Skip to comments.A Ports Postmortem
Posted on 03/15/2006 9:43:33 PM PST by stand4somethin
It was surreal to hear Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the multicultural guru, lecture us about the dangers of these Gulf middlemen -- even as her huckstering husband advised the United Arab Emirates how to finesse the American Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
"For a country that is addicted to imported petroleum, hooked on cheap imported goods, and eager for illegal alien labor, and which has hundreds of military bases abroad, it is a little late to worry about dangerous foreign ganglia."
This is another great quote from Hanson in this article... this is really a masterpiece of communication.
Sadly, this deal let the Dems get a foothold. But nice to see racism and xenophobia triumph.
"Sadly, this deal let the Dems get a foothold"
Well... if you read the article there is no way the Bush admin escapes blame. This never would have let the dems get THAT kind of foothold had it been handled properly from the start. I knew the minute Savage started ranting about the issue that it was a done deal. I was opposed to it. We can't let the RATS make any headway in the "security" issue. Done deal.
I wish we could get so worked up about our southern border.
The president has to walk a narrow line between 1) convincing the Muslim world that this is a War on Terror as opposed to a War on Islam and 2) maintaining national security. On this issue he was really in a Catch-22, since he really couldn't explain this logic publicly for fear of showing his hand to the Muslim world- This ultimately is a War on Islam.
The west cannot afford to fight 1.2 billion Muslims now, so the best hope is to "divide and conquer" ala Julius Caesar vs. the Celts in the 1st century BC and many others since then. To that end, the president is currently going after the more radical elements of Islam (terrorists) with the WOT with the hope of westernizing future generations of Muslims given the time and access to do so. In the mean time he tries to encourage the more moderate Islamic nations (like UAE) and treating them fairly in trade is one way to do that.
This strategy is truly our only hope unless we're prepared to engage in mass genocide. You have undoubtedly noted how easy it is to rally the relatively uneducated Muslim masses into a violent frenzy over the silly cartoon issue and I expect they would do far worse if they knew the west were engaged in a War on Islam. The Muslim culture is not easily assimilated into a western society, so this will be a supremely difficult challenge. If we can't figure out how to do it, we're doomed to death by submission, dhimmitude (as we're seeing indications of in Europe), or a lot of innocent blood on our hands.
Finally, the RATS saw an opportunity to play political chicken with an issue prior to the midterm election and got most pubbies to play along. As this blog points out "Follow the money and you'll find the truth." Click here!
The rats might have had an opportunity but Feingold took that away yesterday.
"It was surreal to hear Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the multicultural guru, lecture us about the dangers of these Gulf middlemen -- even as her huckstering husband advised the United Arab Emirates how to finesse the American Congress."
I saw nothing wrong with this 'port deal' until it was exposed that bill clinton was making money off this, and suggesting UAE hire other friends. Now what I want to know is --- is bill clinton still on their payroll? And since he was so busy employing others was Chelsea amongst them.
That "huckstering husband" has made lots of money from the UAE -- which is campaign money for hillary. Have we been taken or not!!
There are classic phrases in this article..... "addicted to imported petroleum".... "hooked on cheap imported goods".... and "eager for illegal alien labor" and "bought more than we export".
Victor Davis Hanson ---- I like the way he 'talks'.
"I wish we could get so worked up about our southern border."
I couldn't agree more
" The rats might have had an opportunity but Feingold took that away yesterday."
Yeah... I loved watching Frist kick Feingold's butt
Based on your usage of "divide and conquer" in your reply it occurs to me that you may have no idea what I mean by "divide and conquer" as difficult as that is for me to believe. Forgive me for assuming that everyone understands what I'm referring to when I say "divide and conquer." Although I am a rocket scientist, it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the heritage of this term or it's application in the current situation with regard to the War on Islam/WOT.
The heritage of the "divide and conquer" phrase is somewhat in dispute, but it is most often attributed to Julius Caesar who used the strategy in his conquest of Gaul (now France) in the first century BC. The Celtic tribes of Gaul were loosely configured and Caesar enlisted one tribe against another and dug in his own Roman army while they savaged one another. Eventually, his Roman army fought the surviving tribes and gained the upper hand as Gaul became part of the Roman Empire.
In the present situation, the president has appealed to moderate Muslim nations such as Pakistan in a war against those nations controlled by radical Muslims such as Afghanistan and Iraq with some success. Is a nation such as Pakistan a perfect ally? Certainly not. There are many radicals within Pakistan, any of whom would gladly slit either of our throats without a second thought. However, it's leader, Mushareff has been paid well and has marshalled his resources to assist the US-lead coalition against Al Qaeda and other terrorists in the region.
Even though Julius Caesar was able to enlist some Celtic tribes, he eventually ended up fighting those same tribes or others who had in turn defeated those tribes he had used previously. The point is that he was adeptly able to get his bidding done by others before expending his own energies and his own army.
For purposes of my explanation, a moderate Muslim is any Muslim who will 1) take up arms, 2) command other Muslims to take up arms or 3) provide material support to serve our purposes.
The president understands this. He is trying to preserve American lives, much as Julius Caesar was preserving the lives of his soldiers prior to committing them to battle.
The UAE has provided material support for our military endeavors in the region and has thus acted as a moderate Muslim nation in my definition. Even Caesar paid those who fought for him whether they were part of his army or were merely mercenaries. The Bush administration was attempting to reward a moderate Muslim nation in the region for its efforts in decades long War on Islam.
In my estimation and that of many others much more knowledgeable than me, the security risk of having DWP operate a few piers in this country was manageable. The US Coast Guard and Customs Service are in control of security. This was purely a business deal. Why would anyone with terrorist motives spend $7B to carry out an attack when the combined efforts of the 9/11 terrorists were probably accomplished with much less than $1M?
I understand your concern about the growing threat, but I certainly don't believe we have exhausted efforts to westernize the vast majority of Muslims that just want to live their lives regardless of what their religion preaches or who governs them. Well over 99% are not jihadists now and never will be. Now that we have a foothold in the mideast in Iraq, their society has been opened to western influence and I'm prayerful that such a presence can ultimately be exploited for His glory.
BTW, thank you for your service to our nation and Semper Fi (my younger brothers are both Marines).
"No, the West must fight Islam NOW, lest more of Islam's countries join the nuclear club. Everyday we wait, Islam grows and the West shrinks."
This is the smartest thing I have heard in FR yet this year.... congrats!
"t is most often attributed to Julius Caesar who used the strategy in his conquest of Gaul"
I find several places in which your analogy to Julius Caesar and his strategy in Gaul breaks down:
1. The Celtic tribes of Gual did not outnumber the Romans 3 or 4 to 1
2. Rome itself was never under threat of Gaul
3. Rome controlled vast sums of wealth from which to sustain a large army on foreign soil
4. Divide and conquer may be a decent temporary tactic for us but not a winning tactic like it was for Caesar due to the fact that it is a strategy that takes a long period of time... which growing nuclear threat makes untenable
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/ NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.