“Stay the hell out of Syria!” Says, HotAir.com?!?!?!??!

I happen to be checking out one of my many blogs that I read on a daily basis here, and I happen to see the following:

From a strictly strategic point of view, why not let Hezbollah fight al-Qaeda affiliates and let them drain each other of strength? That has to be a better outcome than victory for Assad or for the Nusrah Front and its AQ allies. An American intervention that tips the scales towards AQ would be absurd, and yet that seems to be exactly what Republicans and Democrats in Washington want from the Obama administration.
If we are going to intervene, it should be with a heavy footprint that ends the Nusrah Front’s control of wide swaths of Syria. That will take years, hundreds of thousands of troops, and probably trillions of dollars — but it’s the only way to intervene and keep Islamist terrorists from taking over large parts of Syria like they did in Libya, after a 30,000-foot intervention by Obama and NATO. If we don’t want to pay that kind of price for intervention, then let’s stay the hell out of Syria in the first place.

Now, who would make such a statement? Lew Rockwell? Ron Paul? Rand Paul? The Editors at The American Conservative? Patrick J. Buchanan?

Why, No.

It was none other than Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com.

For what it is truly worth, Ed has a good point. This whole neocon idea of controlling the entire arab world is absurd and would come back to bite us anyhow. We lost a good deal of American treasure in Iraq and for what? Some bad intelligence that no one could be bothered to verify? As Ed basically said here; lets not make that same mistake twice. We cannot afford it anyhow, and I just happen to believe that America is war-weary anyhow, any sort of military action would a disaster for the Democrats and for America in general.

So, hats off to Ed Morrissey for speaking a truth, that might not be that popular in his own circles. Being a truth-teller in politics, especially in Conservative circles is a really hard thing at times. I am sure that he took it on the chin to speak that truth on that blog. My thoughts are with him, because, as I well know; speaking from the heart and shooting from the hip is not easy sometimes.

On the terrorist attack in Boston

Yes, I happen to know about THIS HERE.

I have followed the blog coverage and roundup.

I do not think that we had it coming, that would be morbid. However, I will simply say this; seeing that we are doing this HERE and starting unconstitutional wars, occupying foreign lands, which is Wilsonian foreign policy —– what can we, as a Nation, honestly expect?

Just my thoughts.

Some good reading on the Iraq War

This is some good reading here. It is a progressive magazine and writer; but man does he ever have a point. The sick part is, we might just be doing it again, with Iran.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the invasion of Iraq turned out to be a joke. Not for the Iraqis, of course, and not for American soldiers, and not the ha-ha sort of joke either. And here’s the saddest truth of all: on March 20th as we mark the 10th anniversary of the invasion from hell, we still don’t get it. In case you want to jump to the punch line, though, it’s this: by invading Iraq, the US did more to destabilize the Middle East than we could possibly have imagined at the time. And we—and so many others—will pay the price for it for a long, long time.
via Why the Invasion of Iraq Was the Single Worst Foreign Policy Decision in American History | The Nation.

As for the Nork’s, I think that is a bunch of bluster myself. Of course, we are watching them and making sure nothing major goes on over there.

The Further Consequences of Wilsonian Foreign Policy in Iraq

This is what happens when you invade sovereign nations based upon bad intelligence and do not bother to verify said intelligence.

BAGHDAD – Car bombs struck two outdoor markets and a group of taxi vans in Shiite areas across Iraq on Friday, killing at least 36 people and wounding nearly 100 in the bloodiest day in more than two months, as minority Sunnis staged large anti-government protests.
Sunni protesters have rejected calls to violence by an Al Qaeda-linked group, but there is concern that Sunni insurgents could step up attacks ahead of the April 20 provincial elections — the first country-wide vote since the U.S. troop withdrawal more than a year ago.
via 4 car bombs at outdoor markets in Iraq kill at least 36, wound 100 | Fox News.

Now I am not going to sit here and write a posting blaming Bush for all the above. Yes, Bush was wrong about Iraq; but Bush has not been President since 2009, when he left office. Obama took the reigns of the Country and he now is the President, so, basically, Iraq was Obama’s baby when he took office. There are some who believe that Obama removed our troops too early; to be quite honest with you, I really do not agree with that at all. Because to be honest with you, our presence there was causing a good deal of friction in that Country, or at the very least, adding to the friction that was already there. Now the total anti-war people say that, if we would have never invaded Iraq, this above would not be happening; because Saddam would not tolerate it. This is true, but Saddam also was a brutal dictator, who did horrible things to his people as well. So, while it is not a good thing that we invaded that country, we did get rid of someone who was a horrible tyrant. This is why I never took, and still do not take a hard stance on the Iraq War and the middle east; because it is such a complex subject, and seems to get more complex by the minute. This is why I never really bought into the, “blood for oil” meme by the Democrats and the anti-war crowd. I did feel however, that once we got Saddam, we should have started making the moves to leave the Country.

