When President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya in retaliation to the bombing of a
nightclub in Germany
in which American service personnel were killed, it was thought that Gaddafi
will not be heard from again. But this is not what happened because the man
himself or people representing him were heard from again and again, especially
by the people of an airline company called Pan Am, and the people in a Scottish
town called Lockerbie.
The reason why it is important to mention this historical
fact at this time is that the warmongers in America and elsewhere who want to
embroil the United States of America in a war without end are at it again
making up the history that suits their current purpose even if it contradicts
what they were saying a few days ago when they had a different purpose in mind
and they needed to tell a different story.
The occasion this time is that Mitt Romney who wants to be
President of the United
States will soon be debating the sitting
President Barack Obama, and the subject of the discussion will be foreign
policy. It is expected that the Libya
episode will come up, and to prepare for the event, Romney's surrogates are
running around telling audiences that their man would know how to deal with
foreign subjects because Reagan knew how to do that, and Romney will do
likewise. They falsely claim that Gaddafi was never heard from after the Reagan
response because the latter did not shy away from war. Thus, they conclude that
war would be the appropriate answer to every unpleasant situation.
But the fact remains that unpleasant situations do not occur
solely on the international stage, and the American people have learned this
lesson over and over again. They understand
that when someone kills a number of innocent people he may or may not know, or
he kills a prominent person for no apparent reason, the true and hidden reason
is that the person doing the killing is insane. The last thing you want to do
in such cases is what the media used to rush doing, find out the name of the
killer and repeat it endlessly in print and on the air. In doing so, the media
gave the insane the reward he wanted most, his 15 minutes of fame. This
encouraged the other borderline cases to copycat the act and get their reward.
The one thing that
must be understood about insanity is that it can be motivated to go into action
by a trigger that may sound meaningless to the rest of us but makes sense to
the insane. We must, therefore, seek to identify those triggers and do what we
can to avoid setting them off. This says that the first trigger we must avoid
is the tendency to reward the killers by giving them the notoriety they crave.
But while this is a universal kind of trigger common to most killers, every
community would have a set of triggers peculiar to it operating at the local
level. Thus, each community must look at itself and find out what motivates its
people to act in a way that might be considered insane – and avoid promoting
those tendencies.
And when a country
like America
becomes the target of an insane movement taking root somewhere else on the
planet, the thing you must avoid doing is reward the potential offenders with
the publicity they seek – the very thing for which they train and are prepared
to die for. You especially avoid having the President of superpower America – such
as a George W. Bush – publicly mention a name like Abu-Masaab el-Zarkawi.
And you avoid parading the arsenal of weapons you are fielding in the conduct
of what you call the war on terror. For example, bragging about the ingenuity
it took to identify a culprit by the DNA in the saliva he left on a postage
stamp, has proved to be akin to pumping high octane fuel in a high performance
engine. Committing that mistake must have played a major role in turning the
1993 attempt on the World Trade Center into the 9/11 tragedy that was
perpetrated eight years later on that same Center.
You can argue all
you want who started the war that triggered the chain reaction which culminated
in that tragedy, but the fact remains that regardless as to who the culprit
was, the result has been that every action caused a reaction, and the ensuing
sequence will continue to unfold till it dies by itself or keeps piling the
tragedies on top of each other with no end in sight. For example, many young
Americans enlisted in the military after the events of 9/11 because they felt
that they and their country were attacked for no reason. In their view, they
were enlisting to go fight against the people who attacked them.
But what happens in
real life is that the people who live in those places and had nothing to do
with the events that unfolded half a world away, view the Americans as invaders
that have no business attacking them in their own homes in their country. And
so, like their American counterparts, they respond by enlisting to fight
against the Americans. But having no regular army in which to enlist, they
train to commit what they view as the ultimate self-sacrifice; that which they
call martyrdom they commit to avenge the death of their loved ones and protect
those still alive.
It is extremely
difficult to look at the amount of tragedy yielded by events such as these and
remain unaffected. But to play the role of a detached observer, we must make
the effort to look at the situation with a cold eye so as to see the internal
logic by which each side rationalizes their responses. To this end, we cease to
pass judgment as to who may be at fault but we do not avoid judging which side
has the greater responsibility to take the first step that can lead to the
breaking of the chain of reactions and counter-reactions. Like it or not, we
find that responsibility almost always falls on the shoulder of the stronger
side, especially in the cases where the dispute has lasted a long time, its
origin has faded and has been forgotten.
What adds appeal to
that line of thinking is the fact that history seems to fortify the arguments
often made in its favor. For example, fear in the form of a ghost called
“domino theory” is what prompted the staging of a fake incident that led to the
passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution by which the war in Vietnam was escalated, the result of which was
that America 's
back was broken. And fear in the form of a fantasy called “Mushroom Cloud” is
what led to the trumped up charges that Saddam of Iraq was hiding weapons of
mass destruction (WMD), and the passing of a resolution authorizing the launch
of a war against that country, the result of which was that Iran 's back was
strengthened. The lesson to learn from all this is that war does not produce
fog but that the fog is produced by the warmongers who profit by the continued
state of war.
But who is it that
produces these ghosts and these fantasies? The answer is that someone weak
produces them to incite someone strong like America to fight on their behalf a
war they cannot fight themselves. This is why the fear of al-Qaeda is currently
being turned into an illusion called “Radical Islam” and “Political Islam.” The
idea behind it all is to embroil America
in a never ending war against Islam, having accused it of fighting a “perpetual
war against the West,” and warning that if America did not unleash an
Armageddon against it, Islam will overrun the civilized world and take it back
to the Dark Ages. This is how Romney put it: “I believe that if America does
not lead, others will … and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for
us.”
This being the background, we can now envisage how the
upcoming debate will unfold between President Obama and challenger Romney. To
help us do this, we have the speech on foreign policy that was given by Romney
on October 8, 2012. In it he made the mistake of drawing a parallel between
contemporary and historical events even though no resemblance exists between
the two. He said that the “attack on our Consulate in Benghazi … was likely the work of forces
affiliated with [al-Qaeda.]” He went on to say: “We have seen this struggle
before.” And he explained it by drawing the parallel with WWII: “Statesmen like
Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its
responsibilities as leader of the free world … This is what makes America
exceptional.”
If you are puzzled as to why he made a blunder of this
magnitude, what comes next in the speech answers your question. Look at this
passage: “The relationship between the President … and the Prime Minister of
Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains … Iran today
has never … posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us.” In
fact, the world is beginning to realize that a noise you may call “Jewish
disease” seems to permeate every discussion carried out in America these
days. It is the tendency to pick a historical incident, spin it in a way that
buttresses the argument you are now making, then draw the conclusion that suits
your current purpose however much it contradicts what you said before and
exposes you as being a flip-flopper.
There is no doubt that these passages were written for
Romney by his Jewish speechwriters, advisers and donors; the same sort of
people who said that Gaddafi was never heard from after Reagan bombed him, who
said that bombing the civilian nuclear power station in Iraq engendered no
consequences, and said many other falsehoods considered to be the overt mutilation
of history. It is something they do to make the events comply with the
mythology of the Old Jewish Testament, and set the stage for Armageddon to
happen thus bring to Earth the Messiah they are waiting for.
And to make it all sound reasonable, Romney will attack the
President's position. You already see this tendency in his speech: “The
President is fond of saying that 'The tide of war is receding' … but … with
Iran closer to nuclear weapons capability … it is clear that the risk of
conflict in the region is higher now … we are missing [the] opportunity to win
new friends … in the Middle East … I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel
… the world must never see any daylight between our two nations … And I will
roll back President Obama's … cuts to our national defense...”
And so you ask: Is this what the American people want? No, it is not,
and he knows it too. In fact, he says this: “I know many Americans are asking a
different question: 'Why us?' I know many Americans are asking whether our
country today – with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11
years at war – is still capable of leading.”
He does not say whether or not America still has the wherewithal
to continue assigning to itself the job it was not able to continue doing since
the victories of WWII. And instead of adopting the kind of policies that
President Dwight Eisenhower adopted and called on his successors to adopt as
well, Romney chose to take the Jewish path of spreading fear and demagoguery.
This is how he ended his speech: “I believe that if America does not lead, others will
… and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us.” A Jewish fantasy
through and through.
But what if America
continues to fail? Will this make the world grow brighter? Wake up, Mitt.