Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘kosovo’

America does nice things all the time all around the world, and we are rewarded with contempt, hatred, and hostility.  We are like the “Nice Guy” who gets to be alternately a sucker and an emotional punching bag, while the “Bad Boys” get to do what (and whom) they want. 

Today, an Albanian Muslim terrorist was arrested in my neck of the woods. He’s from Kosovo, a criminal neighborhood that the Serbs were cleaning up until NATO decided to align with the Albanian terrorists in 1999 and bombed the hell out of the Serbs.  The false pretenses of the war were soon exposed; indeed, they were many times flimsier than the WMD claims in Iraq.  But it’s all down the memory hole now.
 
Thanks to American airpower, these Albanian clients run prostitution and drugs through the Balkans with little interference.  Even their criminal leader Hacim Thaci  is in on the act.  Sometimes we get to harvest the fruits of their civilization, as in today’s terrorist bomb scare in Tampa.  One of the worst consequence of Humanitarian Wars is that we often get a flood of refugees, even though these wars themselves are supposed to render fleeing from atrocities obsolete.  We have Somalis, Haitians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Kurds, Iraqis, and every other people from the planet Earth living here on various asylum and refugee visas, often engaged in menial work at best and criminal terorrism at worst. We stupidly think the Muslim newcomers will be greatful for us “helping them” or for being exposed to our wonderful way of life, but let’s look at the record.  We’ve helped them in Afghanistan it the 80s, in the entire Israeli-Palestinian peace process, today in Egypt and Afghanistan, yesterday in Somalia and Kuwait and Kosovo, and it makes no difference.  We are hated.  And sometimes we are killed.  Let’s not forget Mohammad Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad both spent a lot of time in the West.  They hated the place too.  Sami Osmakac’s ingratitude and hostility is not new. 

Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists.  Indeed, the vast majority are not.  But Muslims are probably 100X more likely to be terrorists. When they’re not terrorists, they often obfuscate and make excuses for terrorism.  They often are hostile to our country, even if they are nonviolent and do not formally endorse terrorism.  Their marginal contributions to our collective life make their presence in our country a luxury (and more like a liability) that we simply cannot afford.  Indeed, when the US acted tougher–as in bombing Libya to smithereens in 1986–its tough and unapologetic actions have paid much better dividends than our Nice Guy routine today in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And when we acted tougher at home, such as in our rough treatment of Japanese and German agents and supporters in World War II, we found relatively little sabotage and domestic terrorism.

To deal with militant Islam we don’t necessarily need to do any favors for Muslims in Muslim lands.  But whether we shoudl be activist or isolationist, we certainly don’t need to add to the Muslim threat at home by inviting “refugees” and others from the most alien and hostile civilization on earth.  We must live in reality to remain an independent nation, just as we must learn about and master reality to live as self-respecting individual men.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The UN, having obtained US Support, has now moved to create a “no fly” zone over Libya.  Oh, what can we say.

Obama is now getting on the train he couldn’t get off after saying–unwisely in my opinion–Kaddafi must go.  That’s the problem with threats . . . they cascade upon themselves. This appears chiefly an emotional reaction to disturbing and violent news from the region, coupled with a self-fulfilling prophecy of presidential rhetoric.  There is no real moral reason to intervene here and not, say, Iran a few months ago or Bahrain or Egypt or many other places. And the reasons here are many times less compelling than Iran, which has, unlike Libya, been hostile to the US in very recent times.

We should all be concerned that Obama is moving without any congressional authorization.  Indeed, there’s been almost no debate.  It’s weird.  Wake up one day, and we’re at war. This is a terrible precedent, not so different from what the first President Bush tried to pull in the First Gulf War, though he ultimately did get a congressional resolution. Obama spoke out against this sort of thing when he was in Congress.  But like most presidents, he has fought to preserve and expand the power of the office once he was in it, even as he has used that increased power to undermine America the nation.  But even strong presidents have generally recognized in the momentous matter of war, the people’s representatives deserve a say.

