Skip to comments.Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
Posted on 03/26/2011 9:45:40 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
Posted By David Horowitz On March 26, 2011 @ 12:04 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Andrew Sullivan takes exception to my observations that we are on a fools errand in Libya and a dangerous one. The other day I took issue with neo-conservatives who had learned nothing from failed attempts to create Western-style democracies in Muslim cultures. I had pointed to recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza (let alone Turkey) and warned that our military invasion of Libya could lead to the creation of an al-Qaeda aligned totalitarian state. Here is how the Atlantics Andrew Sullivan characterized these thoughts:
It looks as if David Horowitz has left the neocons and become an anti-Islam nationalist; . he looks at the eruption in the Middle East and wants the dictators back.
Nice spin Andrew.
First, I am not against people whose religion is Islam. Im just a pragmatic realist who notes that in fifteen hundred years Islamic cultures have a very poor track record in creating democracies and that the emerging Islamic movements in the Arab Middle East are without exception totalitarian, jihadist and also Jew-hating, women-hating and gay-hating.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Send andrew over to iran to negotiate. Should be interesting.
Israel didn’t send in troops to protect Mubarak and it’s not likely to send in troops to protect Gadaffi.
Let unsaid, is that Andrew Sullivan is as queer as a three dollar bill.. and is a Normal-phobe..
When all of these little spats are over ,Muslims (radical Muslims of the Al Quaeda sort) will be in charge of the Middle East .
Their first trial will come when they openly attack Israel and get cooked by the radiation from the Nuclear bombs. Muslims don’t really care how many die, they can always breed more.
Anyone who believes that there will be a Thriving Democracy in any of these countries is not a fool, but a damned fool.
Christians had better leave while the leaving is good. Church’s here should be taking up collections and seeking sponsors to get their people the hell out of there.
Typical David Horowitz, more information in half a page than most manage in 5 pages. I find it interesting that Samantha Power is back in the “in” crowd with the 0bama White House. I also find it interesting that Soros, when one of his shills is CinC, can find a way to invade a sovereign nation.
Power was right about Rwanda; 5 officers from the San Antonio Police could have stopped that. Every genocide/massacre isn’t Rwanda, though. Unless 0bama is your guy.
Where is the islamic UN and their R2P?
They have all the programs and parrot all the western words for Islam and yet nothing for the Christians of the Mideast, Africa and the Balkans.
The US and the West needs to be out of this farcical organization.
This was how we imposed lasting change in Germany and Japan. The lack of these elements in Iraq and Afghanistan are why they will revert to traditional modes of government when our troops leave. Bush's lack of leadership and historical knowledge combined with traditional State Department backstabbing are why our trillion-dollar investment in those two countries will result in two countries that are only marginally less hostile to us than they were when we initially invaded. This is why GWB is a less capable executive than his father, who presided over two wars - Just Cause and Desert Storm - at minimal cost in men and money (and even managed to get $60b from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan to cover Desert Storm expenses). GWB got minimal support from allies after devastating attacks on American soil, and managed to spend $1.2T in two wars that are ongoing a decade after he started the first one.
And for Horowitz to call himself a Realist is absurdity.
This isnt about Libya. It goes well beyond the borders of that nation. Obama has taken power from the US and used it to help consolidate the path of Islam for its c a l i p h a t e.
Obama has taken America into a snare.
I think the definition of a neocon is someone who thinks that if we just remove an existing dictatorship, Western-style democratic rule will automatically ensue. This goes against our experience in Japan and Germany. Armed resistance came to an end after we killed millions of their military men and civilians* (via strategic bombing). American generals ruled those countries for years. They dictated what Japanese and German schools could put in their textbooks. They rewrote the countries' laws. They broke up existing conglomerates. A lot of coercive colonial-style diktats (i.e. STFU and do what you're told) were laid down in Japan and Germany that we never did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's pretty unbelievable that neo-con Republicans are blundering into yet another morass. It's as if we were doing a re-run of the 1979 Iranian revolution. Only now, instead of doing their own fighting, the Khomeinists have Western air forces helping them topple the Shah.
* The civilians screamed defiance when interviewed, but fell into line like sheep after their respective regimes surrendered. Why? The unpleasant truth is that the millions of civilian dead over a period of years from blast and shrapnel wounds had a cumulatively demoralizing effect. At war's end, Axis civilians had had enough.
There was no time emergency that required Obomber to bomb before he sought Congressional permission.
We don't have to go back 1500 years. All we have to do is look at two Muslim countries in which we have invested $1.2T and put hundreds of thousands of GI's in-country. Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The doctrine under which Hillary Clinton persuaded Obama to invade a sovereign country and thereby to disregard his Secretary of Defense (an actual pragmatist on Obamas ship of state) is called Responsibility to Protect. It is the invention of NSC adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Soros describes the doctrine like this:
If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states borders to protect the rights of citizens.
