Do you want to know how the politicos of
the Washington Beltway are made to pounce on every bone that the Jewish lobby
throws in their direction?
If your answer is yes, you may want to read
the article that came under the title: “In Afghanistan, no deal is better than
a bad deal,” and the subtitle: “To trust the Taliban would be naive and
foolish.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on August 13, 2019
in The Washington Times.
What the writer wants to accomplish in
this article is what he has fantasized about all his adult life. It is to have
the “West,” led by America, launch a Judeo-Christian war against Islam, and
make it a fight to the death. His view is that either the Muslims will be
vanquished and the Jews will take over the world. Or America will be beaten to
a pulp and the world will live under Islamic Sharia Law.
And so, Clifford May used the excuse of a
new initiative that's in the works with regard to America's war in Afghanistan
–– to highlight and promote the points which, if implemented, would lead to the
outcome of his fantasy. And this is where the reader can get a sense of the
simplistic logic that appeals to the political mind of simpletons. These being
the characters that got to where they stand by going through years of trial by
fire, a grueling exercise that turns them into a piece of rotting dead meat,
your dog would not want to eat.
It is important to filter out Clifford
May's unnecessary verbiage, and pick out the essential parts of his
presentation to better focus on the core of his message. This is done in the
paragraphs that follow. You'll see Clifford May introduce his narrative. From
there, he proceeded to argue against having a peace agreement with the Taliban.
He then backed-up the argument he had made for a perpetual American stay in
Afghanistan. Convinced by now that he presented a solid case, he went overboard
and asked for the moon.
So, here is how he introduced his
narrative:
“Two years ago, Khalilzad praised Trump
for adopting a realistic position regarding peace talks with the Taliban,
moving away from Obama's pursuit of reconciliation. A year later, Khalilzad was
appointed US Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation. He has adopted an
unrealistic position, moving toward Obama's pursuit of reconciliation.
Afghanistan is the longest battle in a very long war being waged against
America and the West by Islamic supremacist groups and regimes”.
Here is how Clifford May started arguing
against having a peace agreement with the Taliban:
“Khalilzad will soon announce a peace
agreement with the Taliban. They will promise to cooperate against terrorism.
The US will reduce its military presence in Afghanistan. What's the problem
with that? The Taliban are committed to jihad, and their alliance with al Qaeda
is ironclad. To take them at their word would be naive and foolish. We must
verify. That requires a continuing military and intelligence presence in
Afghanistan. Which implies reducing troop strength only if we see progress.
Otherwise, Khalilzad should walk away”.
Here is how he backed-up the argument he
had made for a perpetual American stay in Afghanistan:
“Gen. Petraeus and Vance Serchuk wrote
that a military exit from Afghanistan would be ill-advised. The alternative
they propose is accepting the necessity of a troop presence to safeguard US
interests. The message would be clear: if the Taliban want peace and
reconciliation, there's a path. If they seek America's defeat, retreat and
humiliation, followed by a campaign to seize power, their ambitions will be
frustrated”.
Convinced by now that he presented a good
case, Clifford May went overboard and asked for the moon. Here is how he did
that:
“A strategy for staying will allow us to
maintain a base in Afghanistan for counterterrorism operations throughout South
Asia. Petraeus and Serchuk add that the cost of retaining a few thousand troops
in Afghanistan pales in comparison with the price the nation will pay if al Qaeda
or ISIS rebuilds a terrorist platform there. On the diplomatic front, it's high
time to get tough on Pakistani leaders”.
This is the theoretical construction of a
narrative that works on America’s political types, and can be described in
visual terms. You may think of it as a temple. What is striking about this
temple, however, is that it has all the markings of a Jewish narrative, which
may unsettle some folks.
To make it acceptable to an all-American
audience, Clifford May felt he had to disguise it as a purely American
discussion. He found that the best way to do this, was to wrap it with the
American flag.
Since election time is a moment when the
flag is celebrated, Clifford May found it opportune to associate his call for a
never-ending war on Islam with the ongoing election campaign. This is how he
did it:
“We're now in an election season. Trump
can boast that he put the economy on a fast track. He also can say that his
team is developing coherent policies for defending Americans around the world. He
should tell Khalilzad that recycling Obama's policies is not how we make
America great again”.
In the not too distant past, having no
pushback from those who see the world differently, and having no history to
show that this kind of presentation turned out to be a pie in the sky,
America's tired, lazy and simple-minded politicians turned the entire American
store over to the Jewish lobby, making it the effective driver of America's
self-destructive foreign policy. And the rest is history.