Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Orient’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Orthodox leaders support Iraq war effort

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 30, 2007

Reb Chaim HaQoton reports on the statement from the Agudath Israel of America, of which I am an active member (explanatory link added by me):

Upon consultation with its rabbinic leadership, Agudath Israel of America issued the following statement:

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been involved in a war against forces of evil and terror. These forces pose a grave danger not only to the United States and its allies in the Western World, but also to our Jewish brethren in Israel and across the globe.America’s efforts in Iraq have been part of this larger battle. While, in retrospect, the planning and execution of some of these efforts may have been less than perfect, there have also been significant achievements. The bottom line, at this time, is that the stakes in Iraq remain high, and that there still remains much to be done.

Agudath Israel of America believes that President Bush is entitled to great deference in his ongoing efforts to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Such deference is appropriate both because of the constitutional authority that inheres in the President’s position as Commander in Chief, and also because of the moral authority the President has consistently displayed in leading the battle against international terror.

We feel compelled to express our views at this time because the Union for Reform Judaism, purporting to have arrived at its position through an application of “halachic norms” and “Jewish values,” has publicly proclaimed its opposition to the President’s policies in Iraq. This group is entitled to its own organizational position, but that position is neither a legitimate expression of halachic Judaism nor reflective of authentic Jewish values.

Posted in Faith and Works, Orient | Leave a Comment »

UNimpressisive

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 29, 2007

Al the Pundit was brutal on Tony Blair threatening Iran with its favorite mosquito, the United Nations —

Blair threatens to bring out the big gun —a UN resolution

He had no idea just how funny this would turn out. Mr. Blair? I’ve got your “international condemnation” right here:

The U.N. Security Council expressed “grave concern” Thursday over Iran’s seizure of 15 British sailors and marines and called for an early resolution of the escalating dispute, but Iran’s chief international negotiator suggested the captives might be put on trial.

The council’s statement wasn’t as tough as Britain had hoped, though, and the divide seemed to deepen.

The Security Council’s statement was a watered-down version of a stronger draft sought by Britain to “deplore” Iranian actions and urge the immediate release of the prisoners, primarily because Russia and South Africa opposed putting blame on the Tehran regime, diplomats said.

Poor Mr. Blair can’t even get the Security Council — the General Assembly? give me a break — to ringingly condemn an act of piracy and kidnapping on the high seas! It would be interesting to run a test of what exactly Russia — oh, please, South Africa? give me a break — will go along with the West on in the U.N. these days. Nuvo-imperial Russia has become the perfect weathervane of which direction is the wrong side on just about every issue.

I just love it, all the history we’ve had since the end of history!

UPDATE:  Cold Fury is brutal and more brutal on the sight of Britannia’s waterlogged capitulation.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Up the nut tree

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 29, 2007

I’ve written already about Tony Blair’s most un-excellent adventure, as has everyone else. But here’s my tiny original thought:

Ahmadinejad has pushed this so far — so self-parodyingly, pathetically far — that he, even more than Tony Blair, is now completely up a tree. He cannot possibly climb down. His whole sale is defiance, and now he has to actually achieve outright humiliation of the British before there’s any chance he can let these people go home.

He just might get that, of course.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | 1 Comment »

Arabs to Israel: Assume a can opener

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 29, 2007

A new renewed offer from the Arabs to Israel:

Arab leaders at their summit Thursday agreed on a call for Israel to accept their land-for-peace offer and open direct negotiations with the Arabs. Unlike past summits that at times saw overt feuds break out, the gathering of Arab kings, emirs and presidents showed unusual public unity as it revived the peace offer, which they first made in 2002 only to meet rejection from Israel. . . .U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan hope the smaller groups will be able to be more flexible in promoting the offer to win acceptance, despite the summit’s rejection of changes. . . .

The initiative offers Israel recognition and permanent peace with all Arab countries in return for Israeli withdrawal from lands captured in the 1967 Middle East war. It also calls for setting up a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital and a “just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees forced out of lands in what is now Israel. . . .

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa rejected amending the peace offer, saying, “They tell us to amend it, but we tell them to accept it first, then we can sit down at the negotiating table.” But he said the Arabs must “do more to convince” the Israelis on the offer.

