QUINN ON SYRIA, PRAYER AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND EMANUEL’S DISPENSING HIS WISDOM ON WABASH

5/9/14

Time is tight, as it has been for the last several months, but a man’s gotta write what a man’s gotta write…

WHY DO SO MANY IN WASHINGTON WANT TO HELP AL QAEDA IN SYRIA?

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/05/09/why-do-so-many-people-in-washington-want-to-help-al-qaeda-in-syria/

Contrary to what the likes of John McCain would have you believe, militarism and meddling does not equate to patriotism.

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS STRIKES AGAIN:  SUPREME COURT SAYS IT’S OKAY TO PRAY

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/05/06/captain-obvious-strikes-supreme-court-says-okay-pray/

Maybe this is the beginning of the end of all the silliness inflicted on us by the freedom from religion crowd…but probably not.

RAHM EMANUEL TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESSPEOPLE:  JUST SHUT UP AND PAY

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/05/03/rahm-emanuel-downtown-business-people-shut-pay/

And have you noticed how the local media, or at least elements of the Chicago Tribune, seem to have turned on their consanguineous champion?  Still…bet heavily on the wise and mighty Rahm’s reelection.  In the screwed up politics of enlightened, modern day America, it’s all about money, and Mr. Emanuel has boatloads of it.

Have a great weekend, everybody, and God bless and thank all of you out there who are mothers.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

SYRIA AND THE WAR PARTY: “AFTER YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT YOU DON’T WANT IT…”

6/17/13

President Barack “W” Obama has decided it’s a good idea to take sides in the Sunni/Shia civil war in Syria (See my 5/24/13 post THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR:  A FRIGHTENING HISTORICAL ANALOGY for a not surprisingly amazingly prescient piece on this aspect of the war for which Mr. Obama now has such enthusiasm.) and has authorized sending arms to the Sunnis radicals to fight the Alawite/Shia radicals; see my 6/15/13 piece SYRIA:   HOW LONG BEFORE WE’RE CALLING OUR STOOGES “BRUTAL DICTATORS”?, only my latest piece on this impending next disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

Suddenly, though, the bipartisan War Party, of which, apparently, “W” Obama is now seeking to become the most salient member, is not satisfied with the small arms it was demanding we send to the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria.   Prominent War Party mouthpiece Senator Bob Menendez (D., but really War Party, NJ) says

“You can’t simply send a pea shooter against a blunderbuss.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R., but really War Party, Ga.) talks of sending more powerful weapons to the “moderates” he is confident we have found in Syria and of enforcing no-fly zones.   Penultimate War Party leader Lindsey Graham (R., but really War Party, SC, pictured with the Dr. Frankenstein to whom he plays Igor, John McCain) says that the rebels can’t bring Bashar Assad down with small arms; they need something stronger.

The old expression regarding giving people inches only to have them demand yards immediately comes to mind.

Senator Mark Udall (D., but really War Party, Colo.) whimpers that he is afraid of a slippery slope but, lest he fall out of favor with the “defense” contractors who keep War Party members well larded and comfortably ensconced in Washington, says

“But I think we ought to be listening to the president, we ought to be listening to the military leadership.”

What Mr. Udall doesn’t understand, or understands but delights in, is that we are already on a slippery slope.  First it’s non-lethal aid, then it’s small arms, next it’s a no-fly zone, then it’s American “trainers” (what the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used to call “advisers,” only the “advisers” knew that they were really “troops,” but I digress.), then it’s….well, you know the logical conclusion of this game.  

Among all this craziness, the voice of reason comes from, of all people, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who asked the West, referring to the Al Qaeda dominated Syrian rebels,

“You want to support these people?  You want to supply arms to these people?  This bears little relation to the humanitarian values that countries all across Europe have been propagating for hundreds of years.” 

It’s not as if Mr. Putin’s horse in this race, Bashar Assad, has his feet firmly planted in the soil from which sprang the Magna Carta, either.   Mr. Putin is backing his thug not only out of a degree of affinity but also out of self-interest; not only is Syria Russia’s sole friend in the Arab world  (See my 5/17/13 post, AMERICAN ASSURANCES IN SYRIA:  A RUSSIAN GUANTANAMO IN AL QAEDA’S COURT?), but if the rebels win in Syria and it either descends into an ungovernable dystopia or becomes a radical Sunni dominated state (the only two options, despite the War Party’s disingenuous reassurances to the contrary), Russia’s terrorist problem, which makes ours look quite mild by comparison, will become virtually uncontrollable.   Mr. Putin is understandably bewildered that the West is so gung-ho about supporting people who mean the West, and Russia, so much harm.   This makes absolutely no sense to him, and understandably so.   For all his faults, the Russian president has something that most western leaders, and certainly the two U.S. presidents he has had to suffer through, lack…a sense of strategic perspective and, well, common sense.  Mr. Putin must be baffled as the United States and its allies sink further into the miasma of another deadly, expensive, and unwinnable conflict in a