Obama is turning against the one thing he had going for him in the last campaign:  relative realism and restraint on foreign policy.  Contra my putatitively conservative brethren, I do not embrace the US-as-global-cop role.  It is expensive, it does us little good, and it allows small regional conflicts to become global ones.  Many Americans agreed in 2008, fed up as they were with the indeterminate outcomes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the antagonism these wars fueled in the Muslim world.  Now we have a President who eloquently spoke to these themes going down the road to permanent war counseled by the psychotic duo of Senators McCain and Lieberman.  And worse, he is doing so at the insistence of Britain and France, nations whom we should respect, but not nations whom we should follow into every hare-brained European-style human rights war.

Worst of all, we have no strategy here. Though legally required, a congressional debate may not do any good, because, in both parties, we see a reactive, emotion-laden, and vaguely Wilsonian approach to the world that has no end game, cannot distinguish the important from the irrelevant, and, through a misplaced concern for “human rights,” makes no distinction between a genuine threat to the global order from what used to be called “internal affairs.”  So today we go to war with Libya.  Iran, not so much.  We are this big, lumbering, powerful country, but our leaders’ thinking is worse than that of children.  It’s like that of adolescents:  impulsive, overly self-satisfied, contemptuous of risk, ignorant of potential pitfalls, forgetful of recent failures, and a product of peer pressure.

Finally, in Europe and in America we have this confused idea that “no fly zones” are something short of war.  It’s true, they’re much safer for our guys than a land war.  In Kosovo, we had zero casualties, even as we bombed Serbian bridges and cities. In that sense, air strikes are sometimes the right tool to use.  But they are still acts of war, with bombing and killing and violations of another nation’s sovereignty, as well as some risk to the life and limb of Americans.  Yes, Kaddafi is a bad man.  He killed Americans back in the day and was punished for it (or made recompense in the case of Lockerbie).  If this were a merely retaliatory raid, I might be more sympathetic.  But American no longer does retaliatory raids. Every campaign is wrapped not in the flag but in the mantle of concern for democracy. This is the Democratic Party’s version of neoconservatism, plain and simple, where the lack of national interest is held up as proof of our purity of motive.  But this type of “freedom” is no formula for peace, as it makes a potential enemy of every nation on earth that is not governed like us.

While I am no pacifist, for moral and self-interested reasons, I must prefer peace to war.  Peace is not just a state of mind.  It involves something tangible and fundamental:  not undertaking aggressive military action unless it is a last resort connected to national interest.  The concern for the national interest, if widely shared and enshrined in international law, limits the effect of war.  It certainly limits the impact of war on our own nation.

A strong principle once existed for condemning war unless it was a defensive act.  This was the European system of the last 400 years, particularly after the Congress of Vienna.  But it’s been degraded since the end of the Cold War in the name of human rights.  It faced an earlier challenged in the name of ethnic homogenization, as in the Franco-Prussian War.  But even this principle had natural limits, and it was thoroughly discredited (or rendered irrelevant by ethnic cleansing) after World War II.

Now even this limiting principle is gone.  Americans will suddenly go to war for Rwandans and Libyans and Chadians and God knows who else.  We can’t go to war for everyone everywhere, and say we’re for peace.  If we’re engaging in “humanitarian” wars without even a patina of concern for national interest, then our nation is acting like naked imperialists.  Just because a handful of nations, in the name of Europe, team up and say they’re in the right doesn’t make this conglomerate non-imperialist.  It’s just cooperative imperialism.  It doesn’t change the reality.

I genuinely felt sick during the Kosovo War.  I knew what it meant to be “ashamed” of your country.  It was a new feeling for me.  Not only was our nation getting into an unnecessary war, but it was doing so for stupid reasons, badgered by confused Europeans, swindled by propaganda, and we were on the wrong side.  Today it’s the same.  While I feel much less sympathy for Kaddafi compared to Christian Serbia, it’s otherwise a nearly identical situation.

Iraq, at its worst, still had some arguable connection to national interest, even if the war ultimately proved unnecessary or based on a mistaken premise.  Afghanistan clearly had such a connection, even if it’s dragged on too long, having metamorphisized into a democracy-building campaign.  But Kosovo?  Somalia?  And now Libya?  These are the military interventions of an idiotic national leadership, Republican and Democrat.

Obama, after waxing and waning, has made a choice.  He neglected to tell the American people why this is so important. And now, showing solemn regard for the seriousness of war, he is off . . . to Brazil!?!

