Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. This saying has been repeated so many times in recent years, it is difficult to find someone that has not heard of it. And yet, you can meet people who want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. It is as if they never heard of the saying, or they heard of it but do not believe it, or they do not understand what it means. But then it occurs to you it could be that these people want to continue doing what they do because they cherish the status quo, wish to perpetuate it and want the same result all the time.
That status is exemplified by the American thrust into the Middle East, an intrusion that turned out to be a tragedy of the first order for the region, for America and for the world. Indeed, what happened in the Middle East during the past few decades has been the single most important factor in the transformation of America from the beloved military and economic superpower that it was to the detested trespasser it has become in the eyes of the locals. What makes matters worse is the fact that America is seen as being a declining power, one that is trying desperately to overstretch itself militarily at a time when its economy is so disintegrating it will no longer be able to maintain the military it has.
The wrenching thing to the people who once appreciated America and want to see it regain its old glory is the knowledge that the superpower did not find itself in the Middle East by accident. They know now that to get it there was something planned for a long time ago, and done in secret. In fact, the nation was maneuvered into that position by the Jewish organizations; the same ones now trying to keep America in the region at perpetuity. The leaders of these organizations are the people who cherish the status quo and want to maintain it. They succeeded in getting America into the Middle East by getting it out of Asia, something they accomplished by taking advantage of the difficult time that the military was having in the Vietnam war, and they stabbed it in the back by attacking it on the home front.
Thus, when you come right down to it, you see that the Jewish leaders managed to defeat the American military not so much on the battlefield but on the editorial pages of the print publications, and in the production studios of the television networks at home. They had been quietly infiltrating the print and audio-visual publications, and were beginning to take effective control of them. When they felt secure enough in their new positions, they championed the withdrawal of America from Asia while at the same time pushing the nation to deploy in the Middle East. Their motive was then as it is now the protection of Israel while the criminal entity pushes ahead with its murderous expansionist agenda.
After forty years of misadventures in the Middle East, the Americans began to realize that once haggard Asia is now developing at least two superpowers, China and India, who are on their way to become rivals to their country. They see this happen at a time when America itself is sliding toward the status of a haggard. Before the Asian powers become too entrenched in the Western Pacific and be too super to handle, the Americans wisely started to move some forces there in their quest to fashion a new strategic posture. But this meant that America will have to reduce its presence in the Middle East, a move that has alarmed the Jewish organizations so much, they responded by mobilizing their mouthpieces and by giving them a job to do.
The mouthpieces were instructed to call on America to remain in the Middle East. They are to keep hammering this point till the country abandons every plan its military may develop to deploy forces in Asia. The fear of the Jewish organizations is that to move a few forces now will only be the beginning of a trend that will see America increase its presence in the Pacific at the expense of the Middle East. Thus, we see that the Jews are back to square one all over again doing the same thing and expecting the same result. It is a return to the old days but for a few exceptions: the Jewish organizations now control more than the publications of America, they control the whole country – lock, stock and barrel as well as the septic tanks that masquerade as think tanks and a shameless Congress of clowns reputed to poke sticks in the eyes of their commander-in-chief while throwing enthusiastic ovations to the rug pissing dog from Israel.
And you can detect the early stages of that Jewish call when you read two pieces recently published in the Wall Street Journal. The first is a column authored by Bret Stephens which came on April 17, 2012 under the title: “The China Myth Unravels” and the subtitle: “The Bo Xilai affair reveals a country whose political and social institutions are anything but stable.” The second is an article authored by Michael Eastman which came the next day on April 18, 2012 under the title: “The Risk of Exaggerating the China Threat” and the subtitle: “Don't tailor military power for the Pacific at the expense of the dangerous Middle East.”
Like a one-two punch, the pieces seem to complement each other in the sense that you detect a continuation of the themes they tackle when you go from the Stephens column to the Eastman article. You also get the feeling that Bret Stephens has softened you and prepared you to the effect that China is not all it is cracked up to be. This done, he hands you over to Michael Eastman who delivers a hard message, one that says America must maintain a strong presence in the more dangerous Middle East even if it deems it necessary to preoccupy itself with China and the Pacific region.
Thus, despite the earlier columns published only a few weeks prior; columns in which Stephens raised the level of hysteria several notches as he warned about the growing power of China on land, in the air, in the blue seas, beneath them and in outer space -- he now writes the following: “This is not a country on its way to global supremacy.” In fact, this is how he ends the article. But to get there and still maintain a modicum of credibility, he was forced to dish out a whole bunch of mambo jumbo from the start. He tried in this way to avoid jolting the readers into the realization that he is manipulating them to accomplish a goal that contradicts everything he stood for in the past. And that mambo jumbo is what the new column is all about.
Instead of pointing the finger at himself, he begins the article by sticking it to someone he does not name. He does it like this: “Is [China's] rise inevitable? For 20 years at least, China boosters have told us it is … Now … we're learning it ain't necessarily so.” But why is that? you ask. And he responds in a way that blows your mind. Basically, what he says is this: The Chinese are as bad as we are but we're not as bad as they are. In fact, you read through 800 words about a scandal which he says: “...isn't too different from political scandals anywhere: Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, say, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn in France,” which is to say that the Chinese are as bad as we are. But you ask: Why would they not be on their way to global supremacy since we are supreme? And he responds that we're not as bad as they are, therefore we can do things they cannot do. What? What's that again? Well, you have to be Jewish to write like this, my friend – to understand it also.
Anyway, I have no desire to discuss the scandal itself, and so you will have to read the Bret Stephens column if you want to know more about it. As to the article by Michael Eastman who is a military man, it begins by reassuring the reader that it is a more disciplined and more moderate piece than the Stephens column even though it tackles the same themes.
This is how Eastman puts it: “As American military planners examine national security in light of … concerns such as the rise of China, they must not neglect other strategic realities.” He goes on to explain the thing in this manner: “...it's important to distinguish between threats that are most dangerous and threats that are most likely … particularly the Middle East, where economic, demographic and political trends make conflict far more likely...” Thus, he acknowledges that while a conflict in the Middle East is more likely, the rise of China is potentially most dangerous, which supports what Stephens used to say but contradicts what he now says.
These being military matters and Eastman being a military man, you take his word for it. But where you question some of the things he says is when he delves into the matter of predicting the social and economic development of the Middle Eastern nations. He says this: “...oil-producing Middle Eastern states will have little cause to diversify their economies … The gap between rich and poor will persist as a source of popular dissatisfaction … by 2030 more than half the Middle East's population will still be under 34. This … will challenge even efficient regimes … Alienated young people are potential recruits to radical Islam.” You know he is talking about the Arab Middle East because he mentions Iran separately right after this passage.
The problem with Eastman's understanding of the Arab Middle East in terms of the social and economic developments happening there is that his grasp of the region has come about as a result of the negative propaganda perpetrated by the Jewish controlled media in his country. In other words, it is garbage. In fact, his elaboration of the related points consists of nothing more than a list of false cliches, each of which was invented to distort reality in one country or another. Yet, here he is lumping all the countries together and throwing all the cliches at them without making a distinction between any. At first, you get a sense that he is separating the oil-producing states from the other states but he only makes one comment in this regard then talks about the Middle East as if all the states in it formed a single and monolithic Arab/Muslim entity.
What the people who are interested in the Middle East need to know before they do analysis or pass any judgment is that the governments there are spending not millions of dollars or billions of them, but spending sums of money in the trillions of dollars to develop their societies and diversify their economies. However, there is an important difference between the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula where most of the oil is to be found, and the other Arabs - themselves distinguished as being either of North Africa or the Levant.
The culture of the water poor Peninsula was developed over the centuries around the nomadic traders who moved goods between the Far East and Europe thus made a profit and a good living for themselves. These people never developed agriculture thus never got their hands dirty. This is why the current governments in those places find it costly to build an industrial base, and difficult to instill the spirit of industry in their people. Luckily, they have oil, therefore have the money to import workers from somewhere else, which they do while encouraging their people to get with it and get their hands dirty as they train on the job to produce aluminum, petrochemicals and parts for airplanes. They also learn all about high technology and nanotechnology in ultra modern universities, colleges and research laboratories.
As to North Africa, there has always been the Nile in the East and the rain in the West. This is why you find that Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and now Algeria have diversified economies that stand on solid industrial bases if modest when compared to those of the fully developed countries. The same applies to the nations of the Levant who always had water, being in the legendary Fertile Crescent. The difference between them and the people of North Africa, however, is that the two developed different temperaments. It is that the North Africans always felt secure being protected by the vastness of the deserts surrounding them. Thus, you find that their culture is based on optimism as shown by their love of life and the desire to go on living after death – even if this is done in a mummified state. By contrast, the people of the Levant were always raided and looted by someone and by each other. They developed a pessimistic culture that makes them suspicious of strangers and of each other, and keeps them in a permanent state of fear.
As far as I can tell, no serious attempt was made in America to draw up a profile of the human side of these people so as to formulate intelligent approaches and policies that would make sense to them. Instead, you see policies formulated at the highest level of the American government based on the writings of a Jewish journalist or two who would be reporting for prestigious publications. All you get from them is filing after filing of stories that tell of the refrigerator that went down and was replaced, the garbage strike that made a city block look like a dump, the heavy smoker whose finger was yellowed by the tobacco he smokes -- and all sorts of other loathsome reporting done at this level of superficiality, ignorance and crudeness.
The same applies to non-Arab Iran but for a small difference. It is that Israel has had a love-hate relationship with that country for a long time, and what the Jewish propaganda machine in America tries to do is motivate the political and military leaders to love Iran one day and hate it the other – exactly the way that kids do their thing in the yard of a high school. It is no wonder, therefore, that we see Michael Eastman write this: “Emboldened by a nuclear deterrent, Iran will ... exert influence abroad. Unable to satisfy its restive populace, the regime will … remain a persistent force for ... instability.” And this leads him to the following conclusion: “These factors underscore the importance of American land forces, which retain significant roles that we cannot perform if we tailor the military solely for the Pacific.”
Thus, a military doctrine for the American armed forces is being shaped by considerations that do not rise above the level of a high school yard. Its author discusses it in detail by advocating the build up of “significant land forces” to partner with other militaries in the region because: “As a demonstration of intent, few actions carry the weight of American boots on the ground.” It is Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq all over again except that this time, it will all be done to protect Israel and defend the insatiable appetite it has to expand its territory at the expense of its neighbors. America is being suckered again so that the Jews may have it their way.
What the patriotic leaders of America should remember is that 9/11 happened in part because American land forces partnered in the worst possible of ways with the Saudi military. What they should also get through their heads is that their people are being killed by their Afghan partners because somebody does not like this partnership. Moreover, the Egyptian people who have seen what it means to partner with a Jewish dominated America are now saying: Keep this plague away from our sacred soil.
Listen to me, America, if you want to partner with the people of the Middle East, don't go pimping for Israel. Whether you go to talk military matters or economics or culture, negotiate for yourselves only because they will be negotiating for themselves and no one else. The moment they smell that you are promoting the interests of Israel, they will flush you down the toilet and walk away to avoid you as they would a dreaded plague.