Sixteen inch Typeface
The Washington Post recently described a possible plan to strike at targets within Pakistan in the event of a major attack on the US originating from there . Anonymous officials quoted by the Post “stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.” The article is fairly complimentary, but a Heritage Foundation blog is not impressed, calling it a sad attempt at deterrence by press release, one of many recent efforts by the administration that try “to look conciliatory and humble and at the same time ‘reserved the right’ to look tough” and wind up, in Heritage’s estimate, doing neither.
Heritage writes that “military contingency planning is supposed to be secret. Why this information is getting out is far from clear.” It argues that by telegraphing its moves the administration is giving its enemies time to clear out. Moreover, it tells American enemies all over the world (if any may be so called now that the War on Terror is over) that America will be reactive. It will only strike if a catastrophic attack threshold has been passed. The Heritage blog says:
If it is meant as a deterrent–forget it. Odds are if al Qaeda and the Taliban knew they could prompt attacks on Pakistan by striking the US they would just up their efforts–knowing that large-scale unilateral strikes on Pakistan would put US and Pakistani officials at each others throats. Plus, thanks for the heads-up, America! Now, they can start taking countermeasures–dispersing more widely, hiding in the cities. …
Problem Two. If letting this out is supposed to make the administration “look tough”–forget that too. Basically, what this says is that we are going to wait for the next 9/11–just like last time–and then respond. That is just idiotic …
But no great disruptions may occur because the nuanced policymakers have balanced threat with reassurance. To forestall any Pakistani suspicion that America may strike at them, the Washington Post also reports that the administration is pushing for closer partnership with the ISI, chiefly by admitting them to intelligence “fusion centers”. In that way the ISI can see for itself exactly what American capabilities are; where US forces are deployed and at what targets the US strike. Armed with such reassuring knowledge, the Pakistani authorities are less likely to object to any unilateral strike when it comes, because they know who the possible targets are. The Post continues:
In the Peshawar fusion cell, which was set up within the last several months, Pakistanis have access to “full-motion video from different platforms,” including unarmed surveillance drones, one official said.
The fusion centers also serve a broader U.S. aim: making the Pakistanis more dependent on U.S. intelligence, and less likely to curtail Predator drone patrols or other programs that draw significant public opposition.
To Pakistan, the fusion centers offer a glimpse of U.S. capabilities, as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military operations across the border. “They find out much more about what we know,” one of the senior U.S. military officials said. “What we get is physical presence — to see what they are actually doing versus what they say they’re doing.”
That delicate arrangement will be tested if the two sides reach agreement on the fusion center near Quetta. The city has served for nearly a decade as a sanctuary for Taliban leaders who fled Afghanistan in 2001 and have long-standing ties to Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.
Like gamblers on an old-time riverboat, the rule is all cards on top of the table. But it might hard to figure out whether the Pakistanis are holding out because of restrictions on the taking of prisoners make it difficult to check. Special Operations tried it once and it got objected to. US Special Operations Forces have repeatedly asked for permission to take prisoners for interrogation instead of relying of “CIA drone strikes [which] do not yield prisoners or other opportunities to gather intelligence”. The Washington Post says “a 2008 U.S. helicopter raid against a target in Pakistan prompted protests from officials in Islamabad who oppose allowing U.S. soldiers to operate within their country.”
So now the US is out of the prisoner interrogation game. One factor hampering the US is where to put such prisoners. A Reuters article datelined May 18, 2010 reported that after the closure of Guantanamo Bay “there is nowhere to put them”; and so they are simply blown up by the CIA.
Presumably the Pakistanis can still take prisoners. Recently one of the suspects in the recent Times Square bomb attack, a former major in the Pakistani Army, was arrested by Pakistani intelligence. They subsequently released him after clearing him “of any wrongdoing”. However, the major in question was dismissed from the military in the first place “because he had ties to banned organizations” the extent of which Islamabad would not reveal. These and other circumstances provide reasons to suspect the Times Square incident itself may have roots within the Pakistani military – the American partners in the fusion centers.
Adnan Ahmad and his brother were among at least 11 people that Pakistan has rounded up since the failed attack May 1. Two other suspects face allegations of involvement in the plot, but no one in Pakistan has been charged.
Ahmad’s detention was especially sensitive because of ongoing U.S. suspicion that elements in Pakistan’s military and intelligence world who are sympathetic to Islamist causes have assisted would-be jihadists. … The main suspect in the car bomb case, Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad, is being held by U.S. authorities. Shahzad is the son of a former Pakistani air force officer.
The Times Square bomber was the son of not just any air force officer, but of former Pakistani Air Vice Marshal Baharul Haq. The former Air Vice Marshal hurriedly left his home in the aftermath of the Times Square bombing report. A Pakistani newspaper explains:
Air Vice Marshal (R) Baharul Haq, father of Faisal Shahzad, the accused in New York’s failed bomb plot, hurriedly vacated the family home in Hayatabad town here late Tuesday apparently to avoid attention. Eyewitnesses said he packed some belongings in a vehicle and left the house located in Phase IV of the posh Hayatabad town along with male and female members of the family. Their destination wasn’t known.
“Hold your friends close but your enemies closer” may be a good adage for a gangster movie, but it should never be used as a rationale for admitting your enemies into council. A suspicious person might want to independently check on the reliability of America’s Pakistani allies before showing them the Crown Jewels. The desire to obtain an alternative channel of intelligence may be one reason why General David Petraeus signed a secret order in September 2009 to send “American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate. ” Petraeus was creating an collateral source of intel through the secret order. But it is secret no more. The New York Times, leaked the order, explaining:
The order, which an official said was drafted in close coordination with Adm. Eric T. Olson, the officer in charge of the United States Special Operations Command, calls for clandestine activities that “cannot or will not be accomplished” by conventional military operations or “interagency activities,” a reference to American spy agencies. … The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. …
some Pentagon officials worry that the expanded role carries risks. The authorized activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen — which might allow the operations but be loath to acknowledge their cooperation — or incite the anger of hostile nations like Iran and Syria. Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.
Ralph Peters, writing in the NY Post, calls the NYT article “just another act of deadly treason … yesterday, the New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document. This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.”
