As part of the continuing discussion of Michael Steele, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Rep. Ron Paul bravely take on former UN Ambassador and AEI senior fellow John Bolton with passion but the winning zinger goes to Christopher Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Professor Preble dares to ask why conservatives who opposed nation building under President Clinton now embrace such under President Obama.
Independent Learns The Wrong Lesson on Uganda
This was the Independent‘s lesson from last weekend’s deadly Uganda bombings, which killed some 74 people. It was also decidedly the wrong one, and based on faulty assumptions.
The world has, far from “ignoring” Somalia, been trying to install a series of illegitimate governments there for years, and Uganda has been at the forefront of this recently, contributing the most troops to the African Union’s military adventure into Somalia.
The current government got its start at an outdoor stadium in neighboring Kenya, dubbing themselves the “Transitional National Government” (TNG) of Somalia and behaving to all appearances as a government in exile, albeit a government only in its members’ minds. The history of Somalia for the past several years is a history of several nations trying to shoehorn the TNG into the position of legitimate nation-state, something no one serious believes they can do.
And this attack did not happen in a vacuum but rather came after repeated threats from the Somali militant faction to “retaliate” against Uganda for its many, many attacks on residential neighborhoods under al-Shabaab’s control.
Though one can not but condemn al-Shabaab for taking out its retaliation on innocent civilians, it is also impossible to notice that the Ugandan troops in Somalia have been doing virtually the same thing, responding to ambushes against them by shelling residential neighborhoods, on a regular basis since the troops got there.
In fact since we’re so keen on the soccer aspect of the killings, let us not forget an incident in mid-January, when AU troops responded to an attack on the presidential palace by al-Shabaab by launching artillery shells at a playground in al-Shabaab-held territory a day later, killing seven children who were playing soccer at the time.
It was shortly after this that al-Shabaab started talking about banning soccer, and while the official line on this is that it proves the group’s extremism the reality is that it largely isn’t safe to play soccer in Somalia not because of al-Shabaab but because Ugandan and Burundian troops have declared the right to attack any region under “insurgent” control, which considering the self-proclaimed government owns little more than a few city blocks in Mogadishu, puts virtually the entire civilian population of Somalia directly in the line of fire.
The notion that al-Shabaab launched this attack out of some religious dislike of watching soccer on television is nonsense, and in reality this is as classic an example of blowback for interventionism as there ever has been.
In fact it seems like Somalia could stand a little more ignoring from the outside world, as one can’t help but note that there weren’t any attacks originating from the nation before the “government” got kicked out of their hotel rooms in Kenya and convinced the African Union et al to try to prop them up. Groups like al-Shabaab simply did not exist in Somalia before then, and to the extent that they enjoy any support domestically, it is because they are one of the few groups able to oppose international troops with force of arms.
The Rise of the Monkey Terrorist
Asymmetrical Monkey Warfare to Challenge America’s Dominance of Central Asia.
When Senator Lindsey Graham was calling for the abandonment of the drawdown date for Afghanistan, saying “Gen. Petraeus needs to get this monkey off his back,” he perhaps didn’t realize how literally right he was.
It was perhaps only a matter of time with the advent of the “helper monkey” that there would rise an alternative group on monkeys, less helpful in the main but at least as skilled. Enter the terrorist monkey.
This is literally what officials are calling them. Small central Asian monkeys being allegedly trained to wield AK-47s with deadly precision, the first deadly harbingers of an Islamofascist Monkey Army poised to invade Afghanistan and do battle with the 100,000 US troops there.
It seems difficult to imagine, given the comparatively small size of most of the monkeys of the region, how they will manage to wield the nearly meter-long AK-47 effectively. Less clear still is how many monkeys there are, and if they are being trained to march in lockstep as parts on powerful monkey battalions. They do however seem well suited to provoking fear for the already failing war effort, and provide another excuse when the war is inevitably lost.
The Taliban didn’t beat us, the monkeys did.
Somali pirate wannabes?
