With Syria, has the liberal mind run up against the inherent limits of its naivety? There's only one solution to the Syria carnage if your concern is to protect the 'innocent', and even that solution at best would probably only have a 50/50 chance of long term success given endemic cultural, sectarian and extremist problems that plague the Mideast - and that solution is to do to Syria what Bush did to Iraq - except, unlike Bush, actually have a post war plan this time that calls for let's say a ten year occupation that forces secular democracy and responsible governance on the bloody awful place. Now of course no one would ever agree to this and the US military, what with sequestration and general war fatigue, is probably in no position to make it happen regardless - but here's the problem for liberals, whereas conservatives can recognize it's not gonna happen while still retaining a faith and belief in the US military's ability to effect such a thing - liberals, trapped behind the irrational wall of their naive idealism, cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the ugly truth, and no one's denying that it is a very ugly truth: that only a great power bringing to bear a righteous violence can make happen the good they long for. That's unacceptable to them - and so you get tokens and rhetoric and wishful thinking and then a begging to the media to cover up the fact that you are totally full of shit [see Libya/Benghazi].

So what's Obama thinking here? That the conceit of 'responsibility to protect' will be invalidated, shown to be the sham of shallow intellectualism that it is if he fails to respond in some way to this provocation? Or is he thinking that if he doesn't do something now Assad will use gas again, and maybe it's a worse event that forces Obama to step in in a much deeper way than he quite obviously is prepared to accept? The former argument is quite delusional, flat out idiotic; the latter, on the other hand, although flawed and highly problematic and probably doomed to failure, is at least somewhat logical and realistic in its pretensions.

Or is it that Obama is simply worried about his reputation - that if he fails to act and another gassing happens, he'll be blamed for it and his presidency, if it isn't already, will be a shambles, essentially over?

Obama came into office scornful of American power and consequently set about sending a message of deliberate weakness and apology to the wide world, basically agreeing with our enemies that America was indeed an awful place but promising that he, having acknowledged his agreement with them, could make it all better. Therefore, when the putative Arab Spring came, Obama was ideologically predisposed to utterly misunderstand it and fail abysmally in response to it. Alternatively, Israel, not ashamed of itself the way Obama is of America and therefore a great believer in power and the value of a finely honed military, understood perfectly from the very beginning what the Arab Spring was - the coming of chaos and violent upheaval. A wise American leader would have seen it too and acted accordingly. For all his intellectual gifts, Obama is just another delusional liberal flailing blindly at a cold, hard world that has refused as legal tender his fantasy.

Since the one marginally defensible reason for an 'attack' on Syria is now gone - that reason being to repair Obama's credibility after his 'red line' foolishness, something that is now not possible since it would have required a decisive show of meaningful force neither of which are now in the cards given the dithering and the telling of Assad what your 'shot across the bow' plans are, were, whatever - since the one barely [stretching it] justifiable reason for an attack is now toast, if Obama still goes through with it, what would be the reason? Continuing validation of the wholly irrational 'Responsibility to Protect' conceit, otherwise known as R2P. That's what Obama's love of drones is about, that's what the idiocy of Libya was about, and that's what the idiocy of this would be about should it come to pass - turning the US military into the progressive world's hi-tech little police force tasked with doing putative good everywhere so the Obamas of the world can go to bed at night feeling all proud of how wonderful they are. I mean, why the hell else would France indicate it's still willing to proceed even though England has now backed out? France! Socialist bloody France! The reason is obvious: the astoundingly obtuse philosophes of uber liberal Gaul have wanted to turn the American military machine into an emasculated global constabulary for years now and they're more than happy to sign onto idiotic, utterly detached from reality missions if Obama is promising to make that dream come true.

[this story on how the mission profile of UCLASS drones has been changed from one that served the needs of a powerful, China stopping military to one that serves the needs of a global police force is proof of my point. Think about it people, you cannot have both a giant welfare state that buys votes through ever growing entitlements and Obamaphones etc etc and a powerful military - you have to choose one or the other and one doesn't have to be even remotely bright to figure out which choice Dear Leader prefers - and yet still so many can't seem to figure the guy out - it's very distressing]

Russia announces sending some extra naval power to Mediterranean - no, this not beginning of WWIII - but I do wonder if Putin senses that Obama is about to back away from action and wants it to seem like stern words and now gestures from Russia are the reason why - in short, Obama's afraid of me. That's definitely the way Putin thinks, so... just saying.

Syria... well, that's turning into a farce, yes? Obama last night says he hasn't made a decision on Syria yet even though everything said and done over the last week strongly suggests that's a lie that may be a precursor to a backing out of doing something - it's almost as if it's Obama's goal to ruin the country through inept leadership - I guess those angry white-America hating sermons from Rev Wright really did hit home. But hey, maybe Wright was right - after all, we did elect a guy twice who seems intent on destroying the country - the fact that a presidency as bad as Carter's would actually be a significant upgrade at this point is hardly a ringing endorsement of the innate wisdom of the silent majority.

The Obama era is like a constant reminder of how fragile a thing democracy can be and that without an objective, informed, critical voice speaking truth to power things can really start to go to hell fast - liberal elite wanted Obama over Hillary even though his only seeming qualification was that he was a charming black guy, which really isn't a qualification at all except in some liberal elite fantasy land, and they got their wish; liberal elite wanted him over McCain, therefore McCain knew he had no chance without a game changer, enter Palin, goodbye election, and again liberal elite gets its wish; and even though his first term was clearly a failure and the country looked to be in dire need of a change of direction, liberal elite really didn't like the way Romney treated his dog and weren't about to admit being wrong about Obama anyway and so, well, here the fuck we are.

All joking aside - what the christ is happening? There can't be a leader in the Mideast who isn't sitting up nights wondering what they do now given that America is clearly being run by fools. Reminds me of something I read a few days ago, can't remember where, but said the Saudis were in deep talks with Russia about security arrangements and other things because they had become convinced that either Obama was so clueless or so contemptuous of the traditions of American power that they could no longer trust in the country's intentions. Don't know if it's true, but wouldn't really come as a shock if it was.

So, where are we with the whole Syria debacle, aka Western Civilization's continuing effort to destroy itself through the electing of incompetent fools? Ahhh... well, it appears that people like myself who found it very hard to believe Assad would do something so inherently risky for no compelling tactical reason were probably right - intercepted signals intelligence seems to say that yes, the Assad regime was responsible for the attack, but no, it's not at all clear he or any of his generals ordered it. At moment, looks like maybe a rogue element took it upon themselves to do it. Other interesting thing here is possibility that reason Obama et al seemingly not interested in UN report on what happened is because the gas used wasn't actually sarin or some such thing, but rather a powerful 'crowd control' toxin that can be lethal but is not outlawed by the Geneva Convention. That's a developing angle and not at all sure about its integrity - but that would explain why to my eye what I saw in the videos didn't look like a sarin attack to me, you weren't seeing the kind of trauma and devastation you'd see with use of an extremely vicious agent - there were clearly a lot of people who had been exposed to the gas but survived - from what I know about sarin, you get exposed at a level strong enough to produce symptoms, and that's it, you're dead.

From military experts I read getting impression that given the way the White House is so openly telegraphing its intentions suggests that if there is to be action they expect it to be a token effort, for show - if we really wanted to degrade Assad's capabilities the last thing you'd wanna do is give him several days warning to cover his ass. Now, could be misdirection - or could be just further manifestation of Obama's incompetence - but right now looks like Dear Leader simply gonna fire off a few Tomahawks to make amends for his stupid drawing of a redline. Now, am hearing a lot of talk about how a sustained campaign could force Assad to the bargaining table and that that should be the goal here - but I have trouble seeing that - one, the military assets required for that are not in place - two, what are these people going to bargain over? This fight is to the death seems to me - and three, I've seen nothing from Obama that suggests he's at all interested in taking on the huge risks a prolonged, penetrating campaign would give rise to.

And finally, to the leaders of England and France, shut the fuck up. We have to do something, this cannot stand!! What that really means is America has to do something - you people have systematically impoverished your militaries - you can't do a god damn thing without American power so stop talking as if you're integral players here - Obama let you play the lead in Libya [a role that was largely cosmetic but did allow Obama to peddle illusion that America wasn't the necessary country after all] and that idiotic indulgence managed to turn a war that should have lasted six weeks, hell six days, into a six month joke that did virtually nothing but kill a clown and incorporate a whole new legion of jihadists. Just shut the fuck up.

Hear tell that Kerry got all emotional in his little Syria speech yesterday - never heard myself, can't listen to these people, their words so obviously being crafted to appease and stupefy the foolish and gullible I find it almost painful to listen to them - but everything I read about the speech stressed him getting emotional - and I wonder, what the hell is that about? Was it an honest expression or staged for reasons not clear? If honest, why after a reported 100,000 killed in the war plus more than a million refugees produced does the putative gassing of a few hundred more [which, if true, would actually mark the fourth time at least that Assad has gone there] suddenly move the administration to anger or tears? And, if honest, doesn't allowing that emotion into the debate cloud things and restrict options? As the Godfather said, never let someone outside the family know what you're thinking.

But if staged, to what end? Would it mean Obama is planning something 'big' and needs to stoke an emotional response to the 'outrage' in order to sway public opinion towards supporting this something big? Or, conversely, could it mean that the response is likely to be muted, a mere token of strength, and the show of emotion is an artificially thin way of compensating for a weak hand that may disappoint?

One thing for sure, once you've made the mistake of showing emotion, doing nothing is no longer an option - so, this should be interesting [and not in a good way].

It is funny that when it comes to domestic politics Obama without any seeming qualms or concern embraces the imperial presidency, is quite happy to unilaterally move an agenda ahead, scorn any consensus building with his hated opponents who are apparently all solely motivated by spite and ignorance - yet when it comes to foreign policy he's suddenly all about consensus building, multilateralism etc etc - that is indeed funny - but of course it's also all bullshit because the vaunted accommodation being embraced at the UN is really just the tyranny of the like minded - and what is it these progressives all agree on? They hate Israel and they hate American power. No wonder Obama willingly embraces the platitudes of the UN - its world view intersects nicely with his.

