When you see a title that screams:
“ISIS Marches to a Massacre” you suspect that someone is trying to communicate
a prediction. You expect, therefore, to see a full account of the basis upon
which that someone is making the prediction. And when you see a subtitle that
reads: “The siege of Kobani shows the holes in Obama's strategy,” you wonder if
someone is admitting that Obama has a strategy. If so, you wish to find out
what they believe the strategy consists of.
In fact, that title and that
subtitle headline the editorial that was written by the Wall Street Journal and
published on October 8, 2014. Do the editors give a full account as to why they
make the prediction in the title of their piece? No, they don't. Do they reveal
what they believe the Obama strategy consists of? No they don't. And neither do
they offer a workable strategy of their own. What then is the editorial about;
and why was it written in the first place?
In trying to answer that question,
we begin with the assumption that the piece was written by rational people
driven by logic. Alas, we quickly discover that our effort is an exercise in
futility because the editors fail to do the one thing that would have assured
the reader they know what they are talking about. That is, the editors fail to
say that the situation in the Middle East is a collection of oxymoron-like
missions in which the Jewish Establishment has tangled America . They
could have done this and went on to state their position, but they did not
because they have nothing to offer except empty words.
Worse, instead of seeing the
collection of American missions in the Middle East
as being a complete web, the editors only see one strand of it, and describe
something that is neither here nor there. Here is what they say: “As Senators
John McCain and Lindsey Graham wrote in these pages, the absence of a policy to
remove Assad is a 'self-defeating contradiction.'” The truth is that the
players in the region are numerous, the issues are unlimited and the
relationships that were forged over centuries are infinite and infinitely
varied. No matter what is said or what is done, someone will be pleased, and
another one will be left unimpressed.
What most outsiders do not know,
however, is that the locals accept being left unimpressed, even a little
offended by someone that may benefit from saying or doing the wrong thing once
in a while at their expense. What they expect is that he who offends them today
will seek to please them tomorrow. But if an outsider possessing the power to
seriously harm them such as America
is able to do – comes along with a one-sided attitude according to which he
consistently says and does the wrong thing, the locals will return the favor by
rejecting his overtures. And this is what is interpret by people like McCain
and Graham as being a contradiction.
The point is that no matter what
you say or do in the Middle East , you will not
please everyone. But if you maintain a proper balance between the parties, you
will navigate your way through whatever Byzantine situation you may encounter.
The Americans were as adept as anyone in this kind of diplomacy but the Jews
robbed them of this quality, convincing them instead that what counts in this
world are only two things: Israel
and the Jews. This killed America 's
ability to conduct normal diplomacy, and replaced it with the language of war
which, to the Jews, is a convenient substitute. It is exactly what they have
always wanted.
Furthermore, the Jews have
consistently put the wrong words in the mouths of high-ranking Americans, and
used the legislative process to lock the superpower into legal positions that
amount to self castration. One example being that America
cannot negotiate to free its hostages when Israel does it all the time. This
is so demeaning; anyone in the world would have demanded the immediate repeal
of such law. But this is not done in America because the Jews robbed its
people of the will to be unshackled of Jewish authoritarian edicts. The world
knows this, and weeps for the children of America
but does nothing to help because it is allowed to communicate with America only
through the Jews who block the messages that do not suit them.
The net result is that the
situations in which the reigning superpower was able to persuade the parties to
settle their difference amicably, can no longer do that … cannot even threaten
the parties and force them to settle. This leaves America with one choice; that of
perpetuating its involvement in a war that the Jews consider necessary to
fulfill their vision of an apocalypse that will give them dominion over the
world and everything in it.