Daniel Greenfield: Afghanistan At Home
How many deals did we cut with the Sunni insurgents who butchered Americans, how many briefcases full of money did we pass into the Sunni Triangle and to the moderate Taliban? How much money have we spent absorbing Somali, Iraqi and Pakistani immigrants? How much aid have they picked up? How much time have we spent servicing the ambitions of Iraqi and Afghan officials who were running terrorist networks aimed at us? How many CAIR officials have gotten entry into the White House and how many Muslim advisers do Europe's leaders really need?
Those aren't pretty questions, but while there are and will be countless books dedicated to exactly how we screwed up Iraq and Afghanistan, every dubious deal, every questionable arrangement, everyone that we should not have trusted and empowered, it is unlikely that similar histories will be written on how we lost London or Minneapolis. By then there will doubtfully be any historians left to write those histories, except the ones writing the history of the great conquest.
Whether we let the Taliban take over or the Muslim Brotherhood take over, it's much the same thing. There or here, our leaders allowed themselves to be sold a bill of goods wrapped in Burka and then made expedient concession after concession until nothing was left but to let the victors have their spoils. Each step in the process seemed eminently reasonable, a compromise that did not go too far, and always aimed for the moderate point on the compass. Like Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox, they imagined that they could keep meeting the other side halfway without ever crossing the line. What they did not understand was that the imaginary line they would not cross kept moving with them.
The worse the situation became, the more justifications they dug up, and them more they lashed out at their critics. Each failure was really a success and to make that failure into a success, they had to compromise more of what they had set out to achieve, until the village and the city had been destroyed to save it. Until Baghdad became London, Gaza became Jerusalem, and Afghanistan was everywhere.
What is the difference between Afghanistan and London? Is it the buildings and the names? Hardly. Names change all the time, just look at Constantinople and Istanbul, and the world is full of ruins left over from ancient civilizations that built some pretty impressive things. It's the people and the laws. When you get displace both, it's only a matter of time until London becomes Afghanistan. Calculating the point of transition is only a matter of plugging in the demographics and making an educated guess. But the time doesn't really matter. Calculating the trajectory of a bullet is more important than figuring out how long it will take to hit your face.
It is not Afghanistan or Pakistan that are being integrated into Europe and America, rather Europe and America are being integrated into Afghanistan and Pakistan. Muslim norms of behavior and thought are being imposed on the vulnerable minds of the West. The Clash of Civilizations has made far more Westerners doubt their way of life, than it has made Muslims doubt theirs. Despite several invasions, Muslims have held on to their territory, while Westerners are swiftly losing theirs, not just a few outlying territories, but their core cities which are being settled, transformed into Little Mogadishus and Londonistans.
What's the thought of losing Afghanistan compared to losing London? A withdrawal from the East End won't be nearly as tidy as from Kandahar and there is in the long run nowhere to withdraw to. Afghanistan is everywhere, it is in every hodgepodge of angry ghettos, manufacturing towns ripe with Kebab joints and mosques where the faithful curse the infidels and university graduates with oily smirks rub their bellies while they dub themselves lords, mayors and councilmen. The time when we might have won Afghanistan is past, and the time when we might win in London and New York is swiftly passing.
FP: As I keep arguing, there has not been a dominant power that has not self-destructed, often with barbarians at its gates. The current dominant civilization has brought the barbarians inside. (see next)
JoshuaPundit: The Sudan Declares Jihad War On South Sudan
After ethnically cleansing its over 500,000 Christians, the rogue Arab Islamist regime of the Sudan has declared war on the Christian and black South Sudan, which broke away last year after peace talks under UN auspices supposedly ended the civil war, in which an estimated 2 million, mostly civilioans in the south and in Darfur were killed.
The UN would have you believe this is about a dispute over the Heglig oil field, which the South Sudan occupied after Sudan began violating the borders and attempting to seize the South Sudan's oil wealth in other areas. It isn't. It is and always was about jihad, domination and control.
The Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, who is already under indictment as a war criminal for genocidal activities showed how flawed that notion is, announcing "Sudan should not be ruled separately in the north and the south, either they (SPLM) come and control Khartoum or we go and control Juba. Heglig isn’t the end, it is the beginning, and we shall go all the way to [South Sudanese capital] Juba.”
You have to wonder how long the West is going to allow maniacs like al-Bashir a free hand.