[and of course no sooner do I write above and Jerusalem Post reports Obama considering acting without UN approval since Russia and China will veto any effort - which flies in the face of everything Obama said last week - is this guy just making it up as he goes along? Jesus. Actually, as much as I feel mostly just scorn for the UN, I think trying to make an end run around the Security Council in this case is very likely a bad idea, mainly because as I've said before there are nothing but bad outcomes left when it comes to Syria - as in there's a very good chance you end up punishing one faction for war crimes who will then become victims of war crimes committed by the factions you have empowered - and so it will be virtually impossible to look like the 'good guys' here like you did in the Serbian action, which is the model Obama et al will no doubt be promoting here - and when all hell breaks loose and China and Russia and Iran are forced into a strategic alliance with Russia and Iran viewing Syria as a strategic asset, well... that all sounds like one hell of a toxic mix to me - I mean what if, explicitly or implicitly backed by Russia and China, Iran decides to do something bold like blockade Hormuz or through its proxies attempt to draw Israel into the mess? I really gotta believe the Joint Chiefs are not much thrilled by any of this]

Hmmn. Rouhani condemns chemical weapons use in Syria. Is that an admission of a fact or an attempt to get out in front of a controversy should it prove to be a fact? I still say it makes much more sense for the rebels to be behind this whatever this is than for Assad to have made such an ill advised gamble that on the surface of it seemed an unnecessary provocation. But if Assad is behind it, what would that mean? War is going worse than we've been led to believe. Assad is not in complete charge of his forces and an extremist element is making its own decisions. They read Obama's inaction as a carte blanche invitation to do whatever the hell they wanna do. They see some upside to raising the stakes, possibly to draw in other parties? Hmmn. Could be they're just idiotic monsters.

[they see an upside in raising stakes because if after this Obama still doesn't respond it will send clear message to rebels that it's over for them, they have no hope? If that's the case, huge gamble by Assad - but given Obama's seeming desire to absolutely destroy America's reputation as a power to be feared and respected, if this is what Assad's thinking, there is a logic to it - a remorseless and cruel logic, but a logic all the same. Again, I'm not advocating getting involved in Syria - the time for that if there ever was a time for that was at the beginning - now, nothing but bad comes of it and I guess it's the choice of which bad outcome do you prefer - but Obama brought this on himself by making two very foolish mistakes - Libya, which set a bad example begging to be repeated - and drawing a line in the sand viz WMDs which is absolutely something you cannot do if you're President of the United States unless you fully intend on following through on the threat. If he made that threat knowing full well he had no intention of honoring it or naively thinking he could get away with not honoring it then that pretty much ends the debate on who's worst president ever - it's him]

"... of course the central conundrum, the central paradox liberals need to address, although in a sense can't since time and history will be the final adjudicators... but the vexing thing they can't address and assiduously avoid addressing is reality that America became great under the guidance of a WASP majority that the left pretty much hates, despises... indeed, the new left is largely defined by its contempt for that highly successful WASP majority... but now, as the country becomes more in keeping with something the left would view as legitimate and noble and enlightened, what with a black president, transgender washrooms in California, pot legalized so as to ease the transition into a life long delusion for high school dropouts and one could just go on and on... now, with their dream world increasingly in play, oddly enough, America no longer seems the great thing it once was... and the problem for the liberal elite becomes how do you explain that... how do you make sense of fact that the closer the country comes to adopting the ideals and sympathies the left so dearly cherishes, the weaker, more irresolute, less meaningful the country is...?"

Following closely on heels of black teenagers killing an Australian jogger out of boredom and hell why not kill some white dude out for jog, two black youths yesterday beat and killed a WWII veteran for no apparent reason other than why not kill some old white dude who was in some war. No word yet from Obama on whether or not he feels a national conversation on race would have prevented these tragedies - regardless, media maintains well reasoned position that ultimately white privilege is to blame and, hey, what about Oprah in that Butler movie - isn't she just wonderful!

Obama in CNN interview says can't intervene in Syria without UN mandate even though he maintains core American interests are threatened by the violence - not that I support going into Syria, but since Russia and China, with UN veto power, have interests which very often do not coordinate with ours, seems rather foolish to explicitly say we're not doing anything unless the UN backs it up - at very least it says to Assad [and Iran] 'don't you fret about us'. Is this a case of Obama misspeaking, or this him saying what he firmly believes? I assume the latter. Then he says to go in without a UN directive would only increase dislike of America in the region, and that's just cause to avoid getting involved, again, even though he's admitted to our national interests being threatened - how does that make any sense? For one, there's probably as many people in the region who would welcome our intervention as who would resent it, so makes no sense there - secondly, those who dislike us are going to dislike us no matter what, if only because of our support of Israel - which leads to third reason this statement makes no sense: if our best interests are served by an intervention, who cares what people think? Again, I'm not supporting an intervention - I'm just attempting to make sense of what Obama said and coming to conclusion he was speaking nonsense - sure, maybe he's just talking gibberish in order to buy time or some such thing; but if that's the case, making explicit statements that events may force you to contradict later seems unwise.

Ah, I see the esteemed Mr Krauthammer has been reading me for insights on how to approach the Egypt dilemma - I should wish. But is nice to see a member of elite commentariat making similar points to mine, especially as concerns using cold war morphology as guidance viz Egypt - I'm still thinking that there's much confusion on how to deal with this problem because political correctness or just an irrational fear of offending Muslims is keeping us from thinking of Islamism the way we thought about communism - and as far as I'm concerned that's just as much a worry as Egypt itself.

