Unthinkables

I find it fascinating how confidently people feel that the forces and rules of history do not apply to them and their time. Whether in economics, politics, or foreign policy the emotional consensus seems to be that “we” can afford the immediately expedient without concern for either the future or even the real prospect of immanent failure.

For example, with all the talk about entities “too large to fail,” has anyone considered that the US is NOT “too big to fail”? There is no such thing in reality as “too big.” Yet no one seriously worries about the potentially “unthinkable” consequences of the unprecedented economic moves to drastically expand the money supply, increase government spending, and further socialize the economy – they’re unthinkable after all.

Take another example, as nice as it would be if it were true, diplomacy is not a panacea - no matter how rhetorically gifted its practitioner. However the administration’s obsession with opening negotiations with Tehran, besides being a tried and failed approach, entirely disregards the self declared object of negotiation, the elimination Iran’s nuclear weapons program. According to both official IAEA and US estimates, Iran will have already acquired the capacity to produce nuclear weapons by the time discussions are tentatively scheduled to begin in mid 2009.

Yet the question over whether and how to open talks, incredible as such a debate is, completely ignores the fact that game has already finished, and Iran won. How can this obvious conclusion be so totally ignored when the consequences involve nuclear weapons if not for a deeply held secret belief that it doesn’t matter whether Iran acquires the bomb? If the public, the administration, or the media attached even a modicum of reality to the possibility that we could actually suffer a nuclear attack does anyone seriously believe we wouldn’t have already bombed Iran years ago? Again, the hubris that drastic unthinkable events could never happen in MY life and times, notwithstanding that such things occur “regularly” in history, is no matter if current events are not part of history.

Given the stakes however, wouldn’t prudence dictate that we at least consider the possibility that the “unthinkable” is only so because we deem it so? Reality is blind to consequences and meaning, and if we continue to insist otherwise our belief that the unthinkable just cannot happen will give way to the question of how we were so naïve as to feel that tragedy somehow couldn’t happen to ME and mine.

A Deafening Silence

There was a brief headline out of Jerusalem several weeks ago about Israel's foreign minister that, amazingly, passed by without any fanfare or attention whatever. Ms. Livni voiced her continued support for a Palestinian state, but then announced that she does not see any future for Israeli Arabs in Israel either! Livni explained that the national destiny of Israeli Arabs (who do not just live in Israel, but are citizens there) lies with the Palestinian state she hopes to birth as the culmination of the "peace process."

In response to the only and faint reactions these comments elicited, the FM clarified that she would not forcibly remove Israeli Arabs out of the country, but that she does feel such an exodus would be in order. Further, she pointed out that such a movement should be viewed as an exchange for the Jewish populations that left Arab countries to Israel in 1948.

Now a bit of history is necessary to fully appreciate the significance of the absence of any serious reaction to Ms. Livni's remarks. The position this darling-of-Israel's Leftist establishment assumed happens to be the total and complete opposite of the defining characteristic of the Israeli secular-Zionist Left since before the establishment of the state itself. From the beginning, everyone across the political spectrum knew the Arabs of Israel itself would have to be addressed; either by expelling them from the country, by trying some sort of (hopefully peaceful) coexistence with a sizable second class citizenry, or by attempting assimilation through extending full citizenship to these Arabs, and hoping they could come to accept an Israeli identity and Israel.

The Israeli Left's Western-Democratic ideology demanded of course that this last course, that of extending full citizenship to the Arabs of Israel, be adopted and that the Arabs be full and equal members of Israeli democracy. This was the central tenant of secular-Herzlian-Zionism. Namely that the Israeli-Arab was just as much an Israeli as the Jew in Israel. This was a critical point, because the answer to this question of citizenry did more than just address the problem of the sizable Israeli-Arab population in Israel. The answer to this question defined who the citizen of Israel was, and by extension the State of Israel itself, its philosophy and character as a politically organized society.

Was this a Jewish country, which would mean Jewish values and restrictions, i.e. Torah? Or was the state simply a country of Jews, really Israelis, where every citizen of any religious hue shared equally in the state, a traditional western democracy, a true state of its citizens - all of them?

Israel's own declaration of independence (what has served as a constitution since the original provisional government failed to draft one) straddles the fence on this issue, simultaneously claiming that Israel is a Jewish state and homeland (with a law of return for Jews only) and that it is a state of all its citizens. The contradiction is more than theoretical however, because Israel is a democracy. And so the question arises whether the Arabs of Israel have a right to legally, peacefully - democratically, become a majority and resolve the contradiction by removing the Jewish character of the "State of Israel"?

This issue was the essence of the Kahane phenomenon; why he was such a divisive and controversial figure, why he evoked such hate. It had nothing to do with his policies regarding the Arabs. Everyone knew that eventually the situation of Israel's Arabs, as inherently unstable, would have to be addressed. The fantastical notions of the Leftist party line that interaction, tolerance, and education could solve the Jewish/Israeli-Arab divide were never serious - though God help the one who pointed out this naked emperor. No, the reason Kahane was Kahane was that his policy towards this obvious problem (which was always the only real policy) did not just solve the geopolitical problem of Israel's Arabs. His whole approach constituted a rebellion against Herzl's secular-nationalist-Zionism in favor of Abrahamic-Torah ordered Zionism.

Jabotinsky could never have been Kahane, just as Beigin wasn't. Kahane was not "throw out the Arabs." That was just common sense rendered taboo by a naked emperor. Kahane was a rabbi-politician, and as such the arch foe of the secular-Zionist establishment of the state itself.

Isn't is remarkable that the same Left that so decried the population transfer of Arabs from the "West Bank" to Jordan (which is nothing if not the very Palestine Oslo & Co. are so desperate to establish) had no problem expelling their own countrymen from Gush Katif in the Gaza strip, just as it has no problem with expelling the Jews of the "West Bank" and "Eastern" Jerusalem?! The only difference between the policies of the Leftist establishment that so vilified that "fascist-racist" and Kahane himself, is who they would apply their policies to.

By actually stating that the Arab has no place in Israel, and not having such a thing instantly shouted down and lynched by the Left, Livni demonstrated that the Left has finally achieved a thorough enough influence on the State that they no longer need the all inclusive definition of "any citizen" (which includes the mess of "Arab-Israelis") to secure their secular-Zionist ideology as the character of the State of Israel. However, the extent of the turnaround on such a defining feature of the Israeli Left without any outrage or even notice at all, truly constitutes the most deafening of silences for those with the sensitivity and memory enough to recall with sad irony what the barn door actually used to say.

SOFA Iraq, November 2008

The Americans and Iraqis just concluded a Status Of Forces Agreement stipulating a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces in Iraq. This drawdown is to occur in stages, beginning with a withdrawal from Iraqi cities over the summer, and culminating in the complete removal of US forces by the end of 2011. The agreement has generated little or no attention in America however, which is still catching its breath after a grueling four-year long election season, recent economic turbulence, and a comfortingly distracting holiday season. While this is understandable, neglecting non-pressing serious issues usually leads people to react later during times of crisis by asking - "how did things get so bad without anybody noticing, or how did we (or usually "they") let this happen!?" The appropriate time to observe, react, and adjust however is before things develop into problems, particularly in the sphere of international affairs where developments take place over a much longer period of time than do events in our personal lives.

It is unfortunate then that there is no serious debate over the wisdom of the latest SOFA. Not just because published timetables are strategically problematic from a military standpoint. No, it is unfortunate because the SOFA neglects entirely the main geopolitical danger that has existed in the US approach towards a post-Saddam Iraq from the very beginning of President Bush's grand plans to apply his doctrine of preemption to Iraq. Go back to before everyone forgot about Iraq, back before everyone was obsessing over the political fallout from the seeming hopelessness of ever defeating the Al Queada/Baathist insurgency - before even the anxiety of the invasion itself. What were the two biggest questions on everyone's mind? Did Saddam have WMD's (and if so, what we should have done about it) and what we would do with a post-Saddam Iraq?

