Every time I read something written by David Pryce-Jones I
ask myself a question; usually it would be something in the order of: Why does
this guy not find something else to do, something that matches his lack of
talent and lack of comprehension? The same thing happened again when I read
another one of his pieces. This time, the question that came to mind was: Can a
monkey grasp why we do math?
You'll probably get the same feeling, and will want to ask
the same sort of question when you read: “President Obama's Purposeless Foreign
Policy,” an article that David Jones wrote and published on August 12, 2013 in
National Review Online. He begins by asking a question and he answers it,
giving both less than half the space that is taken up by the first paragraph of
the article. And yet, he manages to cram in that small space assertions to the
effect that the world is disordered, that Obama's foreign policy is
purposeless, that the United States is shirking its responsibilities, and that
the whole thing is a mystery. But he makes no effort to define or explain any
of those assertions.
Oh yes, the author does make the point that it is
“commentators the world over [who] are trying to interpret this mystery.” Well,
it is a good thing he tells you this because now you know how he was able to
cram all those assertions in a small space, and why he didn't bother explaining
any of them. What he did in effect was to go over and collect the writings of
the professional Obama haters everywhere he found them around the globe. He
collected every piece of garbage they uttered orally or in writing, and he
stuffed all that in half a paragraph as if they were dogmas that need not be
defined or explained. He too has adopted “Hating Obama” as his religion – one
that is full of mysterious dogmas he can neither understand nor explain.
And this is what gives you the feeling that you're watching
a monkey because if you know something about monkeys, you know they like to ape
human beings. If, for example, a domesticated monkey sees you take a pen and
write something or do math; if after that you water the plant by the window;
and if after that you sweep the floor under the desk – the monkey will
replicate each of your moves but not necessarily in the same order as you.
You will understand right away that the monkey is simply
incapable of understanding the purpose of anything you do. When he saw you do
things, he imitated you for the same reason that would prompt someone of the
David Pryce-Jones caliber to imitate the “commentators the world over.” He
imitated them not understanding the purpose for which President Obama adopted
the foreign policy that he did. Well, to be fair, it must be said that this
David was at least smart enough to admit he lacks the necessary understanding
to see a purpose in what the human Barack Obama is doing.
He goes on to reiterate that he fails to grasp the coherence
in America's foreign policy; and he tells you why. He says he listens to the
likes of Joe Joffe whom he calls “one of the most far-sighted political
interpreters in Germany” but was shown on several occasions on this website to
be more of an apocalyptic clown. Still, Jones says he picked up on the Joffe
interpretation that America has adopted a policy of self-containment. Jones
also says he listens to the likes of Colonel Allen West who tells amazing
stories about what happens in places like Afghanistan where self-containment is
practiced by American soldiers.
One of the stories pertains to an American soldier who was
observing a Taliban laying an explosive device. Instead of shooting him on the
spot, the soldier called to report the incident, and see if other options were
available. Obviously, when the enemy is seen laying an explosive device, you
know this device will not kill one of your own because you will do away with
it. The question is what to do with the Taliban that is laying it. Do you kill
him on the spot, or do you capture and question him? If the latter, what sort
of support can you count on if it will be decided that you should confront him?
According to the Jones narrative, the answer that Allen West
gave was to the effect that the enemy should have been killed on the spot, and
damn the intelligence information that would have been obtained if he were captured
and questioned. Well, I always thought that Allen West was tossed out by the
voters of Florida because he was a bumbling idiot when it came to politics. But
I maintained that he must have been a good soldier; the reason why he was
allowed to go around and be a bumbling idiot in other fields. But now, David
Pryce-Jones tells us that Allen West has been a bumbling idiot as a soldier
too. So why the hell is he out there making an ass of himself every time he
opens his mouth?
Finally, our author echoes what Joe Joffe has said with
regard to America's self-containment. He thus apes two other National Review
Online contributors – David French and Michael Walsh – who did the same thing.
And together, they all agree that: “the use of decisive force is a moral
necessity” which is why Islamism must be destroyed. They explain that this can
be achieved not with restraint which is not a necessary moral imperative, but
with the use of decisive force which is.
This is clearly one of the two parallel arguments that these
people are pursuing simultaneously. On the one hand they say that this fight is
a fight to the death; either the enemy is killed or we die. On the other hand
they argue that the enemy is made of at least 10 percent of the Muslim
population around the World. This means it is made of 150 million people. And
from that, you conclude that they wish to mobilize 300 million American men,
women and children to go fight 150 million young, heavily trained and
potentially suicidal Muslims.
Good luck, America! But will Colonel Allen West agree to
lead you into battle?