FP: It is distressing to see how many refuse to accept the obvious: that the West is no longer in a position to do anything about the Bashirs of the world. Indeed, it’s the latter who have an accurate assessment of the West: they know that they have a free hand, or otherwise they would not have done what they are doing. Just ask Iran and North Korea.
Three Secret Service agents have been forced out of their positions as officials investigate the alleged hiring of prostitutes and other questionable behavior during a presidential visit to Colombia.
"Although the Secret Service's investigation into allegations of misconduct by its employees in Cartagena, Colombia, is in its early stages, and is still ongoing, three of the individuals involved will separate or are in the process of separating from the agency," said Paul S. Morrissey, the assistant director of the U.S. Secret Service Office of Government and Public Affairs, in a written statement.
One supervisory employee was allowed to retire and another was "proposed for removal for cause," the statement said. In addition, a non-supervisory employee resigned.
The employee proposed for removal has been given notice and will be allowed to fight the move, the Secret Service said.
Eight other Secret Service employees remain on administrative leave with suspended security clearances.
In addition, some Secret Service personnel are now under investigation for possible drug use.
Dylan Ratigan: Is The Federal Reserve Coming Clean?
FP: Can’t embed this video, but if you want to see the corporate welfare state in action, go to the link and watch it.
Hazzard any guess as to why the Federal Reserve does not want the public to know how it spends the public’s money?
Ah, the illusion of democracy.
Bill Katz: VEEPSTAKES
A new poll gives an entertaining, if only that, view of who Republicans favor for the vice presidential slot on their fall ticket. From The Politico:
Republicans are increasingly falling in behind Mitt Romney’s White House run, but they haven’t got a clue who he should add to the ticket, a CNN/ORC International survey says.
Condoleezza Rice tops the vice presidential wish list among Republicans and right-leaning independents, according to the poll Wednesday. Twenty-six percent of those polled backed the former national security adviser and secretary of state under George W. Bush as Romney’s No. 2. (Rice has repeatedly said she’s not interested in the job.)
Romney’s former nomination rival, Rick Santorum, garnered 21 percent for the VP spot, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie tied for third with 14 percent.
FP: Condoleezza Rice????? Is there any better evidence of leadership crisis?
And, speaking of leadership crisis and decline:
As readers know, we love to roast the mainstream media here, and there's plenty of raw meat for a delicious roast.
The leftward march of the media during the past four or five decades has been obvious, except to the media, which always denies what others plainly see. The media was instrumental in electing Barack Obama in 2008, partly by refusing to examine his background or hold him to the same standard required of other candidates.
The latest offender is the Los Angeles Times, which has made some effort to improve in recent years, but still is nostalgic for the old-time left-wing religion. It was the Times that published, a few days back, those pictures of American soldiers with dead Afghans. Even the White House was disturbed, in part because the photos were two years old and not exactly news. Michael Rubin, in Contentions, looks at the paper's hypocritical explanation for the inflammatory publication:
In explaining their decision to publish photos of American troops posing with the bodies of alleged Taliban terrorists, despite the fact that the photos are two years old and guaranteed to inflame violence, the editors of the Los Angeles Times explained, “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.”
Perhaps the editors would then like to explain why they continue to sit on a videotape of Barack Obama reportedly toasting former PLO Beirut spokesman and University of Chicago buddy Rashid Khalidi? Isn’t that necessary for readers to make informed decisions? I’m not sure whether the editors could provide a more glaring example of their own hypocrisy.
That's a bulls-eye. There have been many requests for the L.A. Times to release the tape, but the paper continues to refuse. The media is very big on "the people's right to know," except when the people knowing something would hurt the "correct" political stance on some issue.
Thus, even Tom Brokaw, at the time of the 2008 election, lamented that Americans were electing a president about whom they knew so little. We don't know much more these four years later. We still have no satisfactory explanation of the president's background; his association with radicals; the fact that no one at Columbia University, his undergraduate school, seems to remember him; the financing of his education, which one respected black leader said was provided by a Saudi prince; the fact that his two published books have different writing styles; possible travel to Pakistan in the 1980s; some strangeness about his Social Security numbers; and the fact that he, a man who had never written an article on Constitutional law, or argued a Con law case, was given a job as a Constitutional law teacher at the University of Chicago Law School.
And we're not going to know much about these elements because the press, once again, isn't asking too many questions.
But publish something that may inflame a foreign population and place Americans at risk? Hey, no problem.
FP: Nothing left to say. See also UNDER THE BUS.