Hostility of conservative base to Christie an indication of why GOP may be doomed? What I mean by that is, they don't seem to understand or are willfully resistant to the understanding that given press and media bias it is absolutely vital to nominate people who play well in the media - it's as if the base hates left wing media so much that they reflexively feel that to make an appeal to it is necessarily to be corrupted by it - this is a very foolish conceit and very likely will doom the GOP if it can't be overcome. The conservative base hates Christie for the infamous Obama hug? They should wake up and realise that that was the act of a politician who knows exactly how the media works and how it affects voters perceptions and opinions - and given that most voters are guided by feelings rather than knowledge and coherent thoughts that is exactly the kind of candidate the GOP needs because media bias is most decidedly not going away and therefore you need to run candidates who have the skills and attributes required to overcome it rather than haplessly being left with nothing to do but express an embittered scorn for it. The base loves Palin - they think it's because of her conservative principles - wrong, it's because of the dynamite performance she gave at the 2008 convention, the camera loved her - I remember watching her and saying to the person I was with that if there's a brain to match that performance , then look out, this election just changed dramatically - but of course there wasn't a brain to match the performance and that impression rendered null and void the value of it - you put Hillary's intellect with that performance and it's Palin in 2012 and not Romney - and the GOP base needs to realise that wouldn't have been because of her staunch conservative principles, it would have been because of the performance.

John Bolton in 2016? I hope so - not because I think he'd be a good president or has a chance in hell of becoming president or a chance in hell of winning the nomination - and I imagine he realises that - no, I want him in because he actually has some idea what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy and military strategy and I want to see him destroy Rand Paul in the debates - and if he runs that may be the very reason why he runs.

Yes, of course, this so obvious - that some black teenagers in Oklahoma shoot down an Australian kid out for a jog because they were bored and looking for something to do is obviously, obviously the fault of the NRA and rabid second amendment defenders, you'd have to be an intolerant brute not to see that - clearly this had absolutely nothing to do with a liberal media approved 'gangsta' mentality percolating through the culture of black youth like a vile pestilence - that these poor black kids were prodded, virtually forced into this heinous act by the ongoing evil of white privilege is just more proof that if we could just get rid of the NRA, the second amendment and most of the right leaning white population of the country, America would be a frickin' paradise - we could make Matt Damon president! - he's pretty and just bursting with wonderful insights and ideas. The glory days are comin', my friends, they're comin'- Springsteen should write a song to mark the occasion, and then sing it to an Obama sitting cross-legged on the stage at his feet wearing a Trayvon hoodie. Ahhh, magic. Anderson Cooper will cry on air, unable to believe just how absolutely marvelous the world has become.

Is the failure of so many to see that the least bad choice in Egypt is to work with the military an indication that the West is indeed doomed, governed as it seemingly is by the clueless? Or is it a reflection of fact that for whatever reason one wants to name [shallow liberal sentiment run amok] we can't bring ourselves to see that Islamism is every bit as much a threat [hold on there, big fella] to Western interests as communism once was [and still is viz China] and acknowledge that there was a time when a 'coup' that ousted a communist rival would have been reluctantly welcomed and hopefully 'managed' by us and that's probably the way we should be approaching the mess in Egypt? Or is this simply a case of me and people who think like me being unevolved cretins?

I'm reminded of something Peter Wehner wrote the other day about the Obama presidency and foreign policy:

Barack Obama promised that if he were elected president he would “remake” the world. He has; and America is paying a terrible price for it.

And I think also how yesterday Erdogan, Obama's bestest buddy in the world, a kindred spirit one assumes of Dear Leader, blamed the upheaval in Egypt on an Israeli scheme, just as he blamed anti-Islamist upheaval in his own country on Zionist skulduggery - and this is the man Obama had the wise foresight to blackmail Netanyahu into apologizing to for a security operation that required absolutely no apology.

Ah, the Obama presidency, truly a Golden Era in the making - if one is lucky enough to be a simpleton - or a liberal, which of course... well... enough said.

To the dimwitted souls who can't seem to grasp the realist logic of working with the Egyptian military - if secularist democratic progressives in Iran, backed by a breakaway element of the Republican Guard, had risen up against Islamist Ahmadinejad, overthrown him, and in turn he had roused his Islamist supporters to riot against that coup and in the violence that ensued many deaths had occurred, would it have been the opinion of those now calling for a cutting of ties with Egypt that we rebuke the Iranian progressives and back Ahmadinejad?

Rand Paul, seriously, as a presidential candidate? Well, sure, yeah I guess with the blind fools who followed after his father guaranteed to follow after him, suppose it makes sense - but I heard him this morning on Fox repeating his idiotic opinions viz Egypt and when the moderator pointed out just a few of the problems associated with cutting ties with Egypt, serious problems, strategic peril problems, foreign policy complications of the first order, Paul just repeated his 'coup' law nonsense as if that was an inspired answer - hey Rand, maybe you should consider the idea that the law is stupid and deserves to be ignored, after all you are the one running high profile campaigns against laws you consider to be stupid, Obamacare, the Patriot Act - how is it the 'coup law' passes muster with you? I'm guessing it's because as a foreign policy president this guy would be worse than Obama. Sorry, as it stands now, may change but as it stands now it has to be Christie in 2016, with a female VP, Ayotte or Haley or Martinez - conservatives have to figure out that in a hostile media environment nominating an ideologue is not a winning formula, especially one who will be running to the left of Hillary on foreign policy. What, is the thinking here Paul will siphon far left votes from Hillary and steal a win? C'mon, people. You need someone who can play the media game, which Christie can do and Romney most decidedly could not, and someone with executive experience and a proven ability to make strategically nuanced compromises, to reach across the aisle and work deals, which is something Reagan did and is what the average voter is looking for and again is something Christie can do and has done.

