Conservative Donnybrook

Yet another major story covered NOWHERE in the media Thursday. This is why blogs are trusted and succeed.

This was in Detroit, which alongside London and perhaps Paris, are the most dangerous Jihadist cities in the western world, if not the entire world.

This was a counterterrorism exercise, much needed in the US for defeating Radical Islam, but despite what Joe Biden thinks, counterinsurgency strategies, endorsed by Gen. McChrystal — who knows a wee bit more than Joe and Barack — will help us succeed in the Afghanistan portion of the War on Terror.

The difference was explained in Commentary’s November featured piece by Max Boot. (subscription required)

Meanwhile, Bob Kagan, the man behind The Surge, explained how Obama is losing the “war of words” with Iran. Engaging evil with diplomacy? Read a book, Barry.

My latest article on the continuing Obama Debacle is here.

I received the following quote from one of my fellow contributors asking whether I agreed:

“What liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind — economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has  afforded  more freedom and, even factoring in periodic   economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human  history.”

I don’t know where the quote came from or who said it. Skipping a few emails, I eventually responded:

First of all, I should think my ratification [of that quote] is of little concern.  Why is it important to pin my testimony down? I assume you believe this to be true.

I am always troubled by sweeping statements that say “all liberals”  or “all conservatives” or “liberals generally” or “conservatives generally.” I don’t know what is in a “liberal’s” mind. And, indeed,  I would contend that it is difficult to find a conservative these days. Those that exist are routinely denounced by the so-called Right (who are only Right in relation to other Statists).

Do Republicans, for instance, value the long-held tradition of  non-intervention that was expressed by President Washington in his  farewell address? Or have they adopted a non-traditional, more modern view? Do Republicans value the long-held tradition of  subsidiarity and power being held at the lowest effective levels of  government? To the contrary, we see Republicans advocating a slower, but inexorable centralization of power to the Federal government.  And yet, Republicans profess (falsely) to be amorous of tradition and (falsely) to be for freedom. But at every step, their supposed compassion compels them to arrogate more power to Washington, leaving  this nation’s citizens less free than they were before. What is  “compassion” as expressed governmentally other than some recognition that a person is downtrod or in need of societal defense from injustice or oppression? Why must government step in unless there is some belief that the ills that are to be fixed compassionately are too great to be overcome by anything  other than government action? Are Republicans freedom loving? Not  judging by what they do. But, then, I would contend that Republicans are not conservative.

My interlocutor took great offense to that response, and responded “I am a proud neo-conservative patriot, who admires the new directions the GOP is headed, especially in terms of national security.” I ask our readers to weigh in. What is conservatism? Is it defined by the notions espoused by the Republicans or something different? Is national security all that is left of our constitutional way of life? Shall we sacrifice all to national security as my interlocutor seems to believe? Or is there a line beyond which our efforts to protect the citizenry from terror destroys our very existence as a constitutional society? I stand by my response, believing that we cannot compromise our way of life even in the face of extremist terror. Indeed, I’d rather die a martyr to freedom, than to crush freedom in order to live. What, in the end, does it mean to be a conservative?

As an aside: When freedom at home is so besieged, does it make any sense to to be talking about spreading freedom to the world?

A quick thought piece for you on a Tuesday afternoon:

Obama is wavering. That doens’t say much about him as a leader, but it is a good sign. He swept into office on rhetoric that Afghanistan was the “good war.” General McChrystal is aksing for an additional 40,000 (or 60,000 depending on who you ask) troops to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. That, by itself, is an admission that the war there is not going well. Indeed, it seems a “surge” is needed if we are to avoid “defeat.”

Nonetheless, it seems President Obama is wavering with respect to backing up his claim that Afghanistan is the good war. Lately he has been intimating that McChrystal is out of luck. Neocons are apoplectic about the prospect of abandoning any sort of surge strategy in Afghanistan. After all, they point out, the surge worked in Iraq. True enough. But what evidence is there that it will work in Afghanistan? Indeed, everyone needs to stop for a moment and examine what the goal in Afghanistan is.

We went there to depose the Taliban because they were harboring al Qaeda. That mission was accomplished. The Taliban no longer has a central role in Afghanistan. On the other hand, it seems that we are inadvertently propping them up monetarily, so they can fight us more effectively. Nonetheless, they no longer hold the reins of power. An American puppet government has been installed. But I always thought the real goal in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda and to kill Osama bin Laden. That goal has not been accomplished. Furthermore, it appears that the United States military, under the rules of engagement they are saddled with, is not up to that job. Osama is likely squirreled away somewhere in Pakistan where the Army and Marines cannot reach him. Indeed, to reach him, America would have to open a new front in this war – a prospect which is unlikely to occur.

Given the state of events, a withdrawal from Afghanistan following our rout of the Taliban eight years ago could be couched as a victory to ameliorate the bloodlust of the neocons. At the same time it may entice bin Laden to emerge from his hidey-hole where someone can take a Whack-a-Mole shot at him. Unless McChrystal proposes pursuing an illegal war over the border of Pakistan (ala Cambodia – which might net him a Nobel Peace Prize like that which Kissinger enjoyed after his advocacy of the bombing campaign in Cambodia), there is absolutely no prospect of bringing the mastermind of 9-11 to justice through military means. Or we can continue doing what we have been doing and hope that it nets different results.

With luck, Obama will decide that further prosecution of this “good” war is not in America’s interest and will bring the troops home. As a result, there may be some chance that someone will have a chance to take out bin Laden. But, none of this can happen if Obama caves to General McChrystal and continues the path we’ve been following. A new strategy is called for and hopefully, Obama’s gutlessness will accidentally provide it.

UPDATE: Hey, I know. Why don’t we set up a country where we know the terrorists will set up camps to plot against us? At least then we’ll know where the terrorists are. I propose we allow Afghanistan (which seems to be immune from stable government) to be that location.

In addition to the well-deserved Peace Prize our Dear Leader has magnanimously agreed to accept, I just found out that Oprah Winfrey received the Nobel Prize for Literature for her tireless efforts promoting literature with her book club, Noah Wiley received the Nobel Prize for Medicine because of his peerless dedication to medicine on E.R., and Jon Stewart received the Nobel Prize in Physics for having Neil DeGrasse Tyson on The Daily Show several times. Congratulations, one and all, from all of us here at the Donnybrook.

More chicanery. More corruption. More waste. More back and forth. More disturbing prosecutorial conduct.

I haven’t read anything this funny in a long time.

The NY Post points out Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” moment. Or, better yet, his latest one.

Yesterday on MSNBC, Tamron Hall (who, when she worked in Chicago at a Fox station, landed a plum one-on-one with Candidate Obama, and briefly attended Jeremiah Wright’s church “6 times”) claimed (without support or citation) that “recent polls show that 70% of doctors and nurses support major healthcare reform.”  Do 70% of doctors and nurses support nationalizing healthcare, Tamron? No, they do not. Despite the misleading “450,000 doctors can’t be wrong” campaign on Youtube, they do not. Some major medical organizations have endorsed HR3200, maybe, sort of, (even though, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, that’s not what they’re going to bring up when Baucus and a couple other senators and a handful of staffers get done working up the actual bill which doesn’t yet exist) but we’re really just saying that a lot of healthcare workers are tired of things as they currently stand. Wow. Real specific. Thanks. Oh, and I guess a several million people can be wrong about their votes for candidates other than Barack Obama, but 450,000 doctors  the panel of representatives of those 450,000 couldn’t be wrong about this. Apples and oranges, I guess.

 Reporters still high from the Copenhagen hash gushed about how the busy, busy President took time away from wasting spending investing a few million dollars of taxpayer money to lobby for Valerie Jarrett’s investments in Chicago the Olympics to come to Chicago in 2016 to review his war strategy. Obama was overheard saying “Oh, so these green guys represent Army dudes, and they fly in helicopters and then shoot missiles from their ships out in the ocean near Afghanistan, okay. What color are the Taliban uniforms?”

The 3 million jobs lost since the stimulus and the almost 10% unemployment rate (1933, we’re gaining on you!) triggered coded talk of — yep, more stimuli. Because the old one was supposed to keep unemployment at 8%. Oops! Guess those service sector jobs will do the trick. Or not. Oh, snap.