Random Links March 26

War In The Middle East
-The Yemen Mess Is Sparking a Full-Fledged Regional War 
-Saudi Arabian Intervention in Yemen Is Good News for U.S. 
-Intelligence Files on U.S. Operations in Yemen Looted by Iran-Backed Rebels: Report
-U.S. Airstrikes in Tikrit Aid Iranian Shiite Militias While Their Commanders Remain On Global Terrorist List
-Chaos in Iraq | The Weekly Standard
-Josh Earnest Couldn’t Even Convince an MSNBC Panel to Believe What He Was Saying on Live TV
Iran To Get Nuclear Weapons
-U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together 
-Another Obama Concession to Iran: Hundreds Centrifuges in Fortified Underground Bunker
White House Confirms Iran Deal Probably Won't Be In Writing - Conn Carroll
The Conversation About Iran Obama Wants 
Middle East Think
Max Boot: Obama Vacating US Influence in Middle East
The United States Of Islam – Dinesh Was Right!
Needed: An Islamic Reformati
Reforming Islam | The American Spectator
Foreign
In A Fit Of Revenge, Obama Declassifies Israeli Nuclear Program
Terrorist Intelligence Operations Are Forming, Gaining on the FBI
NATO Intercepts Russian Warplanes as US Convoy Enters Poland
Europeans Agree to Counter Russian Propaganda War
House and Senate Pressure President Obama to Send Military Aid to Ukraine
Congress
 -The House just voted to bust the balanced budget plan it approved less than 24 hours ago
-GOP: Let Us Show You Our Commitment To "Governing" By Adding Hundreds Of Billions Dollars To The National Debt
-Eleanor Holmes Norton Doesn’t Think We Have the Right to Know When Our President Is Selling Us Down the River | www.independentsentinel.com
-Tense: GOP Rep. Quickly Snaps Back at FCC Chief After He Claims Decades-Old Law Permits Net Neutrality
-DRAMA: Menendez Won’t Decide on Lynch Until ‘She Gets to The Floor’
Corruption
-Watchdog Asks DOJ to Investigate Reid, McAuliffe Over Immigration Favoritism
-DHS Won’t Fire a Top Official Who Did Political Favors for Democrats Because ‘We Need to Move On’

Where did the Hawks Go?

I don't always think in complete little ideas, usually just unfinished chunks of bigger ones. After the Mubai attacks I was more inclined to a hawk type of solution. Trying to get my head around some type of simplified policy to deal with the whole thing i read this quote posted on Ace. Along list of attacks followed by:

'"So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come – it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.'"

The quote come from World Net Daily: Enough is enough of radical Islam. Not much of a fan of the site after all the birth certificate pieces they have been running. It summed up most of the problems i have with the current foreign policies. Of course it also went way to far.

"Enough with the myths. Not everyone on earth is crying out for freedom. There are plenty of people who are happy in their misery, believing that their suffering is part and parcel of a correct religious system. Those people direct their anger outward, targeting unbelievers. We cannot simply knock off dictators and expect indoctrinated populations to rise to the liberal democratic challenge. The election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is more a rule than an exception in the Islamic world."

What do we do then? Carpet bomb? No, people can't cry out for freedom if they have no idea what it is. The only exeption i might make is for North Korea. Coexistence between their religion and a free society can't be found if they can't define freedom and are not taught to read even their own religious texts let alone any examination of any real kind of history. That is complete nonsense. The election of Hamas? What where the other choices? Would they even know what one would look like? Compare it to the thoughts of one that has been on the ground In that part of the world.

"Enough with the lies. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it is, prove it through action."

I don't have the intellectual ammo to refute this but I don't believe that to be the whole truth. What I do know that that will make at the least a whole lot of very uncooperative people. It is not that black an white although it should be more clear than it is being portrayed. The piece was a nice ramble but would convince no one of his view. He is preaching to the choir. It is nice from time to time but is absolutely useless to me. I moved on it fell out of the news.

Then today there is this: Some Disparate Dots from Shrink Wrap via Bookworm Room and Watcher’s Council nominations. This is a much better and more useful way to look at the matter.

"The West chose, and President Bush could not or would not take issue with the prevailing wisdom, to treat Islamic terror as distinct from and in conflict with traditional Islam as practiced and supported by states throughout the Muslim world. This was always an argument that had more realpolitik to it than reality and it crucially caused the West to disarm in the intellectual and information aspects of the ideological struggle with Islamic radicalism. Traditional Islam is a target rich environment for an ideological struggle. The traditionalists are completely inept in dealing with ridicule yet they constantly insist on issuing a stream of ridiculous pronouncements."

Then very nicely slides into our side of the problem.

'Compounding our problems, the West has been in an extended ideological slide of its own. It is not just that our elites have become unmoored from the traditional anchors of our ethics and morality (religion, tradition) but they have adopted as their ideological underpinnings a new variant on the Marxist mantra. We have gone from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" to a more nuanced and contemporary "to each according to his desires, from each according to his willingness to donate (sometimes under coercion) his time, energy, and money."'

Religion in this case as religious philosophy not of articles of faith from my view. Wrapping it up:

"All these dots may only be related in my imagination yet they suggest that the Obama administration is going to elect not to fight ideologically against the Islamists but will try to manage terror using a policing model (with the more unsavory aspcets of the Bush approach, such as extraordinary rendition, simply being hidden and denied) which is guaranteed to never address the actual causes of Islamic terror."

A much more reasoned approach. It is as well a clear example of how the basic ideology of the in coming administration leads to all kinds of problems. Frankly it is dangerous. I found the Bush administration to walk a tight rope between the anti-war socialistic legalistic approach and a tempered war response. We all seem to ignore all of the Obama philosophy for so much useless minutia on every thing but. Why have we moved so far from the alternative to both takes?

From my hawkish prospective it is about time to ramp up the military, call those causing the problems out and be done with all this. Very over simplified. Yes military action should be the last resort but it should be all but off the table. What has been gained by the endless talking to to Iran? What happened to calling at least for regime change in places like Iran? What is the state of the broadcasts into Iran? What aggressive steps are we taking? What are the consequences for the bad actors on the world stage? None?

Give me a hawk, please! I want this over with. If in the end it takes three or four more Iraqs fine. I think we have a good idea on how to do it right now. I never understood exactly what was the opposition to nation building was. Is it hard? Yes. Can it fail? Yes. Weighing that against a failed state which is less dangerous? If we went down that road again, make threats and backed them up just once I don't know that that much military intervention would be necessary.

Islamic terror is the issue on the table. When we decide to stop sitting on the fence intervene into the internal affairs of countries we should as well fix the mistakes of WWII. Change the borders when needed. Kashmir, Chechnya, Africa and any number of places. Let us all just make the push for a sustainable peace. It gets complicated when you try to enforce your will on to a country. There are basic that can be used and still allow a country retain its own culture. Free speech, some mechanism to express the will of the people, the ability of the people to obtain information (history, news, ect.) and the ability for citizens to leave for another country if they so desire.

Obama and crew with a legalistic approach giving enemies of all stripes room to make gains if not achieve their goals. Bush just trying to hold the line with the Obama types on his back. Maybe just may be we need to take a look at a more hawkish approach and at least get this over with and at best build a lasting peace.

Q.H. - Iranian Weapons Myth? What?

From: The Iranian Weapons Myth
There is a current( a meme) that the amount of weapons and the reasons for the weapons that have used to kill US troops from Iran is wrong. and i catch a tone of Bush is a lair whaa. (I feel i read to much on the right but the liberal stuff makes my wittle heed hurt) The little mentioned incidents of cross border fire early on would have been enough years ago to start a war. Second any country that can't keep its nice new weapons under its control and then they are used to kill our troop needs to at least be told to get their crap together. I don't care if it is one or a thousand deaths. Frankly if it got to a thousand air strikes, at least, would be in order.

On yglesias @ thinkprogress
By the way any one that can't find a more descriptive way of describing a actions as something other than warmongering needs to look at their objectivity. Oh wait unless that group is calling for war and can't wait to kill and "drink the blood of the defeated enemy" just to fuel the next war.
Unless they are talking about the Bush gang and blood is oil and you are insane. Use the term for those who really deserve it. How about we go back to the hawk and dove terms and stop demonizing people. Does the "warmonger" really want some sort of unrestrained war?

Georgia's Right to Self Determination, What You Really Need to Know

The current situation is described hear with good maps and the like.
Russian troops roll deep into Georgia, break truce Right to self determination

I haven't found a good descriptions of the detail on the back and forth that lead to this. There are some conflicting reporting. Glen Beck layed it out fairly well. There is this:Georgia-Russia Conflict Intensifies

Q&A: Russia-Georgia Conflict Has Deep Roots

CNN yesterday said that what you really need to know is that their is an oil pipe line running though the country. That's the very shot term what is going to effect us in the next month or so.

What you really need to know is that Russia and China are after power and influence. Russia through energy and China through economics. They aren't doing it by being kind and generous.
Being on the hooks and our weakness though weak dollar, energy, military, ect. mean that our right to self determination is going to be all but gone. Georgia will probably loose theirs though force, we will loose ours though inaction an pure suicidal stupidity. More specifically on the Russian side is the possible free reign to do as it pleases with it's former provinces.
The War in Georgia Is a War for the West
Why the Russia-Georgia conflict matters to the West

Self Determinance of Georgia, the West and Us is all important in this conflict not Oil or separatist movement.