I’ve been trying to get back into my regular blogging routine ever since the move and whatnot, and it’s been tricky. It’s especially been difficult when I get ready to write something, and find out someone else has already done it, hitting nearly every single point I was planning on making — and doing a damned fine job of it.
This time, it wasn’t even another blogger, but one of our commenters. Way to go, Wanderlust.
I’m not so certain I’d use terms like “peace vaginocracy” myself, but then again I have used the phrase “onanistic jurisprudence” recently.
Damn, Wander… ya done made me envious.
(Full comment below the fold)
What cracks me up regarding the Left side of this thread is what was unspoken until Larkin was honest enough to mention it.
The money quote: “use proxy forces (like the Ethiopians) on the ground rather than US ground forces…”
Personally, I’m torn between which part of this statement to be offended by, on behalf of my friends serving in the Armed Forces: the insinuation that we should sit back and depend on others to defend our national interests, by proxy, or the fact that the only way such a dippy little army like the Ethiopians could accomplish what the US cannot is because of the goddamned politically correct Rules of Engagement that cause our own troops to be more worried about legal accusations than to engage the enemy (what, the Ethiopians fired on Mosques? OMIGAWD!!!)
al-Queda is a stateless political force hell-bent on bringing back its own version of the Caliphate, or at least their version of the old Ottoman Empire. Appeasing that crowd way back when is what led to the United States’ first wartime engagement after the Revolutionary war, off the coast of Tripoli, in 1801. And back then, like now, that war came about because the US failed to address a political situation that had got out of hand, affecting its international commerce. Instead of directly protecting its interests in the area, the nascent US Government had paid annual tribute (“protection money”, as it were) to the Barbary Coast city-states so that American merchant vessels could sail unmolested in the Med. It was when Jefferson became President in 1801 and refused the continual ransom demands that the Barbary Coast cities declared war on the US (incidentally, those ransom payments amounted to 20% of total US Government annual revenues by the year 1800, and had resulted in several ships being held hostage by pirates so that more ransom monies could be earned by them – read the historical accounts; it’s all there).
BTW the Barbary Coast situation began to deteriorate when Napoleon seized the Island of Malta from the Knights of Malta in 1789. Prior to that time, the Knights kept the Barbary Pirates in check by attacking raiding vessels in the Med. Napoleon’s attack on the Knights in 1789 drove them off Malta, causing a power vacuum in the region that affect US merchant vessels, among other traders in the area.
If anyone has been paying attention, the strategy of the “Long War” (or GWoT) has been to address power vacuums that led to countries harboring or cooperating with terrorists (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, DPRK) or endangering US interests via drugs or organized crime (DPRK, Columbia, Cuba). Power vacuums that lead to terrorist groups taking hold onto governments, or gaining access to large sums of money that allow them to fund terrorism. The idea of being wary of power vacuums in the world is hardly a new one; it’s just one that the US is finally realizing that it must actively deal with in a post Cold-War environment.
So, Larkin, you want someone else to do your dirty work? Fine. Go through your house and get rid of all plastics, waxes, and anything else directly or indirectly based on petroleum, and stop utilizing any method of transportation that is fossil-fuel based. Get all of your 300 million friends to do it too, so that the US is no longer dependent on oil or any other trade from the Middle East. Then go hire your proxies and sit back.
And when the world economy goes to crap because the looming nuclear-based civil war between the half-billion Sunnis and the other half-billion Shias disrupts global trade, don’t b*tch about the global financial depression that follows. Hey, after all, paying someone else to make the problem go away sure worked for the brand-new US Government up to 1800. Just as well as it worked for the city of Rome when the Vandals showed up.
Personally I wish the Dems would grow a pair of Malkins and actually LEAD for a change. Unfortunately for them, sometimes leadership means that you must face outward (not just focusing inward on domestic issues) and leadership means that sometimes you must bear responsibility for making unpopular decisions. If only the Democratic party of today were capable of such a thing, the way it once was, back in the days of FDR and Truman. But as long as the Party continues to lean towards the Sheehan and Moulitsa “peace vaginocracy” of just opening up and expecting peace and wealth to magically grow in the world, the Party will never rise from its Carter-esque desire to appease the forces of intolerance at all costs. And that’s a sad thing for all of us, not just the Left.
There’s my reasoned arguments, to the trolls who whine about there being no reasoned arguments. Go ahead, refute away. Just use logic and reason to do so, rather than your usual name calling and political grandstanding.