Monday, December 11, 2006

The ISG Report and Gates

While catching up at Jihad Watch this weekend I found this article on the nomination of Robert Gates to Secretary of Defense.

Gates’ public statement on Israel's nuclear capability was made in the course of giving what sounded like sympathetic justification for Iran's nuclear program. Iran, he said, "feels threatened" by the nuclear weapons possessed by Pakistan to its east, by Russia to its north, by Israel to its west, and by American forces to its south in the Gulf.

Would he explain away, or justify, the nuclear program of Kim Jong-Il by nothing other than that North Korea is "threatened" by nuclear powers to its north (Russia), to its west (China), to its east and south by the American nuclear submarines and naval fleets in the Sea of Japan and in the North Pacific? Of course not.

Even the slightest hint of thinking in the same way, or providing the same arguments as, the apologists for the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- the apologists such as Ahmadinejad -- is unacceptable.

What Gates said is unacceptable. The Senators should have noted that, and read him the riot act on that.

There's more and it's worth reading. I've become somewhat concerned about the direction the world has taken since the recent US election- the ISG is advocating surrender, alignment with Iran and Syria and throwing Israel to the wolves; Hezbollah seem to be making their move in Lebanon; Syria is making noises about the Golan Heights; Iranian armaments are turning up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists; the Islamic Courts continue their unimpeded takeover of Somalia; the genocide continues in Sudan; the Taliban battle on in Afghanistan; the lone voice of sanity in the UN, John Bolton, has resigned- and through it all, Bush and the Republican Party seem to have just given up.

Despite the stunning military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, the lingering terrorism problem has been twisted by the mass media into a daily deluge of propaganda against victory. It seems that politicians are once more on the verge of foisting a defeat on an American military which remains undefeated in actual combat. Gone are the days when the Bush administration stressed time and again- better to fight them over there rather than over here. Instead, we have the dreary defeatist talk of the ISG. And with that preposterous report the wind seems to have gone out of the sails of those who realise that a retreat in Iraq- under whatever name- will leave the citizens of that country entirely at the mercy of bloodthirsty barbarians and embolden an entire generation against the "weak" USA.

One can see that in the solemn debates over the Iraq Study Group, in which no one in Washington dares to question the definition of "winning" when, for example, Robert Gates says "no, Senator, we are not winning." Not a soul asks: Perhaps we won? Perhaps we have permitted, with the removal of Saddam Hussein, the setting in motion of events that will inevitably divide and demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad? Perhaps what you, Mr. Gates, and all these others call "catastrophe" in Iraq is no catastrophe at all, but a means to preoccupy Sunni and Shi'a alike, to cause them to squander men, money, materiel, against one another rather than against us? It may even lead, perhaps, if the Shi'a win, to the Saudis begging us to protect them, as they wanted us to during the First Gulf War. And this time, we may -- but only if they pay us, say, a few hundred billion (for a start), and if furthermore they agree to stop all funding of mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, including those at academic centers that are Saudi-funded, and CAIR-like groups all over the Western world.

That may be a "catastrophe" for Robert Gates and the Bush Administration, and the stolid Board-Members (just the kind of solid, dull people corporations like to have on their boards, and that's what they are: they are Board Members) whom James Baker rounded up for his ludicrous committee with its comical and worthless suggestions.

But it will only take one or two political figures who begin to tell, even obliquely, the truth. It need not necessarily be someone currently running for President. But it has to be someone.

The question remains however- will any major political figure in the USA ridicule a report which argues that we need to ask the help of a nation currently sending arms straight from the factory floor to the hands of terrorists for their help in suing for peace? A nation whose leaders regularly chant "Death to America" during government sessions? Does anyone remain in Washington with the nerve to put the future safety of America ahead of current media-generated anti-war apathy?

No comments: