Archive | Foreign Policy RSS feed for this section

10 Years Later, Appeased ‘Axis of Evil’ Spins Out of Control

With today’s warning by Communist North Korea that the U.S. mainland is within range of its missiles, paired with Islamic dictatorship Iran’s imminent nuclear threat to the U.S. and our allies, two of three named countries in President George W. Bush‘s 2002 axis of evil speech – delivered in the aftermath of jihadists’ 9/11 attack on America – have expanded hostile military weapons capability against the United States. The third, Iraq, went from being a bad secular dictatorship to an Islamic state surrounded by Islamic dictatorships in a destabilized region, thanks to Bush’s asinine non-war – a military incursion for the sake of others – which is not in our nation’s self-interest.

When President Bush uttered the famous phrase, denouncing those three terrorist-sponsoring states as possessing weapons of mass destruction in his January 29 State of the Union address to Congress and the nation, he singled out Iraq for the most severe criticism and I don’t think he used the phrase again. In fact, there was an axis of evil, and his 10-year-old speech got two of them particularly right – Iraq was an anti-U.S. regime which, major weapons or not, we had the right to take down – and a few months after Bush’s statement, then-undersecretary of state John Bolton later added Libya, Syria and Cuba to the axis, also correctly. But when the Bush administration did nothing but wage military non-actions to help others and refused to bomb mosques where the enemy was hiding and, instead, sought to be liked and understood by jihadists, the U.S. lost a crucial drive for justice and retribution. Bush squandered the opportunity to defend the U.S. against Islamic jihad and it became clear that his axis of evil speech was empty rhetoric that emboldened our enemies. His successor, Barack Obama, has similarly acted to appease the Islamic jihad, essentially sanctioning jihadist takeovers in North Africa and leaving North Korea and Iran alone to gather weapons against us. On the contrary, Obama has, like his foreign policy forefather Bush, actively sought to negotiate with Communist Korea and Islamicist Iran.

We see the results: appeasing the axis of evil has encouraged and incited Iran, which I recently wrote about here in what is becoming my most-liked piece on Capitalism Magazine (a shorter version is featured on the Media Research Center’s blog) and placed the United States in grave danger from our enemies. Declaring Islamic terrorist-sponsoring nations ‘evil’ was the right thing to do – but only if it was matched by unequivocal military action that crushed the enemy. Appeasing jihad has instead brought us closer to the brink of destruction. We have Bush, whose axis of evil speech must be regarded as signalling one of the worst foreign policy failures in history, and Obama to blame for putting us squarely in the line of hellfire.

 

Islamicists Attack America in Africa, September 11, 2012

Though we do not know exactly what happened at the Libyan compound, we do know that the U.S. ambassador was murdered with three other Americans on diplomatic staff during a siege by Islamic terrorists on the 11th anniversary of Black Tuesday, the worst attack in U.S. history, also carried out by Islamic terrorists. We also know that the attack, which happened on the same day as the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt, where Marines did not fight back and the grounds were breached while the U.S. flag was taken down, desecrated and replaced with a black Islamic flag, is an act of war. In the words of Rep. Mike Rogers, following an intelligence briefing on Capitol Hill: “This was a coordinated attack, more of a commando style event. It had both coordinated fire, direct fire, indirect fire.”

With a complicit U.S. media nearly unified in its contempt for the U.S., and feeding its faith-based worship of the primitive, and a U.S. government apology and equivocations by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, the United States responded to the attack by appeasing the combatants and those who sponsored the mass murder – Ambassador Chris Stevens apparently was targeted for assassination by Moslems using a rocket-propelled grenade – with a denunciation of free speech in the form of a video production rumored to have offended some Moslems. This is an outrageous assault on free speech, as the Ayn Rand Center’s Elan Journo argues here, compounded by Hillary Clinton’s reference to the attackers as a small band of rogues that don’t constitute a coordinated attack. Google-owned YouTube has reportedly restricted distribution of the video clip and government-sponsored media such as National Public Radio (NPR) falsely reported that the video “sparked” the attack throughout the day.

A movie did not cause the attack on America; Moslem terrorists motivated by Islam did. The exercise of free speech as the cause of a barbaric attack is an attempt by the Obama administration to conflate an act of evil by America’s enemies with its plan to impose total government control on the people of the United States. Whatever his flaws as a presidential candidate, businessman Mitt Romney showed political courage by rapidly denouncing Obama’s latest appeasement of Islamicism. Contrary to what our state-sponsored – and wannabe state-sponsored – media claim, Mr. Romney did not politicize the latest Islamic 9/11 act of war against the United States of America. Barack Obama’s disgraceful administration apologized to our enemies, trivialized mass murder and attacked freedom of speech, which is today’s reason why we must reject Obama on Election Day.

Comments { 1 }

Books: Pakistan on the Brink

Shortly after 9/11, author Owen Bennett Jones observed in the introduction to his book, Pakistan: Eye of the Storm (Yale University Press, 2002): “Ever since its creation [by the United Nations in 1947], Pakistan’s political development has been turbulent and chaotic. The country has been under military rule for nearly half its existence. No elected government has ever completed its term in office. It has had three wars with India and has lost around half of its territory. Its economy has never flourished. Nearly half its vast population is illiterate and 20 percent is undernourished. The country’s largest city, Karachi, has witnessed thousands of politically motivated murders. Religious extremists have been given free reign.”

Today, ten years after he wrote that, the leading journalist on Pakistan argues that matters have only gotten worse – and that President Obama, with whom he has met on the issue of Pakistan, is to blame.

Laying out America’s options with Pakistan and Afghanistan in the post-Bin Laden years in Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan ($26.95, Viking, March 19, 2012), Ahmed Rashid reports that Pakistan’s society is near collapse, hardship is widespread and the Islamic dictatorship is, in his words, immeasurably corrupt. “In the past twenty years, it has not developed a single new industry or cultivated a major new crop, even though it is an agricultural country.” U.S.-Pakistan relations, he argues, are a house of cards. With nuclear weapons – Pakistan is bordered by India, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arabian Sea and Communist China – its fall could trigger a catastrophe.

Rashid, a correspondent for the Wall Street Journal who has been covering Afghanistan, Pakistan, and central Asia for more than 20 years, is a leftist who previously wrote Taliban. He was invited by then-President-elect Obama to meet and discuss the region, so his criticism of Obama’s foreign policy as lacking clarity and being full of contradictions is especially interesting. Citing the President’s praise for Pakistan for cooperating on killing Osama bin Laden despite the fact that Pakistan had not cooperated, he all but admits that Obama is dishonest. As for Obama’s supposed triumph in picking off the Moslem terrorist responsible for killing thousands of Americans, his description of the aftermath ought to put that kill in its disgustingly proper and puny context. After Bin Laden’s corpse was taken to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, he notes, “his body was washed according to Islamic custom, placed in a white sheet, and weighted. His funeral prayers were read, and in the early hours of Monday morning, he was slipped into the sea from the lower deck.” He adds that Obama declared in an address to the nation that “justice had been done.”

What Rashid does not say is that, by honoring the mass murderer, justice had been undone.

There are numerous errors and apologies for Islamism throughout the otherwise informative book but Rashid, considered a leading authority on the Taliban and author of Descent into Chaos, is clearly frustrated by the once-adored Obama. He is also right to blame Bush and previous administrations for creating the radical Islamicization of Pakistan in Pakistan on the Brink, which reveals that Bush’s last ambassador to the volatile nation told Rashid in 2007 that he had never received an order from Washington to raise the issue of harboring the Taliban with his hosts. Rashid foresaw that the Iraq war would be reframed by intervention in Afghanistan and that Pakistan would emerge as the leading player through which American interests and actions would have to be directed. Now, with nuclear-armed Pakistan propelled by U.S. taxpayer dollars – over $20 billion between 2001 and 2010 – teetering on collapse and Islamist takeover and aiding the weaponization of the West’s Communist and Islamist adversaries, the primitive state made by the United Nations is decidedly on the brink of setting off a worldwide war.

In the words of William F. Butler in 1889, a prelude to Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan: “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.” At least Ahmed Rashid, who has traveled, reported, written and spoken about what he has witnessed in Pakistan and the region’s wars for 30 years, lays blame squarely at the feet of the not-so-almighty Obama, about whom, it is worth noting, he fondly remembers on the basis of the President’s blood and proximity to Islam and multiculturalism: “He was black with a white mother and an African Muslim father; had lived in Indonesia; had traveled to Pakistan, India, and Kenya; and had Muslim relatives – a unique and engaging background.”

In the end, the author merely pleads for “democracy”, tags “bad government” and what he calls a “poor distribution of resources” and proposes what he calls changing the narrative. But his chapter title’s ominous alternative – preparing for the worst – is a potent reminder that proper actions based on rational ideals, not mixed signals from a liar with an exotic background, offer the only hope for change in this wretched and combustible part of the world.