Posted on 03/26/2011 9:45:40 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
Posted By David Horowitz On March 26, 2011 @ 12:04 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Andrew Sullivan takes exception to my observations that we are on a fool’s errand in Libya and a dangerous one. The other day I took issue with neo-conservatives who had learned nothing from failed attempts to create Western-style democracies in Muslim cultures. I had pointed to recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza (let alone Turkey) and warned that our military invasion of Libya could lead to the creation of an al-Qaeda aligned totalitarian state. Here is how the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan characterized these thoughts:
“It looks as if David Horowitz has left the neocons and become an anti-Islam nationalist; …. he looks at the eruption in the Middle East and wants the dictators back.”
Nice spin Andrew.
First, I am not against people whose religion is Islam. I’m just a pragmatic realist who notes that in fifteen hundred years Islamic cultures have a very poor track record in creating democracies and that the emerging Islamic movements in the Arab Middle East are without exception totalitarian, jihadist and also Jew-hating, women-hating and gay-hating.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Absolutely.
But, instead, we are importing Muslims.
I hope that INS could open investigation how this former Nazi got American citizenship.
Andrew Sullivan’s mind has seen better days. He should reserve the use of his big mouth for the bedroom.
Aitch got $ out of the ragheads because he acted in their interests (oil) as much as ours by undertaking those operations.
Afghanistan and Iraq are about something else altogether. The Arabs figure it’s our problem alone. I do agree that the notion we’d ever get any money out of Iraq from their oil or good deals on oil was probably not realistic, meaning overly optimistic. Gratitude and generosity are not earmarks of Arab culture.
What’s unrealistic about Horowitz or what he had to say?
We acted in Asia's and Europe's interests during WWI and WWII, lost 500K dead and spent 2x GDP fighting those wars. I don't recall anyone giving us money for those wars, which were fought at much greater expense in men and money. I think we mistook the Iraqis for the Kuwaiti and Saudi Royal Families. They did not have to hand us the cash, but they did so anyway. Iraqi Justice shows us that not all Arabs think alike. Ordinary Arabs hate our guts and have a record of assassinating or deposing and executing rulers who seem to be too close to Uncle Sam. Their rulers are much more moderate (and might even like us, although they'd be wise to make the usual anti-American noises in public). But with respect to recompense, they're certainly no worse than either Europeans or Asians.
Iraqi Justice should have read Iraqi Freedom.
The difference is that during the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, they were purchasing American goods for the reconstruction and development of their economic stability thereafter. Therefore, much of that money returned to the U.S.. The boost in the American economy extended well beyond the years of the Marshall plan which ended in 1952. The U.S. post-WWII boom was fired by European demand for goods. That has not been nor will it be the case in the ME, nor will they cut us any deals on oil as a gesture of gratitude. The Iraqi people have been notably ungrateful and the Iraqi government lacks the institutions to build the infrastructure needed for their participation in trade levels that would benefit anybody, including Iraqis!! You can lead a camel to the oasis, but making the beast drink requires an undefined, unobtainable skill set. Arabs are willfully backward and fully intend to stay that way. The best way to handle them is to stay out of their way when they have a hankering to kill each other while killing as many as we can with plausible deniability.
There was/is a sequence that you have to recognize.
When the conflict in Libya arose, the NeoCons in the GOP immediately began criticizing Obama saying that he should intervene. The NeoCons felt safe doing this because the Realists have great influence over Obama's foreign policy and the Realists wouldn't allow Obama to intervene.
But, then, the Liberal Interventionists in the Dem party joined the NeoCons in the GOP and called for Obama to intervene. So Obama intervened.
Now the NeoCons have to walk it back. Change their position, for partisan reasons. They originally criticized Obama for not intervening and now they are criticizing him for intervening.
Sullivan's response to Horowitz's original piece was ridicule and Horowitz's second piece was an attempt to deflect the ridicule by claiming to be a Realist. And of course, Horowitz pulled the NeoCon whipping boy bogeyman, George Soros.
So, I should accept your assertion that Horowitz is a neo-con and not a realist based solely on your unspported claim to that effect, even though you go on to say he doesn’t support the neo-con position on this subject?
And as for Soros, are you saying he is not a powerful manipulator of political and even econimic events in this country and beyond? Are you saying he doesn’t bankroll powerful leftist organizations aimed at undermining the country and Israel? He’s a boy scout? Or what? You seem to be defending him.
It sounds to me like you just don’t like Horowitz. Is it because he Jewish? Soros hates Jews, too, or at least he hates Israel, Nazi collaborator that he was and all.
Interesting.
Remember back when the NeoCons commonly referred to James Baker as an Arabist. But after he co-chaired the Iraq Study Group he was called Jew hater.
Buying some of our goods does not constitute payment* (or gratitude), especially if we had to extend huge loans on easy payment terms (the Marshall Plan) for them to do it, and we were the sole source for the machine tools they had to buy in order to rebuild (or not buy and become agrarian societies). Europeans imposed stiff tariffs on US goods during the reconstruction period, and we went along with it. Even today, there are all kinds of non-tariff barriers on American imports, which is why US manufacturers had to set up factories in Europe to sell to Europeans. The upshot can be seen in the EU-US trade balance - we've run a trade deficit averaging $80B with the EU for the past decade.
* If doing business with a creditor is considered repayment, maybe I should suggest to my local bartender that my continued patronage constitutes payment for my yard-long bar tab.
I didn’t say it was repayment. I’m saying we benefited financially by the Marshall Plan to a much greater extent than we would have had we not created such a huge market for our goods. By granting and loaning money to Western Europe for reconstruction, we created a huge market for American goods that we would not otherwise have had, at least not until many, many years later. I’m not saying all that profit went into the public coffers as repayment, but billions upon billions sloshed around the American economy that we otherwise would not have collected. Income is income. Much of it ended up from whence it came, which was the pockets of the American public instead of in the public treasury. In my opinion, that’s a GOOD thing.
As those countries rebuilt, they developed banking and currency systems for investemnt. Those domestic investments generated greater demand for American goods, and most of the income to America was generated through European domestic investment, not simply as a rebate of our loans and grants. That demand and income to America generated millions of jobs through investment in industry which generated even more demand for goods for our domestic market. We got our money back exponentially, it just got paid to the U.S. market instead of directly back to the government.
Now, if you think the reconstruction of Europe and Japan did NOT fuel the American economy to a degree not seen since the Industrial Revolution, then we should just end our dialogue.
I don't think our theocratic communist friends Putin and Medvedev would hold that view. Russians have suffered great harm from radical Islam....and some of their biggest problems are Muslim's in the Balkans and some of the former Soviet Republics in SE Russia; Uzbekistan - Kazakhstan - etc.
The fact is Islam is incompatible with Western civilization - Period. It must undergo drastic reform or be stamped out.
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.