Freak Show

A close friend - who doesn’t live in America and, hence, doesn’t know America in the way I do - claims that the reason America involves itself endlessly in war is because it is a relatively young nation, eager to flex its young muscles. She theorizes thus, quite without malice, as if commenting on the antics of kittens tumbling about on the living room floor. Accepting her premise, I must say that I’ve watched America aging precipitously ever since Vietnam. In fact, the trend seems to have accelerated over the years to where our overall policy now appears to be all but in its death throes.

Domestically too, we seem to have adopted a model that is a throwback to the past. Communism and, in a sense, theocracy have been resurrected from a well deserved grave only to die again. America, as she had been only recently, was the future; the very model of modern success, to which the whole world flocked in droves even as this same world now retreats in utter disgust from this house of the dying, built on a jumble of acronyms.

War, by definition, is chaos. It makes no sense to impose rules on it. It makes even less sense to go in without any notion of victory. It is no accident that 60% of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan so far have died under Obama. It was Obama who changed the rules of engagement and struck the words ‘war’ and ‘victory’ from military manuals. It is Obama who doesn’t understand the difference between war and a police action.

The latter does not bode well for us here on the home front as well. Were we ourselves ever to contemplate rising up against the oppressive boot of our own government – after all constitutional measures have failed – who is now to say what Obama, or any leader of his ilk, would use his army for?

In past African wars, the European gentry used to gather on the surrounding hills with their sun shades and picnic baskets to watch. The distance made the dying anticeptic. Are we actually thinking of reviving this freak show?

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Street Fighting Man

I too marched on Washington in my day, ostensibly to protest against the Vietnam war. We fell into one of three groups: professional agitators, self-righteous moralists, and those who just came out to raise a little hell. Though I would never have admitted it at the time, I was part of the latter, the biggest, group. Despite the civic display of tightly choreographed, helmeted phalanx; water cannon and tear gas, I felt perfectly safe for I knew that the government - unlike those of then communist nations - would take utmost care to see to it that nothing would happen to us. If we really had been asked to risk life and limb, I’m sure that 99% of us would have stayed away.

As it was, for most of us, it amounted to no more than a day trip - an afternoon of staged, pot-enhanced high drama - participatory theater under bright skies.

In Britain, the operative word is 'hooliganism'. Behavior after sports events had become so bad, young Britains have been barred from attending similar events in other countries. In Europe, we’ve seen self-respect eroding for a long time. This is fertile soil for agitprop. It is to demonstrate that the government is essentially powerless. The issue of university fees is just pretext. In France, the raising of the retirement age from 60 to 62 is just pretext - a reason to come out into the streets in feigned (Street Fighting Man) anger and protest and smash things and poke a stick in the eye of authority for the sake of ritual rebellion alone - to vent, to explode into violence primarily because of some sense of individual dislocation or inadequacy that often accompanies the transition from infantilism.

Don’t tell me these people have any higher purpose in mind; don’t tell me they have any profound agenda - most of them - in their frenzied, out of control, pointless, pathetic pantomime. People with legitimate grievances do not behave like that.

…and it’s coming to America. It’s orchestrated by the Left. It is to undermine the nation, to overwhelm it, score propaganda points and render it utterly impotent. It’s revolution for revolution’s sake; to topple the elite; erase standards; nullify morality - to be replaced by the finality of tyranny. It’s AQ; it’s Al Sharpton; it’s community organizing; it’s the UN; unions; Bill Ayers; Rev. Wright. It’s George Soros. It’s Barack Hussein Obama.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Faisal Shahzad: Nuts and Bolts

And yet we are terribly frightened of these characters, so much so that we are willing to remove even our shoes before boarding a plane. Think about it. We fear their condemnation, their wrath and their sweating bombs. We submit to spending untold sums on security. Yet we hesitate even to address them by name.

I remember being inordinately affected by the picture (in the papers) of a Vietnamese monk on fire. What has changed? Today’s suicide bomber is beneath our contempt. We see him as a collection of nuts and bolts. He is bloodless. We fear only his nuts and bolts. As such, we are incapable of accepting his sacrificial blood and call it victory.

They are winning. They are united in their hatred of us - in their ignorance; in their misplaced anger - while we are fractured along degrees of skill, commitment and the willingness to defeat them. Half of us suffer from Stockholm Syndrome while the other half buries their heads in minutia, busy at building a case - an excuse - to effectively counter their thrusts. If I see another book that tells me that Obama is a socialist; that Muslims want to kill us; that communists want to lynch us by our own ropes, I think I’ll go mad.

Enough already! We know who Barack Hussein Obama is and who is aligned with him. It’s beginning to dawn on us that they all hate America; that we can do nothing to make them love us; that we stand eternally condemned in their eyes. Time to face facts. We are stronger than they. It is entirely possible to defeat them. But we stand no chance if we defeat ourselves first.

Surrender or War

Today’s drive to establish an Islamic caliphate roughly approximates the drive by the Left to rule globally under a single red banner. So far, the ominous similarities have escaped notice because the two have been working largely in tandem toward more or less the same purpose. As such, they have sought to minimize the frictions between them (for now) in view of their overriding objective: to defeat western values and, especially, capitalism.

As nothing is ever new in any matter, the strategies employed here have also been seen before and are based on the domino theory. It involves flipping individual countries form one camp to the other. I first heard of it by name when our government claimed that if the spread of communism isn’t halted in Vietnam all of Asia would fall.

The latest countries to flip over to the dark side are Turkey and Greece. Increasingly, people are realizing that one can now also add the U.S. to the list. Turkey was a heartbreak. Not that it couldn’t have been foreseen. As in the U.S., there were plenty of warnings of what could be expected if Erdogan were elected. Although, I don’t understand the intricacies of Turkish politics, I must assume a similar pattern of deceit and false promises were employed there to bring radical Islamists to power.

Greece, of course, has been subject to leftist sabotage for decades. Leftist union and student pressure have managed to ruin their economy which has now put the entire EU at risk. Leftist instigators have as recently as yesterday pulled out of serious negotiations with the government and declared that the battle would henceforth be fought out in the streets.

Compromise in Greece and elsewhere is no longer on the table. Hence, the only option free market advocates have is appeasement. The latter always serves to contain the ugliest part of it, but at a cost. The remaining democracies that are still functioning now find themselves with their backs to the wall. In order to appease the Left they have to increasingly put their economic principles at risk. In time, there will be no margin left within which to pursue the fiction of negotiation with people who have no interest in solutions. At that point there will be only two options: surrender or war.

Why Are We There?

Let’s step back for a moment and ask the question, “What do we hope to accomplish in Afghanistan?” Is it nation building? No. Is it to prop up an illegitimate puppet government there? Not in so many words. Is it to protect the homeland? Hardly. Is it for oil? Officially speaking, no. Is it to protect Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal? It’s a concern, but no. So why are we there?

As time goes on, this question is becoming harder and harder to answer. If the way in which we’re fighting this war is any indication, it does not seem to be critical that we should win. So why are we there? To maintain a presence? To remain a factor - to reserve a seat at the table where the ultimate solution for the region will be decided? Perhaps.

It seems to me, that if we want to remain relevant in what happens in this tortured region, we must be certain of what we ourselves hope to accomplish. Such clarity, unfortunately, is not readily apparent. We appear to no longer believe in human rights. We no longer believe in democracy. We no longer believe in free market capitalism and the energy that sustains it. We no longer believe in American exceptionalism. We no longer believe in Israel. We no longer believe in ourselves. So, why are we there?

Is it perhaps to inflict another crushing blow on our military; to re-create Vietnam, April, 1975? Is it our stealth desire to install an Islamic Caliphate in the region? Is it to overwhelm global political systems to the point of ushering in a world-wide economic and political collapse; hence, revolution; to clear the tables of any and all evil Western influence?

When Bush spoke of the “axis of evil”, we had the last indication of a strategy that had the potential of advancing America’s largely benign influence. With one or two coherent, coordinated strokes we could envision a victory that would bring peace to the region by holding any corrosive elements at bay; assuring the uninterrupted flow of oil to western nations; and securing Israel’s right to exist.

All of that has been officially disavowed now. There is no longer any reason for us to be conducting any foreign campaigns; no reason to spill the blood of our bravest and finest. Why then are we there? All that makes sense at this point is that we are aiming to blunt the last arrow in our quiver that stands in the way of total chaos.