The Monkeys are in charge of the Western world

You know the monkeys:

The monkeys' message — see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil — may be a useful one in the context of ordinary social relationships, where gossip is poisonous, but it's an utterly insane way to run the world. Nevertheless, that's precisely what the world is doing vis a vis Iran — it's completely ignoring the evil pouring out of that country. Michael Ledeen makes it very clear that Iran continues to amass weapons (nuclear, chemical, traditional), to target American troups, to foment strife in Iran, and generally to make deadly mischief, while the West sits idly by, mouthing nicey-nice platitudes. The result of this wilfull blindness about the reality that is Iran:

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is dying of cancer. But he is convinced that his legacy will be glorious. He believes that thousands of his Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers effectively control southern Iraq, and that the rest of the country is at his mercy, since we present no challenge to them — even along the Iraq/Iran border, where they operate with impunity. They calmly plan their next major assault without having to worry about American retribution. The mullahs have thousands of intelligence officers all over Iraq, as well as a hard core of Hezbollah terrorists — including the infamous Imadh Mughniyah, arguably the region’s most dangerous killer — and they control the major actors, from Zarqawi to Sadr to the Badr Brigades.

Khamenei and his top cronies believe they have effectively won. They think the U.S. is politically paralyzed, thanks to the relentless attacks of President Bush’s opponents and the five-year long internal debate about Iran policy, and thus there is no chance of an armed attack, even one limited to nuclear sites. They think Israel is similarly paralyzed by Sharon’s sudden departure and the triumph of their surrogate force, Hamas, in the Palestinian elections. They despise the Europeans, and hardly even bother to pretend to negotiate with them any more. They believe they have a strong strategic alliance with the Russians and they think they have the Chinese over a barrel, since the Chinese are so heavily dependent on Iranian oil. Recent statements from Beijing and Moscow regarding the chance of U.N. sanctions will have reinforced the Supreme Leader’s convictions.

I tend to think that, unless there is a sea change, Khamenei's won, because we refuse to recognize that there is a fight. The West is not even engaged in a principled — albeit stupid — effort at passive resistance to claim the moral high ground. Instead, the West (the U.S., the UN, Europe) is monkeying around, pretending that nothing is happening.

The historian Arnold Toynbee believed that all civilizations have lifespans. I always thought that the modern Western world would quietly fade away over centuries, as Rome did. It never occurred to me that we'd short circuit the process by killing ourselves — not in the nuclear Holocaust everyone envisioned during the First Cold War — but simply by exposing ourselves to imminent death by a thousand cuts.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    It isn’t that Bush isn’t paying attention or he doesn’t think Iran is a threat. No, from what I’ve seen of Bush’s psychological profile and behavior since 9/11, Bush just doesn’t believe in punishment. Not in the sense of the judiciary here in America, whom gave parole to child rapists because punishment is “bad”, but in the sense that Bush doesn’t believe in using the power of the United States, power invested in him by 300 million people, to PUNISH our enemies.

    Why should we punish our enemies? Because you are never going to be able to exterminate them all through a war to the knife, and you shouldn’t. A complete waste of time and resources to kill all your enemies. It is far better to get your enemies to kill themselves, convinced that their way was not instigated by your way.

    But irregardless, we should punish our enemies because like little children, if you just reward them then they are just going to get spoiled. Case in point, look at how we treat the retards in GitMo. In most of history, those people would have been executed and forgotten in an unknown grave. But because Bush doesn’t believe in punishing his enemy, he gives them Geneva Conventions when the Iraqis and the Taliban have never given our troops that they captured the same “consideration”.

    Most Americans are not saints, they don’t go around being a good samaritan 100% of the time. They have their own interests, beliefs, and selfish desire to protect themselves and their family.

    Bush is too much the saint, and not enough the ruthless warrior as Sherman was. Look at Grant, he was a President and a General. But did you know that Grant was deathly afraid of the sight of blood, and would become physically ill at the sight of it? The saviors of the United States of America through ALL time, have always believed in peace through superior firepower. Bush believes he can achieve peace through “conservative compassion”.

    Jacksonians, disagree vehemently.

    For example. Most of AMerica would have no trouble with using our military to intimidate certain nations, like Turkey France and China, into giving us a more favorable trade deal or giving us more international concessions. But to Bush, this use of America power is seen by him as “immoral”. Bush is not a bully, and the fact that the Left called him one, means Bush is even more not a bully. Just like when the Left called him unilateralist, and the opposite was true, and the Left knew IT and still lied.

    Most Americans right now, wouldn’t really mind if Bush ordered Total Unrestricted Submarine Warfare on Iranian ports and ships, sinking them all on sight.

