America is running scared.

By Ted Belman

I was in favour of America’s invasion of Iraq and was quite surprised when the oppressed Shiites were not appreciative. Increasing I began to feel it was a loser’s exercise. I thought the surge would offer only temporary respite. I gravitated to the position that the US must punish Iran for their meddling. But America under Bush and now Obama wasn’t prepared to take on Iran.

Spengler in his latest article, referring to the surge, Why not call it a ‘ Petraeus Village ‘? cuts to the chase.

The surge was a facade to hide massive failure,

    [..] Washington had a de facto agreement with Iran : do not make trouble in Iraq , and we will let you build up your nuclear capacity as well as your terrorist capabilities elsewhere.

    The chairman of President Barack Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, admitted as much in a March 16, 2009 , interview with Charlie Rose: “What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region. It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn’t predict.”

    In return for a temporary truce in Iraq – a truce that is now crumbling as Iran inserts its military proxies into the Baghdad government and the Sunni fighters defect – America allowed Iran time to possibly produce weapons-grade uranium, stock Hezbollah in Lebanon with advanced missiles, and deploy terrorist networks wherever it wanted.

    All of this is blowing up in America ‘s face, along with the twin farce in Afghanistan . The same talking heads who cheer-led the Bush administration claim that the problem is that Obama has encouraged the enemy by signaling his desire to withdraw. They know perfectly well that American voters cannot make sense of why so much blood and treasure has been poured into countries about which they care little.

Spengler continues his attack on the Republicans (neocons).

    Collectively and individually, the Republicans cannot easily admit that the whole business of nation-building was a gigantic blunder, not after a trillion dollars and four thousand dead.

And the this silent agreement lead to a changed policy by Bush in Lebanon.

    Bush personally offered the idiotic thought that once Hezbollah officials had to fix potholes they would abandon their declared ambition to turn the Middle East into an Iranian-led Islamic Republic. On March 16, 2006, Bush told the press:

    “Our policy is this: We want there to be a thriving democracy in Lebanon. We believe that there will be a thriving democracy, but only if – but only if – Syria withdraws … her troops completely out of Lebanon … I like the idea of people running for office. There’s a positive effect when you run for office. Maybe some will run for office and say, vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America. I don’t know, I don’t know if that will be their platform or not. But it’s – I don’t think so. I think people who generally run for office say, vote for me, I’m looking forward to fixing your potholes, or making sure you got bread on the table.”

    The Bush administration failed to scotch the Persian serpent when the costs of doing so would have been limited. These costs, though, would have been borne first of all by American troops in Iraq in constant contact with a hostile population. If attacked, Iran – just as Mullen explained – would have used such proxies as Muqtada’s Mahdi Army to kill Americans. The Bush administration would have paid for it at the polls, which it did, despite the Potemkin, er, Petraeus Village success of the “surge”. To dig Iran out of Lebanon today would require drastic action. It will be ugly, and to some extent it will be the fault of the Bush administration.

I watched with alarm as the US policy on Lebanon went from staunch opposition to the plans of Syria and Iran to passive acceptance.

I was also dismayed when the Bush administration insisted that Hamas be allowed to contest elections then accepted the Hamas coup in Gaza even though Hamas would inherit half a billion dollars worth of military hardware that was stored there. Its response was to place Gaza under an embargoe. Even that Obama has abandonned.

This is the passivity that Spengler is complaining about,  as too high a price to pay for a facade.

But it goes further. America was not prepared to fight Iran for fear of retaliation and did not let Israel fight its tormentors to the end also for fear of retailiation of one kind or another. Appeasement was in. Victory was out.

After Nov 2 all eyes will be on the Republican majority.

    At some point, the Republicans, if they wish to govern, will have to explain to the American public that America needs to fight fire with fire, asymmetric warfare against asymmetric warfare. There are many ways to do this, ranging from cyber-war to promotion of competing Islamic heresies, as I suggested in a September 14, 2010 essay (Terry Jones, asymmetrical warrior).

    None of them are pleasant, and none of them should be discussed in detail. But in some fashion, the Republicans must explain to the voters that rather than wasting American blood and treasure in a quest to stabilize fractious and fragile countries in the Middle East, America will do what it far easier and more effective; that is, destabilize its enemies.

I particularly like the idea, ’til now, snuffed out by political correctness, promoting “competing Islamic herisies”.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, senior editor at First Things magazine.

October 19, 2010 | 8 Comments »

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. Yamit and Malibu, while you appear to accept Spengler’s views at face value, I tried to dig deeper and raise questions.

  2. Narvey: America fighting asymetric warfare in Muslim nations, not at all practical. Americans do not speak the language, unfamiliar with the culture, religion and customs. Unaclimatized to the weather, terrain,and primitive conditions. There is the problem of not being able to trust the native collaborators who most often are actually working for the other side. Another problem is that there is more than one enemy, and often the enemies are themselves in conflict.

    You idea is marvellous in theory but really it is a turkey that will not fly.

  3. How and when will this all end? The New World Order with one religion for all. If you dont adhere you will killed. Then of coarse the prediction that Israel will sign a 7 year peace agreement that will be broken half way into it. Then the Antichrist will set up shop in Israel but if your a Christian you will escape death and be raptured up in the clouds and Israel will be surrounded on all sides but…poof…Jesus to the Christian or the Jewish Messiah to the Jews will show up to save the day and there will be peace on earth for 1000 years. Of coarse most people will probably be dead by then … who said lifd was boring?

  4. But goes further. America was not prepared to fight Iran for fear of retaliation and did not let Israel fight its tormentors to the end also for fear of retailiation of one kind or another. Appeasement was in. Victory was out.

    There couldn’t be retaliation if the regime was obliterated along with Iran’s entire military. The way to end this war is the way we did against Japan. And this needs to be done to saudi arabia and pakistan as well.

  5. Narvey asks questions that are based mostly on MSM and American government propaganda which always accepted the Arabic and Muslim narrative.

    No Muslim/Arabic dictatorship or monarchy fear the masses. They pay their security services and police above scale to insure their survivability.

    All demonstrations are either sponsored by the indigenous governments or are tightly controlled by them. Saudi Arabia feared Iraq and Bush did their bidding in eliminating Saddam as a threat to them all the rest was Bush . Even the Chinese got the oil concessions in Iraq instead of American companies.

    Shia tribesmen are the original owners of the land where the most productive Saudi oil fields are located and they fear and Iranian sponsored Shia insurrection against them for stealing their land. That’s what scares and motivates those pigs Survival from threats by other Muslims.

    Is there any doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will not come to power in Egypt after Mubarak> (Any Day Now)? They will inherit the Largest and best equipped Army in the ME. Against whom do you think that Army under the Hamas of Egypt will be directed at?

    The Muslim street is largely a non factor

  6. Spengler,looking forward to a Republican majority in Congress, concludes his piece with the following:

    At some point, the Republicans, if they wish to govern, will have to explain to the American public that America needs to fight fire with fire, asymmetric warfare against asymmetric warfare. There are many ways to do this, ranging from cyber-war to promotion of competing Islamic heresies, as I suggested in a September 14, 2010 essay (Terry Jones, asymmetrical warrior).

    None of them are pleasant, and none of them should be discussed in detail. But in some fashion, the Republicans must explain to the voters that rather than wasting American blood and treasure in a quest to stabilize fractious and fragile countries in the Middle East, America will do what it far easier and more effective; that is, destabilize its enemies.

    In essence, Spengler is suggesting that the way to beat, contain and/or control hostile Mid East nations, at least as regards their posing a threat to America/the West, is to further destabilize their already fractious and fragile situations and thus render them more toothless and more dysfunctional.

    It makes sense, but some questions are raised:

    1. What are the long range goals of such Western asymetrical warfare against hostile Mid East nations?

    2. If the stronger, but hostile Mid East nations are rendered more dysfunctional, that will spill over to other less hostile nations. While the immediate threat from hostile nations and elements in the Mid East will be reduced, that dysfunctionality will impact against all Middle Eastern citizens in terms of their governments’ abilities to govern their nations on issues such as economics, law and order and serving the needs of the people.

    Already there is much antiWestern sentiment within the Middle East. If steps that Spengler speaks of were successfully undertaken, would the Middle East already steeped in a culture of victimology contributed to by leaders seeking to distract their citizens from blaming them for leadership failures, not become fertile ground for the rise of an Islamic terror continent?

    3. Assuming Spengler’s proposal on defanging a hostile Middle East by rendering them even more dysfunctional was successfully carried out, would Middle Eastern citizens of even more dysfunctional governments, rage against their governments to the point of civil strifes and civil wars to express their painful discontent with the negative impact on their lives?

    If so, would not Western interests in the Middle East be even more sorely compromised when governments leading nations in chaos, could no longer do business and keep their agreements with the West?

    4. For the Republicans to do as Spengler suggests is risky business politically. They would have to tell the American people that the goals and military means to those goals in Iraq,and Afghanistan had failed at great cost to the American people, but now they have a new plan to wage war that won’t cost America hardly a thing.

    That sounds almost like a pie in the sky offer from salesmen hawking their wares.

    When America extricates herself from the mess she is in in Afghanistan and Iraq, will the country be in any mood to engage in war by any means at all?

    Will America become more isolationist?

    For so long as America needs oil to fuel her industrial complex and her citizens’ needs, you can bet she will do everything she can to secure a steady supply of oil at stable prices, just as she has in the past.

    Spengler’s suggestion to destabilize already dysfunctional Mid East nations, is an attractive an idea that may be have better results of defanging those Mid East nations that threaten America/the West, or could become a threat to America.

    There are however, forseeable consequences. One is the risk that America, if she were successful in the effort suggested by Spengler, just might wind up shooting herself in the foot as regards compromising her interests even further and especially as regards her need for a steady supply of oil at stable prices.

  7. This gels with my comments of the last 4 years. Spengler is no Liberal. I have always stated that Iraq was the wrong target at the time and Iran and N. Korea should have come first, then Pakistan/ I have also alluded to the deal between America and Iran. I have also predicted an eventual civil war, where Iraq is cut in two or three. The Kurds going independent. I have called the Republicans and Bush responsible for this mess and the waste of a trillion dollars and lots of American blood and I have always asked for what purpose?

    Thanks Spengler: Yamit

  8. Waiting for AE’s spin on how this was all in Israel’s best interest and America is the best friend that Israel has…