Obama’s competence
I absolutely agree with this piece about whether or not Obama is incompetent. It’s by Ray Hartwell, written in 2010, and the answer he gives is: competent, if you know what the goals are.
Unfortunately the sad occasion for my having been directed towards it now at Powerline is that Hartwell has died; RIP.
The only thing I’d add to his excellent article, written three and a half years ago, is that Obama has had some pockets of incompetence since. One involves the rollout; I don’t think that was planned to be so bad. I think the failure of Obamacare (and the segue to single payer) was supposed to come more slowly and in a way that didn’t reflect so clearly and unequivocally that government is incompetent to run an operation like that.
Another incompetence I perceive is that, although Obama’s “you can keep your doctor/hospital/health plan” promises were always meant to be lies that lulled people into supporting him in 2012, he did not expect those falsehoods to turn people off quite as forcibly as they have. After all, Obama has told many many lies and always weaseled out of them with hardly any consequences. I think he had boundless confidence these wouldn’t matter so much, either; that he could talk his way out of them and be forgiven. But it’s been more difficult than usual, although not nearly as difficult as it should have been. The lies do seem to matter in his current significantly lower approval rating.
But is it a mattering that really matters? In other words, will it have consequences? After all, he’s not going to be impeached. Congress isn’t going to get gutsier or more principled. The only real consequence might be that the 2014 Congressional elections might not go so well for the Democrats. But what does he care, if he can go around Congress with his mighty pen and trusty phone?
And meanwhile, Obama is still president. He gets to play a lot of golf and take a lot of vacations in nifty places. He gets to screw up foreign policy even more, in ways that might last and truly matter. He might even appoint a SCOTUS justice or two, and certainly many federal judges, influencing the course of the legal system for decades to come. And he has been instrumental in creating more massive dependency on the federal government, which people could be loathe to give up once they become accustomed to it.
All in all, very competent indeed.
Fool or knave? That is the question. How about a bit of both? He is a knave in that he is a progressive, nay communist, ideologue. Any person who wants to create an egalitarian utopia cannot but be classified as a knave – given that we know so well what that means. He has pursued his goals of transformation with single minded purpose because he is a True Believer.
However, he’s also a fool. Because he believes he really is competent. But he’s not. He does not understand why the economy has not responded the way he thought it would. He doesn’t understand why his charm offensive in foreign policy hasn’t worked the way he thought it would. Like progs doubling down on the funding of failed government programs, he doubles down on his failures, believing that, if he wills things to be a certain way, it will all work out. Fool!
For a guy who spends so little time at the office, he sure does lots of damage.
I’m still going with what I said to my wife on election night 2012, “It’s the end of the Republic”. Unless the MSM is completely defanged, it’s only going to get worse from here on out. Sorry to be so downbeat.
“He does not understand why the economy has not responded the way he thought it would.” JJ
That is an assumption, that rests upon the presumption that Obama desires that the economy improve. Perhaps but equally plausible is that he is indifferent. Obama has to know, as even Paul Krugman in his heart of hearts knows, that sooner or later infinite debt = fiscal collapse and sovereign bankruptcy. So if the economy continues to slowly exhaust itself he increases the dependency class. If it somehow miraculously recovers, he claims the credit and entitlement programs are increased creating even more indebtedness. And if the economy finally collapses, Obama gets to declare martial law during the fiscal crisis with its chaos and rioting. So, what’s the downside for Obama?
“He doesn’t understand why his charm offensive in foreign policy hasn’t worked the way he thought it would.” JJ
That again is an assumption, that rests upon the presumption that Obama actually cares about American prestige and influence. That he cares about protecting America. That however is a questionable presumption, given that he has created the conditions that provide Iran the time it needs for attaining nuclear weapons capability. While simultaneously hamstringing the Israelis… Quite an ‘accidental’ accomplishment for an incompetent.
Obama is greatly downsizing the military and has forced into early retirement over 200 senior military officers during his term of office. Obama shows little inclination to confront China’s alarming moves in the Far East. And has sent the consistent message to our allies that America cannot be relied upon. Obama certainly knows the value of intimidation as any Chicago pol must, so it’s a ‘curious’ disconnect that strains credulity, that he’s tough domestically but somehow fails to grasp the leverage America’s might provides upon the world stage.
The devil always outsmarts himself. There are a few things in our favor.
1. Obama and the entire Democrat Party are lawless thugs, totalitarians and tyrants. There will come a day when Thomas More is proven right – that when you cut down the laws you yourself soon have no protection from them. Govern by fiat? Soon the day will come when you will pay the price by fiat.
2. The treasonous Senate Dems have also shown us the way to repeal anything Democrat we want to – by a simple majority vote. Period. Don’t like a Justice? Impeachment by 50+1. Gone. Don’t want Obamacare? 50+1 does it.
All it takes is the nerve. It’s always been about nerve and conviction. McCain and Romney never had it. This new crowd, their leaders, have it.
Easy to see in the people around him. When Bill Daley left as chief of staff, you knew nothing could help the President out of his incompetence. A fully adult, machine Democrat saw the disaster and ran. (ditto for Rahm Emmanuel.
Mr. Frank: “For a guy who spends so little time at the office, he sure does lots of damage.”
Again, it’s not the man – or not only the man.
The proper Marxist-method activist popular movement that spawned President Obama is the origin and the source of the problem. The movement is doing the damage.
The man is carried by the movement. Obama is merely an avatar, a representative, of the movement.
Focusing on Obama as the origin and the source of the problem is about as (in)effective as focusing on one head of the mythical hydra.
The focus here on Obama is too narrow and misdirected. Focus on the movement that he works for, instead. Compete on the planes of The Narrative and The Zeitgeist – the normative social contest.
The only solution to the problem is defeating the movement. And the only thing that can defeat the Dems/Left’s proper Marxist-method activist popular movement is a superior Marxist-method activist popular movement.
Mike: “All it takes is the nerve. It’s always been about nerve and conviction. McCain and Romney never had it.”
No. It takes a movement. Candidates with “nerve and conviction” are helpful, but that’s a secondary advantage. The primary need is a movement that is first and always. Not a campaign. A movement that is always proselytizing, always growing, always expanding. Always normalizing. Always rewriting the frame of Narrative and Zeitgeist.
There was little wrong with McCain as a candidate, certainly less wrong than Obama as a candidate. Romney should have won hands down on the merits.
But McCain and Romney didn’t just face a candidate to be compared on the merits. They faced a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement.
The problem with the GOP is it runs campaigns for candidates. Meanwhile, the Dems have figured out to plug their candidates’ campaigns into a movement. Episodic candidate vs a deep-running first-and-always movement – the movement wins.
The GOP needs to be able to plug their candidates into a first-and-always movement in order to compete.
It’s not up to the GOP, let alone any episodic candidate, to generate such a movement. The task of generating a first-and-always movement belongs to The People, led by expert, dynamic Marxist-method activists on the ground.
The Tea Party could have and should have grown into the necessary competing movement. They started that way. But their broke their promise to America and derailed themselves. Hopefully, they can find their way from convenient foil for the Dems back to the Tea Party’s original Marxist-method activist promise because at this point, the Tea Party is still our best hope for the needed insurgent movement.
Neo: “He gets to screw up foreign policy even more, in ways that might last and truly matter.”
He already has.
When President Bush passed the presidential baton to President Obama, America was winning the War on Terror.
To wit, President Obama on post-Saddam Iraq:
In other words, the pluralistic, liberalized post-Saddam Iraq that Obama inherited from Bush was – by Obama’s own description – set to have “a key role” in a reforming Middle East.
To wit, David Schanzer, Director of the Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, on the progress made by the counter-terrorism campaign:
In other words, Obama inherited a succeeding counter-terrorism campaign from Bush that had greatly reduced the physical terror threat of 9/11.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a disaster for the terrorists, both in the physical decimation and, more consequentially, choice by Iraq’s Sunni Muslims to side with the Americans against the terrorists. The War on Terror, especially the Iraq mission, had worked to devastate the terrorists on the ground and in the war of ideas.
The next step of winning the War on Terror was building peace in the Middle East based on new norms. How? American partnership with a rising pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq as the cornerstone building block and the Bush Freedom Agenda.
While the Arab Spring happened during the Obama administration, the Bush Freedom Agenda had positioned America to boost liberal reform in the Arab Spring. However, in the unique moment that America should have made a historic difference with strong leadership, Obama rejected the Bush Freedom Agenda and opted to ‘lead from behind’ with tragically predictable and evitable consequences.
Obama simply needed to stay the course from Bush to win the war and build the peace, like President Eisenhower stayed the course from Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. Instead, Obama claimed the liberal foreign policy goals of Bush but rejected Bush’s rational, progressing means to achieve them, thus causing Obama’s irrational foreign policy and regressing foreign affairs.
America was winning the War on Terror when President Bush left office. Since then, the terrorists have resurged in the gaps opened by stumbling, diminished American leadership under President Obama.
Eric @ 5:28,
No argument here as to the superiority of the Bush doctrine regarding al Qaeda as compared to Obama’s. That said, re: “The next step of winning the War on Terror was building peace in the Middle East based on new norms. How? American partnership with a rising pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq as the cornerstone building block and the Bush Freedom Agenda.”
There never was “a rising pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq”. In general, pluralism and liberalization in any Muslim country requires the protection of a ruthless ‘strong man’.
Turkey had its Ataturk. Saddam and his Bath Party imposed secular pluralism upon Iraq. The Shah of Iran imposed secular pluralism upon Iran. Lebanon’s liberal pluralism collapsed in the face of rising jihadism. Jordan’s Hashemite regime is quietly repressive, as is Dubai and the other Gulf kingdoms. So too with the Saudi’s.
Arguably, Monaco is the exception that proves the rule and it is the wealth that it receives as one of Europe’s playground’s that provides that insulation.
Democracy in Iraq was doomed to be stillborn, even had McCain won and continued Bush’s policies. There’s a reason that democracy and republicanism have never spread to the M.E.
Ironically, it may have been the leftist George Bernard Shaw who most succinctly stated why, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”
Islam absolves mankind from responsibility. Islam assigns all responsibility to Allah, and the saying “InSha’Allah”, the meaning of which is: “If Allah wills.” demonstrates M.E. culture’s rejection of individual responsibility.
Bush’s fight with al Qaeda was well conducted but he had a limited grasp of the unproductive ‘soil’ that the M.E. offers democracy.
BHO has to be seen through the lens of Chicago. He learned his corruption and vindictiveness at the hands of the Cook County machine. I have come to believe he has no firm ideological position other than cause as much harm to the USA as possible simply because he truly hates this country for its success and its imaginary evil repression of the 3rd world. Despite any further damage that he may/will do; it galls me to know that he will walk away to a very lucrative retirement with book deals, speaking fees, and preferred stock options.
GB,
I agree with your take on the futility of bringing western values to places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria. It just can not be done. Knock ’em down, make the rubble jump, and then back off, and prepare for the next round.
parker,
I freely admit that for a number of years I supported Bush’s neocon rationale for attempting to ‘graft’ democracy in the M.E. IMO, Bush and the neocon’s conceptual mistake was in presuming that ‘universal’ human aspirations of freedom and self-determination superseded religious, ideological and cultural dictates.
Reality and a greater understanding of Islam and M.E. cultures gradually disabused me of that reasoning. Islam, the primary cultural dynamic in the ME will never accept classical liberal western precepts. It will not because it cannot accept classical liberal western precepts without collapsing Islam’s most fundamental theological tenets and infrastructure. There is no more hostile ground to western precepts than the M.E.
parker,
That said, I do not agree that the only valid path open to the West consists of, “Knock ‘em down, make the rubble jump, and then back off, and prepare for the next round.”
Were the West willing to ‘Knock ‘em down’ etc. the political will would exist to declare Islam itself to be incompatible with classical Western precepts. To state the truth that Islam itself is the source of radical jihadism. That would allow the West to declare war upon Islam’s ideology.
That ideological ‘war’ would consist of expelling all Muslims from the West and instituting a doctrine of retaliation against Islam’s holiest shrines when terrorist attacks occur in the West. Directly stating that the Ka’aba’s survival (Islam’s most holy shrine in Mecca) and Mecca itself is entirely dependent upon ALL jihadist activity in the West ceasing forever.
The goal of this doctrine is based in the premise that Islam’s jihad against the West is based in its adherent’s subconscious perception that Islam’s 7th century ideology cannot survive another century or two of cultural exposure to the modern world.
The tactic of this doctrine is to quarantine Islam until it self-destructs.
GB,
When the embassy was hijacked in Tehran and we attempted to negoiate with Islamic nut jobs for 444 days I became a member of the nuke Mecca, Medina, and Qom before its too late team. In the imaginary time travel world where I am POTUS instead of Jimmy, I would have sacrificed the embassy personal to send a message to the world of Islamic nut jobs that if you f*#k with the Great Satan your world ends up a glass parking lot.
However, we in the West lack the fortitude to wage war to the point where the enemy (Islam) realizes that unconditional surrender and years of occupation results in we shall dictate the terms of you being allowed to govern yourselves. We lack the will. Until we have the will to go all the way to true and complete victory against Islam (there is no wishy-washy accommodation with Islam) the only policy (IMO) is to knock ’em down, make the rubble jump, and prepare for the next round.
And as a result of our lack of will Tehran will soon join the nuclear club.
It is all about Barack.
You only get a choice of nuking DC or Mecca, not both at the same time. So priorities.
I have thought for a long time about nuking Mecca and Medina, but have in the end concluded that would be like kicking the world’s biggest fireant nest.
Now if the M&M nuking were accompanied by nuking the Iranian and Saudi oil fields, maybe we can talk. Nuking would keep ’em out of production for a generation or two.
Geoffrey B.: “That is an assumption, that rests upon the presumption that Obama desires that the economy improve. ……..
That again is an assumption, that rests upon the presumption that Obama actually cares about American prestige and influence. That he cares about protecting America.”
Everything Obama has done from economic policy to foreign policy has been pretty much what the progs called for all these many years. I do believe that they are truly blind to the fact that eventually they will run out of other people’s money. Since they cannot envision that, they believe what they are doing is transformative and in a positive way. I know, to us it just doesn’t add up. I live among Obama supporters. They are not insane or evil – just terribly misguided. Unlike neo, or Vanderleun, or Horowitz, or Roger Simon, or many other changers, they have not, for whatever reason, realized that it (progressivism) is a feel good philosophy that eventually lays low the society that embraces it.
Who believes the President wants to see an economic collapse when the life blood of the government is the money that comes from the economy? When most of his opponents among the citizenry are armed, does he want them taking to the streets? I don’t.
I have no doubt that he wants the U.S. to have a lower profile (much weaker and more accommodative) among nations. But I think he sincerely believed that jaw, jaw was going to produce magical results in lowering tensions in the world. Imagine his surprise to find out that many world leaders are not easily swayed – not even pip-squeaks like Assad. The progs all believe that Israel is an evil apartheid country that doesn’t deserve to be supported. His hostility to Israel is just a part of their standard world view. His weak-kneed responses to Russia, China, and even Afghanistan are all in congruence with their world view. They really believe that a less “belligerent” USA will create better world conditions. It is the view from academia. We cannot conceive that anyone who has studied world history would believe what they do. Unfortunately, they do. 🙁
Let me be clearer. The object is NOT to nuke Mecca.
The object is for there to be no doubt in the Mullah’s and Imam’s minds that if they keep f***ing with the ‘Great Satan’ it will result in Mecca being nuked. It’s the Mullahs and Imams that are driving jihad and only they can call it off.
My reading of Islam’s Mullahs and Imams is that they won’t risk the Ka’aba and Mecca being vaporized if they are certain that it will be, if Islamic terrorism continues.
IMO, Ymarsakar is partially correct, the choice is convincingly threatening to nuke Mecca, to holding its existence hostage or eventually seeing DC nuked.
Put a nuke on a commercial container ship, transfer it in the dead of night to a large pleasure craft, sail it up the Potomac and goodbye DC.
That’s a red line problem, GB. How much jihad will it take to pull the trigger? So a leetle less jihad is OK? Time after time??
If it’s worth doing, it is worth doing on preemptive, not punitive, grounds. When one executes a murderer, his victim(s) remain dead.
Who says we must never, never go first? In the Cold War, we allowed the USSR the go first option, then we would virtuously counter…and get M.A.D. No winner, only two losers. That logic eludes me. Same thinking applies to jihad.
JJ,
During Obama’s first term my point of view was in alignment with yours.
Its true that much of what Obama has done has been pretty much what the progs called for all these many years.
I believe that low-info voters and leftist ‘progressives’ (academia and the media) are indeed blind to the fact that eventually the entitlements they support will run out of other people’s money.
However, I do not think that to be the case with the hard core Marxist Left. That is not the case because they do not believe in private property. It ALL belongs to the State, so there is NO ‘other people’s’ money.
I agree that liberals and leftist ‘progressives’ believe what they are doing is transformative in a positive way.
And I too live among Obama supporters. They are indeed not insane or evil — just terribly misguided.
Indeed liberalism is a feel good philosophy that eventually lays low the society that embraces it.
“Who believes the President wants to see an economic collapse”
I do… and I know that it is an appalling thought that an American President could be that mendacious. I believe he sees it as regrettable but necessary ‘collateral damage’.
You mean the ‘life blood’ provided by the Fed’s ‘qualitative easing’ where they print money out of thin air with their ‘unlimited’ credit card?
The Obama administration and the left is working diligently to end gun ownership (ala Chicago) and as for fear of outraged conservative gun owners “taking to the streets” what do you think the unprecedented arming of the DHS and other Federal departments is about? What is the intended purpose of the ongoing militarization of our nation’s police departments and the purchasing by the Feds of 1.8 BILLION rounds of ILLEGAL hollow-point ammo and 2700 light armored tanks… preparation for if not armed rebellion? Practice? Please.
Why has the US Army admitted to preparing a domestic interment-resettlement camp manual for political prisoners? Whether those camps come to pass may be problematic but Supreme Court Justice Scalia recently affirmed that in his opinion only fools believe they cannot happen again. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to appreciate the ‘opportunity’ such a crisis would provide the left if Obama or Clinton is the President.
I agree that among the progressive academic left and intelligentsia, the view that a less “belligerent” USA will create better world conditions is literally a dogma. However, given Obama’s providing Iran a green light to develop its nuclear weapons capability and his simultaneous hamstringing of Israel, I find it insufficiently persuasive that Obama thinks that jaw, jaw is going to produce magical results in lowering tensions in the world. He knows what is at stake, even Kerry knows and has admitted what is at stake;
Consider this; both fiscal collapse and/or a nuclear terrorist attack upon a major US city will result in the declaration of nationwide martial law for ‘the duration of the emergency’. Under martial law, there is legal precedent for the President to suspend provisions of the Constitution. And legal suspension of Constitutional provisions is absolutely necessary to make fundamental transformation of America permanent.
Whether calculated or not, that is where the path the administration is on takes us. And finally there is another tactic the democrats are pursuing and that is incrementally turning America from a Republic into as pure a Democracy as possible, which shall also result in fiscal collapse and then tyranny.
Unilaterally nuking Mecca Don Carlos would kill the innocent as well as the guilty.
That is the moral argument. But there is a pragmatic one as well. Unilaterally nuke Mecca and Muslims will never rest until America is destroyed. It would create a hundred al Qaedas.
And American society would be destroyed. Our port cities are too vulnerable to nuclear terrorist attack. A fortress america, xenophobic isolationist mind set would result from a nuclear terrorist attack and near permanent martial law would result. Constitutional freedoms would be suspended and the American experiment in Representative democracy effectively over.
Establishing a doctrine of inescapable consequence that entails the loss of all that Islam holds dear, (which is its shrines, not its practitioners) is the only means I see for avoiding the loss of millions of innocents, while acting as an effective deterrent.
And IMO, Islam cannot survive another hundred years of cultural exposure to the modern world, which is why effective deterrence is a winning strategy.
Geoffrey B., well argued, as usual. I’m almost convinced you may be right. Almost – waiting for more data. Obama’s threat to use his pen and phone to act is a worrisome point.
“Unilaterally nuking Mecca Don Carlos would kill the innocent as well as the guilty.”
Speaking only for myself, WHO CARES?!? I could crare less about the ‘innocents’. Did we care about the ‘innocents’when Curtis bomded Japan? Did we care when Dresden was firebombed?? No we did not, civilian deaths were merely unimportant blips on the radar screen.
It’s not like the moslems can’t be deterred. The Soviets had an effective method: when the moslems in one of the middle eastern hellholes kidnapped and tortured some KGB guys, the Soviets retaliated by kidnapping some of the jihad boys, castrating them, and throwing their corpses out of the truck in front of the jihad boys’ hideout.
Amazingly, the jihad boys decided that it wasn’t a good idea to f*** with the Russians.
And the sooner we show them we don’t give a toss about collateral damage to wimmen, spawn, or mosques, the sooner they’ll stop using them as shields.
GB: “And legal suspension of Constitutional provisions is absolutely necessary to make fundamental transformation of America permanent.”
Not really. Just ignore the law like they are doing now. Convince enough people that they don’t need to work – the state will provide for them. Add millions of illegal immigrants. Combat this with a feckless, cowardly opposition party…
A permanent transformation? Who knows for sure if it will be “permanent”. I’m more concerned about the near future than whether America will rise from the ashes 100 yrs from now.
parker @ 2:01,
The analogies you offer are not applicable. Here’s why; Nuking Japan unequivocally and unambiguously saved 5-25 MILLION lives. There was a solid consensus that the Nazi’s were an evil that had to be eradicated. The consensus that Islam is an evil comparable to Nazism is still lacking. You might also reflect upon your having addressed the moral argument while leaving unaddressed the pragmatic argument.
KLSmith @ 5:03,
No revolution can afford for its dominance to be impermanent. America’s guiding principles are humanity’s last, best hope. If she should fall, we face a new modern dark age, that technological advances make potentially, a level of horror never yet seen.
The near future is always important but a present that ignores its long term future has no future.
Beverly,
The Soviets certainly were ruthless enough to give pause to the jihadists but Chechnya disproves that physical intimidation alone is a viable long term tactic.
Islam is a death cult. Martyrdom is the goal. The Mullahs and Imams, who drive jihad, don’t value the individual nor even their nation. “I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.” Ayatollah Khomenei
The only thing the Mullahs and Imams value is Islam itself. Islam’s shrines are far more than religious symbols. Islamic dogma is that a ‘sliver’ of Allah’s essence resides in the Ka’aba in Mecca. That black rock (the Ka’aba) is literally Islam’s ‘imitative version’ of Judaism’s Ark of the Covenant.
Mecca is intertwined in Muslim lives in a manner that we can hardly conceive. There is great significance to the tenet that a Muslim is obligated to pray toward mecca FIVE times EVERY day and that EVERY Muslim MUST make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives. Mecca is of inestimable importance to Islam and thus to Muslims. Sacrificing its very existence is unthinkable.
An ideology can only be fought in one of two ways; physically ala the Nazis or ideologically, ala our invasive modern world’s culture. Islam has no defense against the modern world’s condemnation of Islam’s inherent human rights violations. Islam cannot keep its hold on the young, if the young are quarantined within the Ummah, which is why all Muslims must be expelled from the West. Islam is an ideological ‘cancer’ and it must be removed from the body.
Islam cannot win the ideological battle but it can and has been physically intimidating the West and physical intimidation that leads to appeasement is de facto loss of the ideological battle. Stop the physical intimidation by linking that terrorist intimidation to the certain loss of Islam’s shrines and the ideological war is all but won.
Our friends and allies No Longer TRUST us. Our warriors quietly disrespect their “C-n’-C”. Our Massive & Costly VICTORY in Iraq has been tossed away. Utterly abandoned. Israel actively detests Obama and his (2nd) pathetic Sec’y of State. Iran is smiling and High Fiving their steady gains due to his pathetic weakness. Canada, our closest friend and neighbor, has been continually shafted and lied to by Obam-Bam…. And so many, many, many more “successes” of His Infantile Majesty and his truly hideous crew.
Only those that can nuke DC would be ethically justified in nuking Mecca as well. The scales balance out. Only those that can sacrifice their own capital to win a war, can justify destroying an enemy’s center to do the same. Only those who are prepared to be fired at, should be given the power to shoot others.
NeoConScum, Japan is rearming and re-militarizing because they can no longer tolerate being America’s subordinate and so called pacifist puppet government in the Pacific sphere, when they doubt America will sustain security guarantees.
This political, diplomatic, and cultural expectation has been on going since at least 2008. It probably wasn’t due to Obama, but Obama helped the Japanese come to a certain decision. Although they are struggling between re arming using nuclear reactors (which tsunamis don’t like) vs going Green energy while re arming.
GB: I envision a future more like Huxley’s than Orwell’s.
I nominate Eric to lead the New Tea Party. He apparently has all the answers on what this amorphous group of concerned citizens did wrong. It apparently involves breaking promises to America and lack of Marxism. Or something.
FYI:
Mecca is totally unlike any other urbanity… because it’s NOT.
It’s a religious site more along the lines of Gobkli Tepe: a one-function construct.
The Ka’aba not set up for women — not at all.
It’s attended to, in the off-season by nothing but clerics and their attendees…. Wahhabist fanatics by any standard.
There is no way to nuke Mecca and kill innocents.
The nearest real urbanity is Medina. Even it is pretty much a ‘company-town.’
Neither location attracts — or accepts — anything but die hard Wahhabists.
In that sense, it’s like Berchtesgaden, a completely politicized town, which had party members — and only party members — in every nook and cranny.
As for the Haj. By definition, it’s self-selecting for the ‘devout’ of a philosophy of martial supremacism and religious repression of an epic scale — unsurpassed, in fact.
So taking out Mecca is like bombing a Nuremberg Rally.
%%%
Still, I don’t favor it.
What destroys a religion is a psychic wound to its absolute tenents. Shintoism could not survive alien OCCUPATION of Tokyo.
It did survive two atomic blasts. Detonations did NOT trigger a psychic wound to the faithful. Never forget that!
General MacArthur strolling around Tokyo was entirely too much. That broke Shintoism.
If Jews were to occupy the Ka’aba — that would utterly snap Muslim minds — globally.
For the Ummah has been assured that Allah, himself, would descend from the heavens to reverse such an event.
Human actions (on the part of the faithful) would be redundant — if not even against Allah’s will.
Similar events, in other eras, with other religions, killed belief, too. I give you Cortez and Pizarro. Living gods are always at risk.
In the case of Allah, he’s already scripted — by the Koran — to descend — on schedule — should Mecca be taken by the infidels. This core tenent was affirmed when the Saudis confirmed French commandos as instant muslims so that they could eject fanatics that had seized the Ka’aba, just a few decades back.
Occupation would also frustrate the Haj in a much more arresting way than atomics. It’s one thing to find out that the site has been blown up. It’s quite another to find that it’s in business under new management — and you’re not permitted in!
Ideas are destroyed by other ideas, notions and emotions. Nukes just don’t do the trick.
Occupation has been shown to be a mind shifter.
Shintoism wasn’t affected by MacArthur or the GHQ occupation of Japan.
Blert’s definition of shintoism must be interesting to say the least.
Parker — we once had the will, and I hope we can have it again. Remember how the hostages were released by Iran the day President Reagan was inaugurated? The mullahs knew perfectly well that if they didn’t release the hostages, Reagan’s first presidential act would be sending the B-52s, and despite their bravado, they did not want to die.
JJ — the funny thing is, only the progs and the Arab leaders (and maybe not even them) believe the nonsense about Israel being an apartheid state: the Palestinians line up by the hundreds to go to Israeli hospitals and get Israeli jobs, and the Israeli Arabs show not the slightest interest in moving to the PA.
To me, seeing Obama is like going to your high school reunion and learning that the coolest guy in school is now a used-car salesman. The sad thing is, so many people still think he’s the coolest guy around.
The fact that popularity in high school is predicated upon growing sociopaths, is part of the result of Leftist indoctrination right there.
In more healthy cultures, it would never have been allowed to deteriorate to that level.
I’m still going with what I said to my wife on election night 2012, “It’s the end of the Republic”. Unless the MSM is completely defanged, it’s only going to get worse from here on out. Sorry to be so downbeat.
Cheer up, look on the bright side. There are some people out there more pessimistic than that.
For example, the Leftist Main Sewer Media is only the tip of the iceberg, wait until you see the other 90% hidden underneath the water. Defanging the MSM would remove one tooth from a shark. The shark will still chew out a person’s arm though even without that tooth.
So you can honestly tell your wife that you are being optimistic here.
“The object is for there to be no doubt in the Mullah’s and Imam’s minds that if they keep f***ing with the ‘Great Satan’ it will result in Mecca being nuked.The object is for there to be no doubt in the Mullah’s and Imam’s minds that if they keep f***ing with the ‘Great Satan’ it will result in Mecca being nuked.”
😉 There is but one way to erase all doubt as to the resolve of the west. Nuke mecca, medina, and qom. No blustery warnings via dipomatic channels, no prior negoiation; just do it and watch the rats run .