Earlier this week Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu once again claimed that when they attacked the Mavi Marmara peace convoy on May 31 in international waters, the high-seas Israeli pirates — euphemistically called "commandos" — were acting in self-defense. The Israeli Pirates murdered at least 19, wounded dozens more, and "arrested" (kidnapped) many others.
By Mr. Netanyahu’s interesting logic, when a tanker crew resists Somali pirates, the pirates would claim they were justified in murdering, wounding, and/or kidnapping the tanker crew because the pirates — not the crew — were acting in self-defense.
Similarly, when a homeowner resists home invaders, the invaders were justified in killing, wounding, and/or kidnapping the homeowner and his family and guests because the home invaders — not the homeowner — were acting in self-defense.
This flawed and self-serving reversal of logic is called "blaming the victim" and seems to be a favorite — if disgusting — ploy regularly invoked by Israeli Government spokes-people.
The REAL question is:
"Why do representatives of the Israeli Government regularly get away with such obviously flawed and self-serving arguments, unchallenged, in front of God, U.S. Main Stream Media, and the whole world?"
And, yes, of course the Israelis have the right to defend themselves – – – when they don’t use piracy, home invasion, etc. But so do the Palestinians.
Coulter unsheathes her blades on neocons. we yawn.
Ann Coulter went Jungle Red* on neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney this week over their demands that GOP Chair Michael Steele resign. The fun stuff comes at the back end of her WorldNetDaily column on Wednesday. First she seems shocked that her fellow Republicans would even suggest one’s support for war is tied to his support for the troops. Then she goes right for the throat, Bill Kristol’s throat:
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out! Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
Matt Cockerill over at The American Conservative blog calls this an “antiwar column.” Maybe. That would be hopeful. Certainly James Antle thinks the Tea Party movement is ripe for it. And it is refreshing to hear a Republican hatchet decry unconditional support for war after nearly ten years of unconditionally supporting war. But it’s her terrifying interpretation of history that splashes ice cold water on the whole fantasy:
Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after Sept. 11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.
Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.
Having some vague concept of America’s national interest – unlike liberals – the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by “warlords” was not a primo target for “nation-building.”
By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.
Cockerill asks if Coulter’s outcry “is progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.” My gut is this is Ann lashing out at the enemy in her own Long War against the conservative elite at the Weekly Standard and National Review. It is Ann making sure that Obama completely owns the disaster in Afghanistan by rewriting current and past history on a fourth grade reading level. It is Ann making sure we don’t forget she is still around and is one tough broad.
But it is not a step forward, but a shuffle in place, her stilettos still kicking out at the usual “cretins” in her universe, a place where Bush is Popeye and Obama is Olive Oyl, and where Coulter spits, “no grass grows, ever.”**
* From The Women (1939): “I’ve had two years to grow claws mother. Jungle red!”
** Also from The Women: “You’re passing up a swell chance, honey. Where I spit no grass grows ever!”
New CentCom Commander: It’s ‘fun to shoot some people’
General James Mattis was just nominated to fill the post of CentCom commander, has his own history of speaking out to the media.
In 2005, Marine Corps General Mattis spoke of the fun he experienced in Afghanistan:
“Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot,” Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. “It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
His boss, Marine Corps commandant General Michael Hagee said Mattis should have chosen his words more carefully, but defended him, calling him “one of this country’s bravest and most experienced military leaders.”:
“Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor.”
“Throughout our history, Marines have given their lives in the defense of this nation and human rights around the globe,” Hagee’s statement read. “When necessary, this commitment helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation’s security. This is not something we relish, yet we accept it as a reality in our profession of arms.”
Added Marine Gen. Peter Pace, then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “The last three times that that general has been in combat, when he was leading Marines in Afghanistan and the two times that he led his division in Iraq, his actions and those of his troops clearly show that he understands the value of proper leadership and the value of human life.”
This is one more illustration of why civilians, and not the military, need to be in charge of our defense and foreign policy decisions.