Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Obama In Libya
First, I hope the current campaign in Libya succeeds in getting Kadafi (spelled phonetically because the "preferred" spelling seems to change by the hour) to go away. Preferably at room temperature in a box, to an underground destination. I bow to no one in my dislike and disgust at the man and all he stands for. In retrospect I think we probably should have declared war against Libya as soon as we discovered it was behind the Lockerbie bombing of PanAm 103, which at the latest would be 24 February 2011, when resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. Certainly that constituted an act of war by Kadafi under age-old principles of international law, and unlike al Qaeda, the Kadafi regime is a nation-state and precisely identifiable.
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
(0) comments
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
Labels: Congress, Debt, defense, Democrats, dictators, Kadafi, Libya, Obama, Terrorism, United Nations
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Almost every high school graduate who reads knows the quote that is the title to this post (or some version of it), from George Santayana. Here is the quote with some context:
(0) comments
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The Life of Reason, Vol. 1, Ch. XII.
I am reading The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, by William L. Shirer. It is an eyewitness account by a renowned journalist and historian of how Hitler came to power in Germany, how he Nazified the country and started World War II, and how he ultimately perished along with everything he had created. In addition to reporting the news as it happened in the late 1930s from his posts in Berlin and Vienna for Universal News Network and CBS, Shirer had extraordinary access to the records and documents collected for and generated by the Nuremburg trials, whether or not they were introduced as evidence. When the work was first published, in 1960 it was a sensational best seller. I'm not sure it would be so popular today because it is long and dense with information, and I don't know if a lot of modern Americans would have the patience to plow through it. That said, like most historical works it contains many ideas and concepts applicable to our contemporary world.
For example, I am struck by how closely the behavior of the British and French, and the League of Nations vis a vis Hitler in 1936-38 is paralleled by the West and the United Nations with regard to Iran's Ahmadinejad. In both cases, the dictator signaled well ahead of time what his plans were, and his feckless opponents refused to take him seriously. When Hitler finally could not be ignored, the British and French opted for appeasement rather than confrontation, much like the US and European powers are opting for negotiation and dialogue with Ahmadinejad rather than taking action, and for many of the same reasons. I am also struck by how much the behavior of Ahmadinejad (and other dictators of the day) resembles Hitler's behavior--as if they're reading from the same playbook (I plan a future post detailing the techniques Hitler used to become Der Fuehrer without violating the letter of German law at the time). There are also similarities between Germany in the 1930s and Iran today.
Because of these parallels I am becoming alarmed that we are condemned to repeat history, and soon. Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I have a very uneasy feeling that in the case of Iran we will experience the first repetition, not the second.
For example, I am struck by how closely the behavior of the British and French, and the League of Nations vis a vis Hitler in 1936-38 is paralleled by the West and the United Nations with regard to Iran's Ahmadinejad. In both cases, the dictator signaled well ahead of time what his plans were, and his feckless opponents refused to take him seriously. When Hitler finally could not be ignored, the British and French opted for appeasement rather than confrontation, much like the US and European powers are opting for negotiation and dialogue with Ahmadinejad rather than taking action, and for many of the same reasons. I am also struck by how much the behavior of Ahmadinejad (and other dictators of the day) resembles Hitler's behavior--as if they're reading from the same playbook (I plan a future post detailing the techniques Hitler used to become Der Fuehrer without violating the letter of German law at the time). There are also similarities between Germany in the 1930s and Iran today.
Because of these parallels I am becoming alarmed that we are condemned to repeat history, and soon. Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I have a very uneasy feeling that in the case of Iran we will experience the first repetition, not the second.
Labels: dictators, France, Germany, Great Britain, History, Hitler, Iran, United Nations
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Iran on UN Commission for the Status of Women
Fox News online is reporting that the UN has elected Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women. For those who live in caves with no media access, Iran penalizes women who "dress immodestly" with lashings. Stoning is also "enshrined in law" Fox says.
Fox reports that the Commission on the Status of Women is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.
Iran's election was "by acclamation," Fox says, meaning no member (including the United States) called for a vote on Iran's election.
What a joke! And a bad one at that.
This is just one more indication of what a meaningless, corrupt, feckless debating society the UN has become. It has long since abandoned the high ideals set out in its charter, and does not deserve to be taken seriously.
(0) comments
Fox reports that the Commission on the Status of Women is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.
Iran's election was "by acclamation," Fox says, meaning no member (including the United States) called for a vote on Iran's election.