So Hillary, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, with Soros blessing, invade Libya while Obama votes present.
So next we 'protect' the Palestinians in Gaza from big bad Israel and invade Israel. Check. Next it's on to those right wingers here in our own country. Check. . . Well, we need to protect D.C. don't we?
As Savage said, quoting Isaiah 3:1-15: "A babe is their master and women rule over them. ..."
This is absolutely the beginning of WW III - no doubt about it. Before this is over either Israel we be gone or some other countries will be gone.
You are correct. We should have elected either John McCain or Al Gore.
So Obama, the whole Marxist-Muslim schtick has been planned all along? Got it. . . We're on to you. . . November 6, 2012. . .
That the alternatives were John McCain and Al Gore is a sad commentary on either the electoral system or the electorate. Then again, this is the country that picked Clinton over the elder Bush and then Dole. I'm gonna to have to say that the electorate ain't what it used to be. Democracies get the leaders they deserve. I'm hoping that we never elect someone like Juan Peron or Salvador Allende (although Obama comes pretty darned close).
Remember also regarding WWII: Of our population then of 160 million, and fully 16 million served in uniform, many by conscription.
IOW we got the resources to make SURE the job got done.
Now, we try to use machines, instead of people, and we ARE not getting the job done. And of course we feel so guilty to harm a hair on the head of the innocent civilians.
We are still supposedly looking for bin Laden in Afghanistan nearly ten years later.
The minute the troop levels drop too low, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will revert to their islamic dictatorship of some kind, and they won’t like the US, at all.
Every dollar and every life from America will have been wasted.
If we aren’t going to do the job, why stir up these hornets nests regarding us?
Why not just stand aside and let muslims focus on killing muslims?
Especially so in Libya, as it is not clearly known that rebel forces are on our side at all. In fact they may be more our enemies than Gadaffy.
Soros and his puppetmaster’s involvement in this is regularly overlooked. It is of utmost importance to point a finger in that direction every time they got involved.
a must read - soros connection clearly explained
I hope the Freshman in Congress set up a committee to investigate Soros. He is involved in our finances, media, government, and is now making foreign policy decisions.
Thanks for the ping, DTA. A worthwhile read from last year
Islamics and communists unite to chop off Adam Smith;s invisible hand.
“neocon” is Lib speak for Jew.
That's for sure. It's becoming more and more obvious the Marxists and Islamists have been working together, probably for years, to attain an amalgamation of Theocratic Communism - how that would all shake out is anyone's guess. The old enemy of my enemy thing. . .
Agreed but have you ever met a Copt? Tough as nails.
Actually, the word "neocon" has been around for a few decades. The term "liberal elite" is probably more Jewish-oriented, since 80% of Jews vote Democratic, and Jews tend to dominate the elite ranks of liberalism.
We failed to demand tribute. A leviathian who moves without demanding tribute will soon find their own revolt...
and Jews tend to dominate the elite ranks of liberalism.
Far from it.
Jews do not “dominate” any political center or group in the US.
They are a small part of it, even if the greater majority of them had been Eastern European Socialists who fled to here between WWI & WWII.
No tribute needed in Germany, where about 50% of the fighting age males (18-35) had been killed in battle or Japan, where about 20% of the fighting age males had died for the Emperor.
That's all I needed to know.
>This was how we imposed lasting change in Germany and Japan.
Right track but you arent going far enough.
Yes we defeated them but not only them, we utterly defeated every nation allied to them, insofar as was plausable, anywhere in the entire world.
You are speaking of a WORLD War, one that wiped out 100s of millions of people across the entire globe.
Iraq & Afghan may revert, not just because we leave, for the problem does not reside in the prior governments of those nations, but because Islam itself has not been crushed, and Islam itself, a pre medieval religion that has never been through its own centuries long Reformation is the real problem across the globe today.
To achieve what I believe your points to be, we would have to decimate the muslim populations of most of Asia, all of the Middle East and the South Asian archipelago, including but not limited to, Indonesia and Malaysia, demolish their holy cities and sites and, in essence, either kill all that want to perpetrate this cult, or render that particular intent impotent.
Despite the current threat(s), we have never even declared a war, let alone mustered World Wide support for a total war such as this.
To the contrary, we coddle them, invite them into our country, and support them as in Hamas in Gaza, the muslim terrorists in Kosovo, and now the new Mid East rebellions.
thank you for your post.
You got my point. Thanks for not flaming me because of the way I wrote it...
