Tag: Middle East

By on

I guess we are at war although Trump and company say otherwise. There are war like things going on — the occasional missile falling on the UAE, the Straight of Hormuz being closed to commercial shipping (Sorry if it is open, the status changes so quickly I can’t keep track) and there is war like rhetoric flowing from both sides.

Who knows? There is no consistent trustworthy source of information. By that, I mean every one agrees that these people are supplying the facts as they are. So as far as I can see we are in a range of the war is already won to the war will go forever. The truth is somewhere in between those two mutually exclusive points. But where it is in this range I haven’t a clue.

I do know that the general feeling that comes from a nation at war, the rally around the flag feeling, is glaringly missing. Young men aren’t signing up at the recruiting stations. There is no grandmotherly figure urging us to grow victory gardens. People aren’t glued to their television sets watching the progress of the war — although this may be more a result of there being so little progress (either way) in this war.

Think World War II — everybody (this includes the Allies and the Axis, Democrats and Republicans, British and Americans, I mean everybody) knew it would end when the Germans and Japanese surrendered or vice versa. The finish line was apparent.

What will mark the end of the Iranian War is both a mystery and dependent on who you are talking with. Iranians say one thing. The Trump Administration says another. There are negotiations sometimes going on and sometimes stalled. Trump says nothing short of an Iranian unconditional surrender is unacceptable. Except that he is negotiating terms with the Iranian government and they are bring terms which are far from unconditional surrender.

Which begs the question when does a defeated enemy negotiate terms. If you lost the war, you take the terms that the winner gives you and hope for the best. This isn’t happening here so Trump’s victory claims are hollow.

There is very little, if any, personal investment in winning the war. The only consistent sentiment I can see is that everybody wants the war over as fast as humanly possible. Oddly missing is any idea of what victory actually looks like — just end the fucker. Hardly a war cry to rally the nation.

By on

I wrote about this the other day so I thought I had vented my spleen sufficiently but then I stumbled across Erick Erickson’s lame rejoinder regarding Trump’s threat to destroy a civilization and the spleen became inflamed again. Erickson rather blithely said he would have preferred that Trump had not said it but if it was between that and Trans Recognition Day then well wink wink nudge nudge. Get it.

Fuck you, Erick Erickson. How was this the choice? The choice was between Trump making a measured comment about the American involvement in a war (or military operation if you will) and one where he threatens to destroy a whole civilization. On Easter — the Christians holiest day. Trans people were no where in the equation until Erickson dragged them out.

This is yet another example of Trump supporters dismissing Trump’s terrible behavior. I don’t like what he said but it is better than the alternate. The alternate, in this case, is a president savvy enough to talk reasonably about a dangerous situation that he is responsible for. What needs to be addressed is Trump’s statement. Erickson needs to give critical feedback without the additional little zinger about Trans people which suggests, I might add, that there are no limits to Erickson’s support of Trump. This might have been a good time for Erickson to stipulate these limits instead of giving him limitless support for fear of what was it? Oh, yeah, Trans Recognition Day.

Trump has always been an asshole and will continue to be an asshole. He is what he is. But his supporters are a different story. To continue to support a careless president is madness particularly as he continues his dangerous meanderings through the world. Republicans and Conservatives must draw the line because they hold the power in Congress to stop him.

Just for the record, and I can’t believe I am suggesting this, the alternate is J.D. Vance. When that weasel starts looking good to me, and he is, you know we are in desperate times.

By on

I try not to talk about Donald Trump too much. It is a nearly impossible task as he is president of the United States and is always inserting himself into everything. So I apologize for yet another Donald Trump post and, after some consideration this more about Donald Trump’s apologists who, instead of trying to right Trump’s direction, just go along with him come Hell or high water.

I took a photo (see below)of an Instapundit post because Instapundit doesn’t provide a direct link to their post so this was the only way I could figure out how to get you the post in question without you paging through the whole blog which would leave you disheartened from the slavish loyalty to Donald Trump. It is a dirty job and I am willing to do it.

Trumps threat in this post, although a bit tamer than the one where he wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age one, is about annihilating a whole country. Instapundit’s defense is to point out that the Islamic aspect of Iranian civilization is actually a colonist civilization and is separate from actual Persian civilization. So, I am gathering, destroying Iran now is perfectly OK because it is Islamic and not in fact Persian.

