Why Should We Help the Kurds?

Why should we help the Kurds?   Because the Kurds could easily become another democratic island of stability in the Middle East, like Israel.  The Kurds are a group of people united by their own separate language and culture, split between Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. The Kurds are definitely not trying to turn the clock back to the 7^th century. The Kurds are mostly secular Sunni Muslims who believe in religious tolerance.  They also include Kurdish speaking Yazidis, Shiites and Christians.  During the ISIS advances, they took in Arab refugees without regard for religion, Christians, Shiites and Sunnis.  They helped organize, train and arm Yazidis and Arab Christian militias.  They have women fighters in their militia units, some trained as snipers.  The Kurds even have regular commercial flights from the Kurdish Regional Capital, Erbil, Iraq, to Tel Aviv, Israel.  The Kurds are as close as you can get to democratic tolerant folks outside of Israel.  Iraqi Kurds are extremely pro American.  They believe the US saved them from annihilation when Saddam Hussein was lashing out after the first Gulf War.  They are trying to get as close to us as they can.  

The Kurds have been the most effective military units fighting ISIS.  In Syria, they are so reliable that it’s an embarrassment.  The Kurds have to recruit and train Sunni Arab defense forces to control the Arab villages they capture from ISIS.  While the villagers are happy ISIS is gone, they will not accept a Kurdish occupation.  To keep the villages free of ISIS, the villagers need weapons and training.   ISIS never captured any Kurdish weapons in working condition during their original advances.  When Kurdish militia retreats it's because they're out of ammo or taking horrendous casualties. 

Original Article (May require subscription):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-kurds-deserve-a-seat-at-the-negotiating-table-1483914439#lf_comment=181780162:632979006

Palestinian Resettlement or Inherited Refugee Status?

I have never understood why being a Palestinian refugee is an inheritable condition.  I thought refugees were supposed to find some place to live permanently after being displaced from their former country.  It has been almost 70 years since the original refugees left Israel on the advice of the Mufti of Jerusalem, among others.  The vast majority of Palestinian refugees have never seen the places that they are refugees from.  They are still supported as refugees by a unique UN agency, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which guarantees the descendants of the original 1948 Palestinian refugees welfare payments, free healthcare and education  from the UN forever.  The UN makes no effort to resettle these people anywhere else.  There were 700,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948, and now there are 5 million.  I don't see how essentially locking these people up in Palestine for a cage match with the Israelis helps them. They should be offered resettlement.

What Did Corker's Deal Do For Republicans?

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, written by Republican Senator Bob Corker, set up a framework that mandates Congressional review of any arms control agreement with Iran, but allows the agreement to go into force unless Congress can override President Obama’s veto of a bill to stop the agreement.  Since the agreement seems very tilted in favor of President Obama, why would Corker write and help pass such legislation?

What Corker bought us is an on the record vote by every Democrat in Congress on the Iran agreement. Without the Corker bill, there would have been no vote at all. Traditionally, Congress does not vote on Executive Agreements. You must measure Corker’s agreement by the way the Smartest President Ever got the agreement ratified in the UN before Congress could even vote.  Without Corker’s agreement, there would have been no vote and no debate in Congress on the Iran deal.

Further, once that vote is taken, it will be a matter of public record that Barry the Brilliant acted without the advice and consent of anybody beyond his circle of cronies. The Israelis and Saudis are not going to wait quietly while Iran gathers the strength to kill them. They will attack first. The situation will quickly deteriorate in the Middle East to the point that even the Pravda Press can't ignore the general, perhaps nuclear, war that the agreement triggered. We will have a Democratic president, Obama, supported by Congressional Democrats who voted on the record, who made an agreement the majority of both Houses of Congress voted against. This Chicago Machine Prodigy will carry it out anyway, showing his true colors as an arrogant aspiring dictator. That will be a great campaign issue against every Democrat in 2016.

You should note that the Obama administration feels free to ignore Executive Agreements concerning nuclear disarmament whenever convenient. In 1994 the US, UK and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with the Ukraine. In return for the Ukraine surrendering all of the former Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, the US, UK and Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. Last year, Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine, then invaded the Ukraine from the east. The Smartest President Ever refused to send any weapons to help the Ukrainians. He only sent "non-lethal" aid. I know that US field rations are much better than Soviet era leftovers, but do you really believe that's keeping the promise of the Budapest Memorandum?