But Peters could be wrong about the treason. Heritage speculates the leaks are at the behest of an administration eager to strike a balance; to “look tough” yet tip the US hand in such a way that neither Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan feel remotely threatened. The New York Times might simply be using its front page as sixteen inch typeface ordnance in the service of engagement and diplomacy as suggested to it by “officials”. Far from being treason it is the ‘highest form of patriotism’. That Peters may fail to grasp the game is merely due to his incapacity to appreciate nuance; where the left can undo what the right hand does, in a demonstration of sophistication which the public, had it more wit, would regard with awe. In the game of Washington power chess, Petraeus checks and the NYT checkmates. But no treason was intended; that is only the way the game is played. Yet the Heritage Foundation may ultimately be correct. The administration may be outsmarting itself and imagining it is accomplishing something with these complicated maneuvers when it is really running around in circles. The American definition of the British phrase “too clever by half” may describe the Administration’s strategy more accurately than the original British sense. The Urban Dictionary says the phrase means:
is to be too smart for one’s own good, meant either literally or ironically. As an idiom, it is usually sarcastic. The phrase has a wide range of potential uses; for instance, it can mean: 1.) Something so complex that it’s self-obfuscating. 2.) A seemingly clever action that is in fact foolish. 3.) Logically accepting something as necessary that isn’t. 4.) Overanalysis. 5.) Elitism
But I think the better phrase is goatrope.
When good intentions go bad, messily. History: From LCDR Charles Breen, USN, who tried to untangle a goat’s rope, only to be bitten by said goat, then to deck same goat, Mongo style, right as busload of tourists rounded the bend in time to think he was beating the crap out of a goat for no reason. This definition dates back to at least 1988.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
We’re going to share more strategic info with the ISI? Seriously?
The fiasco of the Jordanian asset suicide bomber/double-triple agent who killed a bunch of CIA agents isn’t an object lesson on why we shouldn’t do such stupid things?
How large a clue bat does this administration need to be hit over the head with?
“Hold your friends close but your enemies closer” may be a good adage for a gangster movie, but it should never be used as a rationale for admitting your enemies into council. A suspicious person might want to independently check on the reliability of America’s Pakistani allies before showing them the Crown Jewels.
I don’t think there is a Muslim who can be trusted. See the link below on how tricky it can be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/asia/05cia.html
How large a clue bat does this administration need to be hit over the head with?
An alternative explanation is that Obama and the boys know exactly what they’re doing and are too cerebrally rectally inverted to know it’s stupid.
I believe that anybody with experience in start-up companies will attest that academics make terrible business executives. They already know everything there is to know about anything and can only see challenging viewpoints as an expression of disloyalty and a threat to their authority.
That pretty much describes this administration. We have a bunch of Harvard sophomores who walked out of their feminism class straight into the Oval Office.
Cluster F___
A mission, operation or activity gone bad.
Confusion.
(origin) Vietnam
Goat Rope
Similar to a Cluster F___, except that this activity comes from the Head Shed.
All Bravo Sierra to fool the rubes back home. We can’t maintain an army in Central Asia 700 miles from the sea without Paki ports/roads/trucks/drivers/cooperation.
I was wrong. I said that the current administration need a major upgrade to reach incompetence. They need at least two. A clean sheet re-start would be better. 2012 anyone?
If you really want diplomacy by press release, have FOX and CNN ask for permission to install video feeds in Tehran. They should tell the Mullahs they want good shots for the forthcoming bombing.
With the DPRK, you have the Nuclear regulator commission ask to install monitoring equipment for nuclear tests. Since the DPRK is now a nuclear power, the NPT prohibitions against nuking non-nuclear states don’t apply. So it would be perfectly legal to nuke the Norks.
Is that a bumper sticker or what?
NUKE THE NORKS.
Meanwhile, it has been decades since the glow-in-the-dark crowd got a real live test. Instruments have improved considerably since the 1950′s. Two birds with one nuke, so to speak.
U.S. Army Seeks Contractor To Transport Cargo Through Pakistan And Afghanistan
Describing the recent attack on the Ahmadi “places of worship” (they cannot legally be called mosques in Pakistan) the NYT says describes their more or less open approach to their victims. They staged from a “missionary headquarters” and holed up in a mosque before the attack. There are also questions about how the attackers got past the police checkpoint at the Ahmadi “places of worship” gates. So there are bound to be questions about how much the authorities, religious and otherwise, knew about the attack and when they knew it.
But what’s really interesting about the NYT article is how people are at pains to fragment incidents, as if there were no connections. Nothing seems to be related to anything. It writes: “in an unrelated development, a retired army major who was arrested, apparently in connection with the case of the failed car bombing in Times Square, was released by the authorities. … General Abbas denied that the major had been arrested because of ties to Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American arrested by American authorities as the main suspect in the Times Square case.” Why in an unrelated development, and why was the major arrested? Was it for loitering or jaywalking?
Sure. Raymond Ibrahim argues that the current point of view is to consider everything unconnected. In this way there are no religious conspiracies, no conspiracies at all. Everything can be treated like an ordinary crime, just another holdup somewhere, but on a larger scale.
But whether the “glue” as Ralph Peters puts it, is religion or criminality or an intelligence operation, the important thing is to ignore it. The drone sights may rachet downwards but never upward. Finding connections to states or world-religions or major oil powers is to the widen the problem beyond the capacity to deal with it. The major goal of every investigation will be to bound it. To keep a lid on it. Not to find a mastermind; to make sure it doesn’t go where you don’t want it to. Like the torpedoing of the Cheonan the imperative is not to see it for what it is because the political system isn’t prepared to deal with it.
In particular, no one is prepared to contemplate the possibility that Pakistan may on balance be hostile, or that Saudi Arabia is truly the center of the whole Islamist extremism problem (not that it exists, of course) because to admit this publicly would herald the arrival of policy choices none of the current politicians is prepared to face. In all likelihood, Washington is going to try to continue to manage the infection with bribes, drone strikes, sanctions, etc, the way a patient with cancer puts off surgery and continues to treat the problem with painkillers. Because no one, understandably is willing to face the fact that he may be seriously, perhaps terminally, sick. In truth, even facing up the facts, like consenting to an operation, brings no certainty. Maybe the procedure will cure you; or maybe it will kill you; or maybe it will hack half of you away and life isn’t worth living that way anyhow.
But the problem of course if that there’s any chance of remission the smart thing is to act now, while the tumor is still relatively small. Unfortunately the incentives among politicians is to kick the can down the road until it bounces back from the the sheer cliff. And that’s what the Obama administration will do: keep optimizing the short term. By terminating its ability to take prisoners, it is “borrowing” the capability from the Pakistanis with interest. Deficit security. It is making up for it by widening the war; taking long term risks to gain a few cheap plaudits from Amnesty International, the ACLU and the media. Eventually reality, like the Gulf oil spill, will not be denied. And on that day all those payments may come due. But until then, move on.
