Finally the editors of the Wall Street Journal have come out and admitted they sympathize with the philosophy of the new conservatives if they haven't already become full fledged, card-carrying neocons. The folks at the Journal make this admission in an editorial titled: “War by Global Committee” which they published on March 21, 2011. What is troubling about this is that the neocon philosophy of life is of the ballistic type rather than the feedback type which a respectable, non-savage philosophy of life ought to be.
In science, the word ballistic refers to an object that has neither a system of remote control nor one of feedback to guide it to its destination or to do a course correction or to abort the mission if and when it is determined that the object has deviated from its trajectory. Once launched, the object follows a trajectory that is determined by the parameters chosen for it at the start and by the forces of nature that surround it such as gravity and friction. Something similar exists in the humanities and the Neocon philosophy is one such thing. It has the ballistic characteristics because it is based on the Jewish principle which says that the followers of the religion must obey its commandments without deviation or abandonment. Moreover, the followers must not preoccupy themselves with the consequences of their actions because preoccupation is the domain of God who will guide his people to their destination and make things right for them in the end no matter what.
And this is why the neocons who are heavily influenced by the Jewish religion keep making the same mistake over and over, then come back for more of the same again and again. And this is what is reflected in the editorial of the Wall Street Journal, a publication that used to be a must-read for the sober business people who loved to mull over things before tackling them. These are the people who stay the course because they have a strong and steady hand but are not afraid to modify their position when the circumstances change. And it is to the chagrin of these people that the Wall Street Journal has become a neocon rag of diminishing worth as they see things and hear from the many people who used to respect the Journal.
The editorial of March 21 is a complaint lodged by the editors to highlight what they see as deficiencies with regard to the way that the war on Libya will be handled from this point on. When you read the complaint, you first believe that the editors have missed something but then discover that no, they did not miss anything because they correctly quote the pertinent pronouncements made by the officials in America and abroad as to how matters will unfold. Here is what Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs said as they quote him: "[The US will] contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission." But then the no-fly zone "will be led by our international partners."
The editors of the Journal also complain that they do not know what the military and strategic goals of the operation are. Yet, they quote Secretary of State Clinton as saying that the goal is "Number one: Stop the violence, and number two: We do believe that a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Colonel Gadhafi to leave." They also quote President Obama as saying: "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal – specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya." And they mention that the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe explicitly rejected the goal of ousting Gadhafi. Indeed, the military and strategic goals of this operation have been spelled out in such easy terms so many times by so many people that a grade eight student will have no trouble understanding them. If the editors of the Wall Street journal do not get it, maybe they ought to find a fourteen year old who will explain it to them.
Because so much in this piece makes so little sense, you wonder what it is that these people really want that they are not spelling out honestly. You look for an answer in the article and find this: “Gadhafi is weak enough, and Libya is a puny enough military power, that even a limited use of force might lead to his ouster. Perhaps the officers around him will mutiny...” Obviously then, the editors want to see the end of the Gadhafi regime. But they say that if this does not materialize, there will be danger, and the danger according to them will be this: “Gadhafi can exploit divisions on the global war committee and achieve a military stalemate. He could then remain in control of a rump part of Libya … Even Admiral Mullen conceded that the war could end in a stalemate with Gadhafi staying in power.” And this, they say, could lead him to use WMD which they assert he has in his possession without offering any proof. And so they conclude that the fight against Gadhafi should be a fight to the death or a fight to his ouster and his prosecution if this will be feasible.
Oh yes, that love affair with WMD and that so very true adage: they keep making the same mistake over and over, then come back for more of the same again and again. This old movie looks like a rerun of the war instigated by the neocons and launched on Iraq by Bush the son who is better known as the W. They started that war under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein had WMD and they are doing it again with a new actor on the scene called Gadhafi. The war against Saddam has been a calamity for the people of Iraq, for those of the Middle East and for many Americans whose troops are pulling out of that country now. But true to form, the neocons are rushing to drag America into a repeat of the same idiotic adventure before the last of those troops have left Iraq.
What is baffling is that these neocons admit Libya is such a small military power, it can be dealt with using a small force. This means it does not require the might of a superpower like America to deal with it; all of which says that the other powers in the coalition can do the job alone, something they have indicated they are willing to do. So why does the Wall Street Journal want to see America dragged into another war where it risks having its back broken yet again? There can only be one answer to this: It is because this is the way that the war will come under their control who work for Israel and the Jewish organizations. In other words, the Wall Street Journal is helping to organize the betrayal of America.
What is unfair to the people of America in all of this is that their fate and the fate of their country is being placed in the hands of the only eternal losers to inhabit this planet. Not only have these people been kicked out of every place they violated by their presence over the centuries but once the Brits found a place where to dump them, they did. This was Palestine where, contrary to expectation, the losers could not make a go of it even there. Instead of taking advantage of the chance they were given to start afresh, they stank the neighborhood so badly, nobody could stand them anymore than you could stand a skunk in your garden. They got into war after war after war; and they kept losing war after war after war. In fact, they briefly occupied the Sinai and got kicked out of it not because they won the war like they are telling the Americans but because they were defeated and the Egyptians won. They occupied Gaza for a while and got kicked out of there not because they won the war like they are telling the Americans but because they were defeated and Hamas won. They occupied South Lebanon for a time and got kicked out of there not because they won the war like they are telling the Americans but because they were defeated and Hizbullah won.
Now, my friend, when you contrast the advice given to America by the eternal losers with the advice that the Arabs have given America, you see the difference. It happens sometimes that when the Arabs see one of their own misbehaves, they team up with America and work to contain the culprit whereby America comes out of the experience looking good -- looking like a winner. For example, something like this happened during the Presidency of George Bush the father who teamed up with a number of Arab countries in a coalition that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. But this did not sit well with the neocons who sent the W back into Iraq to “complete” the job that they say the father had failed to complete. And this is where the W did more than pull a defeat from the jaws of victory; he pulled a stinking load from the bowl of the can.
But what excuse is the Journal giving to advocate sending America into a prolonged misadventure in Libya? Believe it or not they are using the intent of the founding fathers to make their point, and they are using the role of the Congress to instigate a revolt. Here is what they say about the founding fathers: “America's founders ... knew that war had to be prosecuted with ... the national interest foremost in mind.” It is evident that the editors of the Journal have been so brainwashed, they have come to believe that the death of American boys and girls to promote the shifting causes of the eternal losers is in the national interest of America. My friend, these people have proved they suffer from a mental deterioration so advanced, they require that a lobotomy be performed on them as soon as possible before they cause any more damage to the country.
As to the role of the Congress, here is what they say: “We believe that ... as a simple prudential matter, a U.S. President needs to respect and bring along Congressional leaders in support of such action. All the more because members of his own party will be the first to revolt ... Republicans tend to defer on principle to Presidential war decisions, but Mr. Obama also cannot afford to take them for granted.” And so you see that after they incite a revolt under the guise of predicting one, the editors of the Journal counsel the President to heed their veiled warning. But you ask: “which congressional leader they count on to commit the most treasonous of acts?” And the obvious answer is: “Eric Cantor, of course, who publicly swore allegiance not to America or to his commander in chief but to Israel and to Netanyahu of Israel.”
What did the American people do to merit having this calamity in their midst?