That’s right: “They tell us to amend it, but we tell them to accept it first, then we can sit down at the negotiating table.”

Does that sound unreasonable to you? That is because you are stuck in your racist, orientalist way of thinking. It is not unreasonable, my friend. Yes, I call you friend! Be my friend while I explain this to you. (Here, hold this bowling ball with a firecracker on top while I explain.)

It isn’t really unreasonable, for one simple reason: Arab states do not consider treaties binding in the first place. They are merely pretexts for the temporary cessation of overt violence.

al-farida_lebanon_pre-1967_war.jpg

So Israel does not have to fear this formulation, my friend. It should accept the offer, then negotiate it, and then learn to swim.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | 9 Comments »

Hoping against hope

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 28, 2007

How can a country that, unlike most countries, is supposed to have a “purpose” … but doesn’t know what that purpose actually is ... expect to sing about it?

Posted in Faith and Works, Orient | Leave a Comment »

There’ll always be an — oh, never mind

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 28, 2007

Guido Fawkes at Dodgeblogium points out that — absent a humiliating (but, given Blair’s chits with GWB, very likely) military bail-out by the U.S. Navy, the once-dominant Royal Navy does not have much to threaten Iran with (I’ve added a link):

Blair can bluster and posture all he likes, the Iranians will strip our boats (they never ever returned the last lot they seized equally illegally!), beat up our seamen and their RM colleagues and then, after parading them with sham “confessions” on Arab TV, will send them home ignominiously. And Blair and his coterie of luvvies will do exactly nothing about it at all.

What is more, with our fleet reduced to a squadron, and with no strike aircraft and no carriers to call on for air support (shades of the Japanese invasion of Malaya in 1941 and the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse!), there is not even the capacity to strengthen our presence in the Shatt al Arap. So much for the infamous Civil Service canard that a single ship is more powerful than an entire fleet. Even the World War 1 Grand Fleet would have had more capacity to intervene against these bandits than the single ship deployed in this disputed waterway – no matter how modern or powerful her weapons are, they are useless if they cannot be fired to annihiliate the enemy. Even the now antiquated guns of HMS Belfast would have been able to lay down a barrage in support of the boats that would have given the Iranians pause for thought, so imagine what several of her class would have been able to offer – including extra boats, arms and men to intervene whenever the Iranians tried a raid. War cannot be fought from the Cabinet Office or Cabinet Room in Whitehall, it has to be left to the man on the ground – and he has to have complete freedom of action in all situations!

Okay, I can’t necessarily sign on to “complete freedom of action in all situations” — but this is just awful for England and, as you can infer from Ian’s remarks, was completely predictable. (What could I have been thinking when I said it could be otherwise?)

It’s also the stickiest of wickets for Tony Blair who is, remember, a liberal who nonetheless went into that dirty bathtub at the side of the U.S. precisely on the premise that England is a major, if second-rank, power that has national interests in that region and can and should do something about them. It cost him a huge chunk of his popular support — which is actually fine and noble; leaders should be prepared to spend political capital to do the right thing for their countries — but now, on the eve of his own “Okay, that’s just about enough leadership” withdrawal — this.

Now what? Can Blair possibly use force (assuming Ian is overstating the dearth of strategic options) when he has no support at all to be there in the first place? Can he not use force and just reinforce the claim that England would only end up weakening, not strengthening, its global position by virtue of engagement in the Mideast? And then, of course, Ian’s point — what force? George Bush’s force? How humiliating and how absolutely politically bitter for Blair, who deserves better, at least morally.

UPDATE: Cap’n Ed puts it in stark terms.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | 2 Comments »

All departments of state are the same, I guess

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 25, 2007

Allah P. writes:

Blair’s talking tough but his foreign ministry people are doing their best to downplay it, going so far as to pretend that the kidnapping is an isolated territorial dispute . . . They nabbed 15 members of the British military one day before a vote on UN sanctions and two days after the AP dropped a bombshell about Mahdi Army involvement with the Revolutionary Guard, and yet the Foreign Office would have us believe that one has nothing to do with the others? Seriously?

