When a list is drawn up recommending names to serve in the
capacity of advisers to the president of the United States for national
security, the list often contains Jewish names about whom it is said that they
are well qualified to fill such posts for several reasons. These would be that
the Jews are motivated, they are survivors of the Holocaust or are their
children, and they live and breathe the lessons of the Second World War.
Well, I have reasons why these people are never qualified to
serve in such posts. It is that they are motivated, they are survivors of the
Holocaust or are their children, and they live and breathe the lessons of the
Second World War. In short, they are psychos who should be kept away from these
posts because what they present as being their good qualifications are
precisely what disqualify them. The bitterest example of this for America
would be the group that Dick Cheney assembled – the ones that saw a mushroom
cloud in every sky, and a Hitler under every chair.
But the Holocaust is not the only handicap restraining the
ability of Jews to serve in certain sensitive positions. Their history and
culture play a large role as well. And this is clearly displayed in the latest
column by Bret Stephens which came under the title: “The Retreat Doctrine” and
the subtitle: “President Obama's speech last week at the National Defense
University made clear the governing idea of his foreign policy.” It was
published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2013.
If you want a nutshell expression as to why these people
lack the qualifications to occupy national security positions, it would be that
everything they do is open ended. They never have a clear endgame, never have a
plan B and never have an exist strategy. For example, if they occupy a land
they know they cannot hold for an indefinite period, they do not quit till they
are defeated and kicked out. It is what happened to Israel
in the Sinai, Gaza , South Lebanon and Eastern Golan . Also, when they incite a “friend” to start
a war, they want the friend to keep fighting till he scores total victory or
suffers complete defeat.
This approach to life is the sort of Jewish philosophy they
get with their mothers' milk. They keep getting it for as long they breathe.
They believe that everything they or someone else does is preordained. They say
that God will always play out his will. They will maintain this line even when
something they do proves to be a mistake. They will not stop or retreat if you
ask them because they believe that man must never try to reverse the will of
God. He does the things we do not understand, they will say, because what does
not work now will eventually work sometime in the future.
Bret Stephens gave his column the title: The Retreat Doctrine.
Retreat is what he sees President Obama do, something he does not like because
he wants an open ended commitment with no clear endgame, or a plan B, or an
exist strategy. But you ask: An open commitment to what? What does he see America do now
that President Obama will cease doing?
Instead of answering those questions, Stephens does some
dazzling mental acrobatics that would qualify as being a good philosophical
exercise. But it would be worthless when practical considerations are taken
into account especially when the considerations involve the national security
of a superpower and the fate of the world. What Stephens has done is begin with
the assertion: “Nations in decline tend to be nations in retreat.” He then asks
the flip question: “Is a nation in retreat also in decline?” And so he spends a
great deal of energy answering this last question.
In fact, he takes a few paragraphs to do just that and – as
a reader who is trying to empathize with what he says to better understand him
– you try not to be critical of what he says. Things go smoothly for a few
paragraphs and then POW, a fist comes out of the page and hits you in the eye.
Take this, my friend: “Mr. Obama noted that the war had cost 'well over a
trillion dollars … exploding our deficit and containing our ability to
nation-build at home.' That sounds like a lot of money, until you consider that
federal outlays since 2002 come to $31.3 trillion.”
This is the sort of violence these people do to you each and
every time. Tell them a school lunch program to feed poor kids in a certain
district will cost no more than a few thousands of dollars, and they will
lament that a thousand here and a thousand there soon add up to millions of
dollars we cannot afford. But when it comes to getting into a perpetual war,
the lament quickly transforms into the joyful refrain: What's a trillion
dollars when you compare it to 31.3 trillion? Hey Bret, how many kids can you
feed with a trillion dollars?
And so he gets to the last paragraph in which he answers his
own earlier question. He says this: “To retreat isn't to decline. But retreat
can lead to decline … Britain
had the US
at its back when it ceased being a power to be reckoned with. Should that day
come for us, who will have ours?”
You know what? I can answer this question. The world will
have America 's
back; that's what will happen. Indeed, America had the World at
its back when fighting for its independence not because America was a power to be reckoned with at the
time but because it wanted Britain
to get out and mind its own business.
Also, America did not
lose the world when it signed the armistice with North
Korea , or when it was defeated in Vietnam . You
see, Bret, every war does come to an end, and the world does not end here.
You can expect America
to always have the world at its back provided it leaves everyone alone and
minds its own business.