Our host @7:“But whether the “glue” as Ralph Peters puts it, is religion or criminality or an intelligence operation, the important thing is to ignore it.”
Let’s have a little more understanding for the Obama Administration, please.
To us in the great unwashed, it may look like the Obaminoids are ignoring Pakistan’s deep involvement with the Taliban, or ignoring an Act of War in the Koreas, or ignoring nuclear weapons development in Iran, or ignoring a devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or ignoring a growing economy-killing national debt. What we in our narrow-mindedness see as “ignoring”, our betters know is really “focusing”.
It is essential for Obama not to be distracted by such trivia. He has to focus like a laser on the real enemy — Arizona.
I first thought that this “Retaliate if Struck Too Badly” represented a basic lack of understanding of war. Retaliation is something you threaten to do before the war starts, and after it starts – as this one did decades ago – you fight to win not fight to tit for tat. This is an extension of Terrorism is a Criminal Problem Not A Military One – up the punishment and you will stop the crimes.
But now, I realize that this is deeper than that. This is classic DC thinking. This is “Vote for Our Bill, Mr. Congressman or Else We Close That Military Base In Your District.” They think that instead of Bush’s Premption they can cut pre-emptive deals with Al Queda. They think that can make Chicago Style DC Rules apply to war. They are fools
They are not just fools but stupid, arrogant and corrupt fools.
The problem with treason charges is knowing just what people are or think they are supposed to be loyal to. In an old fashioned monarchy it was easy, your loyalty was to the person of the King. In America it is also supposed to be easy, your loyalty is to the Constitution. What exactly that means however gives ample scope to persons who devote their energies into parsing the interstices between competing claims on loyalty.
To Justice Brennan the Constitution meant the preservation of a claim to Privacy as a right, even though it is found only in his perception of the penumbra of the document. In fact the devotion to the protection of this right, that is now passionately believed in by millions, including many who have no support for or even awareness that it was linked to the abortion decision, is such that they will cling to it even at the point of defying and challenging other clearly constitutional government functions. For example people refuse to cooperate with the Census stating that it violates their privacy without regard to the fact that the Census is found in both the Federal Code and the Constitution while their right to privacy is found in neither.
To certain prominent citizens of South Carolina and others 150 years ago their loyalty to the Constitution was based upon the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and the preservation of the 3/5ths compromise. To do so they were willing to suborn the violation of numerous other clauses and the doctrines underpinning the Declaration, that keel and the deck of the ship upon which the Constitution rests.
To the NYT the idea behind the Constitution is that it enshrines the freedom of The Times, and only those approved of by The Times, to special protection that exempts them from any consequence for an act of theft, slander, sedition, blackmail or espionage that suits their partisan or commercial interests. Leave aside whether the Pentagon Papers case was wrongly decided, it only stated that there could not be prior restraint on publication. It did not say that publication that results in identifiable harm would be protected from subsequent prosecution.
Their are 3 basic categories of classified information, leaving aside the many codes for special programs and restricting access only to subjects where there is “a need to know.” Each level of classification is identified by the risk associated with unauthorized disclosure.
Confidential: unauthorized disclosure could result in some identifiable risk of harm to the United States. For example a Ship’s “Plan of the Day” or a unit personnel list could aid an enemy in keeping track of movements and judging activity and alert levels. Routine Signals, as used with flags or Morse Code that remain constant over time are also Confidential. Any citizen should normally be able to gain access to Confidential information used in their job after a basic level of background check to verify identity and determine that there is no felony record or any active warrants. Compromise of Confidential information may most likely cause the United States unnecessary expense, possible inconvenience and trouble or diplomatic effort and may assist an enemy in maintaining their picture of our general capabilities.
Secret: unauthorized disclosure would likely result in specific and identifiable harm to the United States. Ship’s Movement Orders, Intelligence Summaries and Technical Publications for weapons, electronic communications and sensor systems are among many items at this level. Access is based on a thorough background investigation, more than was required 30 years ago. Compromise of Secret information could cost lives by revealing our capabilities and general intentions thus giving the enemy an advantage in battle.
Top Secret: unauthorized disclosure will result in grave harm to the United States. Information that reveals time sensitive codes and the sources and methods used to collect intelligence as well as specific operational plans regarding strategic and national assets are included at this level. When Top Secret information is disclosed people die and sometimes wars are lost.
Blood is on Pinch Sulzberger’s hands. He has descended beyond a parody of political hackery to pushing farago of social and sexual infantilism under the direction of Frank Rich, while shamelessly trading the paper’s legacy to advance the interests of Slim of Mexico and Ratner of Real Estate. Pinch is one case where the wiki has been scrubbed.
Well. This administration pretends it likes to be open and transparent. That this resembles having the breeze blow through your ears doesn’t seem to bother them at all.
Yet, perhaps, it’s a step in the right direction. It’s been assumed by many that we could not touch Pakistan in any part, them being big, and messy, and having nukes and missiles and stuff, no matter how few or how crude.
As for these fusion centers and live video, what a fine opportunity to synthesize the video, show it to our partners, and use it as a pretext for anything we like. OTOH, if it indeed does make the Pakistani military and civilian government more engaged and active in their own tribal areas, well, that’s progress, too.
And, we should be announcing stuff like this, and the statements should be true, or partially true, or almost entirely false. Give the bastids something to think about. MOVE, dammit, don’t just stand there. In that regards, I cannot jump to condemn anything about this announcement, or indeed suggest anything better.
The ability to kick the can down the road is probably about six to eight months at best. We are going to lose at least one city for sure to a Pakistani or Iranian nuke.
Obama’s response? Surrender. He’s wanted to surrender to Islam since the beginning. What else would America’s first Black (and raised Muslim) President do? Really? He’s wanted to be Marshal Petain to punish White America since the beginning.
However, even though Islam is now America’s State Religion (as Mark Steyn says, there is no functional difference in how Islam is treated in America from it being established as a State Religion by LAW), it is repugnant (along with let us be honest, Muslims) to nearly all of White America, save the elites. Even the Sex and the City 2 movie took Muslims and Islam to task. To the dismay of course of liberals who love Islam. Or Gays (see Mark Steyn’s comment on Queers for Palestine).
Lose NYC, and most of White America will be scared and angry. The Obama coalition (Blacks, Mexicans, Gays, White Women, elite Whites) will be able to have their way for a while, but not for long.