Well OK thanks. I guess but that has nothing to do with the point Piers Morgan was making. Trump is talking about destroying an entire civilization because they won’t do what he wants. Maybe Trump has a less deadly idea of what destroying a civilization is but my interpretation is that all the Iranian people would be dead along with all buildings and all infrastructure. There would just be a pile of rubble after the Tuesday deadline. This is what Trump is threatening. The distinction between Islamic and Persian here is meaningless. Islamic rubble and Persian rubble are pretty much the same thing. Rubble.

Trump’s tone and Instapundit’s unwavering support are unhelpful in bringing about peace for the following reasons:

  1. The US does not have the fire power to flatten Iran. It would take nuclear bombs to accomplish total destruction and, call me naive, I am assuming nuclear is off the table. We could maybe level the center city of a few major cities but the rest of Iran would still be standing. Threatening annihilation is an idle threat and everybody knows it.
  2. It is also nearly impossible, at least in the short term, to destroy a civilization. Both Japan and Germany recovered quite nicely after World War II which was the last time we experimented with total annihilation. There were a lot of dead people and burned out buildings but both nations recovered. So, even, if the worst were to happen (see point 1) the Iranian people and their civilization will survive. The hated Iranian government might even survive.
  3. It does not help that Trump at numerous times have told us that the Iranian military and the nuclear capability has been destroyed while also threatening to destroy Iranian military capabilities. Sometimes even in the same statement. Which begs the question, what is left to destroy?
  4. The snarkiness about Muslim culture might feel good in the moment but keep in mind we are depending on some Muslim allies in the region for bases in which to wage the Iranian war. They are already taking missiles for us, they may feel a little less inclined to assist if they think we are antagonistic to Islam.
  5. If Trump wants to help the Iranian people, he might try to co-ordinate his war making with Iranian critics in Iran. He may be doing that but his tone suggests he is not. What reasonable Iranian ally would want to see the total destruction of their civilization?

Trump’s go to tone is the aggressive attacking of his opponents and then when you are done attacking them, go back and attack them again. It has worked well for him in the past but is wrong for this moment. He might even consider just keeping his trap shut for a few days just to see if people are more amenable to what he is trying to do. It is worth a try.

And, if he can’t see his way into keeping his trap shut, this is the time for his allies and supporters to tell him to do so. They are failing miserably in their responsibility here. Pissing off half the nation and our allies is a terrible strategy for winning a war. But, hey ho, at least I learned the difference between Muslim Iranian culture and Persian culture. Very helpful that.

By on

Donald Trump acknowledged that he calls the Iranian military operation instead of a war because of legal reasons. Congressional Authorization, then, boils down to what the President calls his action rather than a universal understanding of what war is. You say potato, I say … Sorry, that old saying does work in writing but you catch my drift. Also, just as a reminder to the President, parsing phrases to avoid the unlikely retribution of Congress only really works if you don’t tell everyone what you are doing otherwise, in legal terms, this is known as a confession.

But, never mind — a military operation it is. This military operation has been going on a good month. Now I can quibble, and I will, about bombs and targeted assassinations being acts of war, but, say I wanted to be generous to Trump here, and agree with his characterization of those actions as being a military operation instead of a war.

When does a military operation become a war? And, just like that, an answer appears — when you send 50,000 ground troops. Bombing plus troops surely adds up to war. Or are we in some semantic Hell where Trump can call a war anything he wants and the Congress will agree to in order to avoid the wrath of Trump’s more rabid supporters. Apparently it is semantic Hell.

This whole operation is caught up in different definitions of words. Trump supposedly can only act without Congressional Authorization if it is an emergency. The USA would have to be in immediate and grave danger. My understanding of this power would be an impeding attack of USA was about to take place. There is absolutely no evidence that this was the case.

But the Iranians were trying to restart their nuclear program. No doubt, however, according to Trump the Iranian nuclear program was destroyed in a previous attack so the idea that so the idea that the Iranians had miraculously resurrected their nuclear capability to the point of an immenent attack is unbelievable. I am fairly certain there was more than enough time for Congress to review the problem and give its consent.