What a joke! And a bad one at that.
This is just one more indication of what a meaningless, corrupt, feckless debating society the UN has become. It has long since abandoned the high ideals set out in its charter, and does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Once upon a time this kind of thing would have caused me to scream bloody murder about how the US should drop out of the UN; that the organization doesn't deserve the prestige it gleans from having the US as a member, etc.. Now, however, I think we should remain a member, but just treat the UN with a maximum level of cynicism, just like pretty much all of the other member states do, because the organization has a total lack of moral authority. I think we should stop paying any money to the UN to fund any program or project that is contrary to our nation's principles and interests. That pretty much leaves UNICEF and disaster relief as the only things we'll contribute to.
I like the idea of a parallel international organization whose membership is restricted to truly democratic states, where real work can be done with real moral authority behind it. Maybe the existence of such an organization would incentivize nations to nurture democratic processes. The best feature is that such an organization would exclude the Irans, Venezuelas, Sudans and North Koreas of the world, among others.
Labels: Iran, United Nations, Women
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Iran's 10 New Nuke Plants
Iran announced today that it intends to build ten new uranium enrichment plants, with construction to begin as early as January 2010. The plants are to be hardened against attack by building them inside mountains. This announcement came only days after the IAEA dumped on Iran for lack of cooperation, with the outgoing director Mohammed El Baradei saying the IAEA's monitoring of Iran's nuclear efforts is "at a dead end." For Iran's part, its Vice President Salehi said that the announcement was a response to the IAEA.
This morning I saw a short interview on Fox News Sunday with a man who I believe is the former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, who sounded like Israel is ready, willing and able to carry out a preemptive strike on Iran whether or not the UN, the US or anyone else is on board with the idea.
Not. Good.
This will be a gut check for the United Nations. If it cannot agree on something relatively harsh to punish Iran for its intransigence, the UN will be starkly exposed as ineffectual. This will be duly noted not only by Iran, but also by other dictators around the world. Hugo Chavez comes to mind.
What scares me most is that I don't think our current president has either the intellect, inclination or cojones to do anything about Iran, whether or not the UN approves. I think that opinion is shared by Ahmahdinejad, Chavez and the like.
(0) comments
This morning I saw a short interview on Fox News Sunday with a man who I believe is the former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, who sounded like Israel is ready, willing and able to carry out a preemptive strike on Iran whether or not the UN, the US or anyone else is on board with the idea.
Not. Good.
This will be a gut check for the United Nations. If it cannot agree on something relatively harsh to punish Iran for its intransigence, the UN will be starkly exposed as ineffectual. This will be duly noted not only by Iran, but also by other dictators around the world. Hugo Chavez comes to mind.
What scares me most is that I don't think our current president has either the intellect, inclination or cojones to do anything about Iran, whether or not the UN approves. I think that opinion is shared by Ahmahdinejad, Chavez and the like.
Labels: dictators, Iran, Israel, Obama, United Nations
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama's UN Speech
I only heard snippets, but Obama just might be the most anti-American president in history. Carter was the first one.
(0) comments
Labels: Obama, United Nations
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Sheesh!!!!
Claudia Rosett posted this yesterday. "To chair the 2009 governing board of the U.N.'s flagship agency, the multibillion-dollar globe-girdling United Nations Development Program, dedicated to promoting good governance and ending poverty, the U.N. has now picked--wait for it--the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Criminitleys! Is there no end to stupidity and fecklessness at the UN?
Ms. Rosett asks, "What are Barack Obama and Susan Rice planning to do about this?" Indeed, but I would also ask what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would propose.
I would hope that the United States will immediately announce that it is withholding all funds from the UNDP until such time as Iran is no longer in any position of authority or influence in that agency, but with the new crowd in Washington, I'm pessimistic. I hope they aren't as suicidal as I fear they are.
Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.
(0) comments
Criminitleys! Is there no end to stupidity and fecklessness at the UN?
Ms. Rosett asks, "What are Barack Obama and Susan Rice planning to do about this?" Indeed, but I would also ask what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would propose.
I would hope that the United States will immediately announce that it is withholding all funds from the UNDP until such time as Iran is no longer in any position of authority or influence in that agency, but with the new crowd in Washington, I'm pessimistic. I hope they aren't as suicidal as I fear they are.
Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.
Labels: dictators, diplomacy, Iran, United Nations
