Stuck In The Karzai Dilemma

More and more people are finally beginning to see the truth about Islamist terrorism. Recent attacks against our “intellectual superiors” in Europe have created a backlash. No matter how much our biased media wants to blame the West for terrorism, they cannot allow a threat to their livelihood to go unanswered.

Chris Matthews had a fascinating interview with State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf. As a member of the “Obama Department” and a former campaign advisor, Harf is completely insulated against reality. She repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance during the interview.

This ignorance exists from the top to bottom. President Obama recently said,

“…I reject a notion that somehow that (Islamist extremism) creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge it is very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9% of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we are looking for…”

So if al-Zawahiri and al-Baghdadi are not Muslim, what religion do they belong to? It’s not just wishful thinking, Obama is really just a compulsive propagandist. .1% doesn’t come anywhere near the support base for Islamist extremism. The Pew Research Center did a study which revealed that 15% of US Muslims between 18 to 29 years old thought that suicide bombing was justified. Keep in mind that the average age of a suicide bomber is in the early twenties.

Regardless, Obama would never say that the term “White Supremacy” is a problem because it is supported by only .1% of whites. Such an argument could be used to justify the rebranding of the term “White Supremacy” to something like “Misrepresentative Cross Section of Unnamed Master Race”.

You can see the hollowness of this rhetoric when Chris Matthews asked Marie Harf how can we stop terrorism. She replied;

“…We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…” Harf then doubled down on this nonsense by saying, “We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…”

This lack of understanding by intelligent people can only be explained by denial. The resulting rationalizations just cloud any attempt to define solutions.

The Myth of Oppressed Terrorists

Over a dozen years ago I had a Jewish business associate who traveled extensively in the Middle East. I made a comment that since he dealt with educated people he probably didn’t have to worry that much about religious prejudice. His reply stunned me. He said that educated people in the Middle East were more indoctrinated than the uneducated.

Newsweek supports this observation with a quote from terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, who stated that terrorists are, “relatively well educated and gainfully employed”.

At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Marc Sageman, was concerned about our lack of knowledge concerning terrorism. He conducted a survey of 162 terrorists. His study (that was conducted over a decade ago) would stun the ill-informed Obama Administration today.

• About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education


• About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)


• Most came from middle or upper-middle class households

We can still help Muslim countries build their economies, BUT WE WILL ALSO NEED A PLAN TO COMBAT TERRORISM!!!

The Trap of the Karzai Dilemma

Former Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, owed his political power to the United States. Operation Enduring Freedom helped him gain political office. During his presidency our country was his primary financial and military supporter.

Yet Karzai’s relationship with the US was very strained, particularly with President Obama. Back in 2011 Karzai had a public meltdown. US air strikes (the preferred military reaction of the Obama Administration) had killed and wounded some innocent Afghan civilians.

(Before continuing I would like to make it clear that while I am criticizing the Obama Administration, I am not attacking our military. Airstrikes in a warzone against armed combatants are legal under the Geneva Conventions. However, friendly fire incidents show that if friendly military units can be accidently targeted, then innocent civilians are also at risk. Their deaths are not necessarily intentional and are often caused by the fog of war.)

Getting back to the point, Karzai reacted to American air strikes by declaring;

“With great honor and with great respect, and humbly rather than with arrogance, I request that NATO and America should stop these operations on our soil… …This war is not on our soil. If this war is against terror, then this war is not here, terror is not here.”

Despite his dependence on the US, this was just one of many anti-American tirades by Karzai. It betrays another dependency. In order to stay relevant to his people Karzai had to use Anti-Americanism to distance himself from his ally.

Anti-Americanism is the Problem

President Obama rose to prominence thanks to the political power of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. It was led by his mentor; Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who is infamous for his anti-American sermons. His declaration of, “God Damn America”, is a testament to how deeply Pastor Wright felt he could pay tribute to anti-Americanism.

Obama’s debt to anti-Americanism is constantly being repaid. Last September Obama made a speech to the UN urging them to fight against ISIS. He switched gears for a moment in an amazing display of the Karzai Dilemma.

“I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”

I would like to translate that into plain English for you. He is basically saying that, “I may sound like a George Bush warmonger, but I am as anti-American as you”.

In the Middle East the media and schools teach only that America killed the Indians, oppresses minorities, props up Israel and colonizes the planet. They know nothing but the bad that our country has done (or what they claim we have done). Populist Democrats preach the same thing. Islamist and Populist propaganda converge in Anti-Americanism.

President Obama would like to destroy ISIS, but leave anti-Americanism intact. That is impossible.

The only way to defeat Islamic Terrorism is to disarm the reason for its existence. Anti-Americanism helps to radicalize and recruit new members. It also helped to rationalize the justifications for the beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig.

The Karzai Dilemma leaves President Obama powerless because he must always kowtow to anti-Americanism while fighting America’s enemies.

• Whenever President Bush was responsible for an airstrike that resulted in collateral damage (real or imagined), Obama could ride his high horse.


• Whenever President Obama is responsible for a similar airstrike it raises uncomfortable questions. So he fishes for sympathy by slyly insinuating to the listener that he is a black man and the US oppresses his race. His UN speech was a classic example of unstated assumptions used as propaganda. 

It gives me no pleasure to watch him squirm. These airstrikes are often necessary. I wish collateral damage did not exist, but I do not subscribe to a populist ideology that promises a perfect world. I support President Obama’s war on ISIS, but I know the truth. His anti-American populist ideology is a part of the problem.

If you really want to win the war against ISIS you must change Mr. President. You can still preach about the racism of America’s past, but do not forget that it is not just America’s history. It is the history of the world and a part of human nature.

Blaming the sins of the world on the US ignores the great history of our representative democracy and the present day triumphs of civil rights. The solution can’t be found by fabricating white racism, when the problem is truly black racism against whites. (White racism does exist, but it was not a factor in the violence between police officer Darren Wilson and Blood gangster Mike Brown.)

Many countries in Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East don’t have the diversity from global immigration that we have. For many of them free speech and equal rights are only a dream. And they often suffer from terrible corruption that snuffs out struggling businesses. We are a white majority country with a black President and more equality than any populist hustler will ever sincerely admit.

Mr. President you rode the tiger and don’t want to get off. If you really want a great legacy here is your chance. Work to destroy anti-Americanism and the associated victimhood rackets. That will help rot away the foundation of Islamic terrorism…

Time to Make a Stand

President Obama Fiddles While the World Burns

In Iran the most amazing things are happening. Every year on the anniversary of the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran, pro-government demonstrators march in front of the embassy to denounce America. This year Democracy activists are counter-protesting and appealing to the U.S. for help. It is an amazing turn of events which reveals that Obama Administration has been neglecting Iran’s Democracy movement for too long.

Many protesters gathered in chants of, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us”. Obama’s culture of self-loathing anti-Americanism is being challenged like never before. His foreign policy of playing nice with our enemies and tough with our friends is not paying off. The leftwing ideology of anti-Americanism is cracking at the seams.

President Obama has been dithering for too long. His policy of ignoring the truth about the Iranian regime in order to foster dialog with them is angering Iranians who long for freedom. While the Mullahs of Iran are helping to kill American troops, support further instability in the Levant, oppress their citizens and stall efforts to prevent its nuclear proliferation… Obama does nothing.

Obama and His Generals

It is an all too familiar pattern. After some early hope that Obama would live up to his hawkish campaign promise to focus on the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan, the President has become negligent towards what he once referred to as the “central front” in the War on Terror (or rather what used to be called the War on Terror). Judging by the way he has always shunned our top generals in the field, it was inevitable.

On January 10, 2007, Obama was quoted on MSNBC as saying the following about the Iraq Troop Surge:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

Considering the success of the Surge it would be logical to wonder which military officers Obama was talking to.

In May of 2008 Vets for Freedom released an ad challenging Presidential candidate Barack Obama to meet one on one with General Petraeus, whom he had been reluctant to consult with. It was a part of a firestorm of criticism that forced Obama to visit Iraq and meet directly with Petraeus.

So Obama didn’t sit down to meet with General Petraeus, one on one, until July 2008. Therefore he never properly consulted Petraeus (the principal architect of the Surge) before condemning the operation. Furthermore, he had to be shamed into directly meeting with the general through determined political pressure. Obama didn’t speak privately with any military officer who believed that the Surge would make a substantial difference on the ground because he was not interested in meeting with military leaders that would express such sentiments. His consultations with military leaders were dictated by his desire to shape his military policy according to his own political agenda and so he consulted only with military leaders who he felt would support his preconceived conclusions.

This is not an isolated trend. In August of this year the Obama Administration shelved a report from General Stanley McChrystal asking for a troop increase in Afghanistan. By the end of September it became known that the President didn’t meet with McChrystal in person since the general took over command of Afghanistan in June and only spoke to him on one occasion during that time. Once again, after concerted political pressure, Obama was shamed into meeting our top commander who was in charge of our most critical war zone.

President Obama is not as interested in winning the war in Afghanistan as much as he is interested in promoting himself politically. I don’t doubt that he would like to win the war, but he has other priorities ahead of that goal. His non-stop political campaigning takes precedence. Obama is running for the 2012 presidential election now, just like he spent much of his only term in the U.S. Senate running for President in the 2008 election.

When Obama finally met McChrystal, the general had to fly to Denmark where the President was campaigning to have the 2016 Olympics hosted in his hometown! McChrystal was lucky that Obama was able to squeeze in 25 minutes to meet him. He was third down in the list of the President’s priorities.

Associated Press related that Obama originally turned down several requests by the Chicago bid committee when they asked him to take part in Chicago’s presentation to the IOC. Despite Obama’s long commitment to Chicago’s bid, he professed that he was too deeply involved with the debate on health care. Ultimately the lure of Chicago politics won out and Obama decided that one day wouldn’t jeopardize his work on health care “reform”. The meeting with McChrystal was added at the last minute to a schedule that was put together at the last minute. It was a measure of Obama’s appreciation for his top general in Afghanistan.

Note: You have to cringe at the first paragraph of the AP article… (sorry the link is already dead and I can't find another respectable link.)

In a quick dash of salesmanship, President Barack Obama is in the Danish capital, putting his personal powers of persuasion on the line to boost Chicago’s Olympics bid.

Without the colorful embellishments of the American media, Obama’s exaggerated powers of persuasion really don’t amount to much in the real world.

With the haphazard meeting out of the way, the media could now turn its attention to attacking McChrystal. The same tired arguments that were shown to be false during the Iraq Troop Surge are being regurgitated in Afghanistan.

As mentioned above, Obama predicted at the beginning of the Surge that it would fail. The popular sentiment was that an increase of American troops in Iraq would lead to more violence. Yet the opposite was true. This is because ever since the Vietnam War our society has cultivated a misconception of war and occupation. There is no evidence after the success of the Surge that the sentiment of the Iraqi public dramatically changed to the point that they overwhelmingly “loved” their occupier. What happened was more realistic and is the cornerstone of COIN strategy. Our allies in Iraq felt more protected and our enemies felt more threatened. This was how the Surge was so successful.

Where is our Afghan Strategy?

When the Obama Administration ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in February 2009, the increased troop levels were expected to last three to four years. Yet in September Obama said that we need an Afghan strategy before sending more troops. He stated, “I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don’t make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready.”

So why did he order troops to go to Afghanistan in February if he didn’t have a strategy? Its bad enough that President Obama neglects to consult with his top commanders and has to be shamed into meeting with them one on one... but he just completely neglects our troops in Afghanistan so he can campaign for healthcare “reform”, promote Chicago’s Olympic bid, play golf and fight a war against Fox News.

This was his greatest mistake. By using his Alinsky tactics of attacking and attempting to isolate Fox News, Obama has offended his most prized ally, the media. Now they are starting to see the Obama Administration for what it is.

So President Obama... You have no choice, but to abandon your rhetoric of self-loathing anti-Americanism. Iranian protesters need you. Your top generals deserve your ear. Afghanistan has to have more troops to defend its people who are isolated by mountainous terrain and victimized by a terrorist enemy who can slip through a porous border. Do something… you are the leader of the free world and you cannot sit on the fence any longer.

John McCain

Up until recently I have had no preference for any presidential candidate in the upcoming 2008 election. However, things are becoming a bit clearer for me now that the Democrats are pushing for a resolution to condemn Bush’s plan for a troop surge in Iraq. A plan that is designed to match the surge in violence between the Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad.

Senator Chuck Hagel, who has rose to prominence simply because he is a Republican that criticizes the Bush Administration, has become locked in a fierce debate with fellow Republican Senator John McCain. The disagreement between the two is centered around a resolution proposed by McCain to support the troop surge.

Hagel’s stance, which dictates that we should not get involved in a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, makes sense if you don’t really care about the fate of the Iraqi people. Since the US is in the middle of transferring full sovereignty to the Iraqi government it can be argued that we have a moral responsibility to do something about this terrible violence. On Saturday a truck bomb killed about 130 civilians. The attack devastated a popular market in a Shiite Baghdad neighborhood. Since the bombing was aimed at civilians it is quite clear that the objective of this attack was to incite the Shiites into retaliating and further escalating the violence.

Yet Hagel wants US troops redeployed to the borders of Iraq and remove them from the cities where they are most needed to combat this sort of atrocity. He has also demanded that there be consequences for the Iraqi government if they don’t meet benchmarks laid out by McCain’s proposal. While I agree that the Iraqi political leadership could do more to stem the violence, the withdrawal of support for their fledgling government would be fatal. Hagel is actually trying to destabilize the Iraqi government and that leads me to believe that he is not particularly interested in helping them. Typically, when fighting a common enemy, you support your allies and attack your enemy. Hagel is actually doing the reverse.

Citing the Iraq Study Group Report, he wants to turn to Iran and Syria for help.

Iran had a leading role in inciting the failed Shiite rebellion against Saddam in 1991 and ever since they have continued to exert their influence among Iraqi Shiites. The Mahdi Army, which fought many battles with US troops and is behind much of the escalation in sectarian violence, has been trained and armed by Iran. While the political arm of the Mahdi army has participated in the electoral process - its leader, Muqtada al-Sadr has shown more loyalty to Iran than his own country. When Sadr visited Tehran early last year he declared that he would defend Iran if it is attacked. This is a very disturbing statement coming from a man that has spent much of the last couple of years fighting his own countrymen. During this time Iran has continued their intrigue on many other levels. Agents of the Iranian government are believed to be distributing sophisticated IED devices that were made in Iran to Iraqi insurgents. In addition, terrorists that recently conducted an attack on Americans dressed in US uniforms are believed to have been trained in Iran.

Syria has a long history of supporting terrorism in neighboring countries and has become a safe haven for Saddam Hussein loyalists who finance and organize the Iraqi insurgency. Although relations between Syria and Saddam’s regime had been quite icy in the past, they began to work together in the last years of Saddam’s reign. In 2005 Congress determined that Syria helped funnel $3 billion dollars in money and weapons to Saddam Hussein during the period of the scandal-plagued UN Oil-for-Food program.

Despite these facts, Hagel still thinks that we can work with these countries. He said, “There is going to be no peace in Iraq, there will be no peace in the Middle East unless all the regional partners are brought in to a framework of a political agreement.” What kind of concessions would the Iraqis have to give in order to win the support of Syria and Iran? Syria will not support a Shiite led government that is friendly towards to the US and Iran will not accept anything less than a Shiite theocracy that is hostile to the US. Inviting further influence by regimes that are behind the violence in Iraq is a folly worse than giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. Instead of looking for easy solutions that don’t work, critics of the Bush Administration should start looking for answers that do. Abandoning Iraq to anarchy is not a strategy. Its amazing that they can foist their lack of strategy as a concrete plan, while Bush’s strategy has resulted in the defeat of a terrible regime and the formation of Iraq’s first truly representative democracy in its history.

Senator McCain has spent a great deal of time criticizing our policy in Iraq, but he has also remained committed to defeating our enemies. Instead of running a safe campaign that sells out our troops, McCain is remaining true to his convictions.

Politicians like Hagel who voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq didn’t do so because they believed it was the right thing to do, they voted for the resolution because they felt that it was the popular thing to do. They can blame Bush or the CIA or whoever they want, but the truth is that they never seriously considered what they were getting themselves into. That is why they lack the conviction to follow through with the commitment that they made to the Iraqi people.

I prefer a candidate that is more concerned about the best interests of the American and Iraqi people, not his own self-interest.