Death Comes to Syria and Egypt

Someone attacked a suburb of Damascus, Syria this week with all the quiet fury of a Biblical plague.  No marks of sacrificial blood could save the innocent or chosen.  This work of man killed all indiscriminately.

Nerve gas wafted through the streets and homes.  By the time it dissipated, it killed 1,300 just as effectively as the Japanese at Nanking or the Romans at Carthage in the Third Punic War.

The Daily Mail referred to the incident as "the town that never woke up."

The Syrian belligerents can be divided into three categories.  First is the Syrian government itself, no stranger to atrocities.  Rebelling against it is one group with an equal potential for evil, the Islamicists.  Kurdish forces in the northeast have seized important points.  Kurds have a quasi-sovereign state in northern Iraq, but also live in Syria, Turkey, and Iran.  Possibly the weakest faction is the Syrian nationalist rebels, tied by outrageous fortune to the Islamicists.

Government forces showed signs of desperation earlier this week when they attacked the Israeli held Golan Heights.  Provoking a war with Israel would throw the region into chaos.  Israel, so far, has remained somewhat restrained.

A group allied with the Syrian government took down the Washington Post's website last week.

The Washington Free Beacon reported a day before the attack that a joint Russian-American plan to create a transitional government has not taken the first necessary steps.

Meanwhile in Egypt, as was reported yesterday by Kirby Wilbur on the Sean Hannity Show, Muslim Brotherhood thugs, ousted by the military, have taken their rage out on the Coptic Christian community.

American influence since World War II has not brought complete peace, but has kept the lid on conflicts that could have erupted without its presence.  US troops have occasionally played a role, as in Lebanon under Eisenhower and Reagan. This also, of course, includes the Iraq wars. But usually US aims are realized through  the dispensation of aid and realpolitik style maneuvering.

Some of these conflicts, such as the rise of the Islamofascist thug group, Muslim Brotherhood, have steadily percolated for years.  The Brotherhood aligned with the Nazis before and during World War II to try and destabilize British authority in the Middle East.  Ever since, they have worked to undermine secular rule in Egypt to establish an Iran or Taliban style state there.

The full realization of their plans would put a hostile power in control of the vital Suez Canal who also would attack Israel.

Part of the problem lies at the feet of Barack Obama.  Nearly every president since Harry Truman has based American Middle East policy on certain foundations.  First was support of Israel.  Second, America must protect, or support the protection of, strategic interests.  These include safe ocean passage through the Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc., oil reserves, and important points.

The United States also worked to prevent the rise of malefactors in the Middle East, but also lived with anti-democratic forces willing to go along with the game plan.  For example, Qaddafi was an enemy when he sponsored terrorism.  When he renounced weapons of mass destruction, he became at least tolerable and a possible example of a "reformed" dictator.  Not the best case scenario, but an improvement.

Supporting "democracy" in the Middle East is problematic.  Islamofascists, like the German Nazis and Communists before, advocate "democracy" so that they can come to power and annihilate it.  The best case scenario for Germany in the mid 1930s would have been a military coup and purge of Hitler's followers and Communists, followed by a restoration of the Kaiser.  Those rebelling against authoritarianism today often only plan to establish bloody totalitarianism tomorrow.

Previous presidents understood this.  Obama does not.

American policy in the region has no chance of restoration under Obama.  His aimless diplomacy, coupled with two poorly performing secretaries of state, inspire no respect.  Middle Easterners did not always like Obama's predecessor, but they respected his strength and ability to act.  Obama has effectively destroyed that perception and replaced it with weakness.

Drifting away from Israel has also made war more likely, not less.

Even though energy self-sufficiency will de-emphasize the Middle East's importance somewhat, it still breeds hate and terror.  America must have a policy that starts with a perception of strength based on the reality of action.  Doing anything else increases the chance of war and/or terror attacks.

Military Dictatorship In Egypt?

Unrest in Egypt is getting worse and not better. What is unclear is which groups stand to gain if, or more likely when, Hosni Mubarek is forced to step aside. We would love to see true democracy, but should be concerned about the Moslem Brotherhood (backed by Obama, of course.) Egypt has tried to retain a secular government in the face of a tide of dangerous fundamentalism. Inviting a religious group to the table is a bad idea. Just because they came does not mean they should get to sit or speak.

History shows us that revolutions such as the one brewing in Cairo tend to turn out badly much of the time. Radicals shove aside moderates and spill blood when they consolidate power. Radicals want to control the people body, mind, and spirit. Radical Islamofacist terror will be bad for Egypt, Israel, Europe, and the United States.