The Iranian, dare I call it, War is a disappointing display of hubris on the part of Trump and cowardice on the part of Congress. The whole point of Congressional Authorization for wars is that war is a serious business for a country. If we are going to take on such a responsibility it needs to come after careful consideration from the body that represents the all the people of the USA. For wars, particularly messy and potentially long term commitment wars to be won, everyone needs to be on board. This has not happened.

Instead we have semantic parsing of words so one man can drag a nation of 300 million plus people into a war dressed up like a military operation.

By on

The problem that many people, including myself, have with Donald Trump is he is, above all else, an asshole extraordinaire. That this detestable prick is president of the United States is both extremely depressing and a source of conflicting feelings about what he does.

So let me lay it out for my present destress:

  1. I dislike Donald Trump and disagree with most, if not everything, he does.
  2. I like the United States. It is my home.
  3. Donald Trump is the president of the United States.While I think he is a fuck up and fucking up everything he lays his tiny hands on, he also leads my country.
  4. I want my country to succeed whenever possible.

Which leads to the question, how can I hope for the best for my country with this miserable little shit running the country?

For example, the war with Iran. I think it is a big mistake. On the other hand, I think the world would be a worse place if the United States lost it. Muslim extremism, chaos in Iran and in the neighboring region, Women’s rights, Gay rights, things could get a whole lot worse if he were to lose. I can’t see how any of this would be better if the United States lost.

But, then, Trump is such a detestable man, if he wins, he will take credit for the victory and thus become even more insufferable. He will think he is smarter than he actually is and will continue governing as he had thinking he is wiser than he is. Thus making him even more likely to make even more risky decisions because he keeps rolling the dice and coming up a winner.

My one fond hope, though highly unlikely, is that Trump will be forced to work with Congress and our Allies to obtain a settlement that frees Iran from Muslim extremism while also bringing some peaceful resolution to the troubles in the region. So what I want, I guess, is for Trump to succeed only after he throws himself on the mercy of Congress and our Allies in order to ensure the victory.

Barring that, all I see is a mess.

By on

I need to clarify one of my blogs – A Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day.

First, I give the impression that I thought bombing Iran is a good idea. I don’t.

What I want to say is this: Since Trump has starting bombing Iran, I am going to hope for the best — which is a non-religious Iranian government takes over and the Mullahs are overthrown. Since the military intervention is a done deal, I am hoping for the best result especially for the Iranian people and the American military.

This doesn’t mean I like what Trump has done. I think he is rolling the die here and he doesn’t impress me as someone who knows what dice game is being played much less how to win the game. He didn’t consult Congress and he is doing a piss poor job explaining why we are at war. If it all goes wrong, it is his bag of shit to hold and no one else’s.

With that said, since he has gone ahead with the war, I want him to succeed even though I hate his guts, have no confidence in his ability to successfully pull this off and think he is an asshole. It also kills me that if he does succeed that he has all the diplomatic finesse of an adolescent boy getting laid for the first time. He will be talking about this for some time to come. Endlessly talking about it.

It will be annoying but much more preferable than a disaster in Iran which results in a stronger more authoritarian leader in Iran and more restrictive Islamic fundamentalism foisted on the Iranian people. It is a bad choice but a choice nonetheless.

Finally, I am amazed, yet again, how I can write something, reread what I’ve written to make sure it is what I want to say, publish it, only to realize it isn’t exactly what I wanted to say. My apologies and I endeavor to do better in the future.

By on

I have mixed feelings about Trump bombing Iran. I have to give him credit for again choosing his enemies wisely because, whether I like Trump or not, and I don’t, I think the Iranian government’s treatment of women and gays is horrible. They are assholes, and if I have to choose, which I am afraid I must, then the Mullahs are bigger assholes than Trump.

But least we forget, Trump is still an asshole. He should have consulted Congress before taking military action — something he had plenty of time to do as he has been considering bombing Iran for some time. There was no imminent Iranian attack or even an increase in Iran’s nuclear capability which Trump assured us months ago was annihilated. He also needs to explain what exactly our goals are here. Again something he has failed to do.

It undermines our world position. For instance, how can we complain if China were to invade Taiwan? We can’t refer back to International Treaties and diplomacy as the proper avenues of action when the U.S. kidnaps one country’s president and kills another’s supreme leader. Yes these processes make quick action difficult, but, then, that is precisely what they were intended to do. Stopping people from acting rashly. You can’t pick and choose which treaties you will honor and which you will ignore.

And, saying that nobody complained when Obama and Clinton did the same thing is hardly a credible defense. It is just saying I know it is wrong but if your side can do, so can our side. It is a 10 year old’s response for getting her hand caught in the cookie jar. The fact is, this time, your hand is in the cookie jar so explain it.

In the meantime, I am hoping for the best for Iran who now have a chance to get rid the Islamic fundamentalists while also pissed about Trump’s continued bad behavior. A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that.

By on

I am so confused. I thought the Israelis took care of Iran’s nuclear capabilities last week. So why is Trump bombing the burnt out facilities again? Last week everyone was saying that Israel had crippled Iran’s nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future.

Trump was making sure that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are destroyed for good. Is anything for good? I mean building a nuclear bomb isn’t all that difficult. The science is readily available. The infrastructure and materials are the hard part and we were assured that Israel had taken care of that part. Since Israel had already delayed it, what was the point of the extra bombing? A few extra months, a few extra years? Trump’s additional bombing seems unnecessary and a waste of money and effort.

Also since Israel had just bombed the shit out of Iran’s nuclear facilities, where was the urgency in doing it again so quickly. This is the excuse for failing to consult Congress. Trump needed to act quickly to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capability was destroyed. It wasn’t likely that Iran could hobble together a nuclear bomb in the next few days, so there was no danger in waiting for Congressional approval. The only problem with waiting was that Congress might no approve of the bombing.

Well, Democrat Presidents have bombed without consulting Congress, why can’t Trump? This is true and Democrat presidents were wrong to do it. On the other hand, this is hardly a defense of Trump’s action here — particularly for people who claim to be strict Constitutionalists. As every mother in the world has ever said to their children if everyone jumped off the Empire State Building, would you do it too? You are saying I should be able to do a wrong thing because everyone else is doing the wrong thing and getting away with it. It isn’t fair that I can’t do the wrong thing too is hardly a credible defense.

So in review: Trump bombed, without the consent of Congress, an already neutralized weapons sites because Iran could maybe revive their nuclear weapons capability in a couple of years. Go Team.

By on

I was more sympathetic to Palestinian arguments regarding Israel before October 7. They got a raw deal in 1948. Jewish, Muslim and Christians all lived in the same area. To carve out a country which was wholly one religion would be impossible. Divvying up this land was going to leave some Muslims in the new Jewish state. This should have put a pause on the creation of Israel and, by pause I mean, come up with a better solution than the one proposed.

That did not happen. Some people will argue that it was a fair settlement. Others will say it was unfair. It doesn’t really matter because the result has been 76 years of war with intermittent periods of an uneasy peace. The Palestinians have been on the losing side of all of these wars. Despite these humiliating losses and the attendant carnage these wars cause, the Palestinians cling to a violent strategy that has brought them absolutely nothing but misery.

On October 7, Hamas launched an attack on Israel. A questionable move given that Israel has the best and most successful military in the region. Hamas had a day of victorious celebrations and then the hammer went down.

Why Hamas attacked is unclear. They wanted hostages to exchange for Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails. They managed to get some but they also angered the Israelis into a counter attack which, to my mind, was the real reason for the attack. To make the Israelis look bad. If I am correct, Hamas has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Here in lies the problem for me and why I have lost sympathy for the Palestinian position. When an army is getting the shit kicked out of them and there is no hope of winning, the losing side usually surrenders to the stronger power. Most losing armies do this because they want to protect their civilian population from further bloodshed. Hamas is apparently happy to sacrifice their civilian population to a losing cause. So the bloodshed continues.

But this is collective punishment. The children in Palestine have nothing to do with Hamas. Why should they be paying the price for Hamas. Hamas has chosen to hide in Gaza among children. It is a terrible situation. But no more terrible than the October 7 attack. They attacked a rock concert. They raped women. Children died in their incursion into Israel. Hamas has no trouble hurting civilian populations when they are the aggressor. It may not have been their intention to do this but it did happen. How can they complain about the Israelis doing the same?