In particular, the question about the day after was a less a concern for the internal stability of the country (the focus of all discussion ever since the insurgency stole the show), but of how viable the country would be after we got rid of Saddam. Would the country be able to hold its own in the dangerous neighborhood of the Middle East? What would be the consequences for the region of the sudden power vacuum generated by a Saddamless Iraq? The prospect of destabilizing the region was a real concern given the precarious balance that existed between Iraq and Iran in their perpetual conflict. Remove one of the two sides pushing on the door, and the door was liable to fly through the wall.

Somehow though this issue was completely forgotten in the mad scramble to address the problems within the country, not to mention the neglect that came from the President's ideological tunnel vision which was only concerned with installing a democracy in the Arab world as a counterweight to "terrorism." (Let's leave aside for another time the problems with how this was supposed to work, seeing as "terrorists" have and will continue to win elections, e.g. Hamas.) The effect of all these distractions was a complete disregard for the prospect that Iraq's neighbors, and in particular Iran, would seek to exert control, quietly, over the country. The situation in Iraq today is as a result unstable for two reasons: the influences of foreign powers, mostly Iran, subverting the country from within along the Syrian-Lebanese model, and the internal fissures between the country's non-too friendly factions; Sunni Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shiite Arabs. (Parenthetically, promoting self determination is one thing, foisting a single democracy on three peoples who don't exactly get along just because the British decided to draw a map after WWI quite another.)

Though Americans can feel legitimate satisfaction and relief from having finally succeeded in stabilizing the country from its long and bloody insurgency, and even from "establishing" a democracy where Saddam Hussein once reigned, none of these accomplishments has any real bearing on the larger issue of Iran's silent takeover of its formal arch rival. In fact, perversely, the success of the US in quelling the post-Saddam tremors in the country, and in establishing a democracy, has paved the way for the Iranians to consolidate their hold over a country now naked of many of its former defenses, e.g. Saddam and a bristling Sunni-Shiite fault line.

For all of these reasons, serious debate and discussion are needed to asses whether the defeat of the insurgency constitutes a victory that justifies a withdrawal of US forces. At stake is the fate of the entire region. Iran has already greatly expanded its influence throughout the region, from Hamas in Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Syrian Iranian alliance and Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US cannot afford to lose Iraq as well by abandoning the country, which is already largely defenseless against Iranian subversion, but which will be entirely helpless against Iran on its own, without throwing away the past five years of efforts and sacrifices and risking an unchallenged Iranian hegemony stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon. If the SOFA is not reevaluated, countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be next, though they will be totally incapable of contending with a super sized Iran backed by nuclear weapons. Urgency and clarity in evaluating and debating the SOFA is desperately needed if the world does not wish to wake up from its current reverie to an Iranian behemoth at Europe's doorstep.

The Leftist Agenda

I just came across an interesting article about the Obama administration's health care plans. The article outlines two critical points central to the Leftist ultimate goal and how this goal is to be attained. The significance of these two points actually has nothing to do with the serious dangers involved in the government run health care advocated by the Obama Daschle crew. Rather, the real hair raisers come when Daschle discusses how to overcome the objections to what he admits will be a radical and unpopular system that denies patients and doctors the ability to decide for themselves the course of action they think best.

Daschle's proposal is to simply omit all of the unpleasant details from the bill entirely, a mistake he believes prevented Bill Clinton from succeeding with his government health care plans. The bill should instead call for the creation of a board to oversee the implementation of this vast new federal bureaucracy, which can then formulate all the non-politic aspects of the program. Daschle notes that this approach has the further benefit of insulating the implementation of such radical polices from political pressure, i.e. from the ballot box, where voters could endanger the Left's political reorganization of the state.

My question is why such tactics, which are not only whispered about at closed fundraisers to complain about "bitter people clinging to their religion and guns," do not divest the Left and the Democrats of their self-bestowed mantle as the defenders of democracy and the "little guy?" The party which advocates that big government take care of all the scary problems (read responsibilities) in life, which of necessity thereby dispenses with the messy need for people to decide for themselves, is amazingly the same party that claims to be the only defenders against the right-wing fascist apparition just waiting to rise from the depths to tyrannize us all. It is difficult to understand how the Democrats can so easily have it both ways. It is even more difficult to understand how the Republican/Conservative movement has allowed big-government Democrats get away with such a gross distortion of the truth. Why do the defenders of freedom and the true tradition of liberalism not stand up and claim their rightful heritage and force the Democrats to choose between their radical reorganization of the state and being the party which "truly" represents the people?

Americans are not (yet) so far gone into the malaise of socialism or welfarism that they would not stand up and object to this disingenuous and sinister attempt to steal away the precious liberty that is this country's greatest legacy - if they only knew about it. No normal person wants the state involved in the decision process between themselves and their doctor, and certainly no one wants a system removed from the political "pressure," i.e. oversight, of the people. The Left's willingness to use such tactics that hide from the voter what he is really deciding about place far more at stake than the the hellish prospect of a DMV of medicine. At stake is the very character of this country and the democratic nature of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people - not some small elite imposing its ideas on the people.

Leftist Priorities

Does anyone else find it interesting when the Left has to decide between two of their favorite issues? Since Prop. 8 crushed the gay-rights movement's hope to establish legal and moral equivalency between normal and gay marriage, the Left has gone bezerk against anyone associated to their defeat. For whatever reason Mormons have been hard hit, though as others have pointed out neither Catholics (whose far greater numbers make them far more "responsible") nor Muslims (whose religion opposes far more than just gay marriage) have been targeted.
I always find it revealing when political ideologies have to prioritize their pet issues as they conflict. Just what will the Left do when Islam has the kind of pull here as it has in Europe, where gays are not a ballot box away from complete acceptance? Or better yet, when larger numbers of illegal aliens (read Catholic Hispanics, a "minority group") establish large public nativity scenes? It was particularly revealing to see some crazies even go so far as to vent their frustrations racially against blacks, who came out in large numbers to oppose gay marriage. Who would have thought race was subordinate to gay rights, and what does that say about the core of Leftist philosophy?

A Nuclear Iran

The latest IAEA announcement has me worried, though I can’t say I am surprised. The IAEA is one of the richest examples of feckless international organizations consistently avoiding confrontations with the sovereignty of aggressive states because, they’re well, aggressive. Further, the agency is not exactly known for its up-to-date intelligence assessments – if they have the political courage to announce anything at all. If the IAEA reports that your daughter is dating the punk kid who took her to the dance last year, chances are you should scramble to review safe sex with your princess yesterday, or prepare to be early grandparents. So when the IAEA reported last week that Iran now has enough enriched uranium to make at least one atomic bomb, my first reaction was, ok, how long ago did we actually reach this point, and how many bombs is it safe to assume the Iranians already have enough material for?

US intelligence estimates predict that Iran will have enough uranium to make approximately three bombs by the end of 2009. This from the weapons program the all-knowing US Security council assured us was abandoned in 2003. So it’s probably a good idea to take these numbers and dates with a nice margin of error, say to the tune of six months and two bombs…that sounds fair.

But again, none of this comes as a surprise to anyone remotely aware of the last decade worth of farcical efforts to dissuade Iran from passing the dreaded point of no return by endlessly repeating the mantra that, “all options are on the table.” This point, which probably arrived as far back as a year ago, has been coming for a long while. Sober spectators of this slow motion decent into the unnecessary dread of a nuclear Iran have already begun considering what post game options remain “on the table.”

Bluntly, the ball is in the Islamic Imperial court. We’ve been vying for control ever since 9/11 (and truthfully before), and had been doing a “great” job reacting to the Islamic Imperialist’s attempts to run a play or two. But with Iran’s nuclear victory, the ball is definitely in their court. Time is on their side in every arena of competition – nowhere are things going our way, except possibly in Iraq; and the situation there is so far from stable, and so ripe for a silent Iranian take over along the Syrian Lebanon model, that the only question that truly remains on the table is: ok if we were them, what would we do?