    But to Bush, this use of power is “undiplomatic” and “unwise”. He doesn’t even talk about it. So either his advisors are all incompetents who can’t think outside the box of “American Cold War objectives and restrictions” or Bush unconsciously avoids creative uses of the military and Presidential powers. Bush ain’t a “conservative” for nothing. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If Iran looks to be breaking Iraq, well, let’s just wait until we are sure our friendly Euros can’t do something about that.

    North Korea, Iran, Iraq, those were all multilateral decisions Bush made. By subjugating American power to our so called allies, he gave our enemies the reward of time. For NK, he wants China to deal with them. For Iran, he wants Europe and Israel to deal with them. For Iraq, he wants the Iraqis to deal with the problems.

    Bush is certainly willing to risk his Presidency and his honor on risky objectives. But Bush is incapable or simply unwilling of thinking outside the box, the box of conservative policies.

    Even though the conservatives are now championing civil rights and human rights, the conservatives are still conservative. Throughout American history, it was the true liberals that brought innovation and new foreign policy initiatives. Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican that nobody in the Republican party liked, served a self-restricting 2 terms and reinvigorated American foreign policy and national morale. Liberals are ruthless, and they don’t really care what happens to nations so long as human rights are maintained. Conservatives don’t like to rock the boat, so while they are just as determined to protect America as the true liberals of JFK, Truman, and Roosevelt’s time, conservatives just won’t kill enough people to do it with. Killing people requires rocking the boat, it requires changing the status quo, and many conservatives are just constitutionally unwilling to consider such things. Don’t mistake my intent, if conservatives weren’t able to change and adapt, they wouldn’t be leading this country in the War on Terror. But irregardless of the gains the Republican party has made, people are still people. With the same fundamental beliefs they had before 9/11.

    A person who hated America and who never liked human rights before 9/11, is not going to change to a patriotic human rights American after 9/11.

    In understanding the fundamental human psychology of Bush and conservatives, a lot of his foreign policies make a lot more sense than Blood for Oil, Weapons of Mass Deception, or Chicken hawk Arguments the retarded incompetents on the Left tend to explain things with.

    I tend to believe, as do most Jacksonians, that if you’re willing to kill people and be killed in return (iraq) then you should also favor punitive retributions in order to get people to stop doing certain things. A punitive retribution, for example, would be to bomb the Fallujah bridge when CNN was showing charred and burned Americans, as soon as you realized that people were having a party over killing an America. That is a punitive retribution. And I can guarantee that afterwards, less people will be willing to go out into the streets to cheer against the Great Satan. It’s a whole lot more useful than Clinton bombing the Chinese embassy in Eurasia. And if CNN actually gets a shot of it, then all the better. We’ll say that a bomb went “astray”, maybe because so many people were cheering.

    Another punitive action would be to bomb the funeral they held for the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, that were helping out an Al Qaeda leader that we assassinated with a bomb/missile. This sends the message that your “guests” not only endanger those around him, but whoever gives him shelter or complains about his removal.

    If you’re going to bomb Al Qaeda living in a Pashtun village, and willing to kill a whole lot of “indiscriminate” people along with your target, then you’d better make sure the entire village is completely suppressed. Otherwise you’re just creating more converts to Al Qaeda, more partisans for Al Qaeda, and showing American cowardness in not facing our enemy mano on mano, face to face.

    Punishment alone, does not work. That’s why Al Qaeda executing Iraqis all day long with IEDs and knives aren’t working. You have to offer rewards as well. But the rewards offered by the Americans, are indisputably valuable.

    Our ability to reward our allies is undisputed and unchallenged, it is our inability to punish our enemies that is seen as a weakness by enemy and friend alike. The Iraqis see us releasing prisoners from Abu Ghraib instead of executing them, and feeling vulnerable because those criminals will kill their families. SO why should they risk their lives to help out Americans when they don’t receive neither reconstruction nor protection?

    People believe that 140,000 American troops should make Iraqis feel safe. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t realize that if you live in a bad enough neighborhood, it doesn’t matter how many “police” there are to protect you. Our problem isn’t corruption, we can’t be bought off in Iraq. However, if you see your child blown up by one dude, and then the police just releases him later instead of killing him, then how does that help you that the police is in your neighborhood? You don’t feel safe, and you aren’t going to provide tips to the police.

    This is getting quite long, so I’ll save my insights on japanese culture, genkai, and limits somewhere else. I’ve stated the problem, next time I’ll state some possible solutions. Bombing Pashtun villages and Fallujah bridges are a 4, from a scale of 1 to 10 in effectiveness. The most highly effective propaganda projects to use in this war, don’t involve killing more than 5 people at once.