1. Poitiers-Lepanto said:

Excellent analysis, thank you very much.
I am glad I'm not the only one (although I'm not not as articulate as Ted !)to be very worried about the present strategy and the future.
The politicians' range of view is too small to let them understand the historical-military enterprise known as "islam". They ignore 1400 years of history and they ignore (by speaking of terrorism) the many dimensions of the world war that islam is waging(immigration-invasion, economic, military AND terroristic).
We can only talk. Our politicians are causing, by omission, a very very dark future.
We will win, but it will take an awful amount of time, blood and horror more.

2. John Burgess said:

And if you incorrectly identify the enemy by assuming him to be everywhere, you also lose. The US government doesn't identify Saudi Arabia as "the enemy" because it is not "the enemy." The leadership of that country is certainly culpable for much, but it is not the source of all terror, nor even a major source.

3. Ted Belman said:

John

The vast majority of of the terrorists in 9/11 were Saudis. The vast majpority of foreign terrorists killed in Iraq are Saudis. Most of the money that finances al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia. By the way, I didn't say they were "a major source" . I simply identified them as a source.

4. BobW said:

Agree with much of the above material.

Just 2 points to say something positive about the Bush Administration;

1. Re "emphasiizing civil rights over security rights", a strong argument can be made that the USA Patriot Act dampens some civil rights in the name of national security.

2. The shakeup in the US intelligence apparatus - shattered by the Church Committee in 1975 - is a step to prepare the US for the confrontation with the barbarians. John Negroponte now holds a cabinet billet displacing the Director of Central Intelligence. Military intelligence is given a stronger role which includes operations within the territorial US. The State Department is being eclipsed by the Defense Department. The New Department of Homeland Security is a security preparation.

Otherwise, I agree with Ted that there's a major danger to the US and an existential danger to Israel.

Kol tuv,
BobW

5. Bill Levinson said:

John, Saudi Arabia is guilty of acts of war against the United States, specifically holding American citizens as slaves (http://www.omdurman.org/whitslav.html). We should be at war with Saudi Arabia.

HITLER is back and he is wearing a HEADSCARF. http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/hitler.html

6. will spotts said:

I thought this was a very lucid analysis. It is not a matter of assuming the enemy to be everywhere, as much as recognizing that there is a very real threat and that it is related to the threat Israel faces. We in the US do ourselves no favors by appeasing one manifestation of this in Israel while attempting to fight it on other fronts. And we do ourselves no favors by insisting on polite fictions.

7. fred lapides said:

The Bush speech was a nonsensicvle repetion of what he has been saying over and over...and saying little. The Democrats in fact do not say to bring the troops home immediately. If you say or think this then you simply are not paying attention. They are calling for a benchmark--how will we know when we are doing well enough to begin withdrawing? (answer: when electiosn roll around in America). How many men can Iraq now field to replace American troops? That is a question that should be ansered, specifically. Further, if we have done so great a job in bring democracy to the region, then explain the Egyptian voting, the Syrian madness; the Irananian crazies--where specifically has the paln worked? What we have, though, is at long last an admittion that our intel was dead wrong, that terror is not going to end soon in Iraq, that we are there for the long haul; that private citizens can be spied upon by their govt without even getting a court to approve...and the thousand working at NSA? They are merely taking orders from above and doing their duty. Oh, forgot: special people in congress were informed of the NSA spying...who? Well must keep secrtet but some were. How many at Wannassee when Nazis secretly planned to exterminate the Jews of Europe? A little band of right-thinking club members.

8. Ted Belman said:

Sorry Fred

Your distinction changes nothing. The democrats focus on the problem when and how and by what benchmark will we get out. Its all the same. They should instead focus on how best to win the war on terror. This they don't do. Their energy is spent tying America's hands.

9. kuhnkat said:

Fred Lapides,

SOME Dhimmicrats call for immediate withdrawal, some call for a staged withdrawal starting immediately, 1 calls to support the President, some just claim that Bush screwed up everything. Except for Senator Lieberman none of it is particularly helpful as it is all part of a BLAME THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS policy that needs a failure to get them back in control of at least part of the Federal gubmint.

I would ask WHERE the helpful suggestions and recommendations are???

Yes, the Dhimmicrats have been calling for benchmarks since it started alternately calling for withdrawal cause we won, withdrawal cause we will never win, and claiming like Vietnam we are in a quagmire.

The only consistency is that they blame Bush for screwing up. If Bush actually gives them a Benchmark it will first be attacked as to tough, to easy, not doable, and if anything is missed the Dhimmicrats will claim Bush failed and is in a quagmire again.

So you tell me, what benefit is there to the Bush administration to publish benchmarks when it will not only be used by the Islamofascists to plan their offensives, but, will be used by the Dhimmicrats as more material to attack the administration.

You are a MORON if you think this is anything but a tactic to BASH BUSH.

If you want to know how many men have been fielded by the Iraqis to replace Americans try watching Fox News. They actually pass information to the public provided by the Pentagon and the Bush Administration and the Iraqis themselves. The last number I heard was 250,000. Less than 100,000 have their own supply lines so they are completely independent of the US.

Explain the Egyptian voting. Why yes, Egypt only had 1 party prior to the last vote. Now they allow multiple parties.

Syria is now under pressure from the International Community over Lebanon and have withdrawn their regular troops that have been there for a long time. This is not a concluded issue but is the first improvement in a long time.

Iran in the last couple years was forced to admit that they have been working on an atomic fuel cycle (they still deny weapons development even though they are spending truckloads for long range missiles) for over 10 years in contravention to non-proliferation treaties. NOTE this has been going on since the middle of the Clintoon admin. Iran has been run by hardline Mullahs since the Shah got kicked out during the Peanut Farmers administration.

Saudi Arabia is still an extreme problem, but, they are actually having to fight Al Qaida in their own territory (self preservation, not US support).

Turkey was already going Fundamentalist before Bush got into office and hasn't changed.

So, Bush has caused Libya to allow in weapons inspectors and they also gave up a bunch of tech. Musharraf still hasn't nuked India and is still making a little progress against fundamentalists in Pakistan.

Afghanistan is no longer a staging area for Al Qaida and extremely repressive of its citizens. It has held several elections and is looking like a keeper in spite of the Taliban and Al Qaida attempting to stage comebacks.

Iraq is going reasonably well and just completed its first independent elections with over 70% turnout in spite of the large effort by Al Qaida, Iran, and Syria to destabilise them.

All in all more progress in the Middle East than at any other time in history.

Yes, Bush hasn't been able to save everyone all at once. Unlike John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton he doesn't even CLAIM to be god.

OH MY GOD, Bush approved the NSA bugging calls with one end in the US and one external!!!! Well, I would accept the Dhimmicrats outrage if they had been a little more upset about Clintoons Echelon project or his use of the IRS to intimidate his detractors or..........

Outside of that I think, for a moron according to you Dhimmicrats, he took excellent proactive action to safeguard this country.

Oh, and you just HAD to get in the dig comparing Bush to Nazis. Well, I would remind you that you Dhimmicrats are continuously trying to figure out how to DISARM America just like the NAZIS did to the JEWS before they sent them to the gas chambers!!!!!

Do you feel better now that we have exchanged NAZI accusations??

The REAL NAZIS running around the world right now are Muslim Fundamentalists and YOU AREN'T HELPING BY DOING NOTHING BUT COMPLAINING AND ATTACKING EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO DO TO KEEP YOUR SORRY @SS SAFE IN SPITE OF THE OBSTRUCTIONISM OF THE DHIMMICRATS!!

You have the freedom in this country to be an @sshole and complain about anything you want, but, don't expect the rest of us to thank you for it!!

10. Martin Man said:

Great article, as usual Ted, however, I think you are missing one HUGE point. Yes, today, we are fighting Islamists. Yesterday, it was the VC. Tomorrow, it will be somebody else. But, just like Viet Nam, (yes, I dare to use the words), the war is actually very winnable. We could clean house any day of the week. So why don't we? It is because of the "Enemies Within". It is Liberal Left who has a strangle hold on our national will. Sh_t, just look at us ... they have made us afraid even to say "Merry Christmas", or "one nation, under God". Yes, we will probably end up slinking away from the Middle East with our tail between our legs, just like we did in VN (I'll spare you having to read the words again). So every time you see or hear a liberal, just say to yourself, "There is the real enemy". Until we as a nation figure out how to win our country back, permanently, we will always be the object of derision in the world, and the target of anyone who wants to make a name for himself by filling a suitcase with explosives and hopping on a bus. Let's quit wringing your hands over the Middle East, and get to work cleaning our own house, if it's not already too late.

11. Real Truth said:

what a load of crap! The writer is criminally insane! People like him should be in getmo not the innocents without reason or proof! Thanks for suggesting America sending their children to die for you filthy animals! We leaders listened to you and attacked Iraq.. look what is happening now!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/offtowar.html

12. Martin Man said:

Real Truth,

If you really have a point, try to collect yourself and state it more clealy. I'd like to hear it. Honestly.

The real question is, Would you really like to see the Mid-East controlled by Fundamentalist Muslims whose main desire is to bring down Western society and kill as many infidels as possible in the process? (That's you and me, pal.) I guarantee you, 100%, that if they did rule the Middle East, the world would be in chaos. We need to fight it as vigorously as possible, even though painful sacrifices must made, and, we need to resign ourselves to a long drawn out engagement. They (the Islamo-fascists) already are. But alas, because there are sooo many people like you out there, we (the US) will ultimately be forced to wimp out, and the terrorists will win. Don't you feel even a little bit guilty? Every death of an innocent person, from Islamic terrorism, is partially your fault because you are too... (I don't know what... cowardly, stupid, perverse?) to face this clear threat head on and challenge it. Maybe you are one of them. Huh? Anyway, if you do have a real point, it would be interesting to hear what it is.

13. Bill Narvey said:

Ted,

The premise of your December 19th, 2005 article, Telling It Like It Is, is broader in scope, but not inconsistent with Dr. Kissinger’s Washington Post December 18th, 2005 article, How To Exit Iraq – U.S. Forces Should Augment, Not Replace Iraqi Soldiers.

The essential broad premise Dr. Kissinger articulates is that Iraq will not achieve a stable and strong political system and a strong Iraqi military, inspired by the new political order and united in its will to protect it, without there being an unequivocal military success against those radical forces arrayed against America and the creation of a new political order in Iraq.

Some of the premises of both your thesis and that of Dr. Kissinger is the need for clarity in defining the enemy, in defining goals and strength of purpose to defeat that enemy and that might makes right.

Dr. Kissinger speaking of Iraq, advocates that in order for America’s vision of what is right to win out, there must be an unwavering sustained effort to ensure America’s might be focused on winning against those forces aligned against America’s success in Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis.

Dr. Kissinger recognizes however that America cannot go it alone when he advocates that not only is it necessary that America define Iraq’s strategic future, it must engage the EU, India, Pakistan and Iraqi neighbors, get them to see the wisdom of America’s vision for Iraq’s strategic and stable future, become engaged in the process, and support America in seeing its vision for Iraq come to fruition.

Dr. Kissinger further opines that if such forum can be convened and held together in common purpose and vision that such forum will with success in Iraq be able to turn their attention to other issues in the Middle East, such as bringing similar stability to other Mid East nations and to deal with Islamic radicalism.

While Dr. Kissinger’s advocating that America must engage and gain support from Western and Mid East regional nations makes obvious good sense, geopolitical realities being what they are, makes that a very tall order that for now seems more like wishful thinking.

Ted, you have touched on this same point, but in a more implicit or parenthetical oblique fashion.

America possesses a Mr. Nice or Good Guy image of itself. America’s weakness is that it covets the adulation and respect of other nations to see America as America sees itself.

America knows that what is behind much of the world’s policies that speak out against American policies and vision, is anti-American contrariness borne of jealousy. This has led to the EU defining and pursuing policies of national interest intended to benefit them economically, which economic benefit derives in the main from the world oil based economy and at the same time enhancing their presence on the world stage by appearing to be independent of American influence.

The quid pro quo for EU nations to derive benefit from Arab oil and enhanced presence on the world stage has been to be supportive of Arab/Muslim interests and in particular, supportive of the anti-Israel sentiments of the Arab/Muslim world.

It is slowly dawning on the EU nations that the economic benefits and stature they have gained by being American obstructionists is not without cost as they are experiencing increasing problems with Muslim radicalism within their own countries. So far the EU has at least recognized the problems they have made for themselves, but do not yet really know what to do about it and secondly the pain of Muslim radicalism has not reached the point that they are willing to change their policies and give up economic benefits or their influence on the world stage achieved by their anti-Americanism.

In spite of America knowing the reasons behind EU and Muslim anti-Americanism are borne far more of jealousy than logic and reason, Mr. Nice Guy America seeks to win support of those whose jealousies give rise to their ill will for America.

To do that, America has been purchasing support by efforts at accommodating, humoring and appeasing those EU and Mid East nations aligned against them.

In so doing, America’s policies that define who their enemies are, including those that aid and abet their enemies and policies that are determinative of strategies to combat and defeat their enemies and that give expression to American resolve to carry out those strategies have lost clarity and suffer some confusion.

When it comes to defining Islamic radicals for example, the Bush administration follows the EU example of excluding Palestinian radicals as being a facet of Islamic radicalism.

Further, America, like the EU quartet that is pushing the Road Map to Peace continues to push a concept of peace that rests on Israeli concessions to Palestinians and treats Palestinian dishonesty, failings, and terrorism borne of implacable Jew hatred as irrelevant to achieving that peace. Such American core policies and attitudes vis a vis the Israel – Palestinian issue are not new as they found expression in prior American Israel – Palestinian peace initiatives.

On the international stage, nothing earns more respect and influence than power and it is that power that marks a nation as a leader. American efforts at garnering friends and supporters through accommodation and appeasement undermines America’s quest for respect and influence and accordingly weakens, rather than strengthens America on the world stage.

While Israel has been weakened in the face of its enemies by American world and peace policies and pressure that has forced Israel to concede time and again, so too has America been weakened in relation to the EU, Arab nations, Russia and China.

If America continues to foolishly pursue strength through weakness, Israel will be at ever increasing risk that at some point, America will leave itself too weak to stand against those Mid East nations that would like to see Israel removed from the Middle East entirely and those EU nations and others that just don’t give a damn whether Israel survives or not.

14. Ted Belman said:

On the money, Bill.

I particularly like "pursu[ing] strength through weakness".

15. kuhnkat said:

Remembered why I don't support Lieberman.

He helped vote down drilling in ANWR with the rest of the leftie crowd. Until the US can regain control of the basics of its economy it will be beholden to the countries who HATE freedom and Israel.

Doesn't he understand this??

Guess it is politics as usual. If it doesn't put your reelection in jeopardy it is OK to support it. (this applies to left AND right)

16. Lori Lowenthal Marcus said:

No one is telling it like it is because there are too many who still don't understand that being good doesn't always mean being nice - that sometimes being tough is kinder than being soft.

Ours is another period in history in which cowardice rules. Withdrawing from Iraq without having a successful plan in place because the bad guys keep doing bad things, and forcing Israel to make potentially fatal concessions because the Arab Palestinians won't follow any rules are excellent examples of that cowardice. In such times those who believe enough in their goals to do everything possible to attain them will defeat those who mostly just want to be liked. Those who are willing to "tell it like it is" will continue to be marginalized. It is time for someone to enter the fray who will lead without fear - someone who will lead, because in this age of cowardice we can't wait until someone is successful at telling it like it is.

17. Martin Man said:

Ted, Bill N., Henry K., etc.

I find it amazing that such "thoughty" people can be so short sighted. Most everyone supposes that all we need do is bring "democracy" to the savages, and everything will be just fine. Please tell me what will the experts say, or how will they justify any future intervention, if, in classic democratic form, Iraqis vote to form an Islamic republic, ala Iran, or what if Islamic fundamentalists are elected to power, as is happening in Turkey Algeria, and Egypt? What then, if they vote democtatically that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, or that a plague should be unleashed on the infidel West? What then? Hmmm?

The single underlying fact that all the experts ignore is that these people are all MUSLIMS. They will behave as Muslims until the beliefs of Islam, particularly the violent ones, are eliminated. That is a tall order indeed, and since it is not likely to happen tomorrow, we should rather fragment Iraq and install despots, of our own choosing, who would keep their populations under control, by what ever means necessary, and start teaching them to be peaceable, respectable people. Islam is the problem, not lack of democracy. When the people of the middle east have been freed from the tyrany and oppression of Islam, then it will be possible to help them establish successful democracies, but not until. People cannot be trusted with govenment until they are ready for it. Giving (self) government to people who are culturally unprepared for it is like giving a child a loaded gun.

18. george said:

I agree with Martin
Islam is at war with us from without and from within, and we refuse to acknowledge it.
It's not even the faoult of the idiocy of the leftists, or for that matter, pluralism and multicuturism taken to the Nth degree -when it becomes pure cowardice or appeasement. It is a much deeper problem of moral degeneration which has effected civilisations throughout History.
THe Greeks and Romans suffered from it and lost to the barbarians.
Europe has already slipped dwon that slope and for them it is only a matter of time.
But America does not yet suffer from the disease of the degeneration of old civilisations and may indeed save itself.

19. Bill Narvey said:

To Martin Man,

You say,: "Most everyone supposes that all we need do is bring "democracy" to the savages, and everything will be just fine."

That is not what I understood Ted and Kissinger were speaking about and certainly not where those comments were going.

Bush believes that in bringing democracy to the Middle East, Arab/Muslim nations will turn from Islamic radicalism and join the community of democratic world nations that do not make war on each other.

Today's democracies are built on Judeo Christian principles and values. Implicit in the idea of bringing democracy to the Middle Eastern Arab nations, is that an Islamic democracy would necessarily abandon its culture and values that are the antithesis of Western democratic civiliation in favor of shared values with Judeo-Christian democratic societies.

I have previously noted that such implication is likely wishful thinking borne of western paternalistic superiority, notwithstanding the West's multicultural penchant for according, at least with platitudes, people and nations of differing ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds, equal respect.

Within Western democracies, in spite of the differences between various political parties that vie for their place at the head of nations, all political parties formulate their respective political visions and policies within the context of Judeo-Christian culture and democratic principles based on that culture.

If Mid East arab dictatorial, theocratic and autocratic regimes were to become political structures of the past and all developed democratic institutions, it is more than likely that the opposing democratic parties would offer their Muslim electorate differing political platforms within the context of Islamic culture, laws and values. That does not bode well for such possible Islamic democracies to rid themselves of anti-Westernism, Jew/Israel hatreds and their holy manifest destiny to dominate the world through Jihad, being the holy duty each and every Muslim is charged with by Islam.

The one possible benefit that could come to the fore is that, in spite of probable ongoing frictions and mistrust between Western and Islamic democratic nations that antithetical cultures and ideology give rise to, Islamic democratic nations may be less inclined to make or support Islamic radical terrorist wars against West and instead seek some kind of rapproachment through discussion.

That rapproachment might just be in agreeing to divide the world into Islamic and Western sectors with each sector taking a live and let live approach and pledging not to interfere in the other's affairs.

The Western and Islamic world however seems to be approaching the brink of a seemingly inevitable all out bloody and deadly clash of civilizations faster than democratizing the Middle East can occur.

20. Martin Man said:

Bill Narvey,

I do agree that we, the West and the Islamic world are engaged in a clash of cultures, which seems to be worsening, although, I would have to say it is they who have joined the battle against us, not vice versa.

Bill, I don't agree with you that democracy will change Islamic culture. I think Islamic culture will rather make it fit their way of doing things, so they can say, "see we are democratic", but it will be in name only. I guess only time will tell, although I think there is already a good track record that Islamic cultures don't do well with most things "civilized", let alone government. Their ideal is to return to the 7th century.

I believe the U.S. blew a really good chance, no, three good chances, to start addressing the issue. When we invaded Afghanistan, Kuwait, and then Iraq, we should have immediately declared "freedom of religion" and let Christian Evangelicals establish radio stations, churches, schools, hospitals, charities, etc. to start chipping away at Islam (with Judeo/Christian philosophy). As it was, we defeated the dictators in all those places, to make them safe for Islam. Duh!

Happy New Year! (Seriously)

21. Bill Narvey said:

Martin,

You say, "Bill, I don't agree with you that democracy will change Islamic culture."

I did not say that. In fact I said just the opposite seemed more likely.

I did however suggest that if Islamic nations were to become democratic, they may turn from aggression vis a vis conflicts with the West and take the path democracies generally follow of peacefully negotiating their differences and not making war on one another.

22. nanda said:

I do not know very much about what is "really" the ME policy of the US. I do know that Israel is the key. Much is revealed by the fact thatIsraelis/Jews are dying and the destruction of Israel is sought by almost the entire world, including many in the US.

Religio-metaphysical interpretations are ridiculed but the Hebrew prophets saw what is now coming about. The world will be judged by the fate of Israel. The rise of the Iranian archfiend Ahmadinejad is bringing matters to a head. There is no substitute for the total annilination of the Amalekite heresy which reaches its greatest expressions in the spewings of Satan's most important earthly representatives- the Ayatollahs and the Amalekites.

It is interesting to reflect that Iran/Persia was the home of the prophet Zardush (Zoroaster) whose acolytes were slaughtered by the Amalekites. It was Zardush who saw the embodiment of the universe as the struggle between good (Ahuramazda - source of the name of the car) and evil (Amiran.) And, now, it is the Persian Ayatollahs who are the evil envoys of Amiran.

They seek to destroy [Ahuramazda/"Jehovah"/Yehoshua]and there are only two outcomes:
1-The destruction of the world- G-d will bring the keys, tell all the party is over and turn out the lights - he has better creatures elswhere 2- The annihilation of the Satanic Amalekites. To predict the outcome, watch Israel.

n.b. Will someone please write an expose of the fantastic extent of Arabian propaganda?
From Caliph News Network, Riyahders, habibiC to the Arabiated Press and the New York Dhiimmes, the petrolite has taken over. Even Fox has been bought out by the Arabians.