Eventually something will crack. We will get a war of the peoples (which to be honest is already underway, we simply are not fighting).
A May Comet Out Back
Spring rushes in the dark trees.
A Comet too tiny to see
Hurtles
By the Big Dipper’s cup – the lower tip -
By tiny degrees.
A jet flies over.
The odd cloud wisp is lit by the city.
Through
binoculars one can see
Easily
The dark branches of an oak tree
Tumbling past the Big Dipper,
Spread across the night,
The star-cornered cup and curved handle
That no hand gripped
To dip rain
water,
But a comet
slipped through like rain.
The dog bays a basso ghoul
To chime with a distant yowling fire truck.
The wind rolls the trees & husks their red buds.
And all the
night breathes
With the leaves –Come!– like
Butterflies from their cocoons.
It is the noon of Spring’s night.
The Milky
Way sheathes the plants
With milk
white.
Dogwoods, azaleas, the blooming quince
Burst with stamens and petals.
Still, beneath the electric yellow
Of street
lamps — the bushes growl orange.
Winter’s dead, howl by morning–
To leave the damp ground by summer cicadas.
I believe there are contingency plans to use predator drones against Governor Brewer of Arizona.
The point of first open breach between the Obama administration and Israel has been reached. After the President agreed to asking for Israel to essentially open its nuclear deterrent to international inspect, Prime Minister Netanyahu has formally asked Obama to back off. Haaretz reports:
The translation, it seems to me, is that Israel made it clear to Washington that it regards keepings its nuclear deterrent as an existential issue. On the other hand, the White House’s policy is a nuclear free Middle East, which primarily means that Israel will be disarmed in exchange for promises by other states not to arm.
Unless there’s a “nuclear free” Middle East, all the major nations are likely to acquire nukes now that it is clear the US cannot stop Iran from acquiring atomics. Having failed to contain Iran, Washington now believes it can return the nuclear genie to the bottle by bartering away Israeli nukes. Israel faces very tough choices whichever way it goes. If it refuses to go along with Washington there will probably be widespread proliferation within short order. If it goes along with Washington, it will surrender the majority of its deterrent in exchange for a diplomatic promise which it has no confidence will be upheld. Given the current international climate it’s odds-on that Israel will be inspected thoroughly but Iran and whoever else will resist — and resist successfully — at every turn.
But that’s down the road. The proximate crisis is between Israel and Washington. Netanyahu’s demand that the President back down will, I expect, be refused. If Washington did not heed Israel when the warnings were private, they will not agree now that it is a matter of Face for the One. This suggests that unless some kind of diplomatic miracle happens, Israel and Washington will be in irreconcilable breach.
This also creates serious problems for Obama because if Israel turns him down then his last hope at “engagement” in the Middle East collapses in a heap. The containment of Iran and all hope of his Palestinian peace process will crash and burn shortly thereafter. But worse than that, a breach between Israel and Obama will probably embolden Syria and Iran to move in Lebanon; and having burned his bridges with Netanyahu, Obama will be powerless to intervene diplomatically in the case of new war in the Middle East.
The administration has spent the time since January 2009 pursuing strategies which are now in danger of catastrophically failing — and worse failing all together, in a cascade. The months leading to November 2010 will be hugely interesting.
mask the truth in lies.
I think a lot of the strategery behind all this would become instantly clearer if we had a clue or two about how it is that the drones find their target to begin with. But even the New York Times isn’t talking about that one. Yet.
I like the description of the goatrope. Mongo like candy!
A lot of meat and gristle in this post. I don’t quite get this idea of inviting the ISI into our intelligence digestion centers and so on. Kinda like Clark reading the riot act to Abu Dhabi about AD jets being spotted at Afghani camps.
The problem with talking of this stuff is it is hard to be certain on what is real and what is not. Maybe I’m being too clever by half, but I have a hard time believing every report coming out of Sy Hersh or the NYT is 100% inner plan, Sy and the NYT are such tools, I bet I could claim I was a CIA agent and give them some report that Mickey Mouse was being targeted for being a abettor of terrorism and they would report it. Leaking our “reports” that terror financiers and operators are CIA (or whatever block ops agency) targets, even in supposedly safe havens, is bound to stick bugs up their @$$3s and cause mistrust and suspicion in their networks.
This inviting the ISI into anything more sensitive than the camp chow hall though, is ludicrous. It makes me wonder if the administration understands the ISI is/was the Taliban’s proxy in Afghanistan? The story that Pakistan stands to get thumped real hard if something bad were to happen to us is just as rock stupid. Seems to me, the people looking to hit us would also love for Islamabad to get thumped hard.
Let us hope the providence of which Bismarck speaks of holds:
There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.
wretchard @ 15: without strong and continuing US support, how long could Israel hold out against even conventional enemies? not long. which would lead them to use their nukes, assuming their existence.
RWE (9): “They are not just fools but stupid, arrogant and corrupt fools.”
What’s even worse is that the stupid, arrogant and corrupt fools are now running the show. Someone once said that a people gets the kind of government they deserve. Alas for us.
I expect Israel will be forced to take out Iran’s facilities before the end of the year. They now have no other choice. If they have tactical nukes, they had better use them to do the job because this might be their one and only shot. For their erstwhile ally, the U.S., is now behaving more like an enemy than anything else.
Things have already gone over the edge. We are like Wile E. Coyote, suspended midair for a second, looking down at the abyss just before gravity gets its grip.
Deterrence can work against Islamic extremism. But it will only work if it is publicly forcefully expressed by American leadership. Islamic societies have to understand that their existence is on the line, that the US will go back to WWII or Civil War tactics in response to attacks. As Wretchard and many other commenter here have noted, America can’t do that if its leaders do not fundamentally believe in the right of American-style democracy and capitalism to exist and defend itself.
Another factor in favor of the deterrence approach to fighting the war on terror is that is much cheaper. In a time of unsustainable deficits we have to minimize our defense costs by being less squeamish.
It’s pretty simple, really. We waive the Geneva protocols against enemies that do not follow them. Not really required, anyway. In particular, we recognize the need for collective punishment and asymmetric response.
Until we pressure the populations at large so that they suppress jihad, we have no peace. Remember the jihadis threaten their own people without mercy. Even the Koran allows jihadis to suspend operations if they are counterproductive. As I say so often, we simply have to get their attention.