Either there’s an exchange program with Foggy Bottom or the spines of the members of England’s “diplomatic corps” are made of the same type of Slinky as ours.

UPDATE: Allah found this, too — evidently these same chaps run the milit’ry as well:

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner – who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged – said he was “surprised” the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive. Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: “Agreed. Yes. I don’t want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team’s training is a little bit more towards self-preservation.”

The executive officer – second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall – said: ” The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?'”

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines – including one young mother – will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain’s determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting … Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.”

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. “I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us,” he said.

Quite. Look, it is not unreasonable to take a hit from time to time in order to preserve peace and to be in command of how and when you use force. Ronald Reagan did this with the Russkies in the day, and many of us screamed; yet he won the big show.

On the other hand, this is a theater of war. It is a fundamental mistake to introduce troops into a “shoot to wound” situation. Did Iran choose to pick up the Brits knowing they were under orders to play no more than patty-cake? Remember — these limeys were “vastly outnumbered and out-gunned.” Perhaps Teheran merely took a tactical opportunity presented to it. (UPDATE:) Or planned it very carefully.

Either way, bloody bad show.

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 4 Comments »

An inch of time

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

Now that you’ve, perhaps, read the next-to-last word, prepare to read the last word on the Iraq war. First read this (sweet) story and this (God-awful) story to put you in the mood.  But that’s the last word whether anyone else’s mouth ever moves again or not. Gerard Van der Leun, who does happen to be something of a not-so-old friend, just wrote the best thing ever about the war. I don’t even know where to excerpt from it, it’s so good. But I’ll try if it there’s any chance it gets one more person to read this essay (emphasis added):

Four years in. An inch of time. Four years in and the foolish and credulous among us yearn to get out. Their feelings require it. The power of their Holy Gospel of “Imagine” compels them. Their overflowing pools of compassion for the enslavers of women, the killers of homosexuals, the beheaders of reporters, and the incinerators of men and women working quietly at their desks, rise and flood their minds until their eyes flow with crocodile tears while their mouths emit slogans made of cardboard. They believe the world is run on wishes and that they will always have three more.

Like savages shambling about some campfire where all there is to eat are a few singed tubers, they paint their faces with the tatterdemalion symbols of a summer long sent down to riot with the worms. They clasp hands and sing songs whose lyrics are ash. “We shall… over… come.” Overcome what, overcome who? Overcome their nation? Is that their dream? It is the lifelong dream of those that lead them that much is certain.

Four years in and we see these old rotting rituals trotted out in the streets like some pagan procession of idols and shibboleths, like some furred and feathered fetish shaken against the sky by hunkering witch-doctors, to hold back the dark, to frighten off the evil spirits and graven images that trouble the sleep of the dreamers.

Four years into the most gentle war ever fought, a war fought on the cheap at every level, a war fought to avoid civilian harm rather than maximize it. Picnic on the grass at Shiloh. Walk the Western Front. Speak to the smoke of Dresden. Kneel down and peek into the ovens of Auschwitz. Sit on the stones near ground zero at Hiroshima and converse with the shadows singed into the wall. Listen to those ghost whisperers of war.

Four years in and the people of the Perfect World ramble through the avenues of Washington, stamping their feet and holding their breath, having their tantrums, and telling all who cannot avoid listening that “War is bad for children and other living things.” They have flowers painted on their cheeks. For emphasis. Just in case you thought that war was good for children and other living things.

There were children and other living things on the planes that flew into the towers. They all went into the fire and the ash just the same. But they, now, are not important. Nor is the message their deaths still send us when we listen. That message is to be silenced. The rising brand new message is “All we are say-ing is give….” And it is always off-key.

Four years in and they are upset that their party of the 90s has been so long interrupted; that their raves are foreshortened; that their sleep is persistently shaken by car bombs beyond the far horizon; that their time at the mall can not be entirely, completely, and utterly without guilt. . . .

Four years in and the fools in the streets multiply. They are tired of the war, but full of themselves. . . .

It is in patience alone that our enemies outstrip us. After all, when you look at what they have made of their “civilization” what indeed do they have to lose?

