Comments on Klein Verzet
Matthew Hoh was not a "senior Foreign Service official." He was a temporary hire, not a commissioned Foreign Service Officer. He had been in country only five months on a one-year (renewable up to five years) contract.
KV
I have a problem. In fact there are three little big problems
1. We have a situation, when at first sight there is really no need for us to interfere in Afghanistan. There is again no reason to undertake nation building, when the locals are more then happy to be how they have been for centuries.
Despite this, huge amounts of money, and worse, casualties sustained, almost all Western countries are engaged in Afghanistan in one form or another, and insist on staying the course for as long it takes. It takes to do what?
What the hell is going on?
2. The Anthropogenic Global Climate Change issue. From what I can see, the whole object seems to be to raise lots of money, and then hand it over to Third world countries, mainly in Africa, for the foreseeable future. As it must be obvious to anyone, all the money will be pilfered or wasted by corrupt African dictators. So why do politicians from the Western world insist on continuing.
3. The Lisbon treaty. The whole thing is a sham. Cameron is in fact mightily pleased that the Czech president has signed, or he would have been in the invidious position of having to come up with a devious excuse why he couldn’t hold a referendum.
What the hell is going on?
Let us assume first that our politicians are not total idiots, who care not if they are elected or not.
In all three of the above, politicians across Europe and the West, are in lockstep over issues that they normally would have been falling out over. As politicians, they would see that they could exploit these issues to get into power. And yet they stand firm.
It is unlikely that all Western politicians in power or in major opposition, in almost all Western countries, are out of their minds. It is also unlikely that they do not see their increasingly unpopularity with the electorate. They must know that can be un-elected, or be rejected, and yet they stand firm.
Why? Why such lockstep on all three of the most contentious issues in the West?
Digger,
Read the WashPost link. His bio entails a whole lot more then just 5 months in country. Given what he's done and where he's been I'll take his word over Foreign Sec Clinton any day of the week.
DP,
That is the mystery of our times, isn't it?
Come to think of it: That is the grand mystery of history. Why didn't the French monarchy see the Revolution coming? Why didn't the Romanovs see the danger of the Bolsheviks? Why was Ceausescu completely gob-smacked when he was confronted with a raucous crowd, instead of applauding subjects?
There is a tendency (I think) for a regime to lock itself in its own comfortable echo chamber. To become more and more insular, until such time that the world around them is falling apart, while their most pressing issue is the number of angels dancing on the tip of a needle.
Certainly these days, around Western civilization, politics is purely about politics. How many times have we heard: 'Politics is the art of the attainable', without any refenerence to principles or lines in the sand?
The three issues you mention are issues because politicians have convinced each other that these are the issues of our times. It seems to have abstracted itself out of the reality 'on the ground'.
It is not because they are stupid. And mostly it is not because they are malignant (mostly!). I guess it is because the information they have is incomplete, filtered and skewed. The do the best they can (presumably) based on the information they have, without realizing that the information they have is a very partial, limited reflection of reality.
Which is why I fear for the immediate future. A regime that is totally consumed with itself (as Western politics as a whole seems to be) is, taking history as a guide, a dying regime. And dying regimes do not usually make for peaceful and tranquil times.
Just shooting from the hip here. What are your views on this? I could use a little unslanted additional data myself 
DP111: I wrote my take on you question: http://www.islamineurope.net/200...f-our-
time.html
KV, Snouck
I believe there is more to this then meets the eye.
Snouck has posted a comment on his blog that postulates that the total convergence of views on all three contentious issues is due to the culture of liberalism that pervades all political thought. Laurence Auster makes this his central thesis. Thank you Snouck for replying.
Politicians are not as unschooled, unprincipled or uneducated as is assumed. Politicians can walk on, or abandon the path of liberalism, or any other philosophy, when it suits them, particularly if there are elections to be won. In addition, some of them are very smart, and can take an independent view, guided merely by what is known.
Yet time and again, despite public displeasure at our involvement in Afghanistan, no interest in AGCC, or submergence in the EU, politicians carry on ignoring the will of the people. Surely there must be a few of them who are willing to say NO to any one of these.
I find it hard to accept that just liberalism is the cause of this lockstep on all three major issues.
First, there is not much doubt that the Lisbon treaty was a conspiracy against the people. Every device was used to avoid referenda in European nations. Where it could not be avoided, either the results were ignored, using a patently false excuse (Netherlands and France), or another referendum was forced on the people (Ireland).
Why was such blatantly conspicuous dishonesty used to get the Lisbon treaty through? What is there to gain of so much value that all democratic rules were abandoned?
What we have gained is that the EU can make quick a unified response in any event, without going through 27 members wrangling for a decision. That is certainly a plus in a certain situation.
I need to adsd another point to my list of three
4. Despite clear evidence that large scale immigration, particularly of Muslims, is causing severe stress within soceity - increased rapes, murder and criminality, the huge increase in terrorism from within, all western nations, no exception, continue with mass Muslim immigration.
WHY?
As I've posted before, there is just one way to attain peace at home, i.e., separation from Muslims. The only question is how?
We must take liberal democracy to more Muslim countries, one by one - freedom for women, gays and religious minorities. Who can oppose such a noble aim?
Support our effort to bring freedom to Islamic nations. It is the one hope we have at the moment.
DP111: You are forgetting China. 1.5 Billion unliberated human beings. We must invade them too and bring them freedom. When the peoples of the world see this display of unrestrained Western willpower they will prostrate themselves for liberalism too. The world will be ushered into era of unrestrained freedom!
Let's face it, it be silly not to.
And if there are problems in our own countries in certain neighbourhoods we can invade the neighbourhoods! Invading solves all social problems! Just as it did to Japan and Germany after 1945.
Invading is sooo kewl. There is not a problem it cannot solve. How can we ignore these obvious lessons from history? When will people learn?
Earnestly yours,
Edited By Siteowner
Snouck
I have not forgotten China. But let us consider one war/strategic threat, at a time.
The problem we have is not that of Jihadis but the huge growth rate of the Muslim population in the West. If 9/11 had not happened, we would be sunk, for in the fullness of time, say 50 years for the UK, quite silently, there would be a Muslim majority in parliament. That would be the end not just of England, but would have holed the entire Anglo-sphere and allied West European nations. Differentiating between radical and moderate Muslims, in this context, is meaningless. In fact, it is moderate Muslims, who unwittingly, are the real threat. The existential threat can be removed only by separation from Islam.
Laurence Auster has been crying for Separation from Muslims for a long while, but has never indicated how he would achieve it, without violating our principles of tolerance.
Fortunately for us, 9/11 did happen, which then lead to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, to bring freedom and liberal democracy to the Arab world – a noble motive indeed, and who could gainsay it. I have no illusions though of getting any Islamic country to be a liberal democracy. (And I don't think that the hard strategic planners in the US and UK, have any such illusions either).
The purpose of intervention is two fold
1. To show Western people that no matter how much blood and treasure we spend, Muslims and Muslim countries will have allegiance to Islam and Islam only.
There is nothing wrong with Muslims sticking to their culture. It is perfectly understandable.
2. Any intervention of a military kind in a Muslim country excites our western Muslims to extreme rage. They are koranically required to attack the Infidel. 7/7 and Madrid was a direct consequence of this. Another 9/11 is also overdue for America.
If they continue to attack us from within, as we continue to intervene in Muslim countries more and more, then eventually, in a decade or so of interventions and attacks from ostensibly peaceful moderate Western citizen Muslims, the penny will drop, and we will be at war. Total war, where enemy aliens are treated with suspicion and hostility.
Under these circumstances, Muslims will leave by themselves, even if we beg them to stay on. Could German citizens stay on in England after 1939? Nope, even if nothing happened to them, they would still be so uncomfortable they would leave of their own accord. Once the outwards trickle begins, that will be the end of the Islamic demographic threat from within.
The Muslim population has risen to what it is now, in around three decades. It will take a war lasting at least a decade before a steady trickle of Muslims start to leave the West. GWB planned a war lasting 50 years. He may well be right.
You could pose the question, why do we not stop Muslim immigration as a first measure. Good point. But then Muslims would not have a sufficiently large base to be energised enough to respond
continued..
You could pose the question, why do we not stop Muslim immigration as a first measure. Good point. But then Muslims would not have a sufficiently large base to be energised enough to respond violently to our continuing interventions.
At some point though our interventions would come to an end. Meanwhile the demographic growth rate would proceed remorselessly. Therefore Muslim immigration must be allowed, while we intervene in Muslim countries, or else the conditions for a general war do not come about.
What is interesting about our intervention in Afghanistan is that virtually the entire Western world is involved, one way or other. Most EU nations are involved. What is remarkable is that the entire NATO + non-Nato European nations are involved in a no value nation such Afghanistan. It is absurd to think that the entire resources of the West is required to deal with a ragtag bunch fighters, who have no strategic reach except via sympathisers in the West. The real reason must be somewhat more strategic and cannot be disclosed.
continued..
