Calling for popular elections, when politicians on the take in the Palestinian Authority were continuing to siphon off billions of dollars that WE gave them, instead of investing it in the hospitals and schools and other services to COMPETE with what Hamas was providing, was one of the more lame-brained moves by this administration.

Now the only silver-lining is that the civil war among the Palestinians is fully under way, and the US, Israel, and surrounding Arab and muslim governments should wind up with only ONE party with which to deal.

Legitimate concerns of foreign powers concerning our actions should be seriously considered and like you, I include military occupation. Our reputation as a fair and honest broker is marginalized by those whose concerns are shaped not by what is best for the United States, but what is best financially, personally (family and friends), or religiously — and these influences aren’t private concerns if U.S. foreign policy is shaped by them in the forms of diplomacy, and financial and military support. For example, I don’t think it’s an inappropriate question to ask whether there are things we are doing to promote terrorist attacks against us. If so, what are they? Do we need to do them? Like you, I believe that our military is only one option (preferably one of last resort) and that deterrence isn’t merely a question of force. Can we strategize peace without betraying our integrity? Have we become servants of international concerns that do not share our primary interests (or the military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about)? Are the answers to such questions dependent upon those with whom we are dealing and if so, is consistency even possible? I think it is, or is worth attempting.

There is much abroad we cannot control, nor should we try. However, there is much we do control by our actions, our statements, our biases. Some dullards simply don’t understand that military occupation (including the bases we operate in nations across the globe at the behest of their hosts) is likely contributing to our loss of credibility.

As for our oil dependency, this is a problem of technology and one that will not be solved by any other method. Oil is a chief ingredient in plastics, is used in many construction and materials applications, etc. There is a huge financial incentive to develop alternatives, particularly if Congress upholds patent law. For our sake, for the sake of the populations in oil-rich states that will be forced to diversify (spreading wealth, education, and exposure to international trade), and…uh, oh yeah…our environment, let’s hope it happens.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/06/18/reading_harry_reid

Regards,
Peter H.

OK, I know I don’t really know that much about him yet, and reserve some skepticism…

Not only did he actually use the press (in more ways that one – which is why I hold him in such esteem), but even the press knew that they could only push him so far. He also had a knack for one-liners not seen since Churchill.

Plus, Hollywood knew that it had elected “one of its own” and therefore that’s why so many films in the 1980s – Top Gun, Iron Eagle, Russkies etc. – dealt with the Red menace in very topical and pro-American ways. Hollywood produced films that were more filled with patriotism and unity than any other period since the 1940s.

Too bad that 20 years later, it’s all gone down the bidet.

Regards,
Peter H.

It doesn’t appear that terrorism will be defeated by military actions alone.

is pretty different from someone else’s

I would like the United States to pull out of the Middle East economically and militarily, fully and completely.

Then again, you only agreed “somewhat”. I agree with your points somewhat as well. I wish we didn’t have to deal with the Middle East. It’s just that – wishful thinking. Even as we develop other energy sources, we probably won’t be done with oil (domestic or foreign) for a long time. In the meantime, I think we have to engage in the ME and, over time, get ME locals to fight the Islamists for us – since the Islamists are bad for everybody. Which is our ultimate goal in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

It doesn’t appear feasible to stop importing oil from the Middle East immediately, since we won’t be able to put gasoline in the car, or many of the other things, leading to an economic collapse. But the goal should be working to lessen the dependence on all foreign oil. For one thing, we wouldn’t be dependent on regimes that are despotic and duplicitous. And these regimes would lose a lot of income that will not be fully replaced by other Western countries. And perhaps these countries could also use the technology to use alternate sources of energy, further reducing the income of these regimes.

Of course, this will not stop Islamists from hating the U.S., and may even hate us more. But a lot of the money needed to fuel the hate will be gone, and terrorism will drop. Further, the Middle East countries that are no longer oil producers had to find other ways to increase income. And for whatever reason, these nations have generally become more moderate. Perhaps these nations figured out that in order to have people WANT to deal with them, instead of HAVE to deal with them, the fanatical crap had to stop. And that the oil dependent nations had no incentive to look the other way any more.

It doesn’t appear that terrorism will be defeated by military actions alone. To be defeated, economic strategies will be necessary as well.

the net benefits of our involvement in the M.E. are negligible to non-existent — and in many cases are likely a loss.

Well, at least until Abdul flies a B-767 up your ass.

Given the historical record, what they very likely would do is (1) continue to build up their wealth, as Europe, Russia, Japan, India and China still traded with them; and (2) continue to build their terrorist and other military prowess, under some type of Islamic Caliphate (al Qaeda’s announced aim) or other vicious theocracy or dictatorship. I think the end result, 15-30 years from now, would be nuclear explosions across the United States (since deterrence or M.A.D. does not work with dedicated Islamists).

Long story short, our involvement in the ME has the gigantic and crucially important benefit of being the only approach that stands half a chance of reforming the Arab world and forestalling a new historical era of Islamist world conquest and/or destruction.

And raising the issue of torture, you pretty much make my point. Yes, there were some incidents, notably Abu Ghraib, when those serving the United States abused their authority and tortured prisoners. But, what happened at Abu Ghraib took place on one day — and had been addressed long before the media firestorm.

Had the president’s adversaries — in the media, in politics and punditry — faulted him (and his team) for not putting proper safeguards in place instead of accusing him of sanctioning torture, they would have more quickly convinced me (and many others) of his errors. Instead, they exaggerated those errors. And that was part of the point of this post.

I don’t know the following, but my first guess would be that wealthy Islamists are behind the increased aid. I mean, I hope Westerners aren’t!

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….