Since the Smartest President Ever has ignored Executive Agreements he didn’t like, and since the Iran Executive Agreement will have been put in force after being rejected by a majority in both houses of Congress, it should be relatively easy for a Republican president to cancel it in 2017.  If a Democrat is elected in 2016, the country will have so many problems that nuclear war in the Middle East may seem relatively minor.

Iran Deal Will Lead To Middle East War

Democrats believe that Saudi Arabia and Israel will wait patiently until Iran uses the benefits of Obama's deal to gather enough strength to kill them.  The deal frees $150 billion in frozen assets that Iran can use to buy weapons, train terrorists and finance weapons development.  The agreement allows the inspection of only "civilian" Iranian nuclear sites and allows the Iranians to demand 24 days advance notice of inspections.  So Democrats believe this deal has secured peace in our time.

I believe that Saudi Arabia and Israel will attack Iran very soon after the deal goes into effect because both Saudis and Israelis believe that Iran's threats to convert or kill all Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and to wipe Israel off the map are exactly what the Iranians intend to do if given the chance.  

Iran's economy is very easy to damage.  About 90% of Iran's oil exports flow through the big oil terminal on Kharg Island, 16 miles off shore.  The Iraqi air force knocked out Kharg Island during the 198-1988 Iran Iraq war.  Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have air forces far superior to the Iraqi air force of the 80's.  

Also, while Iran has lots of crude oil, it has no oil refineries.  They import all refined oil products, including gasoline, diesel and kerosene.  Kerosene is widely used for home cooking, so shortages would cause political instability.  Mining Iran's major ports from the air would stop the importation almost all refined imports.

If the Saudis and Israelis decide to hit Iranian nuclear facilities directly, they can't do it with conventional weapons.  In particular, Iran's nuclear facility at Fordow has equipment levels as low as 300 feet below ground.  A 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb with conventional explosives might be able to inflict significant damage.  Unfortunately, only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver a bomb that heavy against current Iranian air defenses. The alternative for the Israelis is nuclear weapons.  What's worse is that any nuclear weapons targeted at Fordow will have to be ground bursts, that is the fireball will have to touch the ground.  This means a lot of radioactive dirt would get sucked up into the atmosphere.  Also, it’s not clear that only one nuclear weapon would do the job.  Due to payload restrictions of Israeli aircraft, they might not be able to use the kind of heavily armored ground penetrating nuclear bombs required to destroy Fordow.  Instead, they might have to dig Fordow out with two or three nuclear explosions spaced out 15 to 30 minutes apart.

To sum up, in my view, no deal means continuing the brush fire wars of the Middle East.  Singing the agreement means a general war in the Middle East that would likely escalate to nuclear weapons.  Liberals who back the deal with Iran are the real war mongers.

Is Obama's Deal Less Damaging Than Bush's Invasion?

The left is saying that Obama’s agreement with Iran is less damaging than Bush invading Iraq.  Given their own arguments, this can’t be true.  As the left reminds us constantly, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Under Barry the Brilliant's agreement, Iran will have nuclear weapons in at most 10 years time. A failed state in Iraq can inflict at most one World Trade Center scale attack on the US. While that would be terrible, three thousand killed would be dwarfed by the casualties of a successful nuclear attack on New York City. The left seems to be arithmetic challenged in both budgetary and military matters.

The Smartest President Ever has maneuvered the world to the point where Israel's only option appears to be war with Iran. Ironically, this appears to be the only option left to Saudi Arabia as well. The Saudis and Israelis have been quietly discussing cooperation in the last year or so.

The deal gives Iran access to $150 billion of frozen assets. To put this in perspective, Iran has about $55 billion in oil revenue per year. I don't think Iran's enemies in the region will permit Iran to sell oil in addition to the $150 billion they will have to spend on weapons and financing terrorism. About 90% of Iranian oil exports pass through the Kharg Island oil terminal, which is about 16 miles offshore. It is packed with oil storage tanks. We will know the war has started when we see a big fire on Kharg Island which destroys the oil terminal. In the Iran Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam Hussein's air force knocked out Kharg Island.

The biggest problem that the Community Organizer in Chief has created with his extended diplomacy is the fortification of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It's now the case that to destroy key facilities would probably require a 30,000 pound enhanced bunker buster bomb. Only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver this conventional explosive bomb against Iran's current air defenses. The Saudis and Israelis would need to use nuclear weapons. The Israelis have an estimated 150 nuclear warheads. The Saudis financed Pakistan's bomb, so they can always buy a few if they need to.

So all of this "peaceful" diplomacy has created a situation where war is almost inevitable. The only good news is that it won't involve US military action right away. We will probably have to pay some ransom to get back our troops in Iraq from Iran's control, but that's the end of our short term involvement.