However, I will say this; this Wilsonian bungle that did happen in Iraq, will be a black mark on America for a very long time to come. The Wilsonian foreign policy crowds biggest flaw, is that they cannot see past the end of their noses. They never look past the “here and now.” They always live in the moment. They do not stop to think about what might happen down the road; they never do. All they care about is defending Israel, no matter the cost of life or money. This is their fatal flaw and they have ruined America’s credibility around the World. What gets me is, how the Republicans like to blame Obama for ruining America’s standing in the World. The problem is, Obama is a very little part of that; the Neoconservatives, with their Wilsonian foreign policy ruined America’ reputation in just eight years time. True the Democrats did destroy the housing market and the economy. But, our standing in the World was done by Bush and the Neocons.

Anyone that tells you anything different than that, is either lying or a partisan. But, then again, I repeat myself.

Taking Religion out of the Military?

I have mixed feelings about this one:

“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.” A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.” “After a Christian prayer, the cross was removed from the roof of the chapel,” the spokesman said. “During the removal, the cross was dismantled; however the cross was reassembled and currently awaits transportation to a larger operational base.” The military told Fox News the cross will only be brought out during Christian services and will be designated as a “non-permanent religious symbol.” Silverman said a Christian chapel on an Army base in Afghanistan could have put American troops in danger. “It inflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,” he said. “This is not a Muslim versus Christian war — but if the Army base has a large chapel on it that has been converted to Christian-only, it sends a message that could be interpreted as hostile to Islam.” An Army spokesman said all chapels must be religiously neutral. “The primary purpose of making a chapel a neutral, multi-use facility is to accommodate the free exercise of religion for all faith groups using it,” he said. “We take the spiritual fitness of our Soldiers seriously and encourage them to practice their faith and exercise their beliefs however they choose.” Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way. “I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.” —- Military: Crosses Removed ‘Out of Respect for Other Faiths’ | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

On one hand, I would hate to think that having Christian symbols on a battle front could be putting our Military at risk. On the other hand, I would hate to see Christianity being removed from the Military entirely. However, we are in a Muslim Nation is Afghan region; one would think that the Military would want to be respectful of those people and their culture.

It is a mixed bag, and all the more reason why we really need to get out of that Country. Our mission is done there; we killed Osama and we need to leave. We do not want to make the same mistake the Russians made there. Besides all that, Al-Qaeda has moved into other regions and is much more a threat to other interests in other parts for the world now.

So, to this Independent, the quicker we leave, the better.

Rand Paul sells out his Father’s Birthright

I saw this morning and I could not believe what I was hearing. Rand Paul has basically sold out his Father’s Libertarian Birthright. Just so he can have a shot at running in 2016.

The video comes via the neoconservative blog HotAir.com:

Rand Paul sells America out.

The Quote:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States.
Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.
“Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

There is no two ways about it, Rand Paul is not his Father at all. His Father has principles; Rand sold his out for a little power and to placate a protected minority. It is sad that Rand Paul is more interested in pleasing a small part of the so-called “right” in order to get the blessing of the banksters and mobsters of the elitists in DC.

But, that is politics and it is proof that we need real Americans in DC. Not these rich elitists, who never had to use their backs to make a living.

I hate to say it, but he does have a good point

A very good point:

Obama won two elections giving voice to these policies, but within the neocon-dominated punditocracy and a Congress subject to pressure by the increasingly extremist American Israel Public Affairs Committee, they are akin to kryptonite. Hagel’s critics have been quick to unsheathe the McCarthyite tactics employed whenever opposition to any position of Israel’s right-wing government is at issue. The accusation is almost always “anti-Semitism,” but rarely has that charge proven as empty as in Hagel’s case. Leading the assault have been Pavlovian attack dogs like William Kristol and The Weekly Standard, Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, ex–AIPAC flack Josh Block, the ADL’s Abe Foxman, Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal, and convicted criminal and former Reagan and Bush II official Elliott Abrams, now respectably ensconced at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The allegation rests in significant measure on a 2008 quote in which Hagel—whom the interviewer, author and former US diplomat Aaron David Miller termed “a strong supporter of Israel and a believer in shared values”—criticized the use of political intimidation by the “Jewish lobby,” an infelicitous phrase he accidentally used to describe AIPAC. Hagel later said he misspoke and had meant to refer to the “Israel lobby,” just as he did elsewhere in Miller’s interview. It’s an easy mistake to make, since the “Israel lobby” is pretty darn Jewish. (Dick Cheney, for instance, has made the same error.) As it happens, Hagel is a better friend to Israel than the Likud quislings and apologists who make up what journalists mistakenly term the “pro-Israel lobby”; for starters, he is willing to tell its leaders the truth. Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general and adviser on US affairs to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, wrote recently that “Barak was thoroughly impressed not only by Hagel’s military background, but by his analysis, knowledge of the Middle East, and his understanding of Israel’s security issues and predicaments,” adding that Hagel “is not anti-Israeli and he is not an anti-Semite. In fact, if I were him I would lodge a complaint with the Anti-Defamation League, asking their assistance and support for being unfairly called an anti-Semite.”
What these hysterics may actually indicate is a genuine fear on the part of the neocons and conservative professional Jews that they are about to be exposed as generals without armies, demanding fealty to policies opposed by the vast majority of American Jews for whom they profess to speak. How marvelous, then, that Barack Obama finally decided there was one time he’d rather fight than switch. via Hooray for Hagel | The Nation

One thing that I really wish to dwell on here, and it bears repeating:

Hagel’s critics have been quick to unsheathe the McCarthyite tactics employed whenever opposition to any position of Israel’s right-wing government is at issue. The accusation is almost always “anti-Semitism,” but rarely has that charge proven as empty as in Hagel’s case.

I must admit, I can truly relate to this; I have accused of the very same stuff myself. I support Israel’s right to exist and all. But I do not support the stupidity of the Neoconservative right at all. This whole idea that America has to defend Israel unto the death is idiotic at best. Furthermore, the idea that America has to be the world’s policeman is out of touch with our economic realities here at home. The fact is that Wilsonian foreign policy is a disaster and America has had to learn the hard way many times already. We learned it in Korea, we learned in World War I, we learned it in Vietnam and now, we have learned it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, Israel has my support on existence; but this idea that Israel has the right to build on disputed territories and then sit, and moan and complain when Palestinian and Gaza terrorists fire rockets into Israel is mindbogglingly stupid. It is something that I cannot support at all. The said part is, that these Wilsonian Neoconservatives will tell you that I am a Jew-hater and Antisemite for simply saying what I just said to you here. I call it playing the Jew Card or playing the Semite Card. It cheapens the discussion and frosts any kind of criticism at all. Which is precisely what Joseph McCarthy did in the 1950’s.

So, as much as it pains me to say this; even though he is of the far left —- Alterman has a good point.

Iraq descends into chaos again

Even more residual effects from a ill-thought invasion of a sovereign Country:

BAGHDAD — It was just the sort of episode that observers have long worried could provoke a serious conflict: when federal police agents sought to arrest a Kurdish man last month in the city of Tuz Khurmato in the Kurdish north of the country, a gunfight ensued with security men loyal to the Kurdish regional government.
When the bullets stopped flying, a civilian bystander was dead and at least eight others were wounded.
In response, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, rushed troop reinforcements to the area, and Masoud Barzani, the president of Iraq’s semiautonomous northern Kurdish region, dispatched his own soldiers, known as the Peshmerga, and the forces remain there in a tense standoff.
Almost a year after the departure of the United States military closed a painful chapter in the histories of both nations, Iraq finds itself in a familiar position: full-blown crisis mode, this time with two standing armies, one loyal to the central government in Baghdad and the other commanded by the Kurdish regional government in the north, staring at each other through gun sights, as officials in Baghdad, including American diplomats and an American general, try to mediate.
via Iraq’s Latest Crisis Is a Standoff With Northern Kurds – NYTimes.com.

My Mother was right, she always is. In 2003, when United States announced that we were invading the Country of Iraq, my Mother, the eternal Democrat that she is, told me that President George W. Bush was simply wrong in his assumptions that invading that Country was necessary. Turns out, she and many others were correct, and people like me; someone who watched 9/11 happen on live TV, were wrong.

To be clear, I supported invading Iraq and the United States presence in the Country of Iraq until it became very clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in that Country. This was around 2006, and when the War in Iraq turned into a meat grinder. This is also when I began my career as a blogger. (Please Note: That archive linked, only shows from 2007, which is when I bought my domain. I previously blogged at Blogspot/Blogger)

Like another well-known so-called Conservative blogger, who I will not link to, because of her stupidity towards me — said; invading Iraq was nothing more than a present to the Iranians. Furthermore, it was destabilizing factor in the region and this story above is proof of that.

I think America needs to think very hard and very long before attempting to play the World’s policeman again.

Video: Ron Paul’s exit interview

I will simply say this: Ron Paul’s downfall was that he dared to question the AIPAC crowd and their motivations. This made him a pariah on the right. Something I know full well about. Also too, his foreign policy views were a bit out of touch. Do not get me wrong, I do admire the guy. But he was stuck in a era prior to December 7, 1941. I agree with the premise that Wilsonian foreign policy is wrong. But, I disagree with his feeling that Iran should be left alone.

Personally, I believe in peace, though strength…. and not domination of the World by military might, or irresponsibility by disengagement of foreign policy. We have to be realists about the middle east and other places around the World. This, I suppose, would make me a Paleoconservative; who is a fatal realist. President Reagan followed this line very well. Both Bush Presidents were terrible at it. Again, I can empathize with Ron Paul and the rest of Paleoconservatives views. However, I believe realistic policy and no one based on ones whimsical feelings about “the way it was.”

Hopefully that makes sense.

(Via Washington Post H/T to InstaPundit)

Max Boot makes a very good point

I must be slipping. Silly

I am actually sitting here and agreeing with something that Max Boot wrote in Commentary Magazine. Surprise

Quote:

Today the U.S. Navy must prepare for two major wars–one against Iran in the Persian Gulf, the other against China in the Western Pacific–while also combating piracy off the coast of Africa, dealing with unexpected wars such as the one in Libya last year, supporting ground operations in Afghanistan and other theaters, combating drug runners in the Caribbean, and showing the flag in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and other seas. The operational tempo dictated by these requirements is terrific, as I have seen for myself in the last few years in visits to the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the 7th Fleet in Japan.
The ships we have are, when not retrofitting in port, almost constantly at sea and they are struggling to keep up with threats ranging from Chinese “aircraft-killer” ballistic missiles and submarines to Iranian mines and cruise missiles–not to mention the ever-present threat of cyberattack and terrorism (of the kind which crippled the USS Cole). Yes, the capabilities of each naval ship are greater today–but so are its range of potential missions and so are the capabilities of our potential foes. China is expanding its maritime capabilities at a rapid clip; the U.S. Navy is struggling to keep up and the balance of power in the Western Pacific is shifting against us.
That is in large part why the bipartisan Hadley-Perry Commission concluded in 2010 that the Navy should have 346 ships. Yet today it has only 282 ships–and falling. As former Navy Secretary (and Romney adviser) John Lehman noted in April: “The latest budget the administration has advanced proposes buying just 41 ships over five years. It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”
That is a looming strategic disaster–and one that no amount of quips about horses and bayonets can wish away. If we don’t build more ships, our global maritime dominance–the basic underpinning of the world’s strategic and economic stability–is in real danger of slipping away.

The only thing that I have a quibble with, is that he actually forgot Russia. If Max thinks that Russia is not a threat to our National Security; he is nuts. As long as Putin has his hands in the Government in Russia, the United States should be very worried. Putin is a holdover from the communist era in Russia and he would just love to take Russia back to the old Communist era. So, they are a threat, as a matter of face they were just testing missiles yesterday.

Reagan always said, when it came to Russia; “Trust, But Verify” and Reagan always did try and independently verify anything that the Russians were saying or doing. All of the Presidents since then have not been so careful, as far as I know. As much as I know that it is going to make me sound like a conspiracy theory kook; I really do not believe that Russia is to be trusted at all. Communism never quite dies, it just takes on new shapes and names. Sort of like what we have here in America, as it is called —- imperfect Marxism.

However, over in Russia, I believe it to be a bit more sinister and complex; those who would want to bring back old soviet-style communism, have plenty of funding, as many in the Russian Business and underworld, would stand to make a good deal of money, if the old Communist Party came back to power. So, that is a threat and I believe our Military should always be on the ready, for when the Russians decided to show muscle.

I hate to be the one to say it; but, anyone who thinks that there are not threats to the security of this Country and others in the region, is at the very least highly uninformed. This is why I always had a quibble with Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As Paul’s foreign policy was just simply not rooted in the realities of the time. Ron Paul seems to be stuck in a utopian era, before World War 2. Truth is, times have changed, and we must be responsible as a Nation to protect this great Republic of ours, from those who wish to cause it harm. This is not a “Neo-Con” foreign policy, that is a reality based, Pro-American foreign policy.

Sadly, Ron Paul refuses to accept that argument and that is why I always had trouble taking him seriously, except maybe on matters of fiscal policy. Even then, some of his ideas are just not rooted in reality. Nice ideas, but a bit out of step for the realities of today.