As far as Europe is concerned, European nations have no central command to make decisions that are binding on all EU nations. Well, not till recently. With the Lisbon treaty in the bag, the EU has the powers it needs to enforce restrictions and laws across the EU. In wartime, this is essential. If one accepts this thesis, one begins to understand why it was necessary, and dishonesty be damned, to have the Lisbon treaty as law asap, for as the war expands, it may be necessary to take such decisions on the move.
The only problem for the moment is that Americans have just put a joker in the pack. As you know, a joker can be anything, and can go in any suite. The silver lining is that he has just two effective years before he is out.
Pres Bush stated that this is a 50-year war. He has left a situation that subsequent presidents will find very difficult to unravel. We are tied to the war, whether we like it or not. I like it, as this is the only horse we have in the running, and it has a good chance of winning.
It is conceivable that none of this is planned. It does not matter, as our interventions, and the attacks from Western Muslims, lead us towards a confrontation.
We have to continue on our efforts to bring freedom and liberal democracy to Islamic nations. So far it has been Iraq and Afghanistan, but there others that are crying out for our help.
Some may argue that our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been a failure. However, Liberal democracy can never acknowledge defeat. In fact it is not defeated. The very fact that ostensibly loyal Muslim citizens of the West, are attacking us, shows what a profound effect we are having all round.
So let us not be faint hearted. I realise that the path is hard, but the war to bring the light of freedom to Islamic nations, is the only horse we have in the race. Back it or lose it all.
My only fear is that Pres Obama may negotiate a deal with the Taleban, claim victory and withdraw. That would be cowardice in the face of the enemy to freedom.
DP111,
Some good points there.
I would, however, like to emphasise the need to make a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan.
The campaign for democracy in Iraq has been reasonably successful. The fact that we haven't heard any MSM news on Iraq recently (apart from those atrocious bombings, but even they are relatively rare these days) seems to bare that out.
I am not sure that at this stage the military and political leadership in the West has any idea of what the end-game should be anymore. General McCrystal is clamouring for more troops. Obama is 'dithering', as Jim Hoft puts it.
More troops would be useful if our political leadership is determined to wage all out war on the Taleban. A first condition to stay should be to allow the military to do what it is trained to do: Kill the bad guys. As a second condition we must have the means to wage war effectively, rooting out the Taleban without too much of collateral damage.
But if the analysis by Hoh is correct, then the second condition can't be met, which leaves the first condition moot.
Then there is the 'election' of Karzai over Abdullah, which in first instance seems to be an abject failure *). The stain of naked corruption will leave the Karzai government with a loss of legitimacy that it can ill afford in a true democracy, let alone in what is effectively an anarchy of tribal interests.
In such an environment Western forces will not be able to tell friend from foe. Moreover, in such an environment friend can turn to foe in a heartbeat. This leaves Western forces in a tactical and strategic conundrum. Humanitarian aid becomes impossible because you can't tell whether you are aiding allies or enemies. Active armed deployment may turn out counter-productive because the enemy your fighting may turn out to be our erstwhile (and possibly future) ally.
*) A Dutch ISAF commander was on TV the other night arguing that this has not been a complete failure since 1) the Afghans managed to organize and hold those elections (in itself no mean feat in a country that has no tradition in holding elections) and 2) the ballot-stuffing by the Karzai squads was detected and accounted for, meaning that the mechanisms to check and guide the democratic process are in place and functioning. Apart from pointing out the evidently fraudulent result of the election I can't really counter that argument. Maybe good enough is better then perfect...
KV
With respect to our survival from the threat of demographic Jihad, it is irrelevant whether we have success in Iraq or not.
In any case, the day we accepted the demand from militarily defeated Iraqi represetatives, that they would countenance no other constitution other then a sharia one, we had won the war but lost the peace. Considering that the supposedly stated goals were
1. WMD
2. Instillation of democracy in Iraq that was to be a light to the Muslim world.
A literal interpretation suggests, we failed on all points, apart from the “technicality of democracy” - counting the number of Shias who voted for Shias, the Sunni voted for Sunnis, and the Kurds who voted for Kurds.
OTH, if we assume that the war in Iraq was to show the futility of making a democracy out of a Muslim nation, then it succeeds. If it also irritates Western citizen Muslims, to show their true allegiance by engaging in terrorist attacks against the country they are supposedly loyal to- even better. (Note the situation in the US after Fort Hood).
I have maintained that this policy of ours (if it is a policy), will lead to icreasing polarisation. The demonstration in Luton by British Muslims against our troops returning from Iraq was the start. If it carries on, with our interventions in Muslim countries, with concomitant attacks by supposedly loyal Muslims against us, then we will move inexorably to total war.
Even if such a policy does not exist, and what is happening, continues due simply to bureaucratic inertia, the result will be the same - total war, followed by peaceful self-segregation. It will be good for all - no civil war, no wanton acts of mass murder and ethnic cleansing, which is what is on the cards at the moment.
I see no other way. This is the only horse in the race, and all the rest is talk and wishful thinking.
Look forward to your comments.
KV: "The campaign for democracy in Iraq has been reasonably successful."
No. "War is the continuation of politics by other means". The political goal of the Bush administration was to: -remove the WMD threat and
-to create a democracy in the centre of the ME acting like a model for democracy in the rest of the ME.
The results of the present settlement in Iraq is that the country is dominated by parties representing the Shia majority and they are allies of Iran.
So how is installing an ally of Iran in Iraq improving the position of the US?
The US have shot themselves in the foot in Iraq. An the expense was horiffic. The political power of US is leaking away to those nations who are willing to buy their debt.
The results of US policies is that enemies of the US such as Iran and rivals such as China are strengthening, while the US is weakening correspondingly.
There is another side to this....
Regards,
Snouck wrote: The results of US policies is that enemies of the US such as Iran and rivals such as China are strengthening, while the US is weakening correspondingly.
China’s rise to global power is an altogether different situation to the one of Muslim population growth in the West. China is not a failed state like most African nations, or oil and aid dependent ME nations. China is a rapidly rising industrial superpower, with a homogenous people, and a common culture. All this makes China a threat to the military supremacy of the West. China may not harbour Caliphate ambitions as Muslims do, but that is not what strategic planners bear in mind. It is not intentions but capability they consider. China has the capability, which is growing at a rapid rate.
China, like Britain and the US in the recent past, engaged in military spheres of influence to protect regions which supplied their respective industries with raw materials. A similar situation is developing as regards China. China is now the one remaining industrial superpower. Its industries require raw materials, which drive China to seek them in Africa. China is thus replacing the West as the major player in Africa. If events transpire in the usual manner, China will have increasing military presence in Africa, directly or via proxies, to protect its strategic resources.
This presence puts China on the doorstep of Europe/ NATO, as well as on the Atlantic seaboard. China’s penetration into Africa has the attributes colonialism. And yet, African nations welcome China’s presence, as it brings them money. The West though, mired in a recession, and increasingly criticised for aiding and abetting corrupt African dictatorships, is in no position to hand over large amounts of money to Africans, just to retain influence, without inviting huge criticism.
Here is where I believe AGCC comes in. It is postulated by Western politicians, that we have done immense harm to African agriculture, by our industries causing “climate change”. Heating or cooling, which ever it is, it does not matter, we are to blame, and we have to, by way of compensation, hand over a 100 billion euros/dollars per year, to Africa. The UN is also keen on this idea, as it will be the organisation that will be in charge of distributing our money to Africa – after it has subtracted a substantial amount as administration fees.
I posit that this money will be virtually a gift. Some of the money may be used for infrastructure development, but its main purpose is to counter Chinese influence. African states are happy with this arrangement, as it allows them play of one against the other.
DP111, that makes good sense!
Regards,
Snouck
I'm really getting worried that in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre, there are voices calling for the withdrawal of NATO forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
As I've outlined in posts above, this is the only horse we have in the race against Islam. It is also the only one, which if Fort Hood type events continue as a consequence of our being there, will lead to a complete polarisation of society along Muslim non-Muslim lines. It will also lead to total war. Under these circumstances, many muslims, who for the, most part are quite peaceful, will leave. This will start the trickle, which in the end will leave just a small but decorative remnant of Muslim behind. End of the real threat - the demographic one.
Most of those who want us to withdraw are the usual NYT, WaPo types, but also some serious anti-Islam people. They do not seem to realise that this is exactly what Hasan of Fort Hood, wanted. Therefore, just one Hasan at Fort Hood, would have caused the defeat and withdrawal of NATO forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Try and support the war, without stating the detailed reasons for doing so - patriotism is enough. It is the only hope and effort we have going at the moment. On all other fronts, we are either passive or withdrawing.
Commenting by HaloScan