Longer term, the world will be a huge mess we have to live in.

The Irony of Jewish Mistrust for Evangelicals

The big question last week was why the Jewish vote was still going to Democrats given that the current administration is so hostile towards Israel.  One answer was that the GOP alliance with Evangelical Christians made Jews nervous.

It's ironic that the GOP alliance with Christian Conservatives feels threatening to Jews. The alliance was born out of the government attempts to control church sponsored schools and home schooling. The Evangelical Christians became politically involved because state and local governments were harassing them. They wanted religious freedom to go their own way. The Jewish view of this is that the Evangelicals want to take over the public schools and force Christian prayers into the classrooms. While that may have been true prior to 1964, it certainly has not been their goal since 1976, and definitely is not today. My insight on this comes from the fact that while I'm a Protestant, my grandfather was Jewish and my wife is Jewish. I have talked to both sides and there's a big misunderstanding here. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416057/can-jewish-americans-support-both-democrats-and-israel-jonah-goldberg

No TNR, Republicans are not Responsible for Netanyahu

The article from The New Republic linked below says that Republicans are responsible for what Benjamin Netanyahu does and says.  This is really crazy.   Clearly, the left never takes responsibility for anything.  The disasters of the last 6 years are all Bush's fault.  Why the Prime Minister of Israel is Republicans' responsibility is beyond me.  The only thing I can think of is that Obama has treated him as badly as he would treat a Republican, therefore he is one.  Israel is a sovereign state.  It is not a US possession.  A domestic American politician is not responsible for any foreign leader.  However, if you insist, then Obama and the Democrats who favor negotiating with Iran are responsible for "Death to America" and "Death to the Zionist Entity."  Please have them explain immediately and at length why they support that position. 

What Netanyahu said about the Palestinians is true.  There is no Palestinian leader who both wants to make peace and can deliver peace.  Any Arab territory where Israel withdrew from occupation has been quickly turned into a base for rocket and sometimes tunnel attacks on Israel.  There is no way any Prime Minister of Israel, no matter what party they belong to, can negotiate a peace agreement with the current or any foreseeable future Palestinian leader.  Netanyahu has revealed an inconvenient truth.  I would hope that the left is not so dedicated to Obama that it's willing to become as anti-Semitic as he is.  

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121370/netanyahus-relationship-republicans-political-problem

Jews: The Canaries in the Coal Mine

There are a lot of idiots who think everything that's wrong in the Middle East would be fixed if only Israel was removed. Many believe we don't need to continue to support Israel because they have enough weapons to make it on their own. Both ideas are totally manure.

The terrorist tactics that ISIS and Al Qaeda use today were tested on Israelis by Palestinian terrorists starting in the 1970's. Then, lots of people said the Jews brought it on themselves and it was nobody else's problem. Now, the terrorism has expanded to include everybody else who doesn't practice Islam exactly according to whichever Jihadist nut is holding a gun to their head. As Jews were in the run up to World War II, Jews are today the canary in the coal mine. It may start with them, but it never ends with them.

By now, everyone should realize we have big problems with Islamofacism, whether it's Sunni ISIS or Shi'ite Iran. Of the two, Iran is the more dangerous. Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders organize frequent government sponsored street demonstrations around two slogans, "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iranian leaders have called Israel a one bomb country. They also have said that even if Israel retaliates with nuclear weapons, Muslims will win because there will still be over a billion Muslims and no Jews. Further, they are also working on an ICBM that can reach the US. The best we can hope for there is that they want to discourage us from protecting Israel. The worst case is that they are crazy enough to attack us. Everyone thought Hitler was a joke. It would be a big mistake to believe Iran is a joke.

If we leave Israel to fend for itself, we are risking a general war in the Middle East. The Saudi's and the Gulf States are so scared of a nuclear Iran that they will make a deal with the Israelis for a coordinated attack on Iran. The attack might include nuclear weapons, because against the Iranian air defense systems the Israeli Air Force can't deliver a conventional weapon big enough to destroy the Iranian centrifuges in their deep underground bunkers. They would have to use nukes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414643/standing-our-friends-standing-our-enemies-scott-walker

Netanyahu's Speech: Diplomatic Niceties or Nuclear War?

There is a lot of shocked reaction to Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech to Congress and Netanyu accepting without either of them notifying the White house in advance.  Diplomatic niceties were not observed.  I think we need to put this in perspective.

