Sunday, September 11, 2011

The Bad News Is, We're Losing

Robert Spencer summarizes it like this:
Ten years after 9/11, the U.S. government is thoroughly compromised and naively trying to appease the Islamic jihadists who have vowed to destroy us.


Carlos Perera said...

My reading of American history is that the U. S. has about four years to win a large-scale conflict before its civilian population becomes demoralized. (And that is based on the historical experience of a much doughtier population, willing to submit to greater sacrifice and accept military casualties in the hundreds of thousands!)

If President George W. Bush had more closely studied some of the many history books he is reported to have read, he would have led the nation into a more intense war effort, across a broader theater of operations, which would necessarily have included Iran and Syria (though, in my opinion, these countries' very unpopular regimes could have been brought down without the direct invasion of their territories, simply by using places, like Afghanistan and Iraq, where we had established bases of operation, to launch large-scale subversion efforts against them).

But, the price the U. S. had to pay for putting together a "coalition of the willing" --meaning mostly Blair's Britain--and earning brownie points in the editorial pages of the _New York Times_ and the _Washington Post_ was that we could not touch either Iran or its client-state Syria, as this was vetoed by the Blair government, since the Brits have extensive commercial interests in Iran and are willing to accept any amount of provocation and humiliation so as not to disrupt them. As a result, one of the unintended consequences of the Iraq invasion was to have made the Middle East safe for the Iranian mullocracy.

scaramouche said...

And a Middle East "safe for the Iranian mullocracy" is no safe place for Israel (thereby making a mockery of the idea that the Israel was in league with the "neo-cons").