In 1933, German democracy selected Communists and Nazis overwhelmingly in elections for the national legislature (Reichstag.) Its system required the President to choose a government from the dominant political parties. The President selected what he thought was the better of two evils, the Nazis. Of course the Communists had already killed thousands and wrecked Russia. The Nazis had not done as much yet, although they eventually would. The best case scenario for that desperate nation would have been a temporary seizure of power by the military.

Is that what is best for Egypt? If the Moslem Brotherhood or any other Islamic front group try to seize power, the military needs to step in and shove them aside. We need no more radical religious groups running nations in the Middle East. It is not a great result, but better than a lot of alternatives if true democracy cannot be established.

This all being said, that military government (as we have seen this morning actually take over the country) needs to put together a transition plan to democracy that reflects the secular nature of the country and respects all of its religious groups. It needs to promise to prevent terror as well. Hopefully, temporary military rule will result in real democracy and positive change for Egypt.

13 Rue Madeline

Liberals have launched a stunning new offensive against Dick Cheney and the idea that the United States ought to defend itself.

You have to just shake your head. After 9/11 the United States intelligence community mulled over the idea of assassinating known terrorists. The Bush Administration refused to implement the program and therefore never told Congress about the program that never happened. Democrats are so desperate to pin something on Bush that they now want to bash Cheney for not telling Congress what the president did not do.

Liberals misunderstand the public. We grew up on James Bond and our kids grew up on 24. Most of us assumed we had been doing this all along! The unpleasant shock is that we had not been hunting down and assassinating terrorists at close range, not the non disclosure of a non program.

Just watched a great James Cagney movie from about 1946 called 13 Rue Madeline. It was the story of US intelligence operations in World War II. James Cagney trained a group of operatives to attack Fortress Europe from the inside. He told them that they needed to forget ideas of sportsmanship and fair play. Trickery, lying, and killing at close range were all parts of war. This reflected the assumptions and reality of warfare against Nazi Germany.

At what point did we get so soft that this is considered unacceptable even by hawks?

Henry Morganthau and How Liberalism Has Changed For the Worse

Henry Morganthau served Franklin Roosevelt as Secretary of the Treasury during World War II. Needless to say, as a faithful practitioner of Judaism, Secretary Morganthau shared with the majority of Americans a deep hatred and disgust for Nazi Germany. Even before the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed by Allied troops, he had devised a plan for postwar Germany.

Morganthau, a liberal in a liberal administration, advocated that Germany be completely deindustrialized. Her factories would be demolished and her economy returned to an agrarian basis. This would serve as a means to prevent any resurgence of German power while punishing her for misdeeds.

What we have seen in this country over the past few decades is a reduction in our national ability to actually do anything. How long does it take to build a power plant? How long does it take to build a road? How many manufacturers have decided to build abroad because they do not want to go through the unending process of permits, studies, public hearings, etc.? Why would they not want to avoid the Byzantine labrynth of federal, state, and local laws as well as the off chance of a ridiculous lawsuit? Once you reach a certain threshold of regulation, how possible is it to avoid committing infractions of some sort?

Liberals do not want industry, at least left wing liberals do not. They take the money and support of unions and then turn around and pass laws, taxes, and pursue policies designed to destroy traditional manufacturing. What they want is clear, an America of forests, farms, and tourist attractions that do not attract many tourists. We wouldn't want to mess up the natural wonders by having too many real people looking at them. They want jobs, but only high tech, academia, health care, and other employment they consider "clean."

In other words they want to do to America what a liberal Secretary of the Treasury once thought was fit as a punishment for one of the most evil regimes in history. So many of the extreme leftists think that we are that as it is, spreading democracy and capitalism as we have.

Junk Science

In doing research recently, I came across a series of letters written to West Virginia Governor William Glasscock. They came from Major Leonard Darwin, famous scientist and son of evolution pioneer Charles. These letters invited Governor Glasscock to send a representative from West Virginia to the First International Eugenics Conference.

This conference sought to study the science behind racial degradation and propose legislative solutions to the problem that many of them believed threatened mankind. Was this a group of nutcases? No. The list of vice presidents of the society included Winston Churchill (soon to be head of the Royal Navy), Gifford Pinchot (chief conservation advisor for President Theodore Roosevelt), and many other esteemed names from both sides of the Atlantic.

What kind of legislative solutions could come of such a meeting? Eventually eugenics resulted in programs that sterilized the mentally challenged and even the chronically poor. The idea was that their inferior genes retarded the growth of mankind. Such ideals are not compatible with a democratic society because they undermine the concept that every one is free and equal under the law.

Of course we know that eugenics is junk science, a flawed field studied by well-meaning and intelligent people who observed natural phenomena and came to a horribly wrong conclusion. National Socialist Germany followed these ideas to their logical end.

In our time, junk science again rears its ugly head. This time the issue is what used to be called global warming. Now, after a bitterly cold winter, it has transformed to "climate change." Well-meaning, and some not so well-meaning, people have concluded that any shift in the earth's climate is A) artificial, and B) disastrous. Never mind that drastic shifts have occurred since the fall of Rome making the earth both much warmer and much colder than today. Surprisingly A) man survived and B) George W. Bush did not cause any of it.

Junk science threatens to destroy our prosperity and take away economic freedoms. If the United States follows the British model, electricity and other costs are expected to eventually skyrocket over 55%, leading to the loss of more manufacturing. Luckily, Senator Byrd stood up recently against legislation based upon unproven science that would destroy West Virginia's coal industry. How much damage will anti-capitalist left wingers do to individuals, business, and our country if junk science, just as in the days of eugenics, is allowed to prevail?

Bush's Greatest Success in the War on Terror

Despite the outcry during the last campaign over the fact that Osama Bin Laden has not been captured yet, consider this.

What is the absolute best thing that could happen to that man right now?

Since 2001 American action and policy forced Bin Laden deep underground. New laws froze his assets and intelligence dogged him relentlessly for years. US action brought his organization into an Iraq war that sapped away its manpower and resources while breaking down its command structure.

Al Qua'ida, much like the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century, went from being terrifying to near punch line status. Bin Laden's "I'm still alive guys!" tapes do not command the attention of anyone anymore. Basically the group has been reduced to firing tired old race insults at Obama.

So what is the best thing that could happen to Bin Laden?

Actually if he made his way into the United States and turned himself in at One Police Plaza, New York City, that would be about it. Imagine the attention he would bring to himself. Dying with his boots on, so to speak, would be the second best fate, capture the third.

Right now, Bush's War on Terror consigned Bin Laden to what he might consider hell. His hell is irrelevancy. No one cares what he says anymore. He has grown into another high profile fugitive who must spend more time hiding than planning his next great act of terror.

Should he turn himself in or get captured, he goes on public trial. Remember that putting Hitler on trial was one of the biggest jump starts Germany gave the National Socialist movement. Kill Bin Laden and he becomes a martyr.

Also, remember when the Democrats made a huge deal over the disbanding of the CIA unit dedicated to Bin Laden. In retrospect, this put Bin Laden on the public road to irrelevancy. Of course it also made good sense. The organization was the threat more than the man.

Let's hope that Bush's good work here does not get undone by the new administration.

Communist China Exposed By Olympics

Fawning journalists for weeks leading up to these Olympic games tried to convince us that the advent of the Chinese century had come upon us. Too many people, too many resources, too much to compete with.

Not long ago we got a glimpse of what Communist China was about. Tibetan protesters found themselves brutally beaten by Chinese police for daring to question the government. The Olympic shenanigans revealed much more. Chinese Communism suffers from a serious self-esteem problem.

What else explains their strange shenanigans? The lip syncing national anthem singer surprised a lot of people. It shouldn't have. Totalitarian societies from Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia put more of a premium on physical achievements and appearance. Crush a seven year old girl by telling her she is not cute enough to show the world? No problem. The fake fireworks displays were also a sad case of putting on an image to hide insecurity. The cheating in gymnastics reflects a culture accepting and even encouraging of corruption as long as it leads to desired ends. Because corruption encourages law breaking and greed, no society so saturated with it can ever advance too far.

The pollution, euphemistically called "haze" by some announcers, is much worse than one would see in a US city. Environmentalists warn that this is a view to the future if we do not radically change. In reality this is a look back in time. Communist governments do not have the same standards of clean air that capitalist democracies enjoy. We may not be perfect, but free market America produces more goods, more efficiently, with less waste and pollution than Communist China.

Worse for China is the massive amounts of empty seats shown at the games. Due to a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, they allowed scalpers to purchase large amounts of tickets to be sold again at very high prices. Tourists to the games cannot obtain tickets to even the most pedestrian events.

China's Olympic sized image problem has burst through the facade of progress. Any system that stifles individuality and steals from the productive to maintain the non productive will never compete effectively with real capitalist societies.