2/25/2008
American political science professor Norman Finkelstein who was fired from DePaul University was interviewed on Lebanese television [video clip] back On January 20th and stated the opinion that the only way that there will be peace in the middle east is for Israel to suffer a defeat. Considering that Finkelstein’s parents were halocaust survivors, this looks like a sick form of self loathing on the surface. But, when you dig a little further into the interview [transript] you find that it’s not only that, but Anti-Americanism and bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Interviewer: The war could have been avoided.
Norman Finkelstein: It could not have been avoided. There is no way that the United States and Israel are going to tolerate any resistance in the Arab world. If you want to pretend it can be avoided, you can play that game. But serious people, clear-headed people, knew there was going to be a war sooner or later.
[…]
Do you think there is not going to be another war? Do you think Israel is going to allow that defeat in July 2006? Do you want to pretend it is Hizbullah that is causing the trouble? No, there will be another war, and the destruction will probably be ten times worse – maybe even more – than July 2006, because Israel is determined, with the United States, to put the Arabs in their place and to keep them in their place. Now, how can I not respect those who say no to that? You know, during the Spanish Civil War there was a famous woman – they called her “La Pasionaria†– Dolores Ibárruri, from the Spanish Republic. She famously said: “It’s better to die on your feet than to walk crawling on your knees.â€
Interviewer: But that is up to the Lebanese people in its entirety.
Norman Finkelstein: I totally agree. I am not telling you what to do with your lives, and if you’d rather live crawling on your feet, I could respect that. I could respect that. People want to live. How can I deny you that right? But then, how can I not respect those who say they would rather die on their feet? How can I not respect that?
[…]
Israel and the United States are attacking, because they will not allow any military resistance to their control of the region. That’s the problem. If Hizbullah laid down its arms, and said: “We will do whatever the Americans say,†you wouldn’t have a war – that’s true, but you would also be the slaves of the Americans. I have to respect those who refuse to be slaves.
Interviewer: Is there no other way than military resistance?
Norman Finkelstein: I don’t believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. Who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn’t want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could. So I am not saying that I want it, but I honestly don’t see another way, unless you choose to be their slaves – and many people here have chosen that. I can’t really say… I can understand it – you want to live. I can’t really say I respect it. You know, so many dead, so much destruction… Before the bodies are even buried, before the buildings are even rebuilt, the person who is responsible for it all – you can’t wait to welcome him. You can’t wait to roll out the red carpet. I can’t respect that.
In that respect, I like the Jews much more. I like their attitude. Do you know what the Jewish attitude is? Never to forgive, never to forget. I agree with that. Who roll out the red carpet less than two years after your whole country was destroyed by them? The Secretary of State said it was the birth pangs of a new Middle East. That’s the statement of a freak. A human freak would compare the birth of a child with the destruction of a country, and yet, there are people here who are so anxious to welcome her. They are trying to figure out what the Americans are thinking. They can’t wait for their banquets. How can anyone respect that? I respect the Jews a thousand times more - never to forgive, never to forget. All the death and all the destruction – and you can’t wait to welcome him. [Emphasis added — Jim C]
Interviewer: Norman…
Norman Finkelstein: It’s disgusting! [Emphasis added — Jim C]
[…]
Who the hell cares if Bush is coming? [Emphasis added — Jim C]
Interviewer: But you say there will be another war.
Norman Finkelstein: You should have declared him persona non grata. He’s not welcome here. He destroyed your country. He was responsible for the war. You know full well that resolution could have been passed three weeks earlier. He destroys your country, and you can’t wait to greet him. You have no self-respect. How can you expect other people to respect Arabs, if you show no respect for yourselves?
What a sad re-write of history. First of all, President Bush didn’t have any say over Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah, so his anger at President Bush is a little ridiculous. Secondly, if anything here is disgusting it’s Mr. Finkelstein’s support of America’s enemies.
If this guy’s found guilty he ought to be taken out behind the courthouse and shot. To betray your country like this. To betray your shipmates like this is simply unforgivable.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — The trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges promises to offer a glimpse into how prosecutors say an American serviceman communicated with suspected terrorists over the Internet while on duty and leaked information that could have doomed his own ship.