Read Full Post »

Spontaneous Muslim Violence

It turns out the attacker (Arid Uka) of our troops transiting through Germany was a Albanian Muslim from Kosovo.   Apparently the West’s concerted attack on Christian Serbia in 1999 on behalf of the terrorist KLA earned us few rewards among the worldwide Muslim community.  The 9/11 attacks, this attack, and countless other spontaneous attacks by Muslims ranging from Maj. Nidal Hasan (spree killer at Fort Hood) and Sgt Akbar (turncoat fragger in Kuwait) to Abdulhakim Muhammad (Arkansas military recruiters) and John Muhammad (DC Sniper) continue apace, one every few months it seems,  all spawned by the spontaneous and deeply rooted notion of obligatory violence known as “jihad.”

As in other patterns that defy liberal expectations, expect this attack too soon to go down the memory hole, dismissed as a lone whackjob or as the “act of a tiny minority” defying the peaceful essence of Islam.  Muslim attacks are becoming about as humdrum and common as black on white crime in the legacy media.  And our political and cultural leaders, particularly on the so-called right wing, are doing very little to correct the dominant narrative on either score. For a “religion of peace” an awful lot of Muslims (a) commit violence (b) in the name of their religion (c) to the applause of their less courageous coreligionists (d) with ample textual, scholarly, and popular justification of their violent acts as legitimate expressions of Islam.  This is bad, of course, but it’s also a reality we can address, by cordoning off most of the Muslim world, preventing immigrants into our lands, and dealing with them, at most, in an arms length way to acquire useful natural resources like oil.  Otherwise, let them stew in their backward juices and keep to themselves.

While Obama and Bush both claimed to be at war with terrorism, we are more at war with reality itself.  By way of analogy, it’s as if we were fighting World War II and declaring the Nazi Party–which ruled Germany, controlled its industry and military apparatus, and enthralled a great majority of its people–as a tiny clique that was not expressing the freedom-loving and peaceful desires of the real Germany.   Further, it’s as if the deliberate and highly ideological mass killings of Slavs and Jews and Communists by the Nazis in the name of Nazism were treated as an aberration, to which any deep inquiry into Nazi ideology would yield little insight.

Our media and politicians are a complete  joke, and the joke is costing lives on a daily basis.  It cost lives on 9/11.  It costs lives every time a Muslim in the West goes on a killing spree.  And it costs lives as we impossibly try to shove western freedoms and democracy down the throats of proud, backwards, and violent Muslim tribesman in Afghanistan and Iraq.   Precisely because Islam is inherently violent, prickly, proud, and xenophobic, we do ourselves no favors by showing up in their lands with an expeditionary force promising “freedom,” which, in reality and correct Muslim perception means the export of western values, attitudes, and practices which are anathema to Muslims.

We must deal with reality as it is, and an honest inquiry into reality makes it plain that Muslim extremists are not that rare, their supporters even less rare still, and a cursory review of the Koran and Islamic history find ample justification for the use of violence against “infidels.”  After all, this was once widely known as the “Religion of the Sword,” before George W’s indifferentist and self-deceptive description of Islam as the “Religion of Peace.”  As bad as this is, at least he didn’t talk about Islam being “revealed” on the Arabian peninsula, as Obama heretically did in his famous Cairo speech.

Bush pretended to fight Islamic terrorists but, in the process, concealed the reality of Islam out of his big tent and moronic belief that everyone everywhere wanted to live like Americans and be governed like America.  Obama, by contrast, hates America, doesn’t think anyone truly wants to be like us (nor that they ought to), and revels in using his office as American president to subvert symbolically American values and prestige by engaging in ritual obeisance to Islam and the Third World generally . . . hence Islam was “revealed.”

And today, as a result of the confusion of so many western leaders, media figures, and ordinary citizens, more Americans have died as martyrs to the Western commitment to open borders, diversity, indifference to religion, and other suicidally liberal ideas.  A war on terrorism, this is not, because the terrorism we fight is a tactic in a broader campaign to Islamicize the world and the west.  Once that is understood, the far less costly and necessary changes to our immigration laws, hairbrained democratization efforts, and other policies become self-evident.

