Been there, done that (and a little bit about R2P) *UPDATED*

As I said yesterday, part of my blog silence has been that I was very actively engaged in wrapping up my book for e-publishing.  It’s been an amazing amount of work.  Starting last August, I went back and reviewed all 6,500+ of my old posts.  A lot of them are little nothings (“Hey, look at this cool post by someone else!”), but a fair number were substantive.  I copied all the substantive ones into the world’s biggest Word document, and then started reading them all to winnow out wheat from chaff.  After several months, I ended up with 100,000 words worth of posts, which makes for a long book.  I figured, though, that it would be nice to provide bang for the buck.

After the winnowing, came the editing.  As I repeatedly demonstrate here, I’m not the world’s best proofreader, something made worse by the fact that blog posts don’t tend to be carefully cultivated documents in the first place.  They’re responsive to the moment, so I slam them out.  I used Word’s spell and grammar checkers in the first pass (even though they’re deeply flawed), had Don Quixote read things, and then read everything myself five or six times.  Again, very, very time-consuming.

This past weekend I made the final push, which involved getting everything in e-publish ready format.  I’d done most of that already, since I’m a fairly meticulous word processor, but there was still a lot of coding (and un-coding) required to get the book up and out.  Now I wait, since Smashwords, which I chose as my outlet, is processing the material I uploaded.  When I have links, I’ll let you know.  To be honest, you all have been with me every step of the way for this book, as it consists of posts that you guys have read, commented upon, contributed to, etc.  If you buy the book, it will be an act of charity, since you won’t be getting anything you haven’t already gotten before.

It’s that “anything you haven’t already gotten before” factor that’s also slowed my blogging in the last few days.  Although there are new events unfolding (Libya, UN, economy, healthcare debate, etc.), I keep having a feeling of deja vu all over again.  I’ve written before about the Middle East’s theocratic tyrannies, about the UN’s anti-American and anti-Israeli animus, about Obama’s fecklessness and anti-Americanism, and about the disaster that is government spending.  I can write about the latest news, but my conclusions are unchanging:  Obama is a disaster, big government is dangerous, the Middle East is a cesspool of Islamic antisemitism, ObamaCare won’t work and will drive up costs, the UN is a fundamentally evil institution, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I’ll get my groove back and start blogging substantively, I promise, but for the next day or say, it may take me a little while to shake off the deja vu feeling that’s haunting everything I read.

Until then, I’d like to recommend very highly Trevor Loudon’s post about the insanity of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine that Obama used to justify sending American troops into war without even a nod to Congress.

The doctrine, by the way, isn’t a new one.  It’s been around several years.  It was originally framed as a response to such atrocities as Rwanda or the Balkans, where genocide occurred within a nation’s own borders.  The world watched these genocides and dithered.  The question, of course, was “shouldn’t we step in to save these poor people?”  The R2P doctrine says, “yes, we should.”  Except the UN is deciding who gets saved and who doesn’t.  This means two things:  The UN becomes a supranation, superseding all other nations; and the UN decides who is a victim and who isn’t.  You’ll notice that the UN didn’t bother with the R2P doctrine when the Sudanese government was systematically slaughtering first Christians and then black Muslims.  It didn’t step in when Iran was murdering its own citizens.  For reasons as yet unclear to me, the UN doesn’t like Qaddafi, so he suddenly gets bombed under R2P.  I’m not saying he’s not a foul little guy, but his depredations don’t affect most of the world.

What’s very clear is that R2P, with Obama’s guiding hand, will inevitably be used to justify a UN attack against Israel.  After all, 90% of the UN’s efforts are to protect the poor, simple, innocent, peaceful Palestinians from evil, aggressive, genocidal Israel murder.  It’s a situation ripe for the R2P doctrine.  Bush and Bolton would have stopped that.  Obama and Powers will say “bring it on.”

Also, it turns out that Tom, a Watcher’s Council member, is also a musician and musical parodist.  Check this one out.

UPDATE:  The inevitable — a call to wage war against Israel based upon R2P principles — has begun.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Just to be on record, Obama will not support a UN attack on Isreal.  It would be political suicide in the U.S.  He’s smarter than that.  Perhaps he might do so deep into a second term, when political suicide no longer matters but, otherwise, not a chance. Congratulations on the book!

  2. suek says

    “The UN becomes a supranation, superseding all other nations; and the UN decides who is a victim and who isn’t.”
     
    Yeah.  They call it the “One World Order”.
     
    And also…now I feel guilty for not having commented on any errors I noticed in your postings.  Most don’t really matter in a blog sense – they’re mostly typos, or revise errors, or mind jump things – but if we’d caught them earlier, maybe you wouldn’t have had so much editing to do!

  3. Randall Woodman says

    Will you be using your real name or your blogging name?

    Things I know about Book.  (This may start it’s own page.)

    Is a conservative, her husband is liberal.
    She lives in the San Francisco area.  I think probably south of that.
    Has an Asian heritage
    Has some Jewish background
    Has kids.  Unsure of the number but I think 2 or 3
    I think she has a college degree but not sure in what field.  I think law

  4. says

    There’s no evidence for DQ’s claim that Obama is smart to the degree that it would impact his decisions, or even that it would matter given how busy he is on the golf and basketball game course.

  5. JKB says

    Notice they don’t use R2P to attack North Korea, who according to Amnesty International, use food as weapon.  And not just any food, but American food aid to reward supporters, enrich the military and regime and punish opposition.  Now, if there ever is a Responsibility to Protect it is when a country is using distribution of American aid to murder its own citizens.  There we have a national interest.

    As for attacking Israel, I wonder if that might provoke a stand down by the US military.   I even sense some pushback in this current adventure of Obama’s.  In the naming of the operation, the honesty of the SecDef, Chairman JCS and the theater commander.  In any case, an attack against Israel would not be bloodless on the “coalition” side.

  6. says

    I doubt that Obama would dare go so far as to have America attack Israel directly. I do think it’s possible that he would declare an arms & spare-parts embargo against Israel while it was defending itself against attacks by others.

  7. Charles Martel says

    I think Dave Foster is right. We know from watching him operate over the past two years that Obama attacks what he despises mostly by indirection, such as the Constitution.

    NBOTUS would not dare attack Israel directly, not only because he lacks the balls to do such a thing, but also because it would be an unmitigated disaster. The Israeli military is the only one on earth whose soldiers and air force can arguably stand toe-to-toe with their U.S. counterparts.

    If NBOTUS decided to mount an attack from afar, Israel could threaten to embroil the United States in a horrendous donnybrook by selectively nuking nearby Arab targets. Given Obama’s love for Arab dictators (his low-bowing ass kiss of the Saudi king comes to mind), that would probably scare NBOTUS off.

  8. says

    I agree with all of you that Obama would never directly support an attack against Israel.  He would maintain plausible deniability.  What I envision is behind the scenes encouragement, and public hand-wringing.  At the end, when a few European and Muslim countries agree to attack Israel through the UN, he’d shrug and say, “I tried to stop them.”  And that would be that.

  9. Charles Martel says

    Israel’s enemies routinely attack it via the UN. But their attacks are all paper-tiger stuff. There is no Arab army or combination of armies that have the leadership or training to take on the IDF. As for the Europeans, only the Brits have an army that could come even close to duking it out with the IDF.

    Could you imagine the Europeans trying to make an alliance with the incompetents that run Arab armies? In terms of pure slapstick it would be a supreme Peter Sellers/Inspector Clouseau moment.

  10. CollegeCon says

    Besides the practical problems Charles already pointed out, the UN is too much of a collective coward to attack a country that possesses a plausible ability to fight back, particularly without American support, which would be nearly impossible to get in the case of an attack on Israel.

  11. SADIE says

    I think the quote below best summarizes the Obama doctrine.
     
    Let me paraphrase: “We’re winging it”
     
     
    “We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent,” said Denis McDonough, the administration’s deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. “We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”
     
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

  12. says

    Probably a more serious threat than direct/massive military attack is a protracted squeeze: economic boycotts combined with continuing low-level attacks to sap resources.
    For example: Israel has started initial deployment of its Iron Dome system, intended to shoot down Palestinian short-range rockets. Unfortunately, the cost of each intercept missile is $35-70K, whereas the Palestinians can make rockets for a few hundred $$ each. So even if Iron Dome engages only those rockets which it assesses as threats to populated areas, a protracted rocket barrage could be very expensive to defend against.
    The most disturbing thing is the degree to which hostility to Israel has become such a dominant feature among academics, writers, etc. See my post fourteen days of vileness.

  13. SADIE says

    David Foster
     
    Israeli Apartheid Week is one-half of the bookend the other half would be Durbin I/Durbin II and Durban III set for NYC this September. Certainly there are more than one set of block heads (strike) bookends. The wonder of it all, none of them read anything but science fiction.

Leave a Reply