Be very afraid: Joe Biden plans to set the world right. Expect a return to the past. Not so much to Barack Obama, but to Bill Clinton. Biden says America is back, which likely means as sanctimonious nanny wielding a metaphorical AK-47 to enforce its wishes. The ride will be dramatically different, and potentially much worse, than the experience over the last four years.
Of course, we can’t know what the incoming president will do. Unfortunately, based on his writing, as well as that of his nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, and selection for national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, Americans should expect a revival of liberal interventionism. Lots of mindless meddling disconnected from U.S. security, and some activity that makes Americans much less secure.
Biden, who voted for the Iraq invasion, announced his plans with boilerplate platitudes. His appointees, he said, reflect “the fact that America is back, ready to lead the world, not retreat from it, once again sit at the head of the table, ready to confront our adversaries and not reject our allies, ready to stand up for our values.” Other than Donald Trump, what recent president could not have made a similar claim?
Biden’s spring article in Foreign Affairs, the usual establishment venue for candidates to establish their bona fides, was as bad as its cliched title: “Why America Must Lead Again.” He denounced “ill-considered trade wars” and advocated a return to the Iranian nuclear deal, but otherwise spent most of his time promoting failed interventions of the past.
The future of warfare will involve drones, and Turkey has some of the world’s best. From Scott Ritter at RT News via lewrockwell.com:
From Syria to Libya to Nagorno-Karabakh, this new method of military offense has been brutally effective. We are witnessing a revolution in the history of warfare, one that is causing panic, particularly in Europe.
In an analysis written for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Gustav Gressel, a senior policy fellow, argues that the extensive (and successful) use of military drones by Azerbaijan in its recent conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh holds “distinct lessons for how well Europe can defend itself.”
Gressel warns that Europe would be doing itself a disservice if it simply dismissed the Nagorno-Karabakh fighting as “a minor war between poor countries.” In this, Gressel is correct – the military defeat inflicted on Armenia by Azerbaijan was not a fluke, but rather a manifestation of the perfection of the art of drone warfare by Baku’s major ally in the fighting, Turkey. Gressel’s conclusion – that “most of the [European Union’s] armies… would do as miserably as the Armenian Army” when faced by such a threat – is spot on.
Fear is your friend. Paralyze them with fear. They’ll go along with anything.
The crisis should have mysterious foreign origins. Cave-dwelling terrorists in Afghanistan, cave-dwelling bats in Wuhan. For some reason, caves work, maybe something about their primitive connotations. Plus, it’s not like journalists are going to investigate something that happened in some God-forsaken foreign nation when they can earn a paycheck by “reporting” on what happened last night on Twitter from the comfort of their own beds.
Someone is finally standing up to the Eurocrats and their one Europe vision. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
There comes a point where negotiation becomes surrender. Those actively undermining you will always demand more than their right. Those behind the Great Reset have been creating no-win situations for voters for decades to this exact end.
Over the summer Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Poland’s Mateusz Morawiecki led the opposition to the EU’s budget and COVID-19 relief package standing firm that funds not be tied to any internal political decisions member EU states make.
Both of these countries have incurred the wrath of German Chancellor Angela Merkel over things they do she doesn’t like, invoking Article 7 against Poland over changes made to its Supreme Court, for example.
So, this is nothing new. Neither is the way the EU conducts itself in negotiations.
For the past four years we’ve watched the EU put the United Kingdom through the worst kind of psychological torture over Brexit negotiations which have been anything but.
Since Iran tossed out the US puppet, the Shah, in 1979, the US government’s attitude towards that country has been unremitting hostility. Maybe a different approach is in order. From Doug Bandow at antiwar.com:
As President Donald Trump prepares to leave office, Iran is leading the news after the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear engineer, likely by Israel with U.S. knowledge if not assistance. The Obama administration criticized a similar Israeli hit in 2012, but Trump lauded the latest murder. He has been fixated on Iran since taking office.
The president’s monomania may reflect his determination to reverse Barack Obama’s policies. Or perhaps surrounding himself with Israel-friendly hawks did the trick. In any case, Trump effectively turned US policy over to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, with predictably disastrous results.
The president abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, designed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities, and launched full-scale economic war against Tehran, his so-called “maximum pressure” campaign. However, MbS and Netanyahu, as well as the coterie of neocons who remain influential in Washington, wanted more and pushed the US toward real war with the Islamic Republic. To Trump’s credit, he drew back from exploding the Mideast despite ample encouragement from Washington’s bipartisan war party.
Yet his “maximum pressure” campaign backfired spectacularly. Indeed, the issue resulted in his greatest foreign policy failure: Trump has made the Middle East more dangerous, less stable, more repressive, and less free. Iran has been transformed: the young most favorable to the West are disillusioned; relative moderates such as President Hassan Rouhani have been discredited internally; hardline factions most hostile to America have taken over parliament and are likely to win the presidency; few Iranians irrespective of their political persuasion trust Washington to fulfill any future agreements; China and Russia have increased cooperation with Tehran.
The Nuremberg trials were one of the few times that humanity has actually tried to hold its rulers accountable for their crimes and depredations. From Matthew Ehret at strategic-culture.org:
“The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that Civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captives to the judgement of law, is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever paid to reason.”
-Justice Robert Jackson, Nov. 21, 1945
It is often forgotten what sort of a battle occurred after WWII to establish the Nuremberg Trials which gave the world a revolutionary code of law which even today offers many of the remedies to the Gordian Knots blocking our way to a peaceful future. By the end of the war, many European leaders of the allied nations wished to simply put leading Nazis against a wall to face a firing squad and return to “business as usual”.
As I’ve outlined in many recent writings, it was only through the intensive efforts of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and his leading allies in both the USA and Russia that a different course of action was decided upon and an official international tribunal was sanctioned that generated a total legal paradigm shift in international law that has been too easily taken for granted (due largely to the lack of effect these laws have had on post-WWII practice).
Among those revolutionary reforms included the unprecedented mandate that wars of aggression would henceforth be illegal in the eyes of the law. The tendency for those higher officials carrying out inhuman orders to escape responsibility for their actions or omissions of correct action were deemed insufficient defenses under the higher moral principle of “known or should have known”.
The underlying assumption of these Nuremberg laws are: 1) “might does not make right” despite what generations of Hobbesians and Niescheans have chosen to believe and 2) that every individual is responsible for their decisions based not on the arbitrary standards of whatever degenerate society they live in but rather upon the belief in the intrinsic powers of reason and conscience which all humans have access to and are obliged to guide our actions in life.
Joe Biden and his team have no problem cozying up to terrorists, as long as the terrorists are aligned with US regime change objectives. From Daniel Lazare at strategic-culture.org:
As Joe Biden unveils his hawkish cabinet picks, it’s hard not to get the sense that we’re all hurtling back in time to those glorious days of regime change when the United States believed it had a sacred right to topple any government that got in its way. It also seems like we’re returning to the days that when jihadi terrorism aimed at America and its allies was horrible, terrible, a crime against humanity, and so on, while terrorism aimed at people the US didn’t like was, well, distasteful and unpleasant but not something to bring up in polite company.
While no one wants to blow up innocent civilians, in other words, what really counts is which civilians and in whose behalf.
With that in mind, it’s worth revisiting a talk that then-Vice President Biden gave at Harvard’s Kennedy School in October 2014. If you enjoy listening to an empty-headed politician spouting endless clichés, you can access all ninety minutes of it here. But if you’re not a glutton for punishment, you can jump to the 53:35 mark and zero in on Sleepy Joe’s specific thoughts regarding America’s Mideast partners and their inordinate fondness for ISIS and Al Qaeda.
With the United States in the grip of the Great Depression in the late 1930’s, Seabiscuit became the idol of a nation, traipsing across the country in his private train, generating more newspaper coverage than Roosevelt, and attracting never-before-seen crowds at every track appearance.
Millions of people had no jobs, were unable to provide for their families and many were homeless. They felt worthless and felt that no one cared. Then came the story of the most unlikely winner, out of luck and discarded just like them, the ultimate underdog.
Seabiscuit was the perfect horse for his time. He didn’t look the part of a great racehorse. With his smallish stature, knobby knees, unusual neck, and slightly crooked forelegs, he looked more like a cow pony than a thoroughbred. But looks aren’t everything; his quality, an admirer once wrote, was mostly in his heart. He didn’t look like much at all.
There never seems to be a “right” time for Washington to withdraw from its forever wars. One possibility the author doesn’t consider is that it’s not fear, but rather a gravy train of out and out intelligence and military corruption that leads to perpetual war in places like Afghanistan. From Dan DePetris at responsiblestatecraft.org:
n the days since the Trump administration announced the withdrawal of 2,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the Beltway has turned into the epicenter of righteous condemnation.
Lawmakers like Republican Sen. Ben Sasse are issuing mealy-mouthed press statements calling the troop drawdown a modern-day retreat from evil terrorist forces. Retired 4-Star Generals, including John Allen and Joseph Votel, are wondering why the White House would deliberately hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban when there is so much more work to do.
One of the most sanctimonious denunciations of the withdrawal came from none other than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who scurried to the Senate floor on the eve of the announcement to make his displeasure known: “The consequences of a premature American exit…would be reminiscent of the humiliating American departure from Saigon in 1975.”
The American public has heard all of this before. Invocations of Vietnam, claims about terrorist vacuums, and the levying of emotionally stultifying words like “retreat” are par for the course in Washington. But the last several days of huffing and puffing from the usual, so-called national security “experts” have been so obscenely dishonest that one wonders why they are consulted at all.
The talking point of a U.S. withdrawal being rushed or irresponsible is perhaps the most laughable of the bunch. The term “precipitous” has been used by opponents of the withdrawal so many times over the last several days that some journalists are habitually injecting it into their own reports. “Precipitous,” however, connotes a disorganized, panicked sprint to the exits. Trump’s decision to reduce the U.S. troop presence in the country is anything but — the administration has made it abundantly clear that Trump sees no point in throwing good money after bad in one of the most violent and corrupt places on earth. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien telegraphed the move to bring U.S. force levels in Afghanistan to 2,500 over four weeks ago. Nobody should be surprised. Nor should movement towards a final exit from a war that just entered its 20th year be referred to as a “precipitous” action.
In the modern secular church of fakers, they tell us anger is wrong, outrage is wrong, acceptance in hypnotic sleep is what we must aim for.
Always bow to “smooth transitions.” When there is disagreement, swallow your bile, give in, make peace with tyranny. The pain will only last for a little while. Then you will reach a higher understanding.
The authorities and their minions of the press have the final word. Our job is to fit ourselves into their scheme of things.
WE must be flexible. THEY can be inflexible.
If these rules seem backwards and upside down, that is OUR problem, not THEIRS.
This is the position of our would-be masters.
I realize your attention is focused on the election and vote-fraud right now. But I want to comment on the disaster we’re all facing these days:
The COVID restrictions. Lockdowns—de facto in-house arrest. Limits on public gatherings. Economic devastation.
Cutting to the bottom line: There is NO state of emergency that justifies sweeping away Americans’ basic freedoms. No war, natural or manmade disaster.
NO emergency can override the meaning and spirit of the Constitution.
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.