Read Full Post »

Horror Show in Kosovo

I’ve been critical before of the US intervention in Kosovo.  Unfortunately, for most Americans, this ill-advised venture has gone down the memory hole. For neoconservatives, it represents the beneficient application of US power.  For more liberal types, it was overshadowed by the alleged injustice of Iraq.  The later revelations of made-up Serbian genocide, the albanian destruction of churches and monastaries, and the NATO/Albanian mistreatment of the Serb minority have raised few eyebrows in the West.

Rumors of serious crimes by Hacim Thaci’s regime have persisted for years, mostly of the drug-dealing and women-trafficking variety.  I’ve heard here and there of “organ trafficking” but it sounded beyond belief, as well as being supported by scant evidence. Now it turns out not only may this be true, but that major international investigators have exposed the likelihood that human beings were deliberately murdered and their organs harvested by the Albanian regime that has been so strongly supported by the US:

Council of Europe investigator Dick Marty has defended his report on organ trafficking in Kosovo and Albania, saying his draft report is aimed at encouraging the search for truth.

Marty’s report, which was unveiled this week following a two-year investigation, accuses former commanders of the Kosovo Liberation Army of organizing organ-trafficking after the conflict with Serbian security forces ended in 1999.

Speaking at a press conference in Paris on December 16, Marty said what shocked him about the findings was that “most of the facts illustrated in this report were known by many institutions and that people kept silent about these facts.”

“I don’t think one can build the future of a country without working toward truth and without working on memory,” Marty stressed. “There will never be peaceful coexistence between the different communities if we continue to pretend not to know.”

Expect exactly nothing in the way of serious moves by the US to reorient our policy in the region.  Since the early 1990s, thanks to CNN, the Serbs are considered the bad guys, and no facts seem likely to change this prejudice, whether the 1995 Croation blitzkrieg and ethnic cleansing of Krajina or the latest news of Albanian savagery from Kosovo.  For reasons that call for more explanation, the US has maintained a pig-headed anti-Russian/anti-Orthodox bent to its foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and in spite of our natural alliance in the face of Muslim extremism whether in Iraq, Chechnya, or Newark, New Jersey.

Read Full Post »

Senator Joseph Lieberman writes today that we should get in the face of India, Russia, and China and shame them into reigning in Burma, with whom all three nations have good relations. And people think Bush is making America enemies around the world! This is typical of the Democrats’ post-cold-war foreign policy: the cause must be pure, with little relation to U.S. interests; the cost may be immense; the benefit (and likelihood of success) minimal; and then, and only then, will we know we are behaving authentically. Because only then will we know that our power is being used solely for humanitarian reasons. Liberals, in spite of their self-image as peaceniks, have a penchant for military intervention, so long as it’s done for the right reasons. Let’s not forget, Vietnam (1965-73), Korea (1950-53), Bosnia (1996), Kosovo (1999), Bay of Pigs (1961), Haiti (1995), and East Timor (1999) all happened on a Democratic President’s watch.

If one of these venture fails, we can rest assured that our purity of intention will make up for our errors. This is dangerous stuff, devoid of any natural barriers to excess. Bush is bad enough and also a kind of liberal: he combines a vague sense of interest with a messianic sense of mission that stresses democracy and human rights. But Obama, Lieberman, and Clinton are much worse: they forget the interest part and replace it solely with a good intentions policy, one that views “selfless” missions as more valuable because they prove to ourselves and the rest of the world that we are good people.

Almost all liberal foreign policy functions to discredit and apologize for the Western past. It is supposed to show we’ve “grown up” and are no longer mere imperialists. We don’t fight for ourselves but for others. Of course, we have an agenda, and it seems at first glance to be a kind of self-assured imperialism. But for liberal hawks that agenda is everyone’s agenda, because everyone wants democracy, free speech, MTV, homosexuality, CNN, globalization, outsourcing, abortion, etc., and the only reason they don’t have them now is because they’re oppressed. Remember how excited they were about the spontaneous rallying cry for the Iraq War “Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy,” as if our own standards on these matters were beyond criticism. Most important, liberal foreign policy functions to atone for the great stain of American inaction in the face of the Holocaust. Almost all their thinking is based on a set of principles that retroactively would have required our intervention in the European Campaign before December 7, 1941.

This is history repeating itself not as tragedy or farce, but as psychodrama.

Read Full Post »