Posted in O Mores!, Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Defiant, I guess

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

That’s how I am about the Iraq war. So much executed so poorly — perhaps. I’m not even convinced of that; all alternative scenarios posit perfect execution and all the other things 20-20 hindsight makes so magical. Some things, yes, are inexcusable, such as Abu Grab. But it’s absurd to postulate that because soldiers died and Arabs are killing each other, as they’re known to do when there are no Jews around, that the war was “lost” — how can you “lose” when the other side leaves the field and its commander in chief is hanged by the government you put in to power?

But not only that: In concept, I cannot bring myself around to believing it was a mistake. I’m not the only one. Though it is pretty lonely.

The only big mistake was and is the Administration’s poor handling of the marketing of the whole situation, exacerbated by the White House’s unfortunate cronyish style. That’s a huger error, because (as I have said before), you can’t put on a war in a democracy unless you’re prepared to sell it, and follow through with the sale. This government was not prepared for that, and if we didn’t learn that from Vietnam, shame on us.  (UPDATE:  Oy.)

Defiance, however — for that, GWB gets credit. He believes in this policy, and all the conventional wisdom and smirking second guessing in the world have not swayed him. It has cost his party plenty to do the right thing, and at the end of the day I don’t know just how much a good PR strategy would have helped. War is hell, after all. But the right thing, it was, and Bush gets credit here for his defiance of … just about everyone.

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 15 Comments »

Soros wants his money’s worth

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

And not in shekels, either. Captain’s Quarters calls George Soros “underwriter” of the Democratic party. With a little luck, aided by the force of his magnificent, warbucks-enriched and hypocrisy-proof ego, he may end up being its undertaker — at least in terms of separating the men (including Senator Clinton) from the boys on the issue of Israel.

Regarding which, it’s safe to say, Soros is fundamentally “anti.”

That works out great come a-primary time, because so is the Democratic left-wing “base.” The hard left and black voters, though utterly beyond any risk of bolting the plantation now that the Nader distraction is apparently gone, still needs the occasional bone. Policies and pronouncements counseling “balance” and Palestinian self-determination always play well here and keep clowns such as Jimmy Carter in the thick of things. Hence the only Democratic candidate to condemn Soros’s most recent anti-Israel remarks — his claim that Israel ought to be forced to negotiate with Hamas, an entity that does not grant it the moral or political right to exist — is Barak Obama, who despite qualms to the contrary is actually black and not, like Hillary Clinton, merely married to the First Black President.

The problem with this strategy in the long run is not so much us Jews, including the ones on the coasts with all that money that goes to support the Democrats. Jews as a political force, notwithstanding the effectiveness of AIPAC in particular, are not one-issue voters; certainly not any more. They need only a bare minimum of pro-Israel noises from their candidates and then move on to their liberal political religious obligations. These liberal Jews happily believe that the policies of Bill Clinton, such as propping up the likes of Yassir Arafat and making constant feel-good investments of blood and gold in “peace processes,” are the good strong medicine Israel needs to take. These are the children and grandchildren of the Red Diaper Babies and presidents of the Eleanor Roosevelt Fan Clubs of the Grand Concourse and Morningside Heights. They were raised in self-deception and cultural and religious confusion. Seen in their best light they, like Soros, are big on the rights of Oppressed People, the limitless advantages of concessions, negotiation and appeasement, and, of course, guilt over anything that smacks either of an excess of zeal in self-defense or a lessening of their esteem in the eyes of the goyim world opinion. In this regard they are not to be blamed — they are no worse, and no more contemptuous of their heritage and identity, than the ruling clique in Israel itself.

No, the problem for Democrats is that in Red America — in flyover country, the only states not already in one column or another — Israel is on the Good Side. In the general election, not only will all candidates have to tack to the center compared to their nomination run-ups, but they will have to satisfy audiences among the undecideds that they are not selling the Israelis down the river. GOP candidates, besides George W. Bush, don’t usually have that problem, and if the Democratic candidates cave on Israel — well, it is a only a matter of when; but if it happens now — count on the Republicans to exploit this in 2008. Will Soros’s selection have a response?

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »