Obama's Military Cuts: Stupid or Hate America?

With Barack Obama, it is always a question of stupidity being the main motivator, or the usual "Hate America" found in liberal, Black, and other circles. The man after all bragged he hung around gays, Muslims, Black radicals, feminists, and others in College. Does that sound like any normal young (straight) man you know? At any rate, Obama has announced cuts of about half a million US Army and Marine troops, ending the ability to fight two wars at once while declaring, "the tide of war is receding."

The phrase "the tide of war is receding" is guaranteed to go down in history as one of the top ten stupidest things ever uttered by a Western leader, along with "Peace in Our Time!" and "We can do business with Mr. Hitler."


Obama surely reads his daily briefings. Outlining the dangers from Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and China and Russia behind them. Obama is either monumentally stupid, a low-IQ Black man who had "smoke blown up his ass" his entire life for the ability to speak in standard English not Ebonics for extended periods of time by disingenuous White Liberals who hailed him a genius, and as a consequence continues to fail miserably at elemental, gut-level tests of competence Bill Clinton could pass, or he simply hates America as the epitome of "evil White people" so much he wants to punish them and America. Of course, he could be both. In any event, his words "the tide of war is receding" will be flung back in his face time and time again. It is guaranteed. Because having a strong military is like having insurance, it is costly until you need it. And you always need it. Not having it invites disaster. A man who rammed through ObamaCare to cover illegal aliens and others with health insurance ought to know that.

Having the ability to fight two major conventional wars at the same time is critical. It is critical because America's current enemies, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia are sure to act in a conventional manner to destroy American security objectives dating back to FDR, when America is occupied fully with ONE existing conventional conflict. Which is sure to break out any day now.

Why? Because the international situation is uncertain. And it is uncertain because America is weak, divided, disdains military power, and has been proven without a doubt for the past thirty five years or so to be bullied with little risk. George W. Bush bought America time (though he did not understand what he did, and handled the Iraq War poorly) by making an example of Saddam. To encourage the others. That time is now up.

America faces two fundamental problems. The first is energy scarcity, which can be managed long-term by fracking/drilling in the US and using unconventional techniques, at the expense of Green purity and throwing out green/renewable fantasies of windmills and solar panels powering a modern industrial society. Note: managed. Not solved. Demand for oil and natural gas and coal, too, will keep energy costs high because China, and to a lesser extent India, Brazil, and other developing countries want nice things too, that cost energy: clean water, sewage systems that work, power that goes on and stays on, not just for two intermittent hours a day, hospitals that are clean and sanitary, and a modern industrial base to power all that.

The second problem is related to the first. Food. Zerohedge reports that as Spengler at the Asian Times and PJM has noted, food prices are set to go up indefinitely as arable land declines, petroleum goes up (the two are related, think about it for a minute, no one uses horses to plow fields), and Chinese demand intensifies. Made worse of course by bio-fuel subsidy madness in the US, turning food into fuel.

This is causing a crisis. As Zerohedge points out, in another post, Iran depends on sky-high oil and imports most of its food. Like Tunisia, then Algeria, then Libya, and now Syria, the main cause for discontent is people not being able to eat. As Spengler noted, Chinese peasants will eat before Arabs (and Iranians). Because the Chinese can pay more for food. ZeroHedge notes:

It has been estimated that the Iranian theocracy cannot fund its bloated bureaucracies, military and its welfare state if oil falls below around $40-$45/barrel. Drop oil to $25/barrel and keep it there, and the Iranian regime will implode, along with the Chavez regime in Venezuela.
Saber-rattling actually aids the Iranian regime by artificially injecting a "disruptive war" premium into the price of oil: they can make the same profits from fewer barrels of oil.
The way to put them out of business is drop the price of oil and restrict their sales by whatever means are available. They will be selling fewer barrels and getting less than production costs for those barrels. With no income, the regime will face the wrath of a people who have become dependent on the State for their sustenance and subsidized fuel.

Of course, easier said than done. China has lots of money, needs to keep the power on for its own internal stability, and will reliably prop up the price of oil to keep feeding its people, and paying for their food. Rarely is something simple easily attainable. Like losing weight or playing a musical instrument, it takes work and struggle.

This is precisely WHY the US needs a military that can fight two conventional wars at the same time. Because regimes like Iran and North Korea are hit hard by rising food prices, as well as Pakistan, and want War as a release from forces that threaten to overturn them as in Egypt, and Tunisia, and Libya, and probably Syria. No one wants to end like say, Khadaffi, stabbed in the buttocks with a knife, to death. There for everyone to glory in, on Youtube.

Thus, of course Iran wants War. They crave it, as the only thing that can push oil prices high enough to pay for food, and at the same time allow them unfettered ability to kill all domestic political opponents. It does not matter if they take terrible losses, they've had them before. A swarming attack, against a carrier battle group, preceded by days of false moves and provocations to wear down attention and attentiveness, can easily sink a carrier. Many in Iran think that doing so will cause the US to simply turn tail and run. Under Barack Obama, they may be right.

At the very least, they can smuggle out oil at $200 a barrel, closing the Straight of Hormuz through mobile missile strikes and mines and such, perhaps also launching attacks on Iraq taking out its oil facilities and even the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Omanis. China, and many other countries, would be happy to buy oil at those prices under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, North Korea starves to death, under a new leader even more despised and incapable than the last. One who is young, prone to torturing small animals as a child, and fat and unattractive at twenty eight. Kim Jong Eun has one play, only and that is war. War with South Korea and the US. Not to win, but just not to be overthrown.

Particularly if the US is occupied elsewhere, say the Persian Gulf, and thus all sorts of gains can be seized, even perhaps ALL of South Korea and even Japan. You don't have to be a giant if your enemies are all midgets. Neither country has much of a military, much less military age young men, much less any ability to sustain a long, ugly war. Without the US ready to fight, prospects look a lot better than ending up like Khadaffi. Since Jong Eun is even less loved than the Colonel.

Likely at this point, both Iran and North Korea are playing a game of "after you, Alphonse." Since the second mover has the advantage -- no US forces to confront him.

Obama's cuts to missile defense, his ongoing cuts to nuclear forces, and a reliance on drones (easily hacked, as even Iran was able to do) is a fantasy strategy. Since the US from FDR onward has relied on US Naval and Air dominance in the Persian Gulf to control the world price of oil. To the US liking. And disadvantage in particular of Russia, which has nothing else but oil to offer.

Russia and China are sure to challenge the US dominance, if for no other reason than to order the world to their advantage and the US disadvantage. This is normal politics, Russia can only survive in a world where oil is hideously expensive. China can only survive the onslaught of all those men without any female counterparts because of selective sex abortions, and a slowing economy beset by corruption and cronyism, by dominance of neighbors and ultimately the entire Pacific. Otherwise all those resources (including yes women) don't flow into China to keep the social peace and the folks at the highest levels end up like Khadaffi. No one wants a knife up their ass.

Nor are the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, and the Pakistanis (who are fully nuclear, have a disintegrating populace and state, are beset by Jihadis, and under siege from rising food prices) stupid. They know that a limited, cut to the bone American Military might not even be able to win in one place, and surely will not in two or more. Hence the move to create two or more crisis by pouring fuel on any regional crisis set afire.

In my opinion, at some level Obama understands this and welcomes this. All those decades of "hate America" along with the "hate Whitey" rhetoric of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan (a frequent visitor to the White House according to logs, unsurprising since Obama was a neighbor of Farrakhan's in Chicago) had to take their intellectual toll. At some level, Obama constantly strives to make all those sermons he heard from Wright come true. That is Barack Obama. You don't spend twenty years listening to Rev. Wright (and likely Louis Farrakhan) and not want to make their dreams come true.

Ultimately that is a stupid move, since leaders rarely prosper by punishing their people. Nor is the model of most Muslim tribal nations (raise up a tribe of favored few, like Saddam's Tikritis, and punish the rest) likely to succeed in a nation as big and as powerful (in the sense that ordinary people are not beaten dogs, but individuals jealous of their liberties, mostly) as America. Obama's likely destination is impeachment and conviction, with a long jail time as an object lesson. Being the first President to deliberately lose critical wars in disastrous fashion that degrades life for the average American (oil and food at unaffordable levels for years until drilling and growing are refashioned) pretty much guarantees that. But for years, Obama was never punished politically, socially, or economically for associating with odious figures like Wright and Farrakhan, so it is no surprise that he deliberately wants to harm America.

The alternative of course is not endless Wars for Democracy in Muslim lands. But rather a military able to dominate the Pacific and Persian Gulf at the same time. Withdrawing troops from Europe is a minor savings, but closing bases there leads to a lack of forward positioning in the area and increases US dependence on … Israel. As the only friendly country in the area with ports, airbases, and a population able to support force projection. While Germany, Italy, and England are not close to the Middle East, they are closer than Arkansas or Georgia, and provide "good enough" ability to stage and marshall forces bound for the Middle East. While troops can and should be withdrawn from many areas, the bases should remain.

Drones, easily hacked and dependent on an increasingly vulnerable satellite system (now even Iran has the ability to shoot down satellites, joining Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan) are no substitute for US air power with the best air superiority fighter (the F-22, canceled) and the best ground support airplane (the A-10, canceled). Cyberwarfare is no match for US naval forces able to punish enemies and control the seas (including keeping the Straights of Hormuz open for shipping). These all cost, and the costs seem high. Until say, Iran and North Korea and China and Pakistan (and perhaps even Venezuela) all launch attacks hoping to achieve regional dominance cheap and easy at the US's expense.

If you liked your life with gas at $5 a gallon, wait until it reaches $10 per gallon. See how much social peace is bought then. The US too, is not immune from the social changes around the globe of Chinese peasants eating a lot better than they did before.
...Read more

The Failure of American Power

Steve Sailer has written on the 20th anniversary of the Highway of Death, and the awesome power of American air power. Which is undeniably potent. But also an undeniable failure, in achieving American national security goals. Obama's war but not war, against Libya and Khadaffi, and removal but not removal, of Khadaffi from power, is only the latest failure (and possibly the largest one yet) of American power in the Middle East. To put it bluntly, every President from Carter onwards has failed, in different ways, in achieving national security goals in the Middle East. They have failed, because they did not appreciate the need for infantry power, and the limits of American Air power, no matter how magnificent that power might be. It is still, limited. And as such, relying upon it has brought nothing but failure to American goals in the Middle East.


First, what are the American goals in the Middle East? FDR said on Feb 16, 1943, "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States." This doctrine was further articulated in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter Doctrines. The Carter Doctrine stated explicitly that the US would use military force to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf. Now, what might those interests be? Why, the free flow of oil, at prices the US consumer can afford. That is, really, the only interest the US has in the Gulf, and one that goes all the way back to the middle of WWII.

Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush, articulated variations of the Carter Doctrine, as did Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. But the basic outline of the Carter Doctrine has stayed in place. The US would use military force, to shape the outcome of power struggles in the Persian Gulf, to the US national security advantage. Which boils down to the free flow of oil, at prices that at a minimum do not choke off economic activity in the US.

As long as Americans like eating safe, relatively clean, and affordable food, like affordable cooling and heating for their homes, like homes that are affordable and far from crime and violence of the ghetto and barrio, and incomes befitting First World people not Third World slum dwellers, the need to shape Persian Gulf and Middle East politics and power struggles will remain. Oil, and the free flow of it at affordable prices, remain in the US national security interest. You might argue that absent nuclear terrorism or attacks by foreign countries with nuclear weapons, securing the free flow of oil from the Middle East at reasonable prices is the supreme goal of American foreign policy.

There are those who would argue, and have argued, that the best way to secure America's interests is one long apology, followed by withdrawal from the region. That America has "original sin" and only makes things worse, being mostly White, mostly Christian, and thus generates pure hatred. That withdrawing from the Middle East will bring rainbows, unicorns, and rivers of chocolate. And that if it does not work out, well America doesn't need or deserve cheap energy anyway. God must want us punished for being wicked, or something. It is not a serious argument, but one made anyway. As Machiavelli noted about Savonarola, unarmed prophets preaching a new millennium come always to martyrdom and failure.

America was generally lucky, in the years following 1943 to 1979. America had allies, scared out of their wits by the Soviets and their sponsoring of Arab Nationalism, of a secular character. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the Persian Gulf States, the Shah of Iran, and later Sadat's Egypt all looked to the US for support against Soviet subversion. This stable set of affairs (for the Middle East anyway) was blown apart by the Iranian Revolution, and direct confrontation in the Persian Gulf over control of its oil. By the Mullahs of Iran, who sought out actively a confrontation with the United States.

Carter of course failed miserably, not the least of which he was constrained by post-Vietnam desire to avoid casualties at all costs. Which led to a disastrous reliance on air power alone. Operation Eagle Claw was only the first in a set of disasters. Ronald Reagan was chased out of Lebanon by Iran and Hezbollah bombing the US Marine Barracks and US Embassy. An overt act of war that caused the Gipper to retreat, in panic. Desultory attempts to use the USS Iowa to shell Lebanese villages with its 18 inch guns had no real effect. In order to either rescue the hostages, or control valuable real estate in the Eastern Mediterranean, the US needed to commit ground troops and accept some considerable measure of casualties. Air power alone, cannot hold ground. It cannot take cities, rescue hostages, or defeat militias. Only troops on the ground can do these things. And inevitably, doing these things cause large amounts even with Western advantages, of casualties. A price no President save George W. Bush has been willing to pay.

This failure only accelerated in the Gulf War. While Sailer correctly notes how devastating the attack on the Highway of Death was, from Saddam's viewpoint he won the Gulf War. He was still in charge of Iraq. Air power failed to dislodge him from power. So he lost a good part of his army? So what? They were replaceable from his point of view. So his people suffered? So what? They existed merely to serve him, from his point of view. His army could be rebuilt. Sanctions endured and then evaded. And the experience of Iraq, and the thirteen years from the end of the Gulf War to the start of the Persian Gulf War, perfectly illuminates the failure of Air Power alone to achieve US objectives.

The US objective in fighting Saddam in the first place was to secure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, at a reasonable price. The flow of oil at a reasonable price being the key to America's economic security. Kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait did not achieve that objective. Saddam could always come back, and this time drive all the way to Yemen, taking Saudi oil fields. Only constant, grinding, combat air patrols over Iraq, kept Saddam on a leash. Not truce agreements, United Nations resolutions, various informal agreements, all of which Saddam signed and soon reneged upon. Bill Clinton had to launch Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 in response to Iraq failing to comply with various UN disarmament resolutions and Saddam kicking out arms inspectors. Of course, constant combat air patrols and periodic bombing campaigns against Saddam required extensive use of Saudi airbases, itself something sensitive and cited often by Osama bin Laden as "justification" for jihadi attacks against the US and certainly US civilians inside America.

Just as important, however, was the manifest failure of US airpower. Osama and other Jihadis studied the results carefully, and as Lawrence Wright wrote in "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11," argued persuasively that Saddam, not the US, had won the Gulf War. Won it by surviving, and staying in power. That in the opinion of Osama bin Laden, the US was a paper tiger, with no staying power, that could be safely attacked in any form, provided that the attackers were willing and able to shelter, take some acceptable level of casualties, and then advance to their goal once America tired of the effort.

This argument won the day, particularly after the debacle of Somalia, and the fairly impotent US response. The US did not level Mogadishu (which would have been the response of an Arab leader) nor did it kill masses of Somalis. The deadliness of the US defense (about 3,000 estimated Somalis killed in exchange for the roughly 19 Americans killed) did not register. Clinton's fairly impotent cruise missile response to the 1998 African Embassy bombings, and non-response to the assault on the Cole, only increased the view among jihadis, and Muslims world-wide generally, that the US lacked the will and the ability to impose its will upon the Middle East, and that the US and its interests could be safely attacked provided the attacker was willing to take some casualties like Saddam, and hunker down until the US got tired.

For those wondering why the Taliban ever agreed to Osama's plan to attack the US on 9/11, this is why. More importantly, this perception also colors the Iranian response. Iran did try to blockade the Persian Gulf, with its Navy, and mining efforts. Resulting in Operation Preying Mantis, which showed US air power was decisive in destroying targets at sea and in port. Naval warfare is not the same as guerilla warfare on land. Iran has been careful not to repeat the experience, and has put most of its assets into a nuclear ICBM program and paramilitary operations (principally Hezbollah) which operating on land can employ the Saddam strategy: hunker down, take casualties, outlast the Americans as they get tired.

After 9/11, George W. Bush tried a different strategy. US Air power proved decisive in defeating the Taliban in concert with the Northern Alliance and small groups of US Special Forces. US Air power again proved decisive in allowing US ground forces to dominate and destroy the forces of Saddam Hussein. Pre-War predictons of a "battle of Baghdad" rivaling that of Stalingrad or Berlin proved nonsense. US casualties were very light.

But occupying Iraq to achieve the US national security aims: providing the free flow of oil to the world market at a reasonable price, proved far more difficult. Iraq's broken, and tribal society proved a perfect setting for massive bloodletting. America expected US Air and armored warfare dominance to be matched by infantry dominance, and was angered when it was not, with (light by historical standards but) casualties they found simply too high. Bush never explained in any way the interests of the United States in securing Iraq's oil, and territory (against the Iranians and AQ) to further the free flow of oil on reasonable terms to the world and thus US markets. It was a simple proposition. Blood for oil. The point being that only some limited amount of US bloodshed could secure the oil, without which the US economy would grind to a massive halt, with widespread poverty due to sky-high energy prices. And that the territory of Iraq needed to be secured, lest Iran use it against us to disrupt the flow of oil. Iran having a built-in desire to jack up oil prices sky high. [To pay for their thug-security army.]

Bush never made this simple explanation, was appalled at the suggestion of "blood for oil" (well, of course) and behaved like the mainstream, JFK-style liberal the man was and remains. Bush simply stopped explaining or defending his policies, much less challenging critics on how they would secure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf at reasonable prices, to secure the US economy and provide growth.

And as casualties mounted, the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan learned how to cope with US airpower. Mounting time-limited attacks (often no more than fifteen minutes, timing the distance and availability of US aircraft to provide close air support). Using IEDs as equalizers, and using attrition style ambushes aimed at political defeats at home, not decisive victory against the US. Whose ability on the ground also grew, as US forces became better as well in infantry fighting.

Which leads us to Libya. It is in the interest of the US to secure the oil from Libya, to the global markets, as quickly as possible. Unrest in Nigeria, delays in bringing Iraq's oil to market, and unrest in the Persian Gulf have left markets without much spare capacity. Japan will need diesel generators for years on end, to provide power to a significant portion of its population. Driving up oil usage. Libya provides ten percent of the global market, and its oil unlike the Saudis is relatively free of sulfur and other impurities. Making it easier and cheaper to refine.

It is also in the interest of the United States to demonstrate its power to remove a troublesome leader. This is because the Middle East and Persian Gulf in particular, is unstable, and new leaders can quickly arise who are hostile to the US. It is useful to remind such men that the US has powers if it chooses to use them, that can greatly aid in the removal of such men.

It is further in the interest of the United States that Libya not become an embarkation point for mass migration of North Africans and Africans to Europe, nor a Disneyland resort for Al Qaeda and other jihadis, nor Somalia upon the Mediterranean. These are important, and complementary goals of the US. To achieve one, it is required to achieve them all.

At this point, Air Power alone cannot achieve them. Air Power used against Khadaffi three weeks ago might have defeated him, as his regime was reeling, he had many desertions, and he appeared to be on the outs. Now that he has a mercenary army, quickly assembled, and paid by with gold held personally in the Bank of Libya in Tripoli (Khadaffi was not stupid, and observed the seizure of assets in Switzerland and other countries of such leaders as Pinochet, Charles Taylor, and Kabila). Khadaffi has reportedly, enough gold to pay his army for years.

The rebels are a rabble incapable of military order or much of anything. They are untrained, undisciplined, and refuse to listen to anyone with military experience on the need for good order, conservation of ammunition, hygiene, conservation of water, and so on. Even with US air power, about all that can be accomplished is a de facto partition of Libya, with the oil out of the world market for decades, Libya likely turning into a Disneyland for AQ and other jihadis (in Khadaffi's and the rebel's partitions) and Somalia upon the Med. With a cherry upon top of US defeat, yet again, and visible defeat. To embolden America's enemies in the Gulf, intent on interfering with the free flow of oil at a reasonable price.

To achieve US goals, US military forces on the ground, including considerable amounts of infantry and armor, will be required to drive upon Tripoli, and oust Khadaffi. This means casualties, bloodshed, and US pain. It will require money, and a military occupation of Libya that is costly and painful and divisive.

Can it be done? Certainly? Should it be done? On balance, I would argue yes. Obama's stated reasons for bombing Libya, that the UN "responsibility to protect" civilian populations from massacres by their own leaders, is laughable. The Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sudan, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and East Timor have all either recently experienced this, are experiencing it now, or will likely experience it again in the future. And no one seriously suggests that the UN can order the US military, which cannot refuse the order, to protect these people. Nor does the UN have any role in ordering the US military, at all, either to permit it to do something, or not, or order it to do something. This madness is Obama's one-world anti-Americanism, reflexively at work.

This madness does not mean that the US has no interests in Libya. Quite the contrary. Nor does it mean that the US should shy away from any and all confrontation. Nor does it mean that the US cannot or should not ever engage in military action in pursuit of its national interests. What it does mean, is that it needs to clearly define, in terms every average citizen can understand, what is the national interest. Not abstruse concepts of "Muslims yearn for freedom" or such liberal garbage (something that George W. Bush had in common with JFK, which is why Liberals loathe Bush so much, he is basically a liberal heresy). But rather, the US depends on cheap global oil, which allows us to keep places like Florida and California clean of oil rigs, and the inevitable oil spills, and still have a good quality of life and an economy that functions and grows.

This means, use of military force, basically combined arms of naval forces, infantry, armor, and air power together, to remove regimes that threaten the free flow of oil, at a reasonable price, when the opportunity for success is at hand, being aware that an occupation will be likely more costly and bloody than the overturning of the regime itself.

This is not the end of the world. This is neither invade the world, invite the world (Sailer's catch phrase for Bush's policy) and does not mean intervention in say, the Ivory Coast to put its cocoa production back into the market. It does not even mean intervention to remove regimes hostile to America's goal of free flow of oil at reasonable prices at every turn. It does mean, however, re-running Iraq at some point. Because the US has no partners to off-load fighting to, on the ground. And therefore must do it, itself. Which means casualties and bloodshed and treasure all spent.

