepare to attack in the event of an American strike against Assad.

The American government knows that Iran holds the key to progress in Syria.  Indeed, Assad would probably have fallen long since without Iranian support. UN Ambassador Samantha Power said publicly that we sent warnings about chemical weapons to Assad via the Iranians, while Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that bombing Syria would “send a message to Iran.”

Although Power said we were out of non-military options in Syria, there is at least one that might not only produce a better outcome in Syria, but greatly improve our interests in the entire region:

Support the opposition in Iran.

Most Iranians want an end to the theocratic regime, and have taken to the streets against it.   Unlike so many in the Syrian opposition, the Iranians are pro-Western, experienced in self-government, and eager to separate mosque from state.  They don’t need weapons or training; they need political support, probably some money, and good communications gear.  If they win, we get a potential ally, Assad joins the mullahs on history’s rubbish heap, and terrorists all over the world are gravely weakened.

Ask a better question, get a better answer.  And a prize from the Red Queen.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
" They don’t need weapons or training; they need political support, probably some money, and good communications gear. "

I don't think I have ever read such an uninformed opinion as quoted above.

The Iranian freedom fighters need massive financial, military and tactical aid. They are facing one of the most well armed and motivated regimes in the world. The freedom fighters CAN win but not with half-hearted or feint hearted support.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Michael, Michael, Michael ... How long has Obama been with us and still you do not know him?

What all your arguments, pro and con, leave out of their "calculus" is the leadership of the U.S. and its well known positions on the Middle East. Here are a few:

1) Negotiate with Iran no matter what ... whether fair or foul, the Mullahs must be negotiated with, and never challenged in a powerful way. (The game of sanctions did pinch the Iranian government, but that's about it. They can keep going and going even with these sanctions in place. The sanctions weren't powerful).

2) Support the Muslim Brotherhood and its clones.

3) Condemn and refuse to aid any Muslim group that befouls positions 1) or 2). So the Iranian opposition gets no help, and neither does the Military intervention in Egypt.

This is the way things are. Refactor your arguments so that every time there is a mention of DOING such-and-so, rewrite it so it reads "Obama does such-and-so."

Now how much sense do these pro-military action make?

Correct Answer: None at all.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama's mentors past and present had favorite countries.

Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers loved the Communist ones and Valerie Jarrett loved the Puppet Master one and Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said loved another one, and Jeremiah Wright and his buddies at the Nation of Islam loved yet another group of countries.

What NONE of them loved...was America. They weren't "proud" of America and felt it needed to be "transformed" and that enemy actions were "chickens coming home to roost".

We might see this in action if we could ever get our hands on the tape being held hostage by the LA Times...a conspirator after the fact...if not during and before. Certainly there is NO investigative reporting going on about the subject.

We will NEVER attack Iran...directly or indirectly.

We will NEVER attack Russian or Iranian interests with any assertive force.


Therefore, we will make only symbolic gestures toward our real enemies...and deep bows to them as weakling sycophants.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the worldwide Communist collective have this administration's heart. Israel, America and much of the capitalist/democratic West do not.

The Red Queen has a REAL red line. And Obama will not cross it. You read it here first....but you will NOT read it...in the LA Times.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
All of this "what if THIS!" and "what if THAT" can be simplified if we abandon the treacherous waters of expediency for the solid rock of principle:

Syria is a sovereign nation. We have no legal or moral right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

Problem solved. If, at some point, Syria threatens the U.S., we turn it into a wasteland.

Problem solved.

And not only the Syria problem, but a whole host of problems we have created by messing in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

We created Saddam, we created Bin Laden, and on and on and on the sad list goes. All because we think we must be meddling, and surely we know better than timeless principles, so we will decided when and where and how much to stick our nose in where it has no business.

Hmmm. "Business."

And how much of this meddling is driven by business concerns rather than legitimate national security issues?

Will we never learn?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Iran
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only way to destroy Assad without boots on the ground is to commence an all out bombing campaign in Syria. Where do you think that will get us concerning moral authority? To nowhereville and probably an equally heinous assault on us. The militia concept in the US constitution would truly be put to the test. There are too many Americans that are too selfish and self absorbed to convince me that most would defend our country regardless of the risk.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
As long as folk like Daniel Pipes, and Conrad Black, shed light on the escapades that exact a toll on the credibility of those inside the beltway; fuel is added to the fire to alternatives to the status quo.

Michael, did you notice recently in the National Post, about assets of the Iranian government being identified? There are lawsuits that are proceeding in the courts in Canada & the US, launched by those harmed by the Iranian government. It is a start, and frankly straight talk, and straightforward deeds are the best way to reduce the status quo; which is an overly politicized swamp.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, well, well. Wouldn't you know it. This morning we learned that the Obama Administration eased sanctions on Iran in the hope of reigniting talks on its nuclear program.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Two comments:

1. "Sending messages" is improper use of the military. To send a message, use a telegram. Use the military to defeat the enemy. It is the responsibility of the politicians, who properly control our military, to clearly define who the enemy is--on that score, our politicians have earned the grade of "epic fail."

2. Muslim forces do not fight wars by "international standards." They fight using Islamic standards. They care not one whit about "long established taboos." The only taboo in Islamic warfare is "Muslims lose" (or, the "most pure Muslims lose", in the case of Muslim on Muslim warfare). As for what weapons may or may not be used, the only criterion is this--does the attack advance or impede the spread of Islam? If the former, then chemical weapons are just fine and dandy as far as Muslims are concerned--Allah alone decides who dies and how gruesomely--it is the Mohammedan's job to attack and to keep attacking the infidel by any means. So the strategy to stop chemical weapons use in the Middle East should be based on the following concept--we must make sure that Islam itself is tarred and feathered when the chemical weapons are used by any Muslim force. That association will "tarnish the image" of Islam, which will impede the spread of Islam, and thereby will cause the Muslims to switch to some other means of attack. Of course, they might switch to something even worse. So one must always be prepared for that possibility.



50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Great post and comments. Really inspired richly varied insights into a tough mess. It is at times like this that I appreciate the potential of the Internet to enable broad public discussion. Thanks all.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
We have been told.

By the puppet master, the Red Queen, that "It takes a village".

So we commoners need only await the appeals from the Court of the Red Queen, heir to Camelot, to the village elders of that paragon of "fairness, equality and social justice", competence and restraint with other peoples' money the "United" Nations.

Among which honoured elders are these and simiilarly humane protagonists as Zimbabwe, Libya, China et al.

And be led by judgements and decisions of those village elders.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why, oh why, must we make time for this. Idiotic to fear because there is truly nothing to fear. And by that I mean NOTHING beyond our own borders. We have the most powerful military on the planet...and the most incompetent imbecile to sit on a transient throne. Still doesn't take away from what we have; and still can be taken away from the child if need be.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
" They don’t need weapons or training; they need political support, probably some money, and good communications gear. "

I don't think I have ever read such an uninformed opinion as quoted above.

The Iranian freedom fighters need massive financial, military and tactical aid. They are facing one of the most well armed and motivated regimes in the world. The freedom fighters CAN win but not with half-hearted or feint hearted support.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hence it happened that all the armed prophets conquered, all the unarmed perished. .- Niccolo Machiavelli
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All