Prosecutors, defense attorneys and spectators began arriving at the U.S. District Courthouse about an hour before the trial was to begin about 9 a.m. Monday.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad sent details of the location and vulnerabilities of a Navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London.
“I think it’s a very important case,” said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. “If we have members of our military who are aggressively passing on secrets to terrorists, that’s cause for concern. It’s a very aggressive act which would have brought real danger to the United States.”
2/24/2008
The Long War, Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda
The Long War Journal has a good article about the dead terrorist Imad Mugniyah and his ties to not only Hezbollah and Iran, but Al Qaeda and Sadr’s Mahdi army in Iraq. Mugniyah has long been known to have ties to Hezbollah, Iran, and Al Qaeda. But, his ties to Sadr’s Mahdi army have only recently come to light.
This shows several things. First, it shows that the Sunni - Shia divide means little when it comes to fighting the US and supporting Islamofacist terrorists. It shows that — like US commanders have been saying for months — Iran is involved neck deep in the insurgency in Iraq. Finally, it shows that AQ has been involved in Iraq since before the war. Those that have followed this topic will remember that Zarqawi was originally an AQ fighter in Afghanistan, but was sent to Iraq by Osama Bin Laden to help Saddam fight US forces before the US invaded in 2003 (there has also been some speculation that he was wounded in Afghanistan, and was sent to Iraq to receive treatment at one of Saddam’s hospitals in Baghdad).
Anthony Cordesman — who hasn’t been a big fan of President Bush’s policies in Iraq — has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post that talks about the possibilities of winning, and the consequences of losing.
What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don’t end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.
If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.
The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.
Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience — or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.
As they say, go read the whole thing.
 Hat Tip: Neptunus Lex
2/23/2008
More On Obama’s Statement; UPDATE: Flopping Aces and Jawa Report Have More
UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces, and Dr. Shackleford at the Jawa Report have a lot more on Obama’s claim from the debate the other night. Meanwhile, Senator John Warner (R — VA) has asked for details from Senator Obama so that an investigation can begin. Â
The gents at Black Five — Uncle Jimbo and Deebow — have posted on Obama’s statement at last night’s debate already. It’s as I suspected… sort of. There’s a small bit of truth to the story, but it’s been spun and mutilated so badly that it doesn’t really resemble the truth anymore.
From Deebow’s post:
But I want to be clear to everyone on Senator Obama’s points:
There were no shortages of anything “American” that I needed to fight the battle. We did have some issues with supply in our own chain of command (I think they thought that we weren’t really “at war” and wanted justifications for everything) and in getting more crew served weapons, as many of those were headed to Iraq, and between repairs and replacements, extra heavy weapons were hard to come by. I knew all of the other units in the area and we got many of our supplies from Active Duty units that we might operate with or be co-located with. I never wanted for ammunition, food, fuel, explosives, American Mortar rounds (for the 120mm that I got from SF) or other classes of supply.
I did not have to “scavenge” a weapon off of any dead Taliban. Their captured or liberated equipment was something that was returned to the service of the Afghan government (if it could be made serviceable after I got done taking it from the Taliban) or destroyed. My M-4, and all of those guns inside that truck were of vastly better quality than anything the Taliban had. They worked as advertised.
 Although I was allowed to teach the NCOs how to teach their soldiers how to operate their weapons, I was prohibited by my command (all the way up the chain of command) from using these weapons on operations. It was a stupid rule, and I did carry an 82mm mortar and rounds in the back of my truck on a few operations to augment our firepower. That would be the extent of my use of any “foreign” weapons.
No unit that I ran into, regardless of their designation or acronym, carried anything other than what was issued by the US Government, at least that I could tell. In many cases, they had more than they needed and would give some of it to me without even asking.
I was issued my M-4 and M-9 Beretta in the US and carried them for the entire deployment and turned it all in when I got to Ft. Carson.
Every unit I conducted operations with, visited my firebase, assisted us in operations, or co-located with us had a good supply of whatever they needed to ensure the Taliban stayed dead.
So, No, Senator Obama, the situation you described at the debate never happened anywhere I went. That assertion by you is as full of crap as a Christmas Goose, and I think you know it.
A closed mouth gathers no foot Senator Obama. Better for you to stick with “Hope” and “Change.”
2/22/2008
This Doesn’t Pass The Sniff Test
Presidential hopeful and Senator Barack Hussein Obama made a statement last night in the Democratic debate that he was told by a US Army captain that had been deployed to Afghanistan that his troops were capturing Taliban weapons and using them because it was easier to do that than it was to be properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief.
…Obama’s campaign stands by his remarks, which he made during a debate with Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas, while explaining why he feels he is prepared to be commander-in-chief and why the decision to enter Iraq demonstrated poor judgment.
During the debate, he said he was told by an Army captain heading a rifle platoon that he was sent to Afghanistan with 15 fewer soldiers than he was supposed to have because the other troops were sent to Iraq.
“And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition; they didn’t have enough Humvees,†Obama said. “They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander-in-chief.â€
The Army captain Obama mentioned later told FOX News that in fact he and his platoon were fighting near the Pakistan border with only three Humvees, one of which had no doors and no roof.
The captain, who asked not to be identified, said his mounted machines guns stopped working and without the proper parts to repair them the troops were forced to scavenge for Taliban weapons. The captain said he met Obama in 2003 and later told his story to an Obama staffer.
Army spokesman John P. Boyce Jr. issued a statement saying: “Without a unit designation or time frame of deployment, it’s difficult for us to verify the validity of what was told to the senator. Our soldiers deploy as complete units — either as companies, battalions or brigades, and they do so with every soldier armed with his or her individual weapon. … Army units and individual replacements arrive in country fully capable to conduct combat operations.â€
There are many different ways that one can spin what the captain reportedly told the Senator, and there are a number of follow up questions that I would like to ask the captain. For one, I would like to know if he was on patrol when he was scavenging for Taliban weapons, or was this parts problem an ongoing issue. It’s one thing to use what you have at your disposal while on patrol. It’s another thing entirely for a patrol base to not have replacement parts for broken weapons.
I’m going to contact some friends who would know a little more about the issue and ask them about this. But, based on what I’ve seen in the FOX News article, Senator Obama’s charge that it’s easier to scavenge for Taliban weapons than it is to be properly equipped by the current Commander in Chief doesn’t pass the sniff test. I’ll post an update to this story when I find out more.
2/19/2008
The tyrant Fidel Castro has called it quits. In a letter to his “compatriots” he says that he will not seek or accept the position of commander in chief or the position of President of the State Council.
To my dearest compatriots, who have recently honored me so much by electing me a member of the Parliament where so many agreements should be adopted of utmost importance to the destiny of our Revolution, I am saying that I will neither aspire to nor accept — I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept — the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.
Fidel’s younger brother Raul is expected to be nominated as President of the State Council and C-in-C.
HAVANA — An ailing, 81-year-old Fidel Castro resigned as Cuba’s president Tuesday after nearly a half-century in power, saying he will not accept a new term when parliament meets Sunday.
The end of Castro’s rule — the longest in the world for a head of government — frees his 76-year-old brother Raul to implement reforms he has hinted at since taking over as acting president when Fidel Castro fell ill in July 2006.
Castro hasn’t been seen in public since he fell ill 19 months ago.
I hope that Cuba can begin to make a transition to democracy and freedom. The people there have lived under the oppresive ideology of Communism and Marxism for around 50 years.
What will it take to bring this about? I believe it will probably take US involvement. Not militarily mind you, but through dialogue and sharing our ideas and our definition of freedom.
One thing is clear — the prisons and gulags will have to close. Raul should release the dissidents and begin a discussion with them about the future of their country.
The US could pressure Raul to do this. We can use the carrot and stick approach… offer economic incentives if Raul releases the dissidents, and begins a dialogue with them. Take those incentives off the table if he refuses.
The reality is that it’s likely nothing will change under Raul Castro. He’ll likely want to continue his brother’s failed policies, and even if he were inclined to change, he’ll have pressure from his fellow travelers — tyrants and Marxists like Hugo Chavez.
In addition to pressure from Chavez, there is Iranian involvement in Cuba as well. Castro visited Tehran in November of 2005 before he fell ill, and Ahmadinejad returned the favor in September of 2006 by visiting Havanna for a non-aligned conference to oppose the United States.
In a disquieting development, Castro visited Tehran in November where he given sacred Islamic texts in Spanish and was invited by Iran’s religious leadership to convert to Islam. “We spoke to Castro for several hours and I think we even almost managed to convince him to convert to Islam,†said one source close to the meeting. “Castro is certain that the Cuban people are suffering from a lack of spiritually, and seems interested in Islam, above all the writings of Iranian leader Khomeini,†the source said.
But Castro’s initial interest in Islam actually surfaced many years ago. Shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers drove the Shah into exile in 1979, Castro dispatched Cuban envoys to Tehran to rekindle bilateral relations, professing his admiration for the “revolutionary role of Islam.â€
and…
“I am announcing that we are available, we are ready for new conditions,” he said before leaving to fly to a Non-Aligned summit in Cuba. Ahmadinejad was speaking through a translator, Reuters reported.
It’s likely that Iran’s interest in Cuba isn’t so much because Iran believes in communism, but because they see it as an opportunity to get one step closer to the US. A Cuba aligned with a nuclear armed Islamofacist Iran should be enough to keep us all awake at night. Imagine another Cuban missile crisis… only with far less rational thought and no concept of mutually assured destruction.Â
2/11/2008
Andrew McCarthy On McCain Derangement Syndrome
Rich Galen penned a brutal op-ed the other day saying that conservative critics of McCain have come down with “McCain derangement syndrome”. McCarthy puts that little lie to bed by noting that McCain can’t seem to get a majority of conservative votes, and that conservatives have every right to be concerned about the maverick from Arizona.
In fact, as between the two of us, it’s McCain’s supporters who are deluding themselves. I take them at their word, for example, that a hallmark of the senator’s politics is his tenacity on matters of principle. Consequently, I am skeptical of his assurances that he would appoint conservative judges who will apply rather than create law. Why? Because he has a recent, determined history of beseeching federal courts to disregard the First Amendment in furtherance of a dubious campaign-finance scheme in which he believes passionately. Conservative judges would (and have) rejected this scheme, just as they would (and have) rejected another signature McCain position: the extension of Geneva Convention protections for jihadists.
Now, the appointment of conservative judges is a crucial issue — one McCain posits as central to why we should prefer him to Obama and Clinton. Thus supporters breezily wave off such concerns, maintaining that McCain both promises there will be no issue-based litmus tests for judicial nominees and has conservatives of impeccable legal credentials advising him.
But for me to conclude McCain would surely appoint conservative judges, I also have to believe campaign-finance and the Geneva Convention weren’t all that big a deal to him after all — a possibility that runs counter to everything McCain’s fans tell us about his fidelity to principle. He’s fought tirelessly for years, in the teeth of blistering criticism, to establish campaign-finance regulations, and I’m now supposed to believe he’ll just shrug his shoulders and meekly name judges who’ll torpedo the whole enterprise — all in the name of upholding a judicial philosophy I’m not even sure he grasps? How exactly is it deranged to have my doubts?
In the end, McCarthy makes a convincing argument that McCain’s supporters aren’t doing their candidate any favors by demonizing the very people that he’ll need to win the election.
As they say, go read the whole thing.
2/7/2008
McCain At CPAC: He Talks A Good Game
Gov. Mitt Romney has bowed out of the race for the Republican nomination. In an inspiring speech he said that he cannot let the continuation of his campaign be used to facilitate a loss in the war on terror. Here is the applicable portion of his speech.
Since then, John McCain has stepped to the podium to speak to CPAC. So far he’s talked a good game. He’s even made some efforts to make up to conservatives (such as myself)Â who have been critical of him. We still have many differences, but I feel that the differences that I have with McCain are far less consequential than the differences I have with the Democrats.