[I see Ayotte yesterday with some reluctance threw support behind notion of cutting ties or at least funds, which probably amounts to same thing, to Egypt - and since I've just mentioned her as possible VP choice in 2016 I guess I now have to criticize her, which I will - this is stupid, I understand where people are coming from, and I understand should it start to look like the military is trying to exterminate the Muslim Brotherhood it will look real bad - but cutting ties is not the way to go, certainly at least not yet. Do you really think if we cut ties that someone won't rush in to fill that vacuum, like maybe China? China has big plans for Africa, imagine they'd love a shot at Egypt and probably wouldn't think twice about doubling, hell tripling the amount of aid Egypt currently gets from us - and they're not gonna make a fuss about who's 'governing'. Cutting ties with Egypt could set off a chain of events that could be catastrophic and it's more than a little troubling how many US lawmakers and so called experts are calling for it. See the mess from the Egyptian military's point of view - like Israel, they don't trust Obama, they like Israel think he's either clueless when it comes to the problems plaguing the region or is wedded to ideological prejudices which render his policy choices reality deprived. It was clear at rise of Arab Spring that Obama had no clue how to respond and when he finally did he did so in a way that made it clear to the leaders in Israel and the Egyptian military that this guy is in way over his head - remember, the Egyptian military enabled the original Tahir square protests, one imagines because they wanted to get rid of Mubarak - so there was a point there for the US to keep the faith of the Egyptian military while still supporting the calls for democracy, but that would have required us advocating the obvious, democratic governance must be secular - but of course that was never gonna happen under Obama's benighted rule - both Israel and the Egyptian military knew that if you had faux democratic elections in Egypt that didn't forswear Islamism and promote secularism that it would lead to the rise of the Brotherhood and all kinds of very bad stuff, which is exactly what happened. This was all predictable so before you throw baby out with the bathwater consider that some pretty foolish American policy choices are at least partially responsible for the situation - and saying partially may be a gross understatement]

This compelling opinion on what last decade or so of Great Satan in the lands of Allah has wrought in the minds of Americans, both amongst the foreign policy inner sanctum of big thinkers and the frustrated, largely untutored laity - and it reminds me that though I chide, ridicule, condemn the vacuous progressive assumptions underlying Obama's Muslim outreach, which for all its would be clever calculation remains an initiative that was naive, misguided and seemingly wholly predicated on the remarkably arrogant belief that the splendour of his personality, the pure luminance of his world celebrity would be enough to guide all through the darkness of discord and into the bright land of amity and universal wonderfulness - regardless of my mocking of this foolishness the article reminds me that it was with Bush that this delusional view of Muslim culture began - the delusion being, in essence, that despite the hard lessons our own history taught us over the course of hundreds of years regarding the problem of mixing religion and politics, when it came to Islam and democracy we decided, in what can only be described as a near suicidal fit of political correctness, to just ignore all those hard lessons learned and pretend there was no real need for democracy to be secular after all - hell, to think such a mean spirited thing could only be yet another ugly instance of haughty Western bigotry looking down on the non-Christian world - the sins of white privilege, as the progressives like to call it [yes, to read, understand and interpret our own history in an entirely rational and objective way and attempt to apply it to a contemporary problem is of course nothing more than an act of bigoted intolerance - how could I not see that?].

[but to pardon Bush a wee bit, his democracy push in the land of Allah was pretty much just an afterthought - Iraq was falling apart amidst sectarian barbarism, no WMDs had been found, you've mired yourself in the caretaking of this mess and had to have some hopeful reason for being there - democracy. Democracy promotion clearly had an ad hoc feel to it and clearly few people at the top had coherently thought it through - I mean if they had there would have been plans to invade with many more troops than they did and plans to stay there, occupy the place for several years - instead, Rumsfeld kept trying to knock down the number of troops and many 'experts' thought the US would start pulling out a few short months after the fall of Saddam - some even thought the pull out would start immediately after the fall. No, although there certainly was talk about how Iraq could become a lesson in democracy for the dysfunctional autocracies of the region, the war was mainly about getting rid of Saddam, which everyone, including Clinton, had hatched plans for since the end of the first Gulf war, and rounding up the WMDs and in doing those two things send a loud don't you dare fuck with Uncle Sam message to all the bad players in the neighborhood - didn't quite work out that way. Personally, I think actually there was a third reason for going into Iraq that probably contributed to the lack of after war planning - namely, domestic politics: someone in the White House was fixated on what an electoral boon a successful invasion of Iraq would be and that fixation, combined with the fantasy success in Afghanistan had fed regarding the ease with which Saddam could be overthrown, led to some tunnel vision, some group think that really corrupted any coherent and thorough analysis of the bag of snakes they were about to open.

As for COIN in Afghanistan and Obama's part in the delusion - COIN to me never made any sense: you're in the country because the culture is dysfunctional, yet you're choosing to fight a kind of war that imagines you can effect change without changing that culture - how does that make sense? And Petraeus et al weren't idiots, they had to have understood or recognized in some way that democracy is all about the cultural presets that are necessary precursors to the embrace of freedom and universal suffrage and that these presets don't exist much in the Muslim world as a whole and pretty much don't exist in Afghanistan at all, so how explain their foolishness? What I said before, a suicidal fit of political correctness? I dunno. And then when Obama tacked a withdrawal date on the mission, which is surely the one thing you absolutely can't do when it comes to COIN, well, then, the enterprise really became nonsensical.

But what to make of Obama's thinking? Well, his best buddy's Erdogan, an Islamist - and he welcomed and encouraged the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood - so what's that about? Seems awfully foolish but maybe he thinks when it comes to democracy Islamism is the best that part of world can do. Or is it a reflection of his own uber liberal dislike of American democracy? Could be when it comes to foreign policy he's simply a one trick pony - that being, shrink American influence, American power, draw down and draw back - and either he has no clear thoughts on what the results of that will be, is misguided on what the results of that will be, or simply doesn't care in sense that goal of shrinking American military is paramount above all other considerations. I mean, the ideals of modern liberalism are really not compatible with a large military with huge responsibilities - just look at Europe - military spending becomes a tertiary consideration when measured against the massive needs and dependencies of the welfare state and the pacifist mentality it necessarily encourages]

Very disturbing US response to what's going on in Egypt - latest, Rand Paul going on about how we should have cut economic aid to the country once the supposed 'coup' happened - Paul is like a conservative version of liberal idiocy, ever willing to distort reality in order to promote ideological claims. Tell me, do you really think that if the Muslim Brotherhood had had full support of the military when vast 'democratic' protests rose up against them that they wouldn't have responded with violence as well? Is that the absurdity Paul is trying to promote? These people are addled by delusion. Simple fact is democracy cannot coexist with absolutist claims, nobody wants to say that because no one wants to be seen impugning Islam, but the reality exists regardless of the tendency of the chattering class to behave in foolish and cowardly ways. What is happening in Egypt was entirely predictable and if you didn't see it coming it probably means you have an agenda that is detached from reality - trying to fit Islamism and democracy together will result in one of three things: a faux democracy run by an Islamist oligarchy; a faux democracy run by a militarized oligarchy; or an outright tyranny run by either. That is the reality here, and America couldn't come out and say it because under the entirely stupefied idiocy of Obama's Muslim outreach the truth is a curse to be avoided at all costs.

This article in Commentary mirrors my thinking pretty closely - from the very beginning of the putative 'Arab Spring' Israeli conservatives were my go to sources for opinions on how this all might play out - which is why what's happening in Egypt is not coming as a surprise to me and why not much of what has transpired over the last few years in the Mideast has come as a surprise to me. Israel gets that awful little corner of the world better than anyone else and it's absurd, ludicrous when Obama and those nitwits in Europe talk and act as if that isn't true, can't be true.

But the Commentary article also touches on another point which I've been thinking about lately - there are two conclusions one can draw about Obama when it comes to foreign policy: either he's a complete moron, hopelessly misguided, utterly in over his head, simply does not have a clue; or his sole motivating goal is to reduce the power and reach of America, to pull it back from the world stage as a precursor to dramatically shrinking the military - what looks like foreign policy incompetence is just the natural consequence of Obama doing exactly what he intended to do, ie in essence, castrate American power. Such an unmanning has been the cherished dream of every uber liberal academic in America [which effectively means every academic in America] for many years and unsurprisingly that's the intellectual swamp that spawned Dear Leader.

Whichever of those two views you choose to side with regarding Obama's foreign policy inclinations the implications of it are all bad for Israel either way - and so the question I've been wondering about is: how will this disturbing reality impact Israel's behavior? Not sure, but the logic of the situation seems to suggest that it will lead to a hardening of their positions, not a softening - which is why Netanyahu's willingness to surrender Palestinian terror prisoners in order to coax the PLO into peace negotiations that Bibi surely knows are almost certainly doomed to fail was such a head scratcher. Sure, Kerry's insistence put Israel in a very tough position - but, still, the gesture seems extreme - but then maybe that's the point of it: Obama's ideological prejudices are gonna force Israel into actions which will assuredly invite scorn and criticism from the usual suspects - in order to mitigate what's coming extreme sacrifices will be required.

"... given their narrow view of history as merely something abstract to be interpreted in a way that serves their ideological presumptions, it's as if the pathology of neo-liberal idealism gravitates around the delusional and frankly quite juvenile notion that the rise of the West would have gone so much smoother had they been in charge, that under their enlightened leadership we would have been blessed with all the good stuff while miraculously through their heroic efforts spared all the bad... these are truly dangerous people... and you see how such a delusionist ideology necessarily leads to absolutism and then eventually the tyrannical urge left wing orthodoxy always reaches for in order to preserve the purity of their ideals against the rude attacks of reality... this worldview is pretty much diametrically opposed to the empirically pragmatic scepticism of a conservative one, which says basically that despite your best intentions and sometimes precisely because of your best intentions shit is absolutely gonna happen and if you can't defeat it or somehow manage the wherewithal to survive and adapt to it, then expect to have yourself a very bad day..."

When famed curmudgeon atheist Richard Dawkins decided to tweet that when considered as a factor of Nobel prizes in science won there seems to be something about Islam or Muslim culture that retards or suppresses or otherwise compromises scientific excellence, inquiry and advancement he was of course pilloried in lexical chains by all the free thinkers out there and figuratively spat upon as a no good racist, bigot, intolerant brute etc etc - and now he has responded with a must read rebuke of these progressive cretins [I'm assuming his attackers were by and large liberals since most conservatives who might be offended by his atheism would still applaud or welcome his criticism of Islam - and because in the age of Obama charges of 'racism' have become the thought police's cudgel of choice for the beating down of reasonable dissent and critical analysis expressed by those not yet consumed and conformed by the miasmic cloud of progressive orthodoxy which states clearly that everything bad in the world is a result of white privilege and those aspects of Western Civilization that spewed it forth - see primarily capitalism and military prowess - and therefore anything not sullied by that sinful privilege must perforce be good and noble regardless existence of inconvenient evidence pointing to egregious flaws, irrational absurdities and outright dementia].

Is it the thinking of GOP amnesty doves that, we're screwed no matter what when it comes to Hispanics and the immigration debate, we can pretty much just lump them in with the various other demographic units culturally predisposed to dislike and distrust us, but maybe if we give on amnesty something of use can be salvaged from this ruin? Often sounds that way - and I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong because, even if it's true that conservatives can pretty much write off Latinos, there's still the Asian vote which may be getable at some point in the not too distant future. Problem is with holding nose and accepting amnesty, what maybe you gain in Hispanic trust you're gonna lose in a disgruntled and disheartened base who simply opt out of the electoral process believing that the country is now doomed to be driven relentlessly towards the cliff by a never ending series of Obama clones. But even worse than that sort of Romney effect though, by giving on amnesty you enrage the base which leads to intemperate talk which of course, like the night follows the day, inevitably leads to Obama and his media cohorts rousing themselves into a frenzy of 'Republicans are racists' demagoguery - and then you lose both Asians and Hispanics [which is why I'm guessing this is Obama's preferred outcome].

[and let's not forget that amnesty is a two for one deal because if it makes the youth unemployment problem worse and permanent you're essentially creating two new groups of people who view a massive welfare state as a good and necessary thing]

So, yeah, conservatives are pretty much screwed no matter what here - and if it's a question of picking your poison all that's left to decide is which one offers the best chance of maybe surviving the ordeal. My opinion, you say no deal on amnesty until all other immigration needs are taken care of, including of course border security - when that's done, then we'll talk amnesty - and maybe to take the sting out of the inevitable backlash you offer, when the amnesty debate is revisited, to significantly reduce the penalties and wait times now on the table [yes, of course Obama et al are planning to abridge or entirely ignore those penalties etc regardless - still, optics wise, you gotta sweeten the pot in some way]. Of course that does nothing to solve the inherent demographics problem of amnesty if you believe there is an inherent demographics problem with amnesty - but it is at least better than what is currently being discussed. Possibly. And it buys you time - time for the GOP to get its act together and maybe nominate someone in 2016 who can actually win and what's more has the political skills to form a workable consensus on a reasonable way forward and then at least if there is to be amnesty the credit doesn't go to Obama and the ruinous ideology he represents but rather to a Rubio or a Christie and we all get to live happily ever after. Possibly.

Liberals talking about the 'moral necessity' of amnesty for illegals is absurd, right? Zuckerberg latest to ring that entirely false bell - record youth unemployment, especially among blacks, a situation destined to be made worse by amnesty, more so if it stokes further illegal migrations, that's ok I guess for the Zuckerbergs et al, that's morally acceptable - but it's a crime against humanity that the nanny state isn't rushing in to sweep up these unfortunate illegals in her loving arms. This basically a manifestation of liberals being fully aware that they win the immigration debate no matter what happens here and that's all they really care about. And given the way liberals talk about amnesty as a 'moral imperative', who doesn't believe that should an immigration bill pass that contains a steep path to citizenship that soon as the ink is dry on that thing liberals and Latino activist groups are out plying the media and plying the courts with claims that this 'steep path' is an abuse of civil/human rights? Hell, that's as predictable as Al Sharpton accusing my blonde sheppard of racism for barking at him.

Wait a second - Rice is closing down consulates because of a fear of another Benghazi? Did some crackpot minor league filmmaker release some amateurish anti-Muslim straight to web movie that I didn't hear about? And if so, I thought standard operating procedure was to deny the auteur miscreant his first amendment rights, toss him in jail, declare fervently that there's absolutely no such thing as Islamic extremism and then ramp up the Muslim world apology tour, once again pointing out to those aggrieved people just what an awful and horrible place America is. Why the change in tactics? Maybe Obama has a busy golf schedule this week.