Everything costs. Ike was able to rely on scared, and compliant Arab regimes to do the dirty work of ground fighting and policing, without a global Jihad network. The cost of that was a constant, hair-trigger nuclear standoff between the US and the USSR. Which led Ike to pull the plug on the French-UK-Israeli attempt to overthrow Nasser and retake the Suez canal. The US then relied upon the Saudis, and later Egyptians, in what amounted to a swap for the Shah of Iran, to police much of the Middle East.

The ability of these regimes to police the Middle East for us, is now an open question. They remain precarious and unstable, even those that seemed invincible: Khadaffi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali. Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, and Clausewitz all advised against outsourcing military campaigns, or even any part of it, to others. The American people will have to be told, and required to choose, if they want to be poor, and live poorer lives, to avoid entanglement in the Middle East, or if they like living in nice houses, driving nice cars, eating nice and affordable food, buying nice and affordable clothes? If the latter, then the price is periodically, the US using combined arms to achieve a fairly quick victory over unstable regimes, and policing the tribal populace afterwards so that oil interests are not interfered with. Understanding that there is no cheap and easy way to set up an occupation and transition to self-rule, without some considerable level of American casualties.

Or the US could abjure such measures, and live substantially poorer lives, even with drilling in the US, and the inevitable spills and oil pollution of the beaches and oceans, and inland waterways, and destruction of fragile habitat. Even with substantial US oil production at home, there simply is not enough oil to make the global market (oil is traded globally, as the critical resource) affordable. There just isn't enough US oil available at prices that can sustain long term economic growth (oil at roughly $50-$60 a barrel at today's prices).

This is a case that an American President or candidate must make to the American people. That there is no free lunch, that there is not something for nothing, that US prosperity rests on cheap oil which means periodically US military personnel fighting and dying in ugly Middle East lands, to remove threats to the free flow of oil at reasonable prices. Not every threat, at every time, but periodically when the US must intervene to keep oil prices down or remove threats that cannot be put off any longer.

Libya, under these circumstances, meets none of these criteria. Obama is sure to create a total disaster in Libya, an ignoble, and stupid American defeat. Khadaffi remaining (which is victory for him), constant fighting, degeneration into Somalia "plus" and an open invitation for AQ and other jihadis to shelter there, with either Khadaffi or the rebels. Obama is unable and unwilling to lead America to victory, which requires boots on the ground, American forces, and a clear explanation of what victory looks like: the oil flowing, a pro-American regime in power. Instead we are likely to get the worst possible outcomes. Obama is an incompetent Affirmative Action President and his people are even less competent than he is, something shocking.

Very disappointing is Hillary, who had an up close view of Clinton's failure to unseat Saddam or gain permanent compliance with US objectives. Rice and Power acted as one could expect, and Biden was, well, he was Joe Biden. A man long believed to be mentally impaired due to a brain aneurism. If he did not have one, there would not be any functional difference.

The only "good" thing to come of this is the experience in France and Britain, of how unreliable American power has become, how unserious, and how exposed they are to regional threats (principally North Africa imploding and sending masses of refugees onto their shores ala Camp of the Saints). If either government, and people, in either country, has a brain or a clue, they will rapidly ditch austerity budgets, and re-arm like crazy, particularly with naval and air forces, to maintain control of the seas around them. There is no reason Britain and France cannot each have six air craft carriers each, for a total of twelve, plus support ships. Construction of which, on an emergency basis, along with fighter planes, and other ancillary aircraft, could put nearly all their unemployed back to work, immediately, and stimulate Eurozone demand. True Keynesian economics at work. America has shouldered far too much of Europe's defense burden, and the Europeans must come out of their post Suez, "America and the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal make us irrelevant" funk. The Europeans have real enemies, intent on really occupying their lands.

True, they are mostly an illiterate, Muslim rabble from North Africa and Africa, but that does not make them any less dangerous. Far easier to build a whacking great Navy and keep them in North Africa than deal with five, ten, twenty million refugees in a tidal wave on their own shores. America's very rapid (Obama is already looking for the exits) process of leaving France and the UK holding the bag, will prove instructive. America is unwilling to use its power, instead believing in Unicorns and Rainbows.

As Mark Steyn noted:

As he told a gathering of high-rolling Democratic donors in Washington last week: "As time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States. But we should never take it for granted. I hope that all of you still feel that sense of excitement and that sense of possibility."

America bet everything on unicorns and rainbows. On the excitement and sense of possibility that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States. That having a Black guy with a Muslim name will magically make the world love us. Obama certainly hasn't forgotten. He believes himself to be Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, and Allah all combined. He really does think he walks on water, with unicorns prancing in the background. That he really is a lightworker. That:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.

Largely, this is the sort of person around Obama. Who believes as they did yesterday, that Obama is the racial redeemer and "New and Improved" Jesus come to save the sinful America and restore the world's place on top of the sinful nature of America. This sort of President, who clearly believes in his own worship and hype, is not able in any way of projecting military power in defense of America's interests. Why would he? All he has to be is Mr. Wonderful himself! Nor are his people capable of finding their behinds in the dark with a flashlight and a map.

The complete disappearance of America up, basically, its own asshole, has serious consequences for Europe, which they are now finding out. It will have serious consequences for America too, as most of America will find out once the worship of the media is no longer able to keep the lights on.

The dialog at the end of "Three Days of the Condor" is instructive. America has been living on luck and seed corn, for decades. The argument between Higgins (Cliff Robertson) and Joe Turner (Robert Redford) turns on invasion plans for the Middle East:

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Obama, and the media, asserted that Obama being so wonderful, a lightworker, and a man with a Muslim name, and Black to boot, would make every Muslim and Muslim nation love us. So that there would be no fighting, no war, no conflict, no sacrifice needed, no bloody call to duty, to keep the lights on, the power running. To keep people who have never known hunger from being hungry. All of that is about to end, and the total Libyan debacle will be part of that.

Eventually, out of pure necessity, America will adopt some form of the Carter Doctrine backed up by infantry forces. As the limits and failure of air power alone to remove regimes and install friendlier ones comes apart with sky high oil prices. Oil is already over $100 a barrel. It will go far higher. Sadly. This alone should prove the failure of American Air power alone to gain our objectives (look at the prices!) but sadly Americans and American elites will require being hit over the head with reality until they are bloody before reality sinks in.
...Read more

Why Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is a Disaster

Only clueless RINOs like HotAir's Allahpundit or hostile Liberal Democrats could find letting openly gay military personnel serve to be a wise social policy. The first are clueless SWPL folks, the latter profoundly hostile to every institution that supports America. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the Military will be an unmitigated disaster that will cost America dearly. Barack Obama would not have it any other way, but the larger issue is the stupidity of the RINOs who want to have their social liberalism and a functioning America. PC does indeed make you stupid.


As Ann Coulter noted, Bradley Manning is the poster child for letting gays serve openly in the military. Manning was by all accounts, a first-class screw up. But was protected because he was gay, even with DADT. Manning gave Wikileaks the confidential data, including classified diplomatic cables, military documents, and video, because he was angry over his break up with his Drag Queen Boyfriend.

This is the reality of Gay Life. Gays, are not, by and large, respectable, middle class, sober, and staid men who merely like to have sex … with other men. They tend to be like Bobby Trendy than John Wayne. Gay men are largely, flamboyant, emotional, flighty, and lacking in any real discipline. They are poor security risks (being ruled as Manning shows, by emotions and pique) even if they are serving openly. Gays are in short, far closer to one giant hissy fit from betraying their country over a break-up with a Drag Queen, than they are from John Basilone style sacrifice.

For this, we must blame Hollywood. People like Allahpundit simply reflexively accept whatever is shown on the screen. Lacking any real knowledge of gays (not attending say the Folsom Street Fair chronicled by "Zombie" of "Zombietime") squishy RINOs view whatever TV and movies depict as accurate and reflective of reality. The "nice" and staid, sober Gay guys are in reality, all variants of Bobby Trendy, to greater or lesser degree. While staid, sober, and responsible Gay men do exist, they are about as rare as Black Republicans. Just as the reality of Lesbianism is reflected by Rosie O'D0nnell, not Alyson Hannigan playing "Gay Now!" Willow on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

The arguments of the pro-gays in the military camp are: 1. It is inevitable, because public opinion supports it, 2. it is like Desegregating the military under Truman, 3. other militaries like the Netherlands do this, and 4. the courts will do it anyway.

Is this inevitable? Nope. America has wanted its borders secure since the early 1990's, and the widespread majority support for building a massive border fence and deporting every illegal we can, has been stymied ever since. Americans tend to be deferential to serving combat military on what they need in terms of manpower, how the men are mustered and organized, and disciplined. Most Americans moreover are capable of being persuaded …

That Gays in the military are not like Desegregating the military. Because Black and White guys did not want to have sex with each other. In particular, ordinary White women can be told, it is like every icky Beta male lusting after you, now protected and able to "order you" on pain of facing death in battle to service them. Gays in the military GUARANTEES gay sexual harassment. With Gays protected, basically immune the way Muslims are, because of PC and multiculturalism and diversity, all of which have the force of law (one of the fruits, intended or not, of the Civil Rights movement).

The whole point of Civil Rights was to promote "fairness" and "equality" by discriminating against White men (later Straight White Men as the Gay Liberation movement gained power) in favor of everyone else: Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and of course, Gays and Lesbians. This means, as a practical and legal matter (including many Supreme Court decisions) Straight White guys have very few rights, almost none, against those higher in the "protected class" totem pole. Protected Class means in practice, that Major Hassan could scream that he wanted to cut off the heads of infidels, at Army conferences, and nothing was done until he shot and killed 14 people. Because he was part of the Protected Class (as was Bradley Manning).

The only type of Gay guy who joins the military, overwhelmingly, if we are honest, are those desiring sex with other men, in a hot-house, near male only environment. Most gays go into fashion, design, advertising, and other gay-friendly "flamboyant" occupations in civilian life. Sure, there are a few sober, patriotic gays. Just like there is at least one Chinese born Center in the NBA. But extrapolating from the Yao Mings of the world (rare, outlier folks) to the average is the mark of weak minds desperate to keep the PC myths they see on TV and movies, alive.

The flood of gays in the military will harass (with PC/Protected Class impunity) all the straight guys below them rank and power. Again, this is something Jane Average White girl can understand if put to her bluntly. As well as Joe Sixpack already getting it. The Marines in particular understand this. They don't want to share close, personal space for months, with a guy who wants to have sex with them.

For the simple reason that straight men find gay sex repulsive. Even more repulsive than straight women find the idea of having sex with beta males.

Ending DADT is not like Desegregating the military. Because put bluntly, White and Black soldiers did not want to have sex with each other, the other side being repulsed and unwilling. Marines view it as akin to Prison Rape. Which it is.

Yes, other militaries have openly gay soldiers. They also have pretend, toy militaries incapable of fighting their way out of a paper bag. The Dutch Peacekeepers surrendered Srebenica to Miladic and did nothing to stop the massacre. Because they had a pretend, toy military oriented towards politically correct gay soldiers, not an effective fighting force.

You can have a PC-driven, gay military. With tons of Bobby Trendys, and not much else. Or you can have the US Marine model. Not very PC, fairly brutal, but quite effective in molding an effective fighting force. No effective, large, and powerful military has gays serving openly. Yes, you can't eat all the chocolate you want and not get fat. And you cannot have gays in the military, serving openly with a fighting force actually capable of fighting. And winning.

But the saddest thing of all is a refusal to pick a fight with the courts. While it is true that the Executive, and Congress both have limits, and cannot do everything, rule everything, and regulate everything, the same is true for the courts. Courts cannot order military policy. It is outside their purview. Which is not universal. Judges are not god-like philosopher kings ordering everything in modern life. There are limits, and the public is well disposed to side with the military against Judges, often un-elected, extending their authority to the point of personally taking charge of say, the next Battle of Midway.

So what is likely to happen?

First, every active duty military personnel who can leave when their enlistment is up, will. Gay soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are like dumping Bobby Trendy as a protected and highly disruptive force right into a firefight. The military cannot make it work because it cannot be made to work. Already stretched thin and abused, by a hostile Media, Democratic Party, "activists" (anti-American elitists), and lawyers, most of the combat force is likely to quit. Gays being a burden just too much to tolerate. If you were in combat would you sign up again for having to protect a Bobby Trendy trying to have sex with you every night?

And, mission accomplished, no more effective US fighting force. Except nukes. Which will be all that a fabulously hip, cool, edgy, politically correct nation will have left for its defense. No more kicking the can down the road, with limited use of combat troops alongside proxies to keep the lid on regional flashpoints that threaten to become global ones. Instead, EVERY conflict will nuclear, or result in abject US surrender of strategic objectives. This pattern of Western Weakness has been seen before: 1932-39. It is unlikely to end any better than the last time.

Western people want to live in John Lennon's "Imagine." A fantasy of PC utopia where no human conflict exists, and everyone is so hip and cool and "at the end of history." A desire fueled by the desperate need to avoid conflict, at any and all costs. Which results in Western weakness, and conflict anyway. Merely at greater cost. So moral superiority and status-mongering can take center stage. Perhaps this is inevitable in societies that produce staggering amounts of wealth and tend to have, in one form or another, minor aristocracies over and over again.

But the world is not built this way. Gays in the military means a military that does not work. Is at best a toy, play military useful for parades and social engineering but nothing else. One that is "fabulous" but fighting-effective.
...Read more