U.S. Foreign Policy: Grim Continuity Guaranteed
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his Vice President, Hillary Clinton’s appointment to State, Robert Gates’ retention at the Pentagon, and the selection of General James Jones as head of the National Security Council point to the President-elect’s willful blindness to the collapsing economic foundation of the American hyperpower. His key appointees all share a vision—a grand strategy of sorts—that guarantees an unwelcome continuity of this country’s foreign and security policies in the next four years.
That vision is deeply flawed. What America needs is a new grand strategy. Limited in objectives and indirect in approach, it should seek security and freedom for the United States in a stable model of global co-existence that does not threaten the security or deny the legitimate interests of other players. As a Chicago Tribune commentator noted recently,
in the case of foreign policy, the American people and the world should get the “change” they were promised because the foreign policy challenges are not unprecedented. The problems are known. What works is known. And it is not the policy of the Clinton administration hawks… The new Obama team seems caught up in the facile calls for force: Vice President-elect Joe Biden is proud of demanding force in Bosnia, Kosovo and Darfur. Sen. Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War. The candidate for UN ambassador, Susan Rice, is an outspoken hawk.
If the Obama administration was serious about the rhetoric of “change” in world affairs, it could start by withdrawing all U.S. troops from Europe and the Far East in the next four years. Some 150,000 American soldiers who are still based in Germany, South Korea, and Japan are not needed, and their continued presence is a hindrance to greater stability in both regions.
The threat to Europe’s security does not come from Russia or from a fresh bout of instability in the Balkans. The real threat to Europe’s security and to her survival comes from Islam, from the deluge of utterly unassimilable Third World immigrants, and from collapsing birthrates. All three are caused entirely by the moral decrepitude and cultural degeneracy of “Old Europe,” not by any shortage of soldiers and weaponry. The continued presence of a U.S. contingent of any size in Ramstein or Naples can do nothing to alleviate these problems, because they are largely spiritual.
As it happens, none of Obama’s national security quartet are committed to a withdrawal. The key figure on this issue, former and future Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, has frozen plans for any further reducing U.S. forces in Europe. In November of last year, when the issue last came up for review, he decided to maitain 40,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany and Italy – twice as many as had been planned for retention by his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld under a drawdown that began in 2005.
This is unfortunate. A speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe facilitates the emergence of an effective European defense force (long advocated by France), and if it causes the weakening and eventual demise of NATO, both Europe and America will be better off. Instead of declaring victory and disbanding the alliance in the early 1990’s, the Clinton administration successfully redesigned it as a mechanism for openended out-of-area interventions at a time when every rationale for its existence had disappeared. Following the air war against Serbia almost a decade ago, NATO’s area of operations became unlimited, and its “mandate” entirely self-generated.
Unfortunately, Biden, Clinton, Gates and Jones are all NATO-for-ever enthusiasts. They refuse to acknowledge that, in terms of a realist grand strategy, NATO has become positively detrimental to U.S. security. As it expands eastwards, it forces the United States to assume at least nominal responsibility for open-ended maintenance of a host of disputed frontiers that were drawn often arbitrarily by communists, Versailles diplomats, and assorted local tyrants—and which bear little relation to ethnicity, geography, or history. America should not underwrite the freezing in time of a post-Soviet outcome in the Crimea or Abkhazia that is neither stable nor necessarily “just” or “democratic.” With an ever-expanding NATO, eventual adjustments will be more potentially violent for the countries concerned and more risky for the United States, which does not and should not have a vested interest in preserving an indefinite status quo in the region.
In the Middle East, a realist strategy would give up on trying to make the region “as it should be,” rather than dealing with it as it is. Iraq, in particular, forces us to accept the anarchic nature of the world. She is not ripe for any democratic transition, she can be managed for as long as her realities are accepted, and she needs to be left to her own devices. Her Islamic cultural and spiritual heritage precludes her adoption of a political system based on the notion of popular sovereignty.
A realist global strategy demands safeguarding our primary interests in the Middle East, which means preserving our continued access to oil resources, preventing regional actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and countering the terrorist threat that emanates from the region. Ameliorating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a secondary interest. As for opening the region to trade, encouraging more pluralist forms of governance, promoting the rule of law, etc.—these may be worthy objectives, but they are none of our concern. Try explaining that to VP Biden or Mrs. Clinton.
The development of a coherent anti-jihadist strategy in Washington should go hand in hand with demystifying the relationship between the United States and Israel, which should be redefined in terms of mutual interests. Our interest demands the destruction of global jihad in all its forms and the continued existence of the state of Israel, but both of these imperatives are based on geopolitical rather than emotional, moral, or scriptural grounds.
In the Far East, the threat to South Korea’s and Japan’s security is potentially more real, but it can and should be handled by those two very capable and affluent nations. A continued U.S. defense shield over them is unjustified. The dangers of our continued military presence vastly exceed any possible benefits. Japan and South Korea should finally become mature, self-reliant powers. For decades, they chose to focus on economic development at the expense of military strength, secure in the protection provided by the United States. Only by removing her tripwire can America finally force them to upgrade their militaries and to assume the full economic and political burden of their own defense. A policy of disengagement may include a green light to both to develop limited nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to North Korea’s and China’s arsenals.
The challenge that the rise of China presents to the United States is more pressing than any other global issue except for the ever-present threat of jihad. Beijing is rapidly becoming a regional power of the first order, the Asian superpower that will need to be contained or appeased. Presently, the bone of contention is the status of Taiwan. Many Taiwanese would prefer to sever all links with the mainland so that Taiwan can become an independent state. Beijing says that it will not allow that to happen. To condone Taiwan’s separation would be tantamount to accepting the status of a second-class power, with serious implications for the future status of Tibet and for the restive Muslim-populated Sinkiang-Uighur province in the far west of the country.
China is an ancient power, coldly hostile to outsiders, steeped in Realpolitik, and indifferent to the notion that diplomacy is or should be guided by any motive other than self-interest. Her neighbors will be hard pressed to negotiate the terms and conditions of an acceptable relationship with Beijing that fall short of China’s outright hegemony. To keep her ambitions in check, it is necessary to halt further American investment in the Chinese economy, to reverse the outsourcing that has thus far obtained, and to erect trade barriers against the continuing deluge of Chinese-made products in American stores. It is also necessary to provide Taiwan—in addition to Japan and South Korea—with top-notch defensive arsenals, including nuclear weapons.
The alternative is to accept, with the best possible grace, the rise of China as a first-order power. A reigning power is naturally disinclined to look on benignly as another rises, but the fact remains that a conflict between America and China is not inevitable. The relationship will need to be managed skillfully—with more reciprocity in the field of trade and exchange rates—but its essential ingredient will be our acceptance of Taiwan as part of China. Taiwan will be eventually reintegrated (preferably with all kinds of safeguards and special-status provisions), and it is in the American interest to facilitate peaceful reunification.
The geopolitical equation of containing and confronting China in northeastern Asia and jihad everywhere else would also demand better relations with India and Russia. India is China’s sole natural rival in Asia and a neglected ally in the “War on Terror,” but no strategic relationship can be effected so long as Pakistan continues to be perceived in Washington—mistakenly—as an essential regional ally. Islamabad is guilty of nuclear proliferation as well as aiding and abetting Islamic terrorism of the kind that hit Bombay a month ago.
Improving our relations with Russia, by accepting the legitimacy of her strategic interests in the former Soviet Union, is even more pressing. It is critically important for us to prevent the emergence of an alliance between other powers that would be directed against our interests. The ongoing improvement in Russo-Chinese relations does not have the character of a formal alliance as yet, but it may lay the groundwork for one, so long as the September 2002 Bush Doctrine remains in force.
Most of our disputes with Russia over the past two decades, including the crisis in Georgia last August, tensions over the missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and over pipelines bypassing Russia, constant demands for NATO expansion, designs in Central Asia, and support for Kosovo’s independence have resulted from our refusal to accept the validity of any Russian claims and the legitimacy of any Russian interests. This will not change under Obama’s “new” team.
The rest of the world, in a new grand strategy, should be left to its own devices. In Latin America benign neglect invariably produces better results than “engagement.” As for Africa, the entire continent is irrelevant to our geostrategic, economic, or any other rationally definable interest. Both regions are neither assets nor threats, provided that the tens of millions of would-be migrants to the Western world are held in check.
Strategy is the art of winning wars, and grand strategy is the philosophy of maintaining an acceptable peace. America is good at the former and often confused on the latter. Making the world safe for democracy (Wilson 1917) or fighting freedom’s fight ordained by history (Bush 2002) may be dismissed as tasteless yet harmless rhetoric as long as there is a viable realist design in the background. No such design exists, however, among Obama’s key foreign policy and national security appointees. The new team in the White House is unlikely to grasp that a problem exists, let alone to act to rectify it. Exceptionalist hubris has been internalized at both ends of the duopoly to such an extent that no change appears possible.
A new grand strategy demands disengagement abroad and closing the migratory floodgates at home. For this to happen, it is necessary to break the power of the neoliberal-neoconservative regime in Washington. We cannot predict when or how this will happen, but happen it will. A polity based on an evil lie may last years (the Third Reich), or decades (the Soviet Union), or even centuries (the Ottoman Empire), but it can never smother the seeds of its own destruction.
The notion of America as a real, completed nation, a state with definable national interests that ought to be the foundation of its diplomacy, is as valid today as it was at the time of George Washington’s famous warning. Exceptionalist claims and millenarian utopias are as contrary to this country’s traditions and true interests today as they were in April 1861, April 1917, or December 1941. It is unfortunate that this truth will be rediscovered only after a lot more blood and treasure is wasted in pursuit of unlimited, unattainable objectives.
With Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and James Jonesin charge, there will be no true debate in Washington on the ends and uses of American power. The ideologues’ resistance to any external checks and balances on the exercise of that power will be upheld. Obama’s new team and Bush’s outgoing one may differ in some shades of rhetoric, but they are one regime, identical in substance and consequence. Its leading lights will go on disputing the validity of the emerging balance-of-power system because they reject the legitimacy of any power in the world other than that of the United States, controlled and exercised by themselves. They will scoff at the warning of 1815, 1918, or 1945 as inapplicable in the post-history that they seek to construct.
They will confront the argument that no vital American interest worthy of risking a major war is involved in Russia’s or China’s near-abroad with the claim that the whole world is America’s near-abroad.
It is vexing that the new team is taking over at a particularly dangerous period in world affairs: the return of asymmetrical multipolarity. Following a brief period of post-1991 full-spectrum dominance, for the first time after the Cold War the government of the United States is facing active resistance from one or more major powers. More important than the anatomy of the South Ossetian crisis last August, or the Taiwanese crisis three years from now, is the reactive powers’ refusal to accept the validity of Washington’s ideological assumptions or the legitimacy of its resulting geopolitical claims. At the same time, far from critically reconsidering the Bushies’ hegemonsitic assumptions and claims, the key decision-makers in the Obama Administration will continue to uphold them.
Their ambition, unlimited in principle, will remain unaffected by the ongoing financial crisis, just as Moscow’s Cold War expansionism was enhanced, rather than curtailed, by the evident shortcomings of the Soviet centrally planned economy. Come what may, they will not allow the reality of global politics to interfere with their world outlook, “neoliberal” or “neoconservative,” but hegemonic and irrational at all times.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Skepsis on 21 December 2008:
It is a shame what we continue to do to our service men and women.
Obfuscation from Washington has marred Iraqi operations since the invasion. Now, many more military service men and women will encounter the same rhetoric and endless service commitments in Afghanistan.
What Americans do not understand is this: top commanders do not want this conflict to end; war validates career military men and women and enables them to acquire the budgets needed to execute their designs.
This continued intransigence on behalf of the American public’s refusal to acknowledge reality is dismaying. I fear that, soon, we will no longer be able to get by with a simple, “thank you for your service” as we pass our Soldiers in the Airport. With a worsening economic situation and an increasingly explosive cauldron developing in central Asia, every family may become subject to the will of the bureaucrats.
Here is how it will be packaged: public works projects or security projects, abroad.
What will you pick?
2 Comment by Mark Higdon on 21 December 2008:
As a willfully blind, concupiscent electorate utterly bereft of empathy, we Americans continue to sow the seeds of our own destruction with every election cycle. If it is true that the people in a “democracy” get the government they deserve, it is at least equally true that they will richly deserve the catastrophic consequences of their cumulative electoral choices. Let us all pray that, in our case, we are eventually purged of our iniquities enough to start over, short of total destruction.
3 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 21 December 2008:
Wow! An excellent summary. Absolutely first-rate.
I think Dr. T. contradicts himself a bit on China, unless he’s legitimately suggesting there are alternative policies, and he may be neglecting the potential of Brazil, which is likely to dominate South America.
Notwithstanding these two exceptions, this is the best single outline of a global strategy for this country that I’ve seen in many a year.
We need a trade policy that keeps what’s left of our industrial core intact, and an energy policy that eschews utopian environmentalism even as it promotes a greater degree of self-sufficiency (nuclear energy being a vital component).
It’s beyond the scope of a geopolitical essay, but our moral and cultural life requires metanoia–a change of mind/heart, as well. Sexual and material self-indulgence and worse, self-absorption, are not the stuff that sustain great powers.
Again, kudos to Dr. T.
4 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 21 December 2008:
Grumpy Old Man @3:
I believe Dr. Trifkovic was proposing two alternative approaches to addressing the rise of China, and, unless I totally misunderstand what he has written here and elsewhere, he recommends the second one.
5 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 21 December 2008:
Another great article. Dr T’s analysis of American foreign policy reminds me of the saying, “Those whom the gods destroy, they first make mad,” or something like that.
6 Comment by robert m. peters on 21 December 2008:
If I am not mistaken, Richard Holbrooke was warning, in some publication, about a new threat in Bosnia: the Serbs wanting independence. Whether true or not, he seems to be tuning up for his next crises and the “inevitable” war to come out of it. Warmongers need job security!
7 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 21 December 2008:
Srdja, your excellent article will go unheeded by the crude who “lead” the democratic crud. There will be no change. Israel will be favored over its Arab neighbors, and Russia will be portrayed as The Bear and the Evil Empire. The USA’s military-industrial-congressional complex will continue the usual deficit funded sabre rattling, and the guttersnipe press will continue to dupe the taxpayers, voters, consumers and sports fans.
It’s a crying shame since so many people voted for change, but what we’ll get is SSDD.
8 Comment by george on 21 December 2008:
The problem with the US is that you essentially have Bolshevik Neocon’s who have changed stripes and became conservatives who have the same philosophy of a one world government lead by the US and a NATO military force who treats every region of the world as there backyard.
I would have to disagree on China that you would automatically assume that it would become a threat with its growing stature I guess mainly because it is Communist but only really in name only and as far as I know there foreign policy consists of making trade deals in Africa and elsewhere.
It can’t be any worse than the US after all they opposed the Iraq and possible Iran war, NATO bombing of Serbia in 99 and Kosovo independence.
As far as Russia goes I think the US has pretty much blew it.
I think it is obvious now that western objective since the collapse of the Soviet Union was to weaken and dismember Russia.
The problem they have with Putin is that he stands in the way of this objective not because of any BS about democracy which was much worse under Yeltsin.
9 Comment by Bob Johnson on 22 December 2008:
“A policy of disengagement may include a green light to both to develop limited nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to North Korea’s and China’s arsenals.”
This is a profoundly dangerous and stupid idea.
There is no sound strategic reason for us to greenlight any such thing, and we are in no position relative to China to greenlight any such thing even if there was a reason.
Also there’s just the issue of hypocrisy:
If America responded to China’s large nuclear arsenal by supporting the acquisition of nukes by Japan and South Korea, then…
…what right would we have to complain about Russia responding to Israel’s large nuclear arsenal by supporting the acquisition of nukes by Iran?
The answer is that we’d have no right to complain whatsoever, and that every country in the world not controlled by Jews would laugh and spit in our faces out of disgust at the insanity of our hypocrisy.
10 Comment by Bob Johnson on 22 December 2008:
“The development of a coherent anti-jihadist strategy in Washington should go hand in hand with demystifying the relationship between the United States and Israel, which should be redefined in terms of mutual interests.”
This is such utter drivel as to nearly be unworthy of response.
Even the foaming at the mouth hawks of the Bush Administration didn’t go so far as to accept Israeli aid during the American invasion of Iraq.
And yet you speak of some sort of anti-Jihad alliance between the Crusaders and Jews?
Good luck with that, jackass.
11 Comment by Bob Johnson on 22 December 2008:
“If the Obama administration was serious about the rhetoric of ‘change’ in world affairs, it could start by withdrawing all U.S. troops from Europe and the Far East in the next four years”
But according to Sen. John McCain, Sergei, no Americans are against us still having troops in Germany and Japan 50+ years after WWII! Therefore, given that 0% of American voters support the Trifkovic position, why should the Obama administration even consider the possibility of such a policy?
And don’t tell me McCain was lying like the worthless piece of scum he is and has always been, because then I’ll just respond by pointing out to you how Johnny boy isn’t divisive, and that’s the important thing according to people at the highest level of the Republican Party.
12 Comment by Michael Averko on 22 December 2008:
Good to see the joint use of neocon and neolib, which is often lacking when discussing such matters.
Up to a point, there’s an understanding of China’s significance. This in part explains how China and its government don’t get as disrespected as Russia does.
13 Comment by george on 22 December 2008:
354
@7Etienne Gervaise
Your right about Russia. Even the Georgian president himself admitted he started the war.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/personoftheyear/article/0,31682,1861543_1865283_1866538,00.html
14 Comment by george on 22 December 2008:
@Srdja
It amazes me you still think there is a global “jihad” network threatening the western world.
I think it is pretty obvious that it is a global Islamic mercenary force financed by organised crime set up by the CIA and western intelligence to fight there proxy wars.
Some terrorism experts have admitted that there is no Al Qaeda terrorist organisation led by OBL.
It explains how the major financiers of terrorism are never charged or arrested and how these Islamic charities and NGO’s that recruit and finance terrorism still operate freely and are not shut down.
Best example being Harvard graduate and major shareholder in Rothschild affiliated arms company The Carlyle group.
If Obama was serious about “change” he would launch a real independent investigation into 9/11 including the Mossad Urban Moving 5 and why Chertoff intervened in a police investigation of the arrested 5 so that could be deported to Israel.
There’s also other questions like Larry Silverstien, air defence, building 7, Mohammed Atta’s activities before 9/11, links to Bosnia, etc.
15 Comment by Swede on 22 December 2008:
Yes, the biggest threat to Europe comes from radical Islam. This weekend the Swedish town of Malmoe was on fire because the police shut down a Wahhabi cellar mosque which resulted in a weekend of violent riots, similar to the riots in Paris 2005. Even in Bosnia they are trying to shut down the Wahhabis now, I don’t understand how they can allow this in Sweden.
American soldiers are not needed in Europe, unless they fight radical Islam, which they are not doing. Instead they are supporting it, at least in the Balkans. If the US are really having financial problems, how can you afford to have 100.000 soldiers in Europe? Not to talk about Afghanistan and Iraq. In neither of these places are the US soldiers doing much good, they are actually worsening the crisis in most places. It is not the fault of the soldiers, but of the hawkish government who sent them there. Bring the soldiers home, save money and save lives!
16 Comment by george on 22 December 2008:
@15Swede
Sweden has a problem with Islam well boo hoo!
For nearly 2 decades Sweden has been supporting radical Islam in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya with conferences being held in Sweden like other European countries and was at the forefront on wanting to have economic sanctions along with Great Britain supporting Georgia’s blitz on South Ossetia.
Like Britain and other European countries for years you have let radical Muslim groups recruit and finance militant activity in Mosques with the assistance and full knowledge of the intelligence agencies.
So know it is coming home to roost I have zero sympathy towards Sweden or any other European country including here in Great Britain which includes the London bombing.
Not that I believe the fiction of an international Islamic terror network trying to subjugate the West.
17 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 22 December 2008:
Dr Trifkovic is right on target when he says that the real problem in the West is cultural and moral. Something is sick in the western soul, and that is reason for our declining birthrates, our slavish bootlicking to our enemies, our pathetic consumerism, our historical amnesia, our indifference to the mass influx of non-Westerners, and every other symptom that paleoconservatives have been lamenting for a long time now.
But if this is so, then how can any geopolitical strategy help us?
18 Comment by slim on 22 December 2008:
Etienne,
Keep me posted when we steal land from Arabs and create some Muslimrein Jewish states. Until then, your analysis on the ME is entirely wrong.
Back to topic: From the time Zbigniew hired the Islamists in 1979 thru today: all evidence indicates that the US is not fighting Islam at all. The US helps spread sharia (IDLO is the legal body that does this) and incite hatred of Islam’s enemies.
Why do so few historians consider this standpoint? How can the US be considered anti-jihad, when the US leads the way on creating one jihadi state after another?
Nothing against Dr. T’s work. His articles are good, and he does not seem to be a shill for US covert policy like one or two of these other writers.
19 Comment by Gregory M. Davis on 22 December 2008:
I propose a Dali-esque painting to be commissioned by Chronicles: The Persistence of Neocons. It would feature a surreal landscape with images of flaccid Hillaries, Bidens, Gateses, etc. draped over tree limbs. Hope and change, my foot.
20 Comment by gargi on 22 December 2008:
It is clear that Americans went into Iraq, thinking that it could bring the Mid-East under its sway–it underestimated that this is not so easy, especially due to the fact that there is nothing in Iraq and its artificial economy and semblance of order there was built entirely on oil, and it is not ready for democracy. They could bring Korea under their sway because Koreans are willing to adapt and there was something there to begin with– Moreover, Dr.Trifkovic is right in that China is a growing power. But I disagree that a powerful China will be a big threat, people are alarmed because it is a Communist regime–it will just challenge America’s hegemony–it is certainly a self-absorbed civilization, and they are a cold peoples–but China is a creative culture, and has produced a civilization.
There will be a rising Brazil and also a rising India prjovided they are able to deal with the problem of Islam. A strong Russia will also not want to be hindered by anyone, and under the sway of Europe or America. All these actors will challenge American hegemony.
The real battle will be for the world’s diminishing resources. But the U.S. A. is a large country and capable of being self-sufficient if it looks to alternative sources of energy. The problems it has with immigration and such are largely self-created and can be fixed.
As for some European countries, I do not feel much sympathy when they talk of people flooding their countries. The British and French have been poking their noses around the world in other people’s countries and now have to deal with people who come there and do not assimilate. Britain has had a continuous civilization for almost a millenia, and it is small. When you are there you can see why it would be upsetting to the natives when there are people who do not assimilate and the natives are right to be angry. But they had been poking their noses where they do not belong also. The same with France. They were in Algeria and now Algerians are disrupting their culture…Well that is just too bad.
21 Comment by gargi on 22 December 2008:
Also, I fail to see why America always need Europe’s approval for whatever it does–it should get rid of this inferiority complex. It should do what is in its interest, and Bob Johnson is right in that no Americans are against having American troops in Germany or Japan.
22 Comment by Red Phillips on 22 December 2008:
“and Bob Johnson is right in that no Americans are against having American troops in Germany or Japan.”
Ummm … I am as are a whole lot of principled non-interventionists, including Ron Paul.
23 Comment by gargi on 22 December 2008:
If America had not engaged in a stupid war in Iraq, and if it did not support Israel in a suicidal sort of way, it would find that the world opinion is overwhelming pro-Ameria, not pro-Europe.
24 Comment by gargi on 22 December 2008:
@21
And how many people vote for Ron Paul? Sorry but this is just the reality and not a comment on his ideas.