Our Dear Leader’s deal at all costs behavior with the Iranians is paving the way for a general war in the Middle East, a nuclear war. Only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver a non-nuclear 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb capable of knocking out Iran's centrifuges in their deep underground bunkers. The Smartest President Ever is not going to order that attack even if the Iranians test several nuclear devices. The only Israeli weapons that have a chance at doing the job are nuclear weapons. The absolutely brilliant diplomacy of Barry the Magnificent is leaving Netanyahu with a preemptive nuclear strike as the only way to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

It seems to me that the existence of Israel is threatened. Iranian leaders have called Israel a "one bomb country."  It also seems to me that the White House has decided that a good relationship Israel is surplus to requirements and that our relationship with Iran is more important. The White House believes that an agreement with Iran which will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is very close. I believe that they have spent too much time in Colorado weed parlors, and that the administration's legacy in this area is going to be widespread nuclear proliferation and a general, nuclear, war in the Middle East. At that point, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving a speech to Congress without Obama's permission is a nice alternative to an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. It seems to me that diplomatic protocol is a lot less important than preventing a nuclear war in the Middle East.

Also, let’s get real. The Chicago Machine Prodigy treats Congress like the Chicago City Council and Prime Minister Netanyahu like the head of the Republican Party in Cook County. Our Dear Leader is arrogant and rude early and often. Nobody should be shocked when his behavior is returned in kind.

If our Dear Leader punishes Israel for this breach of protocol, it will cost Democrats votes. People have started to figure out that the jump from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is very short. Voters are also noticing that the friends of Israel tend to be those right wing Republicans that liberal voters have been taught to hate, while Israel's enemies tend to be liberals with a narrative of Palestinian entitlement. The solidity of the liberal Jewish vote is cracking. My Jewish friends are asking me to explain my politics where before they just tried to avoid talking about politics. They have noticed who Israel's friends are. It's early yet, but the Chicago Machine Prodigy is alienating a lot of his former supporters with his antagonism against Israel.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397436/can-israel-survive-victor-davis-hanson#comment-1823847462

Can We Win Against ISIS Without Boots on the Ground?

If we were willing to inflict massive collateral damage, we could discourage ISIS and its imitators for a long time simply by bombing. This is the lesson of Hama, Syria. In 1982, Hafez al Assad put down a Sunni Muslim insurgency centered in the town by surrounding it and then shelling it for 3 weeks. The place was leveled. Between 10,000 and 25,000 people were killed in the fighting. Things got quiet for almost thirty years. The US Air Force has the physical power to do that kind of damage to ISIS' capital in a week. We don't have the capability to do it morally. That's why we need boots on the ground to completely defeat ISIS.

Without boots on the ground, we can "win" only in the way the Israelis win. They call their periodic wars against Hamas and Hezbollah "mowing the lawn." The weakness of Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS is all the same. Once you claim and hold real estate, you become responsible for what happens to it. In Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza this year, the Israeli Air Force was very, very destructive. The damage estimate for Gaza is $6 billion. The damage to Hezbollah assets, along with Lebanese infrastructure and Shiite owned or occupied buildings, was similarly massive. Hezbollah has not really attacked Israel since. I think it's because even though the Iranians paid for a lot of rebuilding, they can't afford to do it again. Hamas is finding that Gaza residents are equally unhappy with the massive damage that may take a decade or two to repair. ISIS is similarly vulnerable. They own territory with assets they value. If those assets vanish in a series of targeted explosions, leaving worthless rubble, they will lose the ability to buy support.

Our first strikes against ISIS in Syria were disappointing. It’s an indication of how much we want to avoid collateral damage that we blew the antenna array off of an ISIS building without blowing the building up. We only destroyed the antennas on the ISIS financial control center, leaving the building intact with all the computers and equipment used to manage ISIS' money. We should have destroyed everything to make it harder for ISIS to manage its funding. A 2,000 lbs. guided bomb would have taken the whole thing down. This smells like a civilian designed targeting order. It really seems like the White House is drawing up what the targets are and how hard we are going to hit them.  Do we want to "send a message" or do we want to destroy or at least degrade ISIS?
 

Mess in the Ukraine, Global Implications

War weary commentators of the left and right are arguing that the Ukraine is not our problem.  In disagreement with any contrary argument, these folks like to ask whether the holders of opposing viewpoints are willing to be on the front lines personally.  I think they are completely wrong.  Remember that NATO now includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The first 3 are Baltic States that used to be part of the USSR and might be next on Putin's list of targets. We made a commitment to the Ukraine to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for Ukrainians giving up their Soviet era nuclear weapons. If we ignore our commitment, we will need to quickly move a large number of US and NATO aircraft to Poland, because at that point Putin will really be tempted to grab the Baltic States. Regardless, just letting the Ukraine be cut up will make countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel wonder about our commitment to them. This could start a general, probably nuclear, war in the Middle East brought on by Iran's unchecked move towards making their own nuclear weapons. So enjoy playing games with who's going to get shot at. And get some popcorn, because the show is only just beginning. 

I think the best possible response to Putin would be to withdraw from the New START disarmament treaty now in effect with Russia. It is a unilateral step that the president can take immediately. Unfortunately, the One We Weren't Really Waiting For will not do this. As I said before, another thing we could do is start moving a significant number of US and NATO aircraft to Poland and the Baltic States. Our Dear Leader won't do that either. Our Smartest President Ever will at best tell Putin that the Ukrainian border is a red line he should not cross. Most likely, our Community Organizer in Chief will warn Putin that Russia risks condemnation from the whole international community and all Citizens of the World if he grabs any more Ukrainian territory. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people. They lost the last US election and will have to pay for it even though they didn't get to vote.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373392/putin-opens-second-front-ukraine-tom-rogan#comment-1285280931

Encouraging Israel to Nuke Iran

The fact is the only way Israel can destroy enough Iranian centrifuges is to nuke their underground facilities.  Please explain to this ignorant red neck why it's wise to encourage the Israelis to nuke the Iranians.  While the unanticipated result of Obama's foreign policy is to reconcile Israel and Saudi Arabia, the improved relationship itself shows just how terrified both countries are of a nuclear Iran.  Add in the Kurds, who are already very friendly with the Israelis and are getting friendlier with Saudi Arabia, and a general war in the Middle East becomes much more likely.  The world in general is very reminiscent of 1914, when a minor league assassination set off World War I and millions died.  In the face of all this, commenters on this site are talking about John Bolton's mustache.  A new level in Liberal/Progressive ignorance. 

http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/5373872-74/iran-iraq-obama#axzz2qHvjuswy

Iran: False Equivalence

Liberals like to ask why Israel is allowed nukes but Iran is not.   Countries need to sign treaties to be bound by them.  Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation treaty.  Iran did.  Also, Israel does not have government orchestrated demonstrations organized around the slogans "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."  Iran does.  Israel is not the world's leading sponsor of terrorism.  Iran is.  Israel is no threat to the United States.  Iran is.  I could go on at length, but willful ignorance is hard to break through.  However Liberals, answer me this.  Where would you rather be a citizen, Israel or Iran?  Have you ever been to either one or even talked to anyone who lived in either place? 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363497/how-bad-deal-it-ask-bibi-elliott-abrams

Arms Race: Missile Defenses v Rogue State Nukes

The Iranians are threatening Israel with annihilation, not the other way around.  Iranian demonstrators have been encouraged by their government for years to chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”  ever since 1979.  The ayatollahs say they will wipe Israel off the map.   My guess, based on the Israeli view of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, is that Israel will use their nukes if they have to, especially when the Iranians explicitly threaten them.  The fact is that Israel has nuclear capable ballistic missiles that can reach Iran.  My guess, based on their view of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, is that Israel will use their nukes if they have to.   Israel also has a formidable air force.  However, it's likely that only the US, and not Israel, has the capability to significantly damage Iran's nuclear program with conventional weapons.  If the US does not take care of the Iran threat, then we may force the Israelis to use their missiles with nuclear warheads to preclude an Iranian nuclear breakout.  The only thing that could stop Israel from attacking is a significant missile defense capability.  So as it stands now, it’s a race between Israeli missile defense and Iranian nuclear weapon development.  The president says that all options are on the table.  However, he seems to be signaling, with all of his diplomacy, that the US will sit this one out militarily.  Does that seem like a smart thing to do?  

The US needs robust missile defenses as well.  Missile defenses make a small number of ICBM's less valuable.  They would tend to discourage North Korea from trying to build enough ICBM's to be effective as a credible threat to the US, because the cost would be prohibitive for them.  The argument that US missile defenses might offend the Russians and Chinese is appeasement pure and simple.  The liberal line on these issues is always in favor of spending less on defending ourselves, so we can spend more on domestic "investment," like Solyndra and Fisker.  It's how liberals buy their votes, but  it is not a rational approach to defending ourselves.

Article on need for missile defenses

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346579/our-much-needed-missile-defense

Description of Israeli Ballistic Missile Capability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICBMs