Friday, August 15, 2014

Martha's Vineyard and reality

Hugh Hewitt has written his most important column in a long time.  He begins by noting that the Most Equal Comrade's inner cabal has declared that the situation on top of Mount Sinjar has de-escalated from crisis status, and then looks at the wider perspective:

Not everyone is buying into the world according to Martha's Vineyard. "The speed with which the Obama administration announced that the siege had been broken may cause some consternation overseas," the Times adds, "given the increasingly dire descriptions from aid agencies about the crisis on Mount Sinjar."
Here's the reality. Islamist radicalism is on the rise across the globe, and it is particularly centered now in Mosul, not Afghanistan. That radicalism has engulfed the opposition to Syria's butcher and forced its way across western Iraq to to the border of Kurdistan even as Assad with Iranian and Hezbollah help kills hundreds of its loyalists in Syria. Whatever the condition of the Islamists in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan --and by all accounts the Taliban are just waiting out President Obama before retaking large swaths of the country-- the wave of violent jihad is rising not falling. America is facing greater and greater danger and the president simply will not admit to this. If he does, he will be admitting what history will surely show: His grand strategy was no strategy at all. His eight years were an abject failure on the most important issue which is protection of America.

He then provides the transcript of an exchange between James Kitfield of Breaking Defense and Lt. General Michael Flynn, outgoing head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Read it. It will make your hair stand on end.

He then concludes with some clear truths:

My fear is that every bad actor in the world has taken this president's measure and understand that the next two-and-a-half years are the best hope for expansion and breakout in the next forty or fifty or more. The clueless president, the golfing Commander-in-Chief, presents a rare opportunity that everyone in Moscow and Mosul, Beijing and Teheran understand even if the network newsrooms don't. Which is why General Flynn sounded so grim. The serious people know, and the serious people aren't in Martha's Vineyard or with the negotiators in Geneva or advising in Kiev.
Pray that the awake and serious people outside of the U.S. do everything they can to rush arms to the Kurdish pesh merge, that Egypt's al-Sisi and Israel's Netanyahu keep the Hamas branch of radical Islam contained, and that the allies drag John Kerry from the rooms in Geneva before he gives the mullahs a nuke or two in a show of good faith in his own endlessly intoning voice and incoherent barrage of words. There is Harper in Canada, and Abbott in Australia --Abbott had his own very unique reminder shown off to the world yesterday-- and a few hundred million Muslims who hate the disfigurement of their faith this way.
But the person most responsible for responsibly dealing with the world as it is not as Martha's Vineyard would wish it to be, well, he doesn't want to deal with this mess, or at least acknowledge it.

Along the way, he also mentions the fact that W and Dick Cheney spent every morning looking at the latest threat matrix.  Do you have any confidence that the Most Equal Comrade ever gives it a glance?



17 comments:

  1. Wih Ike & Lincoln were here now to tell us who the serious people are and whether we can trust them to tell the truth or they are merely being a part of the depraved military industrial complex that of course still exists today in spades.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Get over this juvenile crap about a "depraved military-industrial complex" so you can determine for yourself who today's serious people are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Calling it juvenile cap might ease your mind but I don't buy it. The MI Complex is still amongst us and still amuck. Worldwide!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "IN THE FIVE decades since Eisenhower left the White House for his retirement home in Gettysburg, much has changed. The Soviet Union has disappeared. So too, for all practical purposes, has Communism itself. Yet in Washington, an aura of never-ending crisis still prevails—and with it, military metaphysics.

    The national-security state continues to grow in size, scope, and influence. In Ike’s day, for example, the CIA dominated the field of intelligence. Today, experts refer casually to an “intelligence community,” consisting of some 17 agencies. The cumulative size and payroll of this apparatus grew by leaps and bounds in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Last July, TheWashington Post reported that it had “become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.” Since that report appeared, U.S. officials have parted the veil of secrecy enough to reveal that intelligence spending exceeds $80 billion per year, substantially more than the budget of either the Department of State ($49 billion) or the Department of Homeland Security ($43 billion).

    The spending spree extends well beyond intelligence. The Pentagon’s budget has more than doubled in the past decade, to some $700 billion per year. All told, the ostensible imperatives of national security thereby consume roughly half of all federal discretionary dollars. Even more astonishing, annual U.S. military outlays now approximate those of all other nations, friends as well as foes, combined.

    In Ike’s day, competition with the Soviet Union provided the rationale for such outsized expenditures. Today, with no remotely comparable competitor at hand, devotees of military metaphysics conjure a variety of arguments to justify the Pentagon’s budgetary demands. One such, usually made with an eye toward China, is that relentlessly outspending any and all would-be challengers to U.S preeminence will dissuade them from even mounting an attempt. A second transforms modest threats into existential ones, with the mere existence of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Osama bin Laden mandating extraordinary exertions until the United States eliminates every last such miscreant—a day that will never come.."
    --West Point graduate, PHd, Princeton Andrew Bacevich, Col., USA Ret., Juvenile Crap Slinger


    Read more at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/308342/

    ReplyDelete
  5. You've offered your Bacevich, I'll see you one John Bolton and raise you a Frank Gaffney and a Michael Ledeen.

    His objection to the bloated bureaucracy that permeates the intelligence and defense functions is a red herring. I object to that, too. So does everybody I mention above. But does Bacevich anywhere in his piece address the actual reduction in threat-reaction readiness Hagel has imposed with his DoD budget cuts? Does he address the contempt with which each of Global-Test's overtures to the Iranian regime and its nuclear aims been treated? Does he address the 40,000 Russian troops on Ukraine's border?

    Really, he may want to consult a therapist. His profound degree of denial mya be indicative of deeper, more clinically defined issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ISIS? I see nothing about ISIS in his argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah, I see the article dates from 2011. A few developments have come along since then, haven't they?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just wanted to put a juvenile crap slinger on display for ya. There will always be a threat to justify our arms build-ups, always has been, always will be. We leave that to the grown-ups I guess, the ones whose gods are money and power.

    "From 2001 until sometime around 2006, the United States followed the core neoconservative foreign-policy program. The disastrous results of this vast social science experiment could not be clearer. The neoconservative program cost the United States several trillion dollars and thousands dead and wounded American soldiers, and it sowed carnage and chaos in Iraq and elsewhere. One would think that these devastating results would have discredited the neoconservatives forever, just as isolationists like Charles Lindbergh or Robert McCormick were discredited by World War II, and men like former Secretary of State Dean Rusk were largely marginalized after Vietnam. Even if the neoconservative architects of folly are undaunted by failure and continue to stick to their guns, one might expect a reasonably rational society would pay them scant attention. Yet to the dismay of many commentators -- including Andrew Bacevich, Juan Cole, Paul Waldman, Andrew Sullivan, Simon Jenkins, and James Fallows -- neoconservative punditry is alive and well today. Casual viewers of CNN and other news channels are being treated to the vacuous analysis of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol."

    Read more at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/20/being_a_neocon_means_never_having_to_say_you_re_sorry_dick_cheney_william_kristol

    ReplyDelete
  9. As near as (the author) can tell, the strange mind-boggling persistence of neoconservatism is due to four interrelated factors

    No. 1: Shamelessness

    One reason neoconservatism survives is that its members don't care how wrong they've been, or even about right and wrong itself. True to their Trotskyite and Straussian roots, neoconservatives have always been willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to advance political goals. We know that they were willing to cook the books on intelligence and make outrageously false claims in order to sell the Iraq war, for example, and today they construct equally false narratives that deny their own responsibility for the current mess in Iraq and portray their war as a great success that was squandered by Obama.

    For 2,3 &4 see http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/20/being_a_neocon_means_never_having_to_say_you_re_sorry_dick_cheney_william_kristol

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why you are cool with the probability of incinerated American cities, downed commercial jets, women being grabbed from their homes and sold into sexual slavery, beheadings in the streets, which you know is coming if somebody in America doesn't exercise some actual leadership, is beyond me. You strike me as someone who prefers pleasant conditions for his existence,

    ReplyDelete
  11. Think about your own words: "There will always be a threat to justify our arms buildup." And think about what would happen if we didn't have the arms buildup - and unsurpassed intelligence capability - and unwavering resolve - to deal with it? Your position is tantamount to saying "meh" about the people who chose to jump out of 70-plus-story windows on 9/11/01 rather than burn to death.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is a very long war against a very evil enemy. Actually, it may be very short, if we all adopt your viewpoint and opt for a future of hell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bacevich, in the 2011 piece you quote from, not only turned out to have no prescience chops, he was tragically, puke-inducingly wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What did we war there for over a decade for? Same result. Same goes for Korea, Nam, Central America. You hawks think it can all be solved at the barrel of a gun. I just do not see the results. You're always blaming anyone but yourselves. We shall see if the American voters buy a return to your ways. We'll see. You'll just damn us for being low info cattle if we dont go your way though.
    '

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reread the Bacevich Piece entitled "The Tyranny of Defense." Sorry, I fail to see where Bacevich was wrong (puking-inducing or otherwise) about anything he said in the Atlantic article he wrote back in 2011. He's also way more credentialed to comment on the military, if not the industrial complex than any of the civilians you have mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Iraq was stable in 2009. The MEC refused to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement, which would have kept things that way.

    David Cameron gets it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11039214/Our-generational-struggle-against-a-poisonous-ideology.html

    He warns that Britain will have to use its “military prowess” to help defeat “this exceptionally dangerous” movement, or else terrorists with “murderous intent” will target people in Britain.

    The Prime Minister says he fears the struggle will last “the rest of my political lifetime”.
    “The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home. Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago. It is our concern here and now,” he says.
    “Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain. We already know that it has the murderous intent.”

    ReplyDelete
  17. And yes, those whose position amounts to "war is icky and our defense budget should be way lower" are low-information cattle.

    ReplyDelete