Friends, we might as well admit the obvious: we really made a mess of things in Iraq when we invaded the country in 2003, toppled Saddam Hussein, and turned the social and political order upside down by installing a Shiite government in a historically Sunni-dominated nation. We've been picking up the pieces, or trying to, ever since. Under Obama, the Iraqi government foolishly showed us the exits, and ISIS swooped in to fill the void. ISIS motivated the Iraqis, however, to rejoin the American orbit, as they needed our help to cleanse their country of those bloody-minded zealots. All along, the influence of Iran in Iraq has been problematic, at best. Iran supported many of the insurgents who were killing American soldiers by the thousands back when George W. Bush was President. We got that insurgency under control, but Iranian subterfuge continued. Iraq is full of Iranian-backed Shiite militias that wield immense political influence. President Trump has seemingly decided that enough is enough. Presidents Bush and Obama might have been content to wag their fingers when the Iranians abetted the murder of American servicemen, but Trump says, "No more!" Good for him.
Now, I know many people are saying that World War III is imminent. That's poppycock. Our campaign of "maximum pressure" on the Iranians has already brought their economy to its knees. They are thoroughly outgunned by us, and by our various allies in the Gulf region. Virtually no one likes the Iranians and will do with business with them. The Syrians and Russians are the exception. Bottom line: the Iranians are pipsqueaks. They pose no meaningful threat to the United States, and they never will. President Trump's decision to dispose of General Soleimani is not the prelude to war, therefore. It's a warning to Iran, and a reminder that their antics can be slapped down by us at any time. They had better stay in their puny, retrograde lane, therefore, or we will inflict much greater carnage on their country. I predict, in fact, that, although Iran may retaliate in some minor way, in the long term their behavior will be better, not worse, because of Trump's iron-fisted approach.
The other major upside to his recent actions will be seen in Iraq, where Iran wields influence precisely because many Iraqis don't believe we have staying power, whereas the mullahs next door do. Anytime we stand up to Iran, our stock in Iraq goes up -- and the anti-Iranian forces in Iraq become stronger. Make no mistake: Iraq, for better or worse, is an American protectorate, and it is likely to stay that way for a long time. And a protectorate, after all, expects protection. Trump just delivered it, and how!
Bravo, Mr. President!
And, if you feel so inclined, check out this article, written by a "socialist," about why Biden is not the best candidate to face Trump in 2020. The author's underlying motivation may be to support someone like Bernie (who in my estimation would be an even worse candidate), but nonetheless he makes some excellent points about Biden's weaknesses.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/04/joe-biden-electable-trump-2020-election#maincontent
Dr. Waddy: Is it possible that the Dems are as united as to be engaging in a massive conspiracy to make the real America think that President Trump cannot lose and that everything the Dems do now is as dross, dust? Not! Their increasing desperation is justified and obvious. Biden would be handled badly by President Trump (no Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, our President). Who else do they have? Grannyglassed 1970's style scold Warren; Pete Seeger (I mean, uh, Bernie) Cuomo (if I were debating him I would simply break out in gales of mirth everytime he EMOTES!)
ReplyDeleteBoxers are taught to punch through the target (i.e. hitting it with full power). If we real Americans stay but true to that idea and never once let up until President Trump is reelected, we will, plainly and simply have saved our worthy country from the worst internal threat it has faced since 1861.
"Who else do they have? Grannyglassed 1970's style scold Warren; Pete Seeger (I mean, uh, Bernie) Cuomo (if I were debating him I would simply break out in gales of mirth everytime he EMOTES!)"---
ReplyDeletebahwahahahaha Jack, thanks for the laugh. I needed that. Great comment, Jack. smiles
After reading AOC and Omar's latest tweets, I know the President did the right thing, not that I had any doubt anyway. Like I said on FB (or similar) who are these folks for? Iran or USA? Seriously, lets just get the pompous attitudes out of the way and ask that question.
Dr. Waddy and Linda: I agree;the opinions of partisan leftists on ANYTHING the President does are beneath contempt and are to be spurned.
ReplyDeleteI wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether; its a sea of backwardness and barbarity and we did make a mistake trying to plant democracy there. Our only vital interest there is Israel and we are so militarily mobile that we can readily aid them should they need help. Support for that exemplary country is a test of civilization. We don't need the Mideast oil anymore(Luddites like Cuomo, who would hamstring our natural gas production notwithstanding) and countries which do need it should find other sources (like us) or defend their sea routes themselves.
Dr. Waddy: But if, as you say, Iraq is owed our protection, then the President was faithful to that responsibility in this action. And that bodes well for our ability to deter any aggressor under this President.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Jack! And Linda: your question is very germane. Why are liberals so often rooting for our country's enemies, and why are they rooting for the failure of our economy AND our foreign policy? A lack of patriotism is part of the answer, but the bottom line is that nothing matters to them except the total victory of the THE IDEA, i.e. their radical ideology. America is just a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteJack, I understand your feelings about Middle Eastern entanglements. It's true -- we don't need the oil anymore. The world does, however, and I don't see anyone else stepping up to play the role of hegemonic power in the region. The Europeans would be the logical choice -- they still suck up Gulf oil like nobody's business. We all know how capable the Europeans are militarily, though. It will take decades for them to find their sea legs again, not to mention their land and air legs. I simply don't see any alternative to continued American involvement in the Middle East, in the foreseeable future. Handing things over to, say, the Saudis or the French would be an immense risk, and it would give Iran and Russia golden opportunities...
Dr. Waddy: What you said makes a great deal of sense. With great power great responsibility may be inescapable. What good fortune for the world that it is we who have such capabilities.
ReplyDeleteSome leftists may argue "where I see injustice I will resist it, especially in my own country because it IS my country". That was what motivated some of the Vietnam War protestors but the material result was that they aided and comforted the Marxist savages. Many other leftists have embraced a reflexive loathing for our country which is, uh, quite fashionable in some American circles. Most of them though, I agree, want to see us fail in order to pave the way for their discredited pipe dream.
Jack, I think one reason lefties root against America is because the actual consequences of a failed America seem so abstract. Who could imagine an America anything other than free, rich, and strong? Well, that's what they said about Rome too. My advice: those who assume that the fall of evil America can ONLY make the world a better place should be careful what they wish for!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Had I the means I would buy one of the prisons NY State is closing down in order to make NY an inviting place for criminals. Of course the state may be saving them to house law abiding gun owners but maybe I could pry one loose. I would then convert it into "Marxland". This is only fitting since Marxists are blithe to turn entire countries into prisons.
ReplyDeleteIt would have a recreated Berlin Wall around it because, well, once you went in you would not be allowed out. The housing would be of the time honored but still chic" Kommunalka" style and its capacity would be prodigious because personal space would be, uh, sparing. Large portraits of rehabilitated heroes like Stalin,Pol Pot and Che would grace the surroundings together with time honored works of "socialist realism";assertive sound systems would ensure the constant broadcast of "music of their lives" like "The East is Red",the "Internationale" and of course the rollicking 1970's "spit on Vietnam vet"s anthem OHIO. Entertainment would consist, in the main, of standing in endless lines for such rare delicacies as toilet paper and light bulbs. So much redeeming conversation and opportunity for reading is to be had in such settings.
It would be expected that residents of former Marxist countries would not be attracted to this park but massive patronage from the American left could be expected. Effort would be made to recruit Charon and his three headed dog to ensure that no visitor fails to see or hear his celebrated introduction "All hope abandon, ye who enter here". This would of course be the only expression derived from religion of any sort allowed in Marxland.
Celebrities like Bill and Bernardhine, Noam Chomsky and every other Prof or Administrator from the current American academy would be on hand for autographs and consolation (of a sort).
Such a shrine would serve to offer leftist American dreamers a chance to actually experience that which they so earnestly hope for and expect.
Jack, you jest, but it's an inspired idea! Whether you administered the park, or whether true believers did so, would hardly matter, because misery/hilarity would ensure either way. I think the idea has legs! I suppose some communes are still out there, and they might already have cornered the market, but you have in mind something on a scale that's far larger...
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I would locate Marxland in CA or NY, naturally, because that's where the greatest number of customers would be concentrated.But fie, oh fie, that's a concept straight out of "free enterprise" and all that oppressive stuff. Now where would a leftist put it? I know, Mt Airy N.C., the model for Mayberry, the better to provide convenient redemption for recalcitrant real America.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy: Having fallen in with harmless hippies on New Years Day, 1971 on the Northern California coast, I traveled, at their bidding, to a real commune. My, my, what airy detachment from the mundane concerns of the unforgiveably real world! Oh, they were nice enough but so very ignorant of the daily concerns most of us have. They were far too dreamy and gentle to have reprised the Gulag. They would have been consumed in short order by the predictable forces and influences manifested at Altamont. But then, for most of us in the real America, this is a long since told story.
ReplyDeleteJack, as I'm sure you've noticed, socialism works best when it's heavily subsidized. For a while, oil kept the Soviets and the Venezuelans afloat. The Scandinavians only sustain quasi-socialism because of their immense prosperity. I would assume, therefore, that if Marxland ever became a reality, leftists would spend money liberally to make it work, or "work". And if it ended in disaster, as so many of those communes did, you can bet that story would be buried on page 932 of the NY Times!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Good points. Where would the bucks to support Marxland come from? Capitalists such as Steyer and Bloomberg? Hollywood? Should they demur, it would flop. That the Scandinavian countries, in their socialism/light (oh, they are far too affable and voluptuary to contemplate Vorkuta or the Lubyanka; they are members of the human race after all) have supported their dreams by such (perhaps) as North Sea oil never occurred to me; it does make sense. Whatever the source, Scandanavian socialism is supportable only by such incidental windfalls and confiscatory taxation and expenditure of those funds by administrators devoted to values shared by the vast majority of their insular populations.
ReplyDeleteOf course, in the U.S. we dare not repose such confidence in our bureaucracy, dominated as it is by leftists thoroughly disdainful of majority values.
An excellent point, Jack -- a country will only repose such immense power in its bureaucrats when it trusts them thoroughly. The Scandinavians, since they have some of the best, most incorruptible bureaucrats on earth, can be forgiven for going down the path of socialism, therefore. No doubt many of them even derive advantage from it (although, as they've proven, there's a point of diminishing returns). In the U.S., by contrast, we take a more jaundiced view of our government functionaries -- and for good reason, since ours is a vast, diverse land, and many federal bureaucrats are wildly abstracted from the realities of the land they govern as well as the values of its people. It's always seemed to me that socialism and collectivism work best on a small scale. The US is many things, but it ain't small.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: That is for sure and it reflects the reality that the well being of the Scandinavian countries is far from a confirmation of leftist totalitarian values.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, the Swedish military had, for very long, demonstrated its resolve to oppose any Soviet incursion. And for historical, geographical and practical reasons, Swedish attention to the possibility of Russian aggression continues. The Finns? Well we know all we need to know about their resistance to Russian aggression. Good luck (sic) to the Rus in any incursion upon the resolute Finns. As for the Norwegians and the Danes, well gee, I think they are in NATO.
Bottom line? Yeah some of the Scandinavians may toy with socialist views but they are unwilling to apply totalitarian socialist realities. They are very human after all.
Our socialists know its reality only from smoky coffee houses in the early '60's , smoky dorm rooms in the '60's - and the bizarre rise of their antiAmerican left until now. Their backbone, far too many of the naive boomers, is beginning to collapse. Bernie is a reprise of that time in its entirety and his consummate defeat in a laughable Presidential effort would advance our country beyond this regrettable episode.
Jack, whether Scandinavian countries truly are "socialist" is a debate worth having. Socialism is, in my experience, one of the vaguest political terms around -- almost as airy as "freedom" and "equality", which every dictator agrees are lovely concepts, so long as one doesn't get into the weeds about their definitions. At bottom, vis-a-vis socialism, is the question: how much government is enough? It's an inherently subjective query.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Ditto but with a caution. Socialism presents a human face only in isolated insular setting. Because of our diversity (oh how the left detests any usurpation of that term) it can result only in tyranny in the U.S. and our left is itching to provide that Platonic leadership. (I mean, in '65, one of the first works we were required to read,and in saying this I do not deny ,as if I could, Plato's seminal role in Western thinking, The Republic; too many boomers took that as a call to elitism, as it may well have been on the part of some leftist faculty!)
ReplyDeleteTrue, Jack: socialism relies on an alignment between the interests of the masses and the views of the elite social planners. I agree with you that the diversity and complexity of our country makes such an alignment inconceivable. Fifty years ago, maybe. Today, never.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I think you are right. I base that on my overriding belief that this boomer era is but a bizarre interlude. We boomers- that our malign influence was a bizarre interlude is due ONLY to our multitude and our naivete. Had most of us the humility, we should apologize but we have not that ability, I fear.
ReplyDelete