That "poor track record," is it just a coincidence or something? Because if it isn't -- if it's related to the fundamental beliefs of Islam -- you might want to think about being against those people after all. Without them, the religion is meaningless. It has meaning, and evil meaning, and evil when practiced (poor track record) because those "people whose religion is Islam" practice it. If they are not blameworthy, who or what is?
Actually, not Horowitz's position but isn't there evidence that a dictator is more or less needed in Muslim states to keep order, especially given a 'tribe' culture? We do have an experiment going on in Iraq but time will tell if that works and although it may, history says no. And, at what cost to us (blood and treasure)?
It seems like Muslims within a tribal culture are somewhat uncivilized and we need to be somewhat uncivilized to deal with them directly or not deal with them at all.
The world has been dealing with the Muslim problem for thousands of years with no progress to date.
Don’t look at the past through rose-colored glasses. The American electorate has been idiotic since 1800 with very few exceptions. It’s actions are the best argument against democracy I have ever run across.
Easily manipulated from the beginning, ignorant about almost everything and incapable of putting two and two together. The very existence of the Democrat Party is clear evidence that we are surrounded by fools.
And for what it is worth Leo Strauss’s thought has little to do with what is called “neo-con” today.
That about sums up our predicament.
But, instead, we are importing Muslims.
I hope that INS could open investigation how this former Nazi got American citizenship.
Andrew Sullivan’s mind has seen better days. He should reserve the use of his big mouth for the bedroom.
Aitch got $ out of the ragheads because he acted in their interests (oil) as much as ours by undertaking those operations.
Afghanistan and Iraq are about something else altogether. The Arabs figure it’s our problem alone. I do agree that the notion we’d ever get any money out of Iraq from their oil or good deals on oil was probably not realistic, meaning overly optimistic. Gratitude and generosity are not earmarks of Arab culture.
What’s unrealistic about Horowitz or what he had to say?
We acted in Asia's and Europe's interests during WWI and WWII, lost 500K dead and spent 2x GDP fighting those wars. I don't recall anyone giving us money for those wars, which were fought at much greater expense in men and money. I think we mistook the Iraqis for the Kuwaiti and Saudi Royal Families. They did not have to hand us the cash, but they did so anyway. Iraqi Justice shows us that not all Arabs think alike. Ordinary Arabs hate our guts and have a record of assassinating or deposing and executing rulers who seem to be too close to Uncle Sam. Their rulers are much more moderate (and might even like us, although they'd be wise to make the usual anti-American noises in public). But with respect to recompense, they're certainly no worse than either Europeans or Asians.
Iraqi Justice should have read Iraqi Freedom.
The difference is that during the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, they were purchasing American goods for the reconstruction and development of their economic stability thereafter. Therefore, much of that money returned to the U.S.. The boost in the American economy extended well beyond the years of the Marshall plan which ended in 1952. The U.S. post-WWII boom was fired by European demand for goods. That has not been nor will it be the case in the ME, nor will they cut us any deals on oil as a gesture of gratitude. The Iraqi people have been notably ungrateful and the Iraqi government lacks the institutions to build the infrastructure needed for their participation in trade levels that would benefit anybody, including Iraqis!! You can lead a camel to the oasis, but making the beast drink requires an undefined, unobtainable skill set. Arabs are willfully backward and fully intend to stay that way. The best way to handle them is to stay out of their way when they have a hankering to kill each other while killing as many as we can with plausible deniability.
There was/is a sequence that you have to recognize.
When the conflict in Libya arose, the NeoCons in the GOP immediately began criticizing Obama saying that he should intervene. The NeoCons felt safe doing this because the Realists have great influence over Obama's foreign policy and the Realists wouldn't allow Obama to intervene.
But, then, the Liberal Interventionists in the Dem party joined the NeoCons in the GOP and called for Obama to intervene. So Obama intervened.
Now the NeoCons have to walk it back. Change their position, for partisan reasons. They originally criticized Obama for not intervening and now they are criticizing him for intervening.
Sullivan's response to Horowitz's original piece was ridicule and Horowitz's second piece was an attempt to deflect the ridicule by claiming to be a Realist. And of course, Horowitz pulled the NeoCon whipping boy bogeyman, George Soros.
So, I should accept your assertion that Horowitz is a neo-con and not a realist based solely on your unspported claim to that effect, even though you go on to say he doesn’t support the neo-con position on this subject?
And as for Soros, are you saying he is not a powerful manipulator of political and even econimic events in this country and beyond? Are you saying he doesn’t bankroll powerful leftist organizations aimed at undermining the country and Israel? He’s a boy scout? Or what? You seem to be defending him.
It sounds to me like you just don’t like Horowitz. Is it because he Jewish? Soros hates Jews, too, or at least he hates Israel, Nazi collaborator that he was and all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.