The spiritual malaise of the West is good and true, but one also has to be a realist. The breakdown of traditional values and society are occuring everywhere, not just in the Western world. I think when societies reach a certain level of civilization, they tend to get soft and are prone to be disrupted by those that are not as civilized and are not as principled.
25 Comment by Red Phillips on 22 December 2008:
gargi, I think most people who read Chronicles, TakiMag, AmCon, etc. and who self-identify as paleos and/or non-interventionists would love to see our troops out of Germany and Japan where they are doing nothing except sucking up tax dollars. And we are busily trying to convince others.
26 Comment by Tom Flinn on 22 December 2008:
Well, Obama promised change and so far we have seen pretty much the kind of change I suspected: from GOP hacks to Democratic hacks.
27 Comment by gargi on 22 December 2008:
@24
Yes and I am sure the Japanese would love to get a chance to build better weapons than the U.S. and the Germans too. And most probably they will.
How about focusing on the most basic things: the failing schools and the terrible educational standards at home, and the fact that America does not manufacture anything anymore. It would seem that a good immigration policy would enable people to immigrate who have allegiance to this country (most important) and are able to give something back. Are not the open borders more of a threat than some troops overseas? Too many people want to study literature and the arts, but no one wants to study the sciences.
As for the Islamic world just leave it alone–it has always been a disruptor of civilization everywhere and has sucked culture out of places it overran. When the world no longer need their oil, they will have to confront modernity or die.
And yes science is capable of discovering alternatives to oil–why not if a land rover can be sent to Mars?
Increase the funding for NASA. Enable the population to really dream again, not in the sense of Obama’s “Yes we can”, but by giving them realistic options.
Americans have grown soft and flabby with materialism –the special interest goups are out of control. But I still believe in the ideals this country was founded on; it is not too late to change ways…
As for Europe, it is just the classical civilizations and a handful of countries in modern times that have really change the course of civilization…I do not see Europe as “one”, not all countries there are impressive.
28 Comment by gargi on 22 December 2008:
“…steeped in Realpolitik, and indifferent to the notion that diplomacy is or should be guided by any motive other than self-interest. ..”
Yeah. And Europe’s diplomacy has been historically motivated by any other motive than self-interest!!! Let’s start demonizing China now.
“Our interest demands the destruction of global jihad in all its forms and the continued existence of the state of Israel, but both of these imperatives are based on geopolitical rather than emotional, moral, or scriptural grounds.”
America just needs to not be dependent on the Mid-East in any way and stop throwing money there, buying their oil–until this happens jihad will not be defeated. It is not necessary or appropriate for it to defeat jihad another way. As for Europe and people flooding in there, that is Europe’s problem…
29 Comment by J Meng on 22 December 2008:
@21 – Gargi: “, and Bob Johnson is right in that no Americans are against having American troops in Germany or Japan.”
Bob Johnson is wrong. I am an American and I am totally against U.S. troops in Germany and Japan. As far as that goes, bring ‘em home from Korea, too, as well as from Afghanistan and Iraq. Put ‘em on our borders and defend us.
30 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 22 December 2008:
@18 slim
Well for starters there’s Iraq, we stole that from Saddam Hussein, and gave it to CACI, L3, Titan and a few other Zionist spivs for whom war is good business. There is mounting evidence that IEDs that kill our troops cannot be manufactured in Iraq because they are too technologically backward. Those evil weapons are coming from Israel.
31 Comment by george on 22 December 2008:
China is right to be wary of foreign intervention into its affairs given its history under British occupation Opium wars, etc culminating in the Japanese occupation of China whose Navy was propped up during the war against the Czar by Britain and Jacob Schiff international banking financing.
Also with Russia now the US wants extended bases in Central Asia under the pretext of fight a non-existent Islamic militant threat and a nuclear capable “missile shield” in Europe with the ability to wipe out major Russian cities in 3 minutes under the pretext of rogue states launching a missile at Europe instead of basing it in Turkey and Azerbaijan as Russia suggested which would be more ready to intercept missiles from North Korea and Iran.
32 Comment by polemicscat on 22 December 2008:
Almost everyone misread Obama. It turns out that
he is just a political survivor— the politician who makes
no decisions that could be a liability in his climb up the political ladder. The nation’s tendency since the Clinton years
to be undisturbed by outright lies and fabrications suited
Obama’s campaign strategy perfectly. The gaffes were
real signs of ignorance, but they were all excused or ignored– particularly by the MSM who were in love with the image of Obama. Besides the left media, he had a racial group of supporters who would not expect more in his speeches than banalities and who would not ridicule his fundamental lack of knowledge of facts.
It was a perfect situation for a basically ignorant candidate
whose knowledge is limited to political strategies that he learned from the Alinsky school. He was able to say whatever sounded good at any given moment, for the particular audience he was addressing.
His lack of any definite record of action based on belief in the Senate was his greatest strength. His appointment of cabinet members suggests a continuation of his habit of keeping a low profile. He will not rock the boat by actually making changes. His appointments will allow him to continue to pretend in speeches to be a leader without actually leading.
33 Comment by slim on 22 December 2008:
Etienne,
You’ll need to provide some links to something other than ‘rense’ to be taken seriously on this matter.
I’ve seen zero evidence of any Zionists profitting in any way from the US war on the baathists (aka ‘liberation of sharia in Iraq’).
Furthermore, I’ve seen no evidence that Israel has benefitted in any way, shape, or form, and there have been a few articles detailing the fact that Israel told the US that the biggest threat over there is Iran–whom the US has cooperated with on the venture.
Bottom line: spreading sharia does not benefit Israel, nor does inciting hatred of Israel with the MSM.
34 Comment by george on 22 December 2008:
@30Etienne Gervaise
I heard Israeli companies bought up lots of Serb industry after the NATO bombing.
I know George Soros a Rothschild international front man bought up Kosovo mining and other industry and through his foundations and media outlets further wants to weaken Serb culture by promoting gay rights and wants to legalise drugs and prostitution.
Actually I have big questions about who is running Iraqi death squads I seriously doubt it is the insurgency or remnants of the Bath party.
No insurgent group could pull this off.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11187
This is a pre-planned execution to eliminate any real legitimate opposition like the Bolsheviks in 1917.
In 2005 I think 2 SAS soldiers were arrested planting bombs in Iraqi markets by the Baghdad security forces.
It was even highlighted in the Zeitgeist documentary.
35 Comment by slim on 22 December 2008:
Israeli elites are subservient to the US elites. Much of their conduct is quite logical given this fact. How is this a ‘fact’? The labor zionist puppets of the British/lapdogs of the US State Department long ago won the battle over the Jewish patriots.
Soros was a nazi assistant and is an Israel hater, ergo he is neither ‘pro Israel’ nor a ‘Zionist’. Soros hates any country with educated people that resist being dominated by the likes of Soros and his ilk.
Not surprising that all those Iraqi academics would be killed. This is probably step 1 in creating sharia quisling states. When Israel took over the lands that had been illegally held by Egypt and Jordan in 1968, Israel created universities for the palestinian Arabs. Zionism is very big into education and human rights–the antithesis of Western imperialism–which seeks to eliminate both while lying about the societies that embody these principals.
36 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 23 December 2008:
@33 slim
I’ve seen zero evidence …
Furthermore, I’ve seen no evidence … spreading sharia does not benefit Israel
If you saw it you might not recognize it. Maybe zionism won’t benefit from spreading sharia, but Christianity would suffer. For many spiteful khazar atheists that would be enough.
37 Comment by slim on 23 December 2008:
@36 Etienne,
The atheists that like spreading sharia are very much united in their hatred of Israel, and they are pro-Islamist, having determined that the Jewish right to exist is equally nefarious as the Islamist right to finish their failed genocide from the 1940s.
Once again, your statements are without basis in fact.
38 Comment by Cherusci on 23 December 2008:
@george
“Sweden has a problem with Islam well boo hoo!
For nearly 2 decades Sweden has been supporting radical Islam in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya with conferences being held in Sweden like other European countries ..”
Just the same, this is not a wise attitude to take concerning the fate of the European nations, collectively the nursery of our Western civilization.
It’s likely the average Swede has little or no say in the (leftist) policies their government promotes. Where have we seen this before?
How much say did the American people have when Lincoln started his war against the South? When Wilson got us involved in WWI? Remember the “passenger” ship Lusitania sunk by a German U-Boat in 1915? Yes, divers have recently found 4 million rounds of .303 ammo aboard its sunken wreck, plus other munitions, as yet undefined: a gift from the US government to the warmongering British government!)
How much did Americans’ opinions count when FDR cut off Japan’s oil supply and then allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (he heard their coded messages) so he could get us involved in a war with Hitler via Japan’s attack?
The same story with Truman in Korea (no declaration of war from Congress). How much influence or knowledge did the average American have concerning Kennedy sending advisors to Vietnam, or LBJ starting a full fledged war there?
Then we come to Bush and his illegal wars. Like the other US rulers, his administration lied through its teeth to the American people.
Based on flat out lies, just the latest in a long string of governments acting illegally in spite of the best interests of our citizenry.
Knowing this is the nature of modern “democratic” governments, how can one not take some sense of pity on the average European citizen (and the ultimate fate of Europe) when they are ruled by an elitist, arrogant lot of clueless leftists?
39 Comment by Cherusci on 23 December 2008:
Here’s a link to the Lusitania story (so sad for the innocent passengers).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html?ITO=1490
40 Comment by george on 23 December 2008:
@38Cherusci
But they back the system vote in the leaders who promote this policy.
They can protest CIA/MI6 stooge the Dalai Lama and his BS cause with its real history in reality is very different to what we see in news, TV and film yet there was barely a protest if any of granting Kosovo independence.
There has not been a single Muslim state yet that has recognised the independence of Kosovo yet the majority of EU states have.
Most of these Chechen and Kosovo NGO’s are run out of Europe just like Lenin, Trotsky and his Marxist goons a hundred years earlier and I have researched the PR claims and they are totally BS including how these groups and conflicts started in the first place trained years prior in advance by the CIA and other western intelligence agencies.
If my house has to be burned down so to speak to stop my government sponsoring Jihadist militants advancement in Russia, China and India then so be it.
41 Comment by gargi on 23 December 2008:
@George
“China is right to be wary of foreign intervention into its affairs given its history under British occupation Opium wars..”
The British Raj in India was financed through the opium trade and India was the largest producer of opium under the British well up to the 1920’s.
Warren Hastings thought of it to balance the trade with China–like today, China sold goods such as tea and silk to the British and did not buy European goods. Edmund Burke, the political thinker, had Hastings tried for corruption–not for the opium–but for other things.
A Jew from Baghdad by the name of David Sassoon who had come to India controlled 70% of the opium trade. Between 1830-1831 he shipped about 18956 chests of opium earning millions of dollars; parts of the profits went to Queen Victoria and the British Government. When the Chinese Emperor seized and threw 2,000 trunks of opium into the sea because the Chinese had become heavily addicted to it and he wanted to stop the trade, Sassoon got the British to wage war with China. The Chinese not only had to pay back Sassoon for the damage but also for the cost of the war. The Chinese were forced to accept the opium trade.
Sassoon became one of the richest men of his times and his family members married some Rothchilds…Sassoon is seen as some kind of progressive in history books because the built some docks in Bombay, but when you look into it, he was the biggest drug lord in history shipping all that opium, making millions and becoming one of the richest men of his time. He was knighted by queen Victoria for his services to the empire….The Sassoon family moved to England and became prominent…
Amitav Ghosh has written a book called “Sea of Poppies” about the opium trade in India under the British RAj. It is a fascinating subject…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7460682.stm
42 Comment by george on 23 December 2008:
@41gargi
Good info.
I did not know that Jews dominated the opium trade other than it being part of the Rothschild financial empire which financed and reaped the benefits of the British Empire.
Actually it’s like the US Empire today.
Who will control Iraq’s oil and manufacturing industry?
Will it be like Russia where western aligned Oligarchs seize near total control of the country buying up state assets at fire sale prices?
Until Putin arrested him in 2003 Khoderkovsky was the richest man in Russia and a Rothschild front man.
With the value of the Iraqi currency being worthless for years due to economic sanctions under Saddam I don’t see any legitimate Iraqi business person making a bid for oil contracts.
I was reading about Professor Tony Martin who got harassed by Jewish groups at his university and nation wide because he disclosed information in a book “Who Brought the Slaves to America” of the Jewish role of trafficking Black African slaves to the US and how the majority of slave ships were owned by Jews to his class where he taught African studies.
43 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 24 December 2008:
@37 slim
your statements are without basis in fact…
Prove it!
44 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 24 December 2008:
@41 gargi
Sassoon got the British to wage war with China. The Chinese not only had to pay back Sassoon for the damage but also for the cost of the war.
How typical! The parasites are great at getting their hosts to do the dirty work, and then assume no financial loss. I’d love to have seen behind the scenes of Sassoon’s operation. He probably held lavish parties for the military brass and the senior civil servants, and I’ll bet those parties looked like the orgy scene form Eyes Wide Shut.
45 Comment by gargi on 24 December 2008:
@george and etienne
But it was Hastings who let Sassoon dominate the trade. He is said to have taken a lot of bribes which is why he was brought to trial by Burke–the British East India company was also very corrupt at the beginning. Men of the East India company just wanted to make money–
And whoever controlled the trade, whether Jew or not, it was the British Government that also profited–The Parsis of India also made money through this trade. The Sassoons after moving to England were prominent among the British aristocracy, I guess because they were wealthy…
However, my point is odd that no one seems to know much about the opium trade and I can understand the Chinese would remember it as George pointed.
46 Comment by gargi on 24 December 2008:
@george
“Will it be like Russia where western aligned Oligarchs seize near total control of the country buying up state assets at fire sale prices?
Until Putin arrested him in 2003 Khoderkovsky was the richest man in Russia and a Rothschild front man. ”
The oligarchs of the world, however, are not composed of one ethnic group. They have more in common with each other across countries than with their country men.
My Russian friend tells me Russia is run by the KGB and the oligarchs. Is this ture?
47 Comment by gargi on 24 December 2008:
@george
And if two hundred years ago, China comprised 25% of the world economy and India 20%, the fact that China is growing today might mean not that China is threatening the West, but going to take its rightful place in the world economy…
48 Comment by gargi on 24 December 2008:
And as for the British, it is good they came into India–India had become backward under Isalmic rulers who wanted to live in the Middle Ages and had become isolated. Why do you think that the West had to rediscover it at the time of Columbus when the Greeks were frequent visitors there? The British reopened its contact with the West. Contact between West and East was hampered by Islam–the West knew the East only through Arabs. So while colonization was bad, it was not as bad compared to the pitiable state that Isalmic rulers and influence had brought the palce to.
And were it not for the British, the entire area would have become Muslim.
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/72-15736.aspx
49 Comment by Tomislav Milosevic on 24 December 2008:
Yeah……..but key to the problems may be elsewhere.
Once upon a time, when yours truly here was a little boy, one freshly appointed Senator in U.S. wrote a little book. Titled: “Profiles in courage” by one John F. Kennedy.
Although I was 50 years late to read these pages, I found them both disturbing and fascinating. I got some pieces to Great Puzzle (as I tend to call my understanding of History) in very direct, almost shocking way.
If democracy, (or should it be Democracy), is a result of the will of majority, this little book has conscience of minority as a main subject. Courage. Yeah. Little of that remains after Eisenhower’s farewell speech and that famous November day in Dallas.
Is America up to the task of the leader of the world?
No.
Who is?
China? Russia? India?………Kosovo state?
Nuclear state?
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah or whatever You celebrate at this time………..
………..and good luck.
50 Comment by george on 24 December 2008:
@46gargi
Don’t know much about government appointees and there background as unbiased, independent news is hard to come by as western news media is very anti-Russian.
I know Putin and the defence minister used to be in KGB but the current president Medvedev wasn’t.
I think the KGB thing is played up.
The liberal politicians were trained by George Soros and were at the political forefront when the economy was in the gutter during the 90’s.
The oligarchs who head he Russian economy were there before Putin at least know they are paying there taxes and don’t run the government.
Lyndon LaRouche did a good 30 minute documentary on Soros and a segment in his role of destroying the Russian economy after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=98fUyrzDyek&feature=channel_page
@49Tomislav Milosevic
America would be a great global leader if it voted for Ron Paul or Dennis Kuchinich for president.
Americans seem to be mesmerised by the mass media.
I would never have fought McCain would have been nominated for Republican nominee given his stance on immigration and bomb, bomb Iran.
51 Comment by slim on 25 December 2008:
@43 etienne,
Very simple: either the US is spreading sharia, or spreading Zionism. The US does the former, which contradicts your conspiracy theory, as do the facts in Christopher Simpson’s ‘Blowback’, as do the facts in the ‘British Record on Partition’.
These all trump your subsequent conspiracy theory.
52 Comment by Bob Johnson on 25 December 2008:
“I would never have fought McCain would have been nominated for Republican nominee given his stance on immigration and bomb, bomb Iran.”
George,
That’s a good point.
Nobody
Nobody
Nobody
Tried to put the final nail in the coffin of white gentiles in this country like John McCain did with McCain-Kyle and McCain-Kennedy.
O’Reilly even tried to point out to McCain on national television that the NY Times supported the bill because they want to dissolve the white power structure.
McCain had no response of any kind.
Just as this worthless thing called “America” by so many…
…will have have no response when its day of reckoning comes.
53 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 25 December 2008:
@51 slim
It would seem to me that the US Department of State picks Christians as the enemies: Serbia over Kosovo and Bosnia, and Russia over Chechnya for 2 examples. Christians have pretty much been driven out of Iraq after a presence of almost two millenia. Had Australia not intervened in Timor, Foggy Bottom would probably wighed in with the Indonesian bullies. So far they have not gotten involved helping the Filipino government deal with moslem terrorists in Mindanao — a battle that Saudis have financed since the 1960s. In the case of Georgia-Ossetia-Russia all three are Orthodox Christian so Bush and his Stupid Party cronies picked Russia as the biggest threat. I’m happy to say their plot failed.
As far as your presentation of spreading either zionism or sharia goes, I would say that US foreign policy has become satanic, so maybe the Ayatollah was right after all.
54 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 25 December 2008:
@45 gargi
The Opium Wars were touched on briefly in my fourth form history classes. It was mentioned that they led to the Boxer Rebellion. Every European nation was keen on setting up colonial ports along the Chinese coast. Macao, Kwangchowwan, Weihaiwei, Port Arthur and of course Hong Kong. Ironically, these are among the best places to live in China today.
55 Comment by Bob Johnson on 25 December 2008:
“..so maybe the Ayatollah was right after all.”
Etienne Gervaise,
I think we will find out just how right he was, soon enough.
56 Comment by Bob Johnson on 25 December 2008:
“It would seem to me that the US Department of State picks Christians as the enemies: Serbia over Kosovo and Bosnia, and Russia over Chechnya for 2 examples. Christians have pretty much been driven out of Iraq after a presence of almost two millenia.”
Very well put.
On the one hand the American Establishment makes Christians out to be bullies, using their media outlets, and on the other hand the American Establishment bullies every Christian they can find.
This bullying of Christians by the Establishment thus far has only been taken to the level of mass scale military violence outside of America.
The primary reason for this is because American Christians can vote (using ballots, political donations, or their voices) in American political elections, thereby creating a situation where their feelings and actions can actually cause some amount of trouble for the establishment.
Christians who aren’t Americans are all too often forced to go straight into the old fashioned form of self-defense, and all too often they have faced the overwhelming force of godless machinery cooked up by the worst sorts of rabidly anti-Human, anti-White, and anti-Christian scientists.
The moral likes of Hitchens are in the lab even as I type this, going back to the drawing board in frustration that even with the backing of people at the highest level of this country, they failed to shut the Christians up.
57 Comment by gargi on 25 December 2008:
@george
Geert Wilders from the political right made a speech in Jerusalem saying that “Israel is under seige” and goes on to attack multiculturalists who prevent Amsterdam from being the “gay capitol of Europe.”
Is there a difference between the conservatives in America and the political right of Amsterdam with figures such as Wilders?
58 Comment by gargi on 25 December 2008:
@george
I mean to say Geert is white and Christian and from the political right and claims to be against “multiculturalism”. But he seems different from the kind of conservatism Chronicles is affiliated with.
59 Comment by slim on 26 December 2008:
@53 etienne,
Some would say: how could US policy possibly be anti-Christian? are Christian Americans being oppressed or attacked?
(this is the argument used to deny the fact that US foreign policy is antisemitic)
If US policy is anti-Christian, than it must be either a) pro Islamist or b) pro Jewish.
The US has been taking land from the Jews for 40 years, rendering it Judenrein, and creating Muslim nazi states therein.
There are no more Christians in Iraq–but there long ago ceased being any Jews in most of the Muslim countries. Iran still has some, and they live as dhimmi.
All facts on the ground point to the fact that the US has followed in the grand tradition of the British and the Soviets: joining forces with Muslim fascists, who help squash progressive movements whereever we use them. We don’t join forces with the Jews for this: Jews spread education, workers rights, and similar things that fascist elites hate.
60 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 26 December 2008:
@59 slim
are Christian Americans being oppressed or attacked?
Could be, I’ll answer your query with by posing another. How many queers were arrested for attacking 80 year old women defending traditional marriage? But that’s here at home, I suppose you’re harping on about Judea and Samaria, which Israel ripped off from Jordan over 40 years ago. On the West Bank Bethlehem and Ramallah at the time were 80% Christian Arab. Now they are 20%. It has been American policy to look the other way while this pogrom took place. The Americans did not need to attack because such actions would have been even more unpopular than the Vietnam war.
The US has been taking land from the Jews for 40 years …
If anybody is taking land from the Jews it is the people who rightfully held title to it. Anybody who would not fight to keep what is theirs is a coward.
61 Comment by george on 26 December 2008:
@56Bob Johnson
There’s also Azerbaijan over Armenia.
@57gargi
….goes on to attack multiculturalists who prevent Amsterdam from being the “gay capitol of Europe
I think I can speak for the majority of Chronicles readers who hate the fact that there country would be the gay capital of anywhere.
That’s not the problem they have with muli-culturalism it’s the increase of crime, white guilt “racism” and things like affirmative action.
I would like to see this guys views on Kosovo and what he had to say when western powers were sponsoring terrorism during the 90’s and to this present day.
I suspect he is one of these post 9/11 blowhards to suddenly have views on the extremist Muslim threat against western society.
62 Comment by Bill Wilder on 26 December 2008:
As if Dr. Trifkovic needs more confirmation of his warning’s about the misguided state of US and European foreign policy; last week, a story on the increasing perseuction of secular Turks in Turkey. Today, two stories in the NY Times, the first on the increasing power of Islamist merchant class in Turkey and another on Islamicization in Bosnia, including mandatory Islamic religious educaiton in the public schools http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27islam.html?_r=1&hp
(funded by the Saudis, who have poured some $700MM into Bosnia since 1995.)
63 Comment by slim on 28 December 2008:
Etienne,
Israel did not ‘rip off’ anything from Jordan. On the contrairy, when Jordan controlled the WB, they did not adhere to the armistice of 1948. They destroyed Jewish holy sites, used Jewish tombstones to pave roads, and denied Jews the right to visit Jewish holy sites.
You have exhibited zero knowledge of land entitlement. Egypt and Jordan illegally held WB and Gaza, oppressed the people therein, and then lost them after attacking Israel, who brought them medicine and education.
You are ‘big lie’ spewer, not unlike your Goebbelsesque masters.
Not surprising, given the fact that the Israel haters tend to be identical in every way to their husseini/hitler masters.