Well, I guess the test of whether progressives or conservative sceptics have a better grasp of what can be expected from Iran and its new moderate president is still on because the the liberal commentariat seems flushed with a reborn belief in magic, convinced that the theocracy has turned a corner towards better relations with the West - Rouhani calling Israel a blemish staining the pure visage of Islam and smiling like a contented grandmother before a crowd chanting death to the Zionist demons wasn't convincing enough for them apparently of maybe there being another reality [running out the clock] in play here - nor did the presence of a North Korean delegation in Tehran this week sour their eager hearts - nope, the progressives are waving their magic sticks with great whimsy in the turgid air so seems we'll have to wait till Iran actually tests a nuke to see who got this thing right. My Vegas line on when that happens - within eighteen months. [you're not expecting Israel to embrace the military option? Ah, ya know, that's very hard to guess on - I'd say only a handful of people in the Pentagon know with any certainty what Israel's true capabilities are viz running an operation like that alone - and I believe it'd have to be alone since I always thought Obama was lying when he said he wouldn't let Iran go nuclear - so, without knowing Israel's true capabilities it's impossible to guess on what they'll do - my thinking is the job's just too big for them to do alone, but we'll see]

See that the ever vigilant and ever so objectively principled liberal media have decided that maybe, just maybe Benghazi was something of a scandal after all now that it appears the CIA was involved in some gun running with unsavory jihadist types - and that's all very good - but let's remember that this mess was a significant scandal before Langley joined the party - what happened at Benghazi did not fit the Obama re-election narrative which led to a failure to respond to the events in real time which may have cost some people their lives and then an attempt to lie about what had actually happened once the dust had settled. All of that is bad, sure, scandalous, why not, fine - but the real scandal here is that the press decided to treat Benghazi as nothing worth paying attention to even though there was ample reason to pay attention to it and that leaves one with the impression that the press deliberately ignored Benghazi, either out of willful deceit or as a consequence of a blinding adoration of their chosen one, in order to get Obama re-elected - and if you're not deeply troubled by that then there's something wrong with you.

Interesting Quinnipiac poll on whether Washington should rescue Detroit - breaks down much as you'd expect, Republicans strongly oppose, Independents strongly oppose, Democrats are obviously conflicted and slightly support, Blacks of course strongly support - but here's the interesting bit, Hispanics support a rescue, not overwhelmingly so, but it's pronounced - okay, I get why blacks support it, but why the hell would Hispanics be so inclined to buy in? Is it because as a culture they tend to see government as something that should be big and activist and always willing to rush in and undo the damage evil rich white guys do even though evil rich white guys had very little to do with what happened to Detroit?

Which brings us of course to immigration reform, which really means amnesty for illegals and border security. I can't support amnesty, wish I could, really do, but I just don't see how it doesn't end with the country being irretrievably pulled to the left and as I've said many times before I don't believe great powers can be governed from the left, certainly not the far left favored by Obama et al - left wing sympathies are the ruination of power. Plus there's another problem - black youth unemployment is at 40%, youth unemployment as a whole is at more than 20% - illegal immigrants do the types of jobs these unemployed youths should be doing - with amnesty we're basically signing off on creating an underclass of unemployed youth who will grow up to be two things, miscreants or variations thereof utterly dependent on gov't and therefore loyal Democratic voters. Why are we doing this? It seems crazy - I get that businesses don't wanna hire these youths for various reasons untold [unreliable tops list I imagine] but why aren't we saying if you're under 25 and on gov't assistance you have to take that dishwasher job, period? I worked as a dishwasher when I was 18, wasn't so bad.

"... yes, in a squalor of cynicism wrought from bitter experience I came to the conclusion that one hell of a lot of what is said or written or otherwise opined upon in the political sphere is pretty much beside the point regarding what actually did or is or will happen... it seemed to me that much of what this jabberwocking class do is simply a performance the purpose of which is to convince themselves that what they want to believe about the world is true even if the world is constantly trying to tell them it isn't... frumious Bandersnatching yclpet I this rumpus..."

Dear liberals, only in America, with press and media acting as stage managers of the Obama passion play, can what is false be portrayed as true - in the wider world the deploying of such magic tricks to beguile low info voters becomes a bit more problematic - accordingly, witness the new 'moderate' president of Iran calling Israel a wound that has festered too long on the body of Islam that must be removed - this comes on the heels of Ramadan funds for Gaza from Iran recently being routed through Islamic Jihad rather than Hamas, IJ being somewhat more virulent in its Jew hating fervor than Hamas, who are certainly no slouches at it [although this was probably done to punish Hamas for not doing enough to support Assad in Syria].

I remember when Rouhani was elected and progressives were wetting themselves with delight over the prospects of Dear Leader finally having a reasonable man he could negotiate a nuke deal with and cynics like myself scoffed with bemused disdain at the naivety of these silly people, and I thought this should prove a nice test of whether liberals or conservatives tend to have a clearer view of the real world. Guess the test is over, quicker than I thought, too - and Netanyahu apparently agrees, saying "Rouhani's true face has been exposed earlier than expected".

I've often expressed similar thoughts to these in trying to define the signal delusion or corruption of common sense motivating left wing idealism, but don't think I ever attained the simple clarity of this paragraph from Thomas Sowell:

The fundamental problem of the political Left seems to be that the real world does not fit their preconceptions. Therefore they see the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong.