Click on WORD or PDF for full content
The end of the week, and another great Pickings to keep you warm over the weekend. Dilbert’s here with the story of Saudi Arabia’s a**bomber. And be sure to get to the cartoons to see a view of the world from DemonBaby.com that reminds of the iconic Steinberg New Yorker cover with the U. S. as seen from Ninth Ave.
Read in Commentary what Nixon did to support Israel in the Yom Kippur war and understand why Obama is one of their least favorite U. S. presidents.
…What is clear, from the preponderance of information provided by those directly involved in the unfolding events, is that President Richard Nixon — overriding inter-administration objections and bureaucratic inertia — implemented a breathtaking transfer of arms, code-named Operation Nickel Grass, that over a four-week period involved hundreds of jumbo U.S. military aircraft delivering more than 22,000 tons of armaments.
This was accomplished, noted Walter J. Boyne in an article in the December 1998 issue of Air Force Magazine, while “Washington was in the throes of not only post-Vietnam moralizing on Capitol Hill but also the agony of Watergate …
…“It was Nixon who did it,” recalled Nixon’s acting special counsel, Leonard Garment. “I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, this is insane. . . . He just ordered Kissinger, “Get your ass out of here and tell those people to move.”
When Schlesinger initially wanted to send just three transports to Israel because he feared anything more would alarm the Arabs and the Soviets, Nixon snapped: “We are going to get blamed just as much for three as for 300. . . . Get them in the air, now.” …
…As for Meir herself, to the end of her life she referred to Nixon as “my president” and told a group of Jewish leaders in Washington shortly after the war: “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the materiel that meant life to our people.”
Wrote Nixon biographer Stephen E. Ambrose:
“Those were momentous events in world history. Had Nixon not acted so decisively, who can say what would have happened? The Arabs probably would have recovered at least some of the territory they had lost in 1967, perhaps all of it. They might have even destroyed Israel. But whatever the might-have-beens, there is no doubt that Nixon . . . made it possible for Israel to win, at some risk to his own reputation and at great risk to the American economy.
He knew that his enemies . . . would never give him credit for saving Israel. He did it anyway.”
David Warren takes us along on his thoughts about China.
The 20th century was a disaster in the history of China, even before the Communists came to power in 1949.
An ancient empire that was also an ancient civilization had already endured a massive collision with the civilization of Europe, in which Europe had prevailed. The latter was quite aggressive, the former by its circumstances mostly passive, and the conventional wisdom is that this alone explains the dissolution of the former.
Conventional views are usually wrong, but can be interesting insofar as they may point to the truth by their very inversion of it. The Opium Wars and other military encounters are perhaps over-emphasized in what was more comprehensively a “clash of civilizations” — a collision between European and Chinese understandings of the world itself, in which the self-confidence of the Middle Kingdom was lethally undermined.
The mind of China became partially westernized; the mind of Europe, for all the pleasure it took in acquiring a taste for Chinoiserie — from the admirable Analects of Confucius to the incomparable stoneware pots of the Song Dynasty — did not become Sinified.
To my dangerously self-tutored historical sense, it seems that China had been overrun by “barbarians” before — by Mongols, and Manchurians — and yet assimilated each conqueror and “raised” them to the standards of Chinese civilization. But the European “barbarians” who began arriving at China’s gates half a millennium ago were the end of everything. …
Nine months ago in January 4th’s Pickings, Pickerhead said, “We are likely to see a president who agrees with the person who last spoke to him.” That is the central problem of electing a teleprompted empty suit. WSJ editors provide an overview of the mess made with Afghan policy as the Dems now have zeroed in on the general.
…As we’ve learned the hard way in Iraq and Afghanistan, successful counterterrorism requires intelligence. This comes from earning the trust of the people, which in turn can only happen if they are protected. The Biden approach would pull U.S. soldiers back behind high walls, far from the field of battle, and turns security over to the Afghan army and police before they are prepared for the job.
The sudden Afghan rethink also jeopardizes progress in Pakistan, the world’s leading sanctuary for al Qaeda. The Pakistani willingness to expand American drone strikes and launch a military campaign in their tribal regions dates squarely to the Administration’s recommitment to the region. Now that Mr. Obama is having second thoughts, so might the Pakistanis.
The President’s very public waver is already doing strategic harm. The Taliban are getting a morale boost and claiming victory, while our allies in Europe have one more reason to rethink their own deployments. Such a victory, as the head of the British army Sir David Richards warned on Sunday, would have an “intoxicating effect” on extremist Islam around the world. …
…In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn’t resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he’d have given a different answer. But we don’t think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn’t think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.
Jennifer Rubin explains why keeping General McChrystal from talking with Congress hurts the administration.
Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings … therefore argues that there isn’t merely a “right to speak if a policy debate becomes too far removed from reality” but, in essence, an obligation to do so. (”We need to hear from him because he understands this reality far better than most in Washington.”) And O’Hanlon reminds his fellow Democrats that they were the ones pleading with the military to step forward (testify in front of Congress before Donald Rumsfeld’s departure) when Bush’s Iraq policy was faltering.
McChrystal’s forthrightness and the defensive reaction of the White House tell us several things. First, the White House doesn’t have a good response on the merits. “Shut up” is not a policy analysis. Second, whatever processes exist within the White House for decision-making have stalled and malfunctioned, causing the debate to go public. Had a decision been promptly made, none of this would have occurred. And third, now the entire country knows the unified position of the military and understands that the opposition comes from the likes of Joe Biden. The public-relations problem for the White House has gotten much worse.
When we put aside the conflict between the military and the White House, we are still left with the underlying question: Will Obama implement the recommendation of his general to achieve his policy, and if not, why not? Eventually, if he rejects his commanders’ advice, the president will have to live with the consequences, both on the battlefield and at home. And right now, many voters are wondering why the White House is telling its most respected military leaders not to tell the public the unvarnished truth about a war that just seven weeks ago the president declared to be critical to our national security.
Peter Wehner adds his thoughts: the public relations issue may be unpleasant, but the most important result is making a good choice.
…Having worked in three administrations, I understand the agitation that a story like McChrystal’s can cause. But having worked in three administrations I can also testify that it’s imperative that there be open, honest, and rigorous debate; that different points of view be considered; that the strongest arguments against any case be amassed and made; and that what people should say ought to be judged on the merits rather than on the short-term political furor it creates. That’s fairly easy to say from the outside, when you’re not being pounded by the political class or feeling as if you have been boxed into a corner.
But what matters in the end is getting the policy right — and if a painful process leads to a better outcome in the end, it’s more than worth it. That’s easy to forget when you’re working at the highest levels of government and in the line of fire. But it’s precisely because you’re working at the highest level of government and in the line of fire that those lessons need to learned, internalized, and acted on.
If I were working in the Obama administration, I imagine that my first reaction to General McChrystal’s comments would have been negative. But I hope, on reflection, that I would see something else as well — that while McChrystal’s comments may have made life more difficult in the short run for the Obama administration, McChrystal has, in fact, done the administration and the public a favor. Stanley McChrystal deserves to be praised, not criticized, for his candor. We need more of it, at every level of government. It helps, of course, that he also happens to be quite right in his recommendation.
The president thinks too highly of himself, and needs new speechwriters, says George Will.
In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas’ trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.
Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport. …
Becoming solemn in Copenhagen, Obama said: “No one expects the Games to solve all our collective problems.” That’s right, no one does. So why say that? …
…. But Obama quickly returned to speaking about . . . himself:
“Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual. Rather . . .” …
Liberal Richard Cohen says the Copenhagen trip shows that President does not understand the importance of his position.
Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.
This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.
This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. “This is not a war of choice,” he said. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”
Obama could have gone further. Not only would the Taliban be restored, but the insurgency might consume Pakistan. If that happens, then a nuclear power could become a failed state — Pakistan’s pretty close to that now — and atomic weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. India, just next door and with mighty antipathy for Muslim terrorism, could well act on its own. …
Excellent piece by David Harsanyi on the types of people who go to the government to create chaos.
Mr. Hoover knows everything. He attended a high-brow graduate school and worked as a Senate aide before becoming a policy expert. (He even pretends to understand Jeremy Bentham.) He is a man who craves acceptance from the other smart people who surround him. …
…If you put a man like Mr. Hoover in charge of government, he’d take to the task with an unrestrained confidence. Since he’s so much smarter than you, he’d have no compunction forcing you to do the right thing on an array of issues, from your light bulbs to your health care. …
…The United States has from its inception squabbled over the appropriate role of government — one that pundits on cable TV, for all their bluster, rightly label a debate between socialism and free markets. Yes, this debate pits the theoreticians against the doers, but it is largely a fight between the state and the individual.
So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Hoover is going to win. Mr. Hoover always wins. He takes no real risk. If he can’t convince us, he has the power to bribe, print money, “compel” citizens, bully and monopolize the process. It’s no more complicated than that. …
Peter Wehner recounts how E. J. Dionne goes from Afghan hawk to Afghan bug-out.
…On September 15, 2006, he wrote this:
“Both [Joe Biden and John Kerry] emphasized what should be a central element in the debate, the potential disaster looming in Afghanistan. The administration, Mr. Biden said last week, “has picked the wrong fights at the wrong times, failing to finish the job in Afghanistan, which the world agreed was the central front in the war on radical fundamentalism, and instead rushing to war in Iraq, which was not a central front in that struggle.” On Saturday, Mr. Kerry condemned the administration’s “stand-still-and-lose strategy” and called on the administration to send 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan to quell the Taliban insurgency. . . . These speeches reflect a growing consensus among many Democrats: First, that Iraq is a blind alley, a distraction from the war on terror, not its “central front.” Second, that the United States needs a responsible way to disengage from Iraq , re-engage in Afghanistan, and prepare itself to deal with the rising power of Iran, so far a real winner from Mr. Bush’s Iraq policies.”
There is more — but what’s clear is that what was once a “war of necessity” is now, for liberals, a tiresome and troublesome war. Not that long ago, success in Afghanistan was in the vital long-term interest of the country. It was the “central front” in the war against militant Islam, a just conflict in which to re-engage (including by sending more troops). Nation-building was in — especially for “Bush’s new Democratic allies.” Failure to rebuild Afghanistan would be a grave error. And Iraq was a mistake in part because it left the Afghan war “unfinished.” Apparently those arguments have become inoperative.
Why the volte-face? And why the frantic efforts to urge Obama to reject the recommendation by General Stanley McChrystal, who believes that without additional troops our mission in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure” and “risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” Perhaps, as the great Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami has written, the “good war” of Afghanistan was “the club with which the Iraq war was battered.” Regardless of the reason, the inconsistency and inconstancy on Afghanistan by Dionne and his fellow liberals are both obvious and damning. They are reminding us, one more time, why they cannot be trusted on matters of national security.
Jay Nordlinger posts some responses he received about guns in America, from the people who cling to them.
A little more mail, based on my Impromptus today, and an earlier Corner post …
Jay,
I grew up in Baltimore City. In seventh grade (1965-ish), my parents allowed my brothers and me to take our .22 rifles on the transit bus to the end of the line, where we did some target practice and hunted for small animals in the woods. My mother was always a “free-range” mom — as the newly discovered parenting style is being called — so the fact that she was fine with us carrying guns cross-town on a bus is normal to me. What is strange to me now is that the Maryland Transit Authority was fine with it, too. As long as we showed the driver that the clip was out of the gun, he waved us by.
Another:
Jay,
A few years ago on Christmas morning while walking my little dogs, as I do every morning, I heard the noise of gunshots coming from several different directions. I live in a small town in Utah. It was then that I realized how fortunate I am to live here. Not for one minute did I think any violence or crime was being committed. You see, it was just folks trying out their new Christmas gifts by firing a few rounds off.
Many Americans would be amazed that such places exist, in America; many other Americans would be amazed at their countrymen’s amazement. …
It’s not enough Obama will lower the oceans, Investor’s Business Daily editors catch the White House suggesting the recent NY terror plot was unearthed by The One’s interest. Normally IBD editorials aren’t in the humor section, but this one belongs.
National Security: Intelligence officials say alleged terrorist plotter Najibullah Zazi was caught not thanks to domestic surveillance but by CIA tracking of al-Qaida. The White House says the president did it. …
…Zazi was reportedly tracked down through the CIA’s discovery of his communications with a high-level al-Qaida contact. But to hear the White House describe it, you’d think a satellite was transmitting real-time video to the Situation Room showing Zazi as he drove across the country.
“Senior officials added the case to Obama’s daily intelligence briefing in the Oval Office,” the Washington Post was told by presidential aides, after which “the case quickly piqued Obama’s curiosity and led to what aides called an intensive three-week White House focus on the case.”
What a juggling act: While pushing Congress for radical health reform, reneging on our commitment to the Poles and the Czechs on missile defense, pondering whether to take the advice of the general he appointed to run the war in Afghanistan, and horning into Israel’s domestic policies regarding settlements, the commander in chief managed to laser in on the Zazi case at a point when the professionals “had only fragmented information about Zazi.” …
Scott Adams has the details on an amusing terrorist scheme. If only all our enemies would use these enemas.
I assume that most of you have heard about the so-called Ass Bomber. He was a terrorist who tried to kill a Saudi Deputy Interior Minister by putting a bomb up his ass and detonating it when they met. Unfortunately for the terrorist, the bomb was only big enough to kill the Ass Bomber himself.
This raises many interesting questions. At the top of my list: Why did the Ass Bomber think that killing the Deputy Interior Minister was worth shoving a bomb up his own ass? Sure, I could see if it was the Interior Minister himself, but the deputy?
I think Saudi Arabia played this wrong. Instead of telling the state controlled media that the ASSassination attempt failed, they should have reported that the Deputy Interior Minister was dead, and so was everyone else in the building. And they should have said there was no way to stop this sort of brilliant attack. Within weeks, every member of Al Qaeada would have shoved a too-small bomb up his ass and detonated it in a market or mosque. The innocent bystanders would be startled and perhaps a little bit slimed, but otherwise unhurt. Terrorism would have a quick and amusing conclusion. …
Make sure to go to the cartoons to see a hilarious view of the world from demonbaby.com that reminds us of Saul Steinberg’s New Yorker covers.