Well, then the Israeli counter attack is disproportionately excessive to the Hamas attack. Again, yes, it is. But why shouldn’t it be if a country wants to protect itself against future aggression/ Why wouldn’t the Israelis put their focus on destroying Hamas and making sure that Hamas is unable to attack Israel again? Hamas is more interested in attacking Israel again than protecting its own civilian population. Hamas wants Israel to stop the war, a war Hamas is losing, without actually surrendering their troops. What winning army would accept that?

I do not know how to right the wrongs of the 1948 settlement but the present Hamas strategy has done little to help the Palestinian people. Israel keeps winning, and as is the wont of winners in war, taking more and more Palestinian land. I think it is time for Hamas and all the leaders in Palestine to take a realistic look at what they can get. Ask for the moon, by all means, but settle for what you can get. Tomorrow is another day and you can continue to work, hopefully peacefully, to get a better deal.

Blaming the Israelis for the present spat of violence is disingenuous. Hamas knew what they were doing, knew how the Israelis would respond and attacked any way. They did this all without worrying about the horrors their actions would unleash on the people in Gaza. They can end the war today simply by surrendering like any other losing army.


By on

There are times when there are only bad options on the table. That doesn’t mean you can opt out of the choice. Bad options still require a decision.

I this is where we are with Israel and Gaza. What exactly will a ceasefire do? There was a ceasefire in place before Hamas attacked on October 7. Hamas eventually broke that ceasefire. So, 2 weeks, months, years, decades from now the ceasefire will be broken. In the interim, is there any possible peace plan that both sides will accept? I am not hearing any.

Everything I hear is more war without anyone actually saying the word war. Palestinians want the river to the sea or all of Israel. How is that going to happen peacefully? There are 9 million Israelis. They are just going to pack up their things and move. Is that the idea? Where? The West, particularly North America and Europe, is already antagonistic towards immigration. It isn’t likely that pushing even more migrants onto the Western World is going to make them more receptive to mass immigration on this large a scale. With no place to go, and everything they have in Israel, it is a pretty safe bet the Israelis will fight.

Some say a truce would allow for the evacuation of women and children in Gaza. This would be good if somebody would take them but nobody wants them. What country has said that they would take Palestinian refugees? Particularly when many of these refugees are committed to waging war with Israel. What country wants to become a target for Israel’s revenge against the Palestinians?Let’s face it, the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. So, then, there is no place to evacuate them to. A ceasefire is only delaying the next war not stopping it.

What Hamas gained from their attack on Israel is a mystery. Surely an aggressive military response from Israel must have occurred to them. Yet, they still went ahead with an attack of a superior military force with no plan to protect the civilian population of Gaza. Indeed, it looks very much like they wanted an Israeli counter attack of Hamas which, of course, would include civilians. Well, Hamas got what they wanted. For their efforts, Hamas got one day of unseemly celebrations for killing Israelis and then the relentless hammer of the Israeli military. This hardly seems worth the beating that the people of Gaza are experiencing presently.

The Israelis are getting bad publicity but then this doesn’t seem to bother the Israelis. They expect it. The Israelis, however, are united in their commitment for the survival of Israel. If this calls for bombing Gaza into submission, so be it. It is a horrible thing to happen, but then we used similar tactics during World War II. German and Japanese civilians suffered terribly during the Allied bombing of their cities. But then war is terrible.

So who gets the nod.

Hamas is antagonistic towards women’s rights and gay rights. They also stopped having elections in Gaza once they took control, so not particularly committed to democratic institutions. The atrocities that Hamas committed on October 7 further undermined their reputation as a civilized fighting force. The leaders of Hamas either don’t want to control their fighters or can’t control them. None of this speaks well of their ability to govern reasonably.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, is corrupt and dangerously self-serving. He wants to bend Israeli law in such a way that he can retain power. He also leads a government that is hostile to any Palestinian grievances. He opposes the two state solution which is the only peaceful solution even remotely considered as possible by both sides. Not much hope for peace while Netanyahu is in power. The Israelis do continue to have elections so there is some possibility that Netanyahu will be dismissed at some future date.

So two really bad options. But, it doesn’t take much thinking on my part, I would much rather take my chances with a government led by Netanyahu than one led by Hamas.