America's Benefit from Israel -- We Should Continue Support for the Hebraic Peoples

America's three permanent strategic interests in the Middle East are as follows:

 

1 - Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region to global consumers through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.

 

2 - Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

 

3 - Maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region.

 

A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these vital American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel's regional position dictate this state of affairs.

1 - As the first target of the most radical regimes and radical sub-state actors in the region, Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

 

Israel's 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite US condemnation at the time, the US later acknowledged that the strike was a necessary precondition to the success of Operation Desert Storm ten years later. Richard Cheney - who served as secretary of defense during Operation Desert Storm - has stated that if Iraq had been a nuclear power in 1991, the US would have been hard pressed to eject Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army from Kuwait and so block his regime from asserting control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

 

2 - Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded.

 

Israel's strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening. Far from destabilizing the region, a strong Israel stabilizes the Middle East by deterring the most radical actors from attacking.

 

In 1970, Israel blocked Syria's bid to use the PLO to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel's threat to attack Syria not only saved the Hashemites then, it has deterred Syria from attempting to overthrow the Jordanian regime ever since.

 

Similarly, Israel's neighbors understand that its purported nuclear arsenal is a weapon of national survival and hence they view it as non-threatening. This is the reason Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race.

 

In stark contrast, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a regional nuclear arms race will ensue immediately.

 

Although they will never admit it, Israel's non-radical neighbors feel more secure when Israel is strong. On the other hand, the region's most radical regimes and non-state actors will always seek to emasculate Israel.

 

3-- Since as the Jewish state Israel is the regional bogeyman, no Arab state will agree to form a permanent alliance with it. Hence, Israel will never be in a position to join forces with another nation against a third nation.

 

In contrast, the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic of the 1960s was formed to attack Israel. Today, the Syrian-Iranian alliance is an inherently aggressive alliance against Israel and the non-radical Arab states in the region. Recognizing the stabilizing force of a strong Israel, the moderate states of the region prefer for Israel to remain strong.

 

From the US's perspective, far from impairing its alliance-making capabilities in the region, by providing military assistance to Israel, America isn't just strengthening the most stabilizing force in the region. It is showing all states and non-state actors in the greater Middle East it is trustworthy.

 

On the other hand, every time the US seeks to attenuate its ties with Israel, it is viewed as an untrustworthy ally by the nations of the Middle East. US hostility towards Israel causes Israel's neighbors to hedge their bets by distancing themselves from the US lest America abandon them to their neighboring adversaries.

 

A strong Israel empowers the relatively moderate actors in the region to stand up to the radical actors in the region because they trust Israel to keep the radicals in check. Today's regional balance of power in which the moderates have the upper hand over the radicals is predicated on a strong Israel.

 

On the other hand, when Israel is weakened the radical forces are emboldened to threaten the status quo. Regional stability is thrown asunder. Wars become more likely. Attacks on oil resources increase. The most radical sub-state actors and regimes are emboldened.

 

To the extent that the two-state solution assumes that Israel must contract itself to within the indefensible 1949 ceasefire lines, and allow a hostile Palestinian state allied with terrorist organizations to take power in the areas it vacates, the two-state solution is predicated on making Israel weak and empowering radicals. In light of this, the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America's most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.

 

When we bear in mind the foundations for the US's alliance with Israel, it is obvious that US support for Israel over the years has been the most cost-effective national security investment in post-World War II US history.

...(read more)...

Libertarians We Can Trust In -- Good News In My Minds Eye

From: Eric Dondero, Libertarian Republican

With his son Rand in a hotly contested race for the Republican nomination for US Senate, Ron Paul may be treading a bit more lightly on the non-interventionist/isolationist rhetoric of the past. In fact, he may even be inching closer to a more mainstream Republican view.

The younger Paul of course, is running on a strong defense platform. In fact, he's made some statements like supporting intervention against Iran over nuclear missiles, and fiercely opposing closing down Gitmo, that have likely made some Ron Paulist's hairs stand on end.

Cong. Paul sent out a press release endorsing Senate primary candidate and his former House colleague John Hostettler in Indiana. In the 4th paragraph down he made the following slightly nuanced remark:

John also understands that we need to fight for a stronger national defense, where we support our troops and defend our country without policing the world or subsidizing the security of other wealthy nations.

A "stronger national defense"? Defending "our country?" Those are welcomed sentiments by those of us who are in the Pro-Defense wing of the libertarian movement....

...(read more)...

"Obama is an Amateur.... a Disaster who doesn't Learn" ~ Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger

BREAKING: IRANIAN FORCES TAKE OVER IRAQ OIL WELL

NASIRIYAH, Iraq (AFP) – Iranian forces took control of a southern Iraqi oil well on a disputed section of the border on Friday, US and Iraqi officials told AFP.

"There has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran," a US military spokesman told AFP at Contingency Operating Base Adder, just outside the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

"The oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts," he said, adding that such incidents occur quite frequently.

An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: "An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

"It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory," the official added.

"An oil ministry delegation is to travel to the area on Saturday to assess the situation."

The national security council was due to hold an emergency meeting on Friday chaired by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi state television said quoting the minister of state for national security, Shirwan al-Waili.

The council also groups the ministers of interior, defence, foreign affairs, justice and finance.

Well 4 lies in the Fauqa Field, part of a cluster of fields Iraq unsuccessfully put up for auction to oil majors in June. The field has estimated reserves of 1.55 million barrels.

The field is about 500 metres (yards) from an Iranian border fort and about 1 kilometre from an Iraqi border fort, US Colonel Peter Newell said, adding that it falls on the Iraqi side of a border agreed between the two countries....

....[more]....

"Slow: Children At Play"

Afghan President Hamid Karzai Says Afghanistan Needs 15-20 Years of Assistance

I found this very interesting, for the main reason that he knows that to have a government in power like that is moderate and concerned about freedom (corrupt or not) for a generation (20-years) is very important and may be the most powerful change factor Afghanistan needs.  Israel needed two generations to loose most of what they had been taught while slaves in Egypt. Dr. Ken Jowitt talks about this here:

Professor Ken Jowitt Answers What It Takes to "Nation Build" -- Why We Will Fail in Iraq (& Afghanistan) -- 2004

(See Time Marker 1:03:26 Into Video.)

This is the best explanation on why we will fail in Iraq and Afghanistan I have heard!  Hands-down.

British Defense Secretary Points the Finger at Obama

(Drudge Headline)

Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington - and a lack of clear direction - had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.


Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

Polls show most voters now want an early withdrawal, following the death of 98 British service personnel this year alone.

Ministers say the mission is vital to stop international terrorists using Afghanistan as a base, but Gordon Brown has promised an “exit strategy” that could start next year. .... (read more) ....

Senator Graham Questions (e.g., Destroys) Attorney General Eric Holder -- Plus! Patrick Leahy Saying We Don't Need To Iterrogate Bin Laden... The Dems Do Not Understand the War on Terror

We Wouldn't interrogate him (bin Laden) merely for convicting him, we obviously already have enough evidence to shoot him on the spot.  We would interrogate him (bin Laden) to get connections and information on the dated terror network as well as any insights into the new gen guys.  This needs to be done without Miranda warnings or Federal Court oversight or legal opportunities to have evidence thrown out.  Eric Holder (above) and Obama have a fundamental misunderstanding (as does Leahy) about the nature of this war.

Perspectives Cartoons

233-year History of Protocol -- Out the Door (World Leaders Comapred to Obama)

Charles Krauthammer Says Barack Obama's Attacks On Bush are "Disgusting"

Russia Ramping Up Cuba -- Cold War Redux

Deja vu! Russians arming Cuba's military
Plans include sensitive electronic eavesdropping station 90 miles from U.S.

(World Net Daily h/t)

Russia is offering to modernize Cuba's deteriorating weapons systems – installed when the former Soviet Union was expanding worldwide – and it also wants to reactivate a sensitive electronic eavesdropping station on the nearby island at Lourdes, use Cuba as a base to refuel its bombers and a port to replenish supplies on its warships, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

These developments emerged following the visit to Cuba in late September by Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the Russian General Staff. Makarov met with Cuban President Raul Castro in Havana.

Cuba's Soviet-made military equipment has been falling apart. After an assessment, the Russian military has decided to undertake a comprehensive modernization. In addition, the Cuban army also will receive Russian military training....

...in August 2008 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared that Russia needed to rebuild its links to the Cuban island.

He was careful not to say that Russia was establishing bases in Cuba, even though Moscow apparently intends to use the Caribbean island as a potential refueling stop for its nuclear-capable bombers and for ports of call for its warships.

Then Russian Air Force chief Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev in March 2009 had made it clear that Cuba, as well as Venezuela, could be used to base Russia's strategic bombers, although the Kremlin was quick to add at the time that such a development was "hypothetical."

"We need to reestablish positions on Cuba and in other countries," Putin said.

The moves have been developing for some time. In December 2008 a group of Russian warships, headed by the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, visited.

"Does Obama Believe In Human Rights?" Seems Liek A Fair Question Considering His Record (radicalism on display)

First Obama seems to back Iran's theocratic regime that kills or tortures its citizenry for such things as merely being gay, not wearing the proper clothing, fighting for woman's rights, and the like. Then the Honduras government legally removed its president via their congress, his party, and their constitution. Obama's administration also backed other government entities than Columbia, and seem to support Venezuela. Here is more from the "does Obama believe in human rights" category. This story comes from Gateway Pundit... he does a bang-up job.

White House to Meet With Killer Military Regime in Burma

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Jim Hoft

Bret Stevens asked the question in The Wall Street Journal yesterday,
“Does Obama believed in human rights?”
…After nine months on the job we have our answer.

In 2007 thousands of democracy activists in Burma (or Myanmar) rose up and protested against the brutal junta in control their country.

Thousands of Buddhist monks marched in the Hledan area of Rangoon back in September 2007. The monks led massive democracy protests against the violent junta. But the protests didn’t last long. The military regime cracked down on the activists killing and imprisoning several thousand men and women for demanding freedom. (BBC)

The regime slaughtered the democracy protesters. They gunned them down in the streets.

This is raw footage of the execution of Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai by the Burmese junta on September 27, 2007.

This coming week the Obama Administration will send a delegation to meet with the killer regime in Burma.
The Age reported:

The United States is preparing to send a rare mission to Burma but warns that its bid to engage the military junta after decades of hostility will be “slow and painful.”

Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said a team would head to Burma to follow up on talks last month in New York, which marked the highest-level US contact with the regime in nearly a decade.

But in testimony Wednesday before a House of Representatives committee, Campbell cautioned: “We expect engagement with Burma to be a long, slow, painful and step-by-step process.”

A Burma official on Thursday confirmed the “fact-finding” trip would take place next week. But the official gave no further details, saying the visit was still in the planning stages.

Campbell did not specify who would take part in the trip. Another senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Campbell hoped to go himself but it would depend on whether the junta gives him access to the opposition.

Cheney Hammers Obama Again! "Obama Seems Afraid"

Greta's Take

Fuller Version

White House Policy Causing More Military Deaths -- Pakistan Making a Move, We Aren't

Are we pushing back? I can say no... we need more troops to really push back.

Jules Crittenden makes a good point — if we’re not pushing back with more troops on the other side of the border, how effective can Pakistan’s new offensive be, even if they commit to it fully?

(Source)

76 Days Since Request For More Troops, Obama Accused Of Stalling

IN Afghanistan they would call it a shura, the traditional tribal way of listening to elders’ views before reaching a consensus. In Washington, where President Barack Obama has now held five war councils, they are starting to call it dithering.

With another council on the Afghan war scheduled for this week, US officials admit it could be November before a decision is finally taken on whether to agree to General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops. One participant revealed that the protagonists have not yet discussed troop numbers.

Latest polls show a majority of Americans now disapprove of Obama’s handling of a war which may come to define his presidency. Many senior members of his own party are in open revolt.

Senator Robert Byrd, at 91 a Democratic institution, was so incensed that he dragged himself from his hospital bed last week to make a 13-minute speech. “Does it really take 100,000 troops to find Osama Bin Laden?” he wondered. “And how much will this cost? How much in terms of more dollars? How much in terms of American blood?”....

Obama: Rhetoric vs. Reality

(Power Line h/t)

Christopher Hitchens Hits Gold at MSNBC (plus handshakes to drive the "Obama has changed the worlds perception of the U.S.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

!! This is a HUGE LR h/t !! From Gateway Pundit... From Desert Conservative... From YouTube's Raymond Newberry (that was fun)

• Another article on "Obama Healing the World:" Fatah: Hopes in Obama 'evaporated'