It seems like Barry is adopting Bill Clinton’s response to the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings: in that case in 1998, it was to send cruise missiles to Afghanistan and Somalia. Next time it will be to send drone missiles to Pakistan.
To which targets? Why are the proposed targets only targets after an attack? Are they that good at disguising hostile intent such that it requires an attack two continents away before we know they are belligerents?
What is the utility of only responding in such a manner after a SUCCESSFUL attack? How many have to die in the US to constitute a SUCCESSFUL attack? What if the attack already attempted was re-classified as SUCCESSFUL? Could we then go ahead and hit the targets which are on the list we already have?
I guess everyone else has already said these things, but all of it seems obvious, no?
I guess also that I am less pessimistic than many others as to the near term result because I do think Al Qaeda has been deeply wounded during the Bush years. Perhaps it will take them quite awhile to reconstitute themselves and offer something “catastrophic,” though we are certainly creating all manner of inefficiencies and holes for them to exploit.
The upshot of all this is that if we do have another catastrophic attack and it is traced to Pakistan, that Obama will have to do something there or be revealed as the Emperor with no clothes.
“…the imperative is not to see it for what it is because the political system isn’t prepared to deal with it.”
So here we have our leaders sticking their fingers in their ears, screaming “LALALALALA” in a desparate attempt to keep from hearing that which has already refuted the foundation of their strategy. They don’t have an OODA loop, they have a DOODOO loop.
…a breach between Israel and Obama will probably embolden Syria and Iran to move in Lebanon; and having burned his bridges with Netanyahu, Obama will be powerless to intervene diplomatically in the case of new war in the Middle East. wretchard @ 15
It may even be worse than you speculate. Last night I watched with disgust as the political spokesman for Hamas told Charlie Rose that it was unfair that Israel had better weapons than they did, and called upon the U.S. to supply them with more accurate rockets in order to minimize unintentional hits to Israeli non-combatants in the next war. He explained that, unlike the Israelis, Hamas did not intentionally target civilians.
So here is an opening for our president to intervene diplomatically. By supplying better weapons to Israel’s sworn enemy he can at once, after a fashion, further fashion himself the Nobel Peace Prize humanitarian he fancies himself to be while sticking it to Netanyahu for not playing ball. The diplomatic part will involve selling the deal as one more precondition to peace. (Or temporary destination on the roadmap to same.) And wouldn’t it be nice if Netanyahu could finally just come to his senses and give up those damnable, destabilizing nukes?
Here’s hoping the Pakistanis are deeply paranoid and suspicious and will therefore conclude that all this openness is really a trick and that what they’re seeing in these fusion centers is a deception and not to be relied upon. Because I think the one thing everybody is fairly confident of is that the Pakistanis are only intermittently reliable and there’s quite a bit of Taliban/AQ support in the ISI ranks.
As far as announcing that Obama plans to attack targets in Pakistan if he really has to, well that’s good to know. Because I was afraid he might be thinking about doing it just for kicks.
But whether the “glue” as Ralph Peters puts it, is religion or criminality or an intelligence operation, the important thing is to ignore it. The drone sights may rachet downwards but never upward. Finding connections to states or world-religions or major oil powers is to the widen the problem beyond the capacity to deal with it. wretchard @ 7
I understand and agree with what you are saying, but in another sense I think “ratcheting upwards” or “widening the problem” actually isolates and defines the problem so as to better deal with it. I also think I understand that to be your entire point, stated ironically.
But of course dealing with the problem in this way won’t be easier. Diplomatically, it will undoubtedly be far harder. And it will necessitate a CiC who cares little for the world’s immediate acclaim. Therefore I reluctantly conclude it’s a solution whose time has not yet come or has already passed.
This just in:
If this is true and I suspect it is (see story re- Girls School) this opens up a whole new can of worms in the AFPAC conflict.
Continuing…
Papa Ray
Whiskey is right about two things. First, the war of the peoples is alraady underway with only one side fighting. Second, that Obama wants America injured, humiliated and shamed. I have no qualms about saying Obama is a traitor and that those he has surrounded himself with are traitors as well. I’d be willing to bet a very large sum that if General David Petraeus could speak freely, he would express the same opinion about Obama and his accomplices. I don’t know one member of the U.S. military that has the slightest respect for Obama. They see him for what he is. Would that the rest of the country had in 2008.
Wretchard, please warn us before exposing us to lines like this; I was in the process of eating.
On the other hand, what a capital idea! Maybe that’s how John Brennan plans “to build up the more moderate elements” of Hezbollah.
Regarding your Raymond Ibrahim link (comment #7), I’ll confess to also being guilty of this. Until recently, I had viewed the 1947-48 Arab-Israel war as being mostly nationalistic, and less religious. This view becomes less tenable when one is confronted by the innumerable Jihadist and anti-semitic statements by the Arab leadership of the time (see for example Benny Morris’ latest book, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War).
Josh (#19): “without strong and continuing US support, how long could Israel hold out against even conventional enemies? not long. which would lead them to use their nukes, assuming their existence.”
Which is precisely why they must be relieved of their nukes before they are thrown under the bus.
(I wish I could view this as entirely fanciful.)
Israel is an interesting example of where mirror-imaging fails. It’s existence is not essential to the survival of Europe or the United States. But Israel’s existence may be essential to the survival of Israel. They are likely to care about certain things much more extremely than outsiders can reasonably imagine. In the policy space where countries fight for survival, what others would call irrational behavior is possible. By all any rational calculus, Britain should have made peace with Nazi Germany in 1940-41; Japan should have surrendered in 1944. Heck, Travis should have surrendered the Alamo. But back to the wall strange things happen.
Israel’s nukes do not really pose an existential threat to anyone. Israel is unlikely to use them. But the lack of nukes and the possession of even a modest secret nuclear arsenal by its enemies may pose a life-or-death threat to Israel. This asymmetry poses some dangers because unexpected things can happen, as occurred in 1914.
Disarming Israel might have worked with an administration or Western alliance that could convincingly guarantee its existence. Ironically a really friendly administration to Israel might have pulled it off much more easily than the current one. This is like climbing a steep pitch on a rock face and trusting your life to the hand of the climber above, because once you leave your foothold your whole weight is going to be on that one hand. But will Israel trust Obama? Israel is likely to have its doubts, and rightly or wrongly that will tend to make them recoil from such an arrangement.
Provided the calendar can get to November the problem may be self-solving. If President Obama’s political position weakens with the mid-term elections, his disarmament initiative is likely to been by everyone as a dead letter. But the falling leaves of the calendar may have the opposite effect. It might make people gamble. If national actors miscalculate and try to exploit a “window of opportunity” this summer there may be unintended consequences. My guess is that Netanyahu is playing for time. He sending a signal that he won’t budge and that will force the administration to regroup. By then November may have rolled around and if the President loses support, the immediate crisis will have passed.
No doubt Netanyahu is playing for time – with Obama. But time is doing horrible things for Israel in regards to Iran. If Israel is to survive another twenty years they will have to pass through the eye of the needle in the next two or three. I have no idea what that may comprise, and I have trouble seeing any winning strategies that do not involve miracles.
Wretchard (#32):
For example, the Oslo Accords as well as the complete withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza took place during the presidencies of Clinton and Bush fils, regarded by Israel as good friends.
On the other hand, the 1967 war broke out when Israel (and others) felt it was abandoned by the US and the other powers.
Jewish support for the LLMD was around 78%. It is higher overall for the Democratic party. That will change in November. While the Jews are a small part of the US population, they vote steady and contribute way above their weight class.
With the new rules on campaign contributions ( or rather the old rules, since the USSC struck down the new rules) Jews will return to their place as the ones to go to to get those last weekend ad dollars. It’s not unusual for those 49.5 / 50.5 elections to be decided by ads on the last weekend.
So if this administration allows a vote in November, pissing off the Jews will turn out to be a very bad idea. Don’t you know Bibi is pulling every string he can find.
Meanwhile, I’m hoping for some good video of the Israeli navy sinking that terrorist fleet going to Gaza. I keep waiting. It takes less then a day to so from Italy to Gaza by ship. I wonder why the fleet hasn’t sailed? Maybe because some of those anti-semitic European politicians have figured out sharks don’t care what their politics are. Once the ship sinks, they will be counting on the Jews to pull them out before the sharks get there.
Good luck with that!
I think I would save the vid of a shark eating a Euro politician in the same folder with Saddam’s hanging. It is in my “Justice” folder. 250 million Youtube hits, for sure.
Whiskey (@12) said: ” The Obama coalition (Blacks, Mexicans, Gays, White Women, elite Whites) will be able to have their way for a while, but not for long.”
Your list of the members of the Obama coalition is conspicuously incomplete. It ALWAYS is incomplete. There is another readily-identifiable ethnic/demographic group that has historically and overwhelmingly supported Democrats. They voted overwhelmingly in support of Obama. You KNOW who they are and yet you NEVER can bring yourself to mention them specifically, by name, in your list.
Two possible reasons suggest themselves. Firstly it could be plain daftness. But daft you are surely not. Monomaniacal? Yes, but not daft. You are man of undeniable intellectual gifts–a keen social observer and pop culture critic to be sure. So we can definitely rule out daft and/or clueless.
The second and more likely reason is a deficit of intellectual courage. You CLAIM not to be concerned about being called a racist. And in general this is probably so: I don’t think you care one whit about being called a racist by Blacks or Mexicans. For that matter I also don’t think you care about being called a homophobe, a misogynist, or a bitter clinger by the respective members of the coalition.
But I strongly suspect that you do care about being labeled an “anti-The Group You Refuse To Name.” My guess is that this omission is deliberate and is motivated by a desire to avoid the anti-TGYRTN label and the stigma that goes along with it.
Here’s what I suggest: be a mensch. Do the intellectually courageous and honest thing and include that group in your future enumerations of the Usual Suspects. And then, bravely accept and endure the consequences of your decision.
Wretchard,
Your comment (#15) implies, to me, at least, that you are still working under the assumption that the US (i.e., the current administration) and Israel are still allies.
Certainly, it is understandable why one would assume this—and why one would wish to assume it; however, it is no longer a tenable assumption (and has not been for some time).
In fact, while the current US demand regarding Israel’s nuclear deterrent is—or will be—the most serious (and ultimately unbridgeable) breach between the two countries so far, this is not the first serious breach between them since Obama took office. The first was made early on with Obama’s very public demand that Israel cease all building in settlements. The second was made about a year later with Obama’s very public demand that Israel cease building in East Jerusalem (i.e., the Biden brouhaha).
It was believed by commentators sympathetic to Israel’s position (and existence) that these demands were “miscalculations” made by an administration inexperienced in the ways of the Middle East, unaware of previous “understandings” between Israel and the US, terribly anxious to achieve too much too fast, and determined to show that the new US administration was a) not a puppet of Israel or what has been called “the Israel Lobby” and b) serious about changing America’s (purported) relationship with the Arab world.
Similarly, these commentators may also see the current breach as just another miscalculation on the part of an inexperienced president, as just another mistake of a feckless newcomer.
However, such an analysis is no longer tenable.
If one were able to ignore the inane yet all too common claim that Israel must be saved from itself in order to survive—and only the Obama administration along with other “true friends” can do this—the only analysis that makes sense of the Obama’s actions is that these are not miscalculations but, instead, part of a conscious strategy to force Israel to yield to Obama’s prescriptions on how to resolve the conflict in the Middle East.
Nothing less.
A “strategy” of battering one’s erstwhile friends into submission for their own good, of course—though such an analysis might be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt: that he, in fact, wishes to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict, while leaving Israel still in existence and defensible. (The truth, however, may be much darker….)
Nonetheless, it is a strategy that, masterfully (and with the help of the ever-barking media and acquiescent “experts”), paints all those who disagree with Obama, who defy Obama, as obstructions to the peace we all so desperately need and wish for….
And to be fair, it must be noted that there are those who insist that it is Israel, by refusing to understand its own true interests, by refusing to agree with Obama’s demands, that has, in fact, severed the relationship, has stopped being America’s ally—and not vice-versa.
And yet, the administration’s prescriptions for conflict resolution are informed by the Arab narrative of the Middle East conflict; and Obama is firmly persuaded by the “suggestions” (i.e., demands) made by all those pursuers of peace for ending the impasse: that Israel, the purported cause of instability and conflict in the region, either agree to disestablish itself or agree to be “disestablished” by its neighbors (all of them genuinely, so it would seem, thirsting for peace).
And (to press the point) because Obama is so firmly convinced that this is the way to achieve peace, anything and anyone that stands in his way—Bibi, Israel, AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, the (woeful) Neocons—will, necessarily, be viewed as impediments to peace, as opponents of peace, as enemies of the world. Bibi, and Israel, maneuvered into a tight corner, where oh so many would prefer to her be—for Israel’s own good, of course (or for the final kill?).
Where does America fit into all this? It should be clear by now that the current administration sees American power as an anomaly, as an embarrassment, as an egregious mistake, as a fomenter of evil. And a large part of that mistake, a huge reason for embarrassment, according to this view, is America’s relationship with Israel (just ask those stalwarts of true American self-interest: Walt, Mearsheimer, Brezinski, Juan Cole, Marc Lynch and now Andrew Sullivan). Unipolarity (read, American unipolarity) is the disease; multipolarity is the panacea. Ergo, a weakened America is a necessity. Militarily, financially, diplomatically—all is related.
Therefore, if reducing American power is in America’s interest, if restricting American power makes America stronger (though, undoubtedly, phrasing it in such a way would likely be disputed by the same people who are espousing it), it appears that for quite a few, the “problem” of America’s Chomsky-esque unilateral, unipolar “rogue power” would be solved by slicing apart the Gordian knot of American support for a “rogue” Israel.
It was noted on this blog in several previous threads that Obama has no problems going for broke. As with universal health care, as with TARP, this most ideological (and dishonest) of US presidents is determined. Nothing will stand in his way, not public sentiment, not politics, not the truth. Damn the torpedoes, damn the consequences, damn the Democratic Party, damn the US of A.
He is determined, he knows what has to be done, and he realizes he has a limited window of opportunity.
And so it seems (unfortunately for some, fortunately for others) that a showdown with Israel is not only unavoidable—but that it has been deftly engineered.
Which means, to me, at least, that the only tenable conclusion is that the Obama administration is no longer an ally of Israel. Such a view is only buttressed by the administration’s most recent herculean efforts to reassure “certain elements” that it actually is a firm supporter of the traditional alliance….
(On the other hand, perhaps a more important question might be: “Is America an ally of America?”)
The American Jewish community is divided between three groups;
1. the descendants of the great immigration waves from before 1960,
2. those who left Eastern Europe and the (former) Soviet Union after 1974,
3. Israelis who have relocated to America
The first group are overwhelmingly tied to the Democratic Party except for a small intellectual cadre of Neocons who originally were former Leftists. These are the Jews who are well represented in the learned professions, theater, teaching, government work and entrepreneurial industries such as retailing and schmattas, the rag trade. They built the now fading branches of Conservative and Reform Judaism, along with Reconstructionism. Some, mostly descendants of German Jews, remained Orthodox but have not generally absorbed newer arrivals from further East. Their grandchildren have tended strongly towards secularism, assimilation and intermarriage. While criminal elements arose in the early immigrant experience, think of Meyer Lansky and Murder Incorporated, and can still arise, think of Bernard Madoff, as a group they have been highly law abiding and rarely use let alone abuse welfare and other social services.
The second group are more complex. Their general approach, scarred by experience in hostile socialist societies, is cynical. They may reject the Democrats but they may also join it as a means of controlling and associating themselves with what they see as the source of power. Social and political interaction is strongly based on the local Orthodox religious synagogue unit. They will avail themselves of every possible benefit and loophole available for personal gain with an assumption that any inquiry that is not backed by immediate coercive force can be ignored. These are people seen wearing silks and furs shopping with food stamps and then buying caviar with cash.
The third group can consist of various subgroups reflecting the divisions within Israeli society. All identify with Orthodox Judaism although the descendants of the founding Sabras are highly secularized. They as with their American counterparts in group one tend to be politically liberal. Descendants of refugees from Arab countries and Iran tend to be more conservative. Those who came to Israel after the US, with the “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” of 1974, pressured the Soviet Union to release the refuseniks are more like group two as described above but may, and this is highly anecdotal, tend to be more actively politically conservative.
—–
In the meantime consider this tweet from the Israeli foreign minister:
DannyAyalon
Members of flotilla heard shouting: khaybar khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad Sawfa Ya’ud – זיכרו את ח’יבר, יהודים,… http://bit.ly/aOhcf3
To be blogged under the title “A Taxonomy of Jews.”
#36 Starling:
If you’re referring to Asians, Whiskey mostly lumps them together with whites – the white and Asian demographics mesh well, so possibly Whiskey doesn’t feel any need to address the two separately. Asians are sociologically more or less like high-income whites, so they have a correspondingly oversized representation among SWPLs – so that’s probably where they’d fit in Whiskey’s hierarchy.
IMHO, the only peace available between Jews and Arabs is the peace of the grave. The US position can only be helping kill Jews or helping kill Arabs. I see no choice “C”. If someone can point it out to me, and it doesn’t involve aliens, UFO’s or a mythical deity I’ll convert to a peacenik. I won’t hug no trees though.
For generations and over about a dozen or so Presidents, US policy has been to help Israel kill Arabs. Now the Usurper wants to change that. Have I mentioned the boy needs two upgrades to get to competent? Make that 3. What he lacks in competence he makes up for in criminality.
On Israel — let’s not make the Obaminoids’ mistake of assuming that the only parties which matter in this dispute are them and the Israelis.
As Wretchard points out, this is an existential matter for Israel. If Israel can’t rely on the US, then what can they do? It is not outside the bounds of possiblity that Israel might seek a new patron — Russia.
After all, there are many links between Russia & Israel due to the emigration of Russian Jews to Israel. There is signficant congruence between left-wing Israeli politics and Russian politics. As a major oil exporter, Russia has an economic interest in keeping conflict alive in the Middle East. Russia would certainly welcome Israel as a client for Russian arms and as a co-developer of new military technologies. And as the major sponsor of Iran, Russia would be better placed to keep the Iran/Israel conflict balanced to the point where it most benefits Russia.
Bottom line, the Israelis don’t have to think inside Obama’s outdated box.
Comment by Thomas Barnett, a Democrat on Obama leadership “This is what you get with a lot of lawyers running the show, I suppose. They want to win in court, no matter how mendacious they come off at various points.” He is a grand strategist who predicted over a year ago if a major attack on this country was traced to Pakistan that the pressure from our citizens would force Obama to nuke Pakistan.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
@ LOTM 10 Yes the right to privacy concerning the census only extends as far as a person’s willingness to let their house burn down when the fire dept is called to put out the blaze that has spread to the neighbors’ houses. then, after the dust has settled, we can have the ‘private’ person arrested for endangering the public welfare and all sorts of fun things their ‘right to privacy’ engendered.
“You’re treating me like a criminal because I want my privacy! The census is violating my Constitutional rights!”
“Ma’am/Sir, there wouldn’t be a $5,000 fine for what you’re doing if it wasn’t violating the Constitution.”
Re: Wretchard’s comment on Obama’s nuke free overtures to Israel -
I don’t think the goal of a nuclear free world is possible, at least not in my lifetime. I’m also not even sure it’s desirable, given that eliminating nukes might hinder our ability to deal with Earth killing asteroids appearing at short notice inside lunar orbit. Or extraterrestrial invasions. Or vastly magnify the power of a single rogue terrorist nuclear weapon. Or leave a state like Russia with historically insecure borders vulnerable to a materially and demographically superior adversary (China). Even Sarkozy with his historic memory of three German invasions (two of them successful) rightly told Obama to sod off.
Russia and Israel are at the top of the list of countries that have within living memory the notion of being on the receiving end of wars of extermination. Let’s not forget Goehring told his fellow Nazis at the early 1942 Wansee conference that he expected 25 million Soviet citizens to die from starvation by 1943. It was all part of the Generalplan Ost. The Nazis merely expected to kill or enslave all Slavs west of the Urals after they finished off the Jews. Hell, even the Poles probably have a small amount of nuclear material that could be made into bombs inside of a year, just in the unlikely case that old demons come back.
Reagan got the Russians to start dismantling their empire in Eastern Europe in part by taking Russia’s historic pain and ‘even paranoids have enemies’ mentality seriously.
Kinu at 41 – you read my mind as well. I guess we both have been reading David P Goldman of First Things. The growing Russia-Israel reapproachment (I wouldn’t call it an alliance, but at least some marriages of convenience in defense, nanotech, and energy) is an embarassment to Washington’s anti-Russia lobby. You won’t read George F. Will, Krauthammer or Gaffney writing about it anytime soon though it’s real. The head of Rusnano used to work in Israel.
Any idea of an Israeli entente with a revanchist Russia is simply magical thinking.
Ain’t going to happen, no matter how much Israelis want to be loved, or how many former Russians now live in Israel, or how intelligent Spengler is.
Granted, if Israel becomes desperate, they’re going to want to reach out and touch someone—but the power that arms Israel’s enemies and runs interference for those goons? That’s quite a bit of a stretch, particular since Russia has been seriously reverting to Soviet form.
Barry @ 46 – you beg the question whether Russia is in fact ‘revanchist’. And running interference for Israel’s enemies? What does that mean exactly? If Iran is hellbent on getting the Bomb, there is very little Russia can do about it.
Again Barry, it seems you just confirmed what I wrote above: “You won’t read George F. Will, Krauthammer or Gaffney writing about it anytime soon though it’s real.” It’s too inconvenient to admit it, so keep your Cold War blinders on.
If Israel is hunting for another backer — China is the obvious fit.
Brains meets manpower.
The relentless anti-Judaism of the Czars and the Commissars equates to legions of Obamists.
BTW, it seems that Israel is striking oil/gas in the Med.
—–
The mullahs are going to swap contaminated early efforts in LEU for the real stuff. The reason they won’t let their junk go into escrow is because it would necessarily be inspected — and then rejected; how embarrassing!
—–
Rapidly declining inter-banking confidence is causing a severe contraction in commercial lending. The natural rate of commercial cash flow ( on a national scale ) can sustain a 4% decline, year over year, in M3.
If M3 declines at twice that rate you get the 1930s on a national scale.
We are now seeing M3 tighten by 10% per annum… and that is not reflective of the shadow banking-credit system.
Real estate follows a generalized cliff-function: quantum bumps up and down based upon apparent cost of credit and the mood of the populace.
ONLY massive money-printing ( quantitative easing ) is holding up the nominal prices of residential real estate. Since the current price level in the critical markets is way too high relative to sustainable finance, credit-quakes lie straight ahead.
Further mega-printing by helicopter-ben must be right around the corner. He is merely waiting for the ‘morts’ to panic.
Congress allowed itself to be completely pimped by Wall Street and The City. The RICO looters have captured the governments — pretty much all of them.
So Israel’s strategy ought to be to stay solvent while the mullahs run out of export revenue. Iran is totally dependent — at the margin — upon oil exports. A shrinking global economy would take the wheels right off the mullah’s wagon.
——-
Mexico doesn’t trust British, Dutch or American BIG OIL. But now that Israel is proving competent at finding the black stuff she might be just the drilling partner that Mexico City can accept.
After all, look at the countries hooking up with China.
Seagull Steals From World’s Laziest Cat
Excellent metaphor for our foreign policy (we’re the cat):
http://www.flixxy.com/seagull-and-cat.htm
Illustrates our immigration policy too.
#39 ntk re #36 Starling
I believe Starling is referring to Jews as the Obama support group Whiskey failed to mention. Took me a second to get it, the clue is “be a mensch.”
Another group that could be listed is Muslims….
buck (#50):
I was certain he was referring to Native Americans, but given the context, he might have meant Filipinos.
Oy, it can be so difficult deciphering the Talmudic utterances of some commenters here.
#50 buck smith:
Hmm, that would make even more sense. Jews are more or less like Asians too – their sociometrics more or less mesh with non-Jewish whites as well. Because Jews aren’t a large percentage of the population, and because they mesh with whites, I suppose that’s why Whiskey doesn’t mention them separately.
If Iran is hellbent on getting the Bomb, there is very little Russia can do about it.
Ah, so that’s why Russia not only has to help them get it but also stonewall all attempts to prevent them from getting it.
(Pretty deep thinking, there….)
As for China, well, I imagine that there’s China and then there’s China…. In other words, it’s a bureaucratic nightmare where the one hand (clapping, no doubt) doesn’t know what the other is doing. (Now multiply that by a million or so hands.)
Within that vastness, Israel might find some friends (even significant friends)—indeed, Israel’s business, technological (and no doubt other) connections with China are manifold; but right now, the Chinese hand that is clapping the loudest is saying: “Oil” and “Geo-political positioning”.
So Israeli reliance on China would also appear to be magical thinking of a rather high magnitude.
And yet, and yet, God does indeed work in mysterious ways…. (keeping in mind that one is encouraged to keep one’s powder dry…).
#52 ntk
Well I guess the interesting thing about Jews as a voting “block” is that they are supposed to e very liberal and supposed to support Israel big time. Obama is anti-Israel, so Jews should be in play for Obama’s next opponent in 2012.
#10 lifeofmind
It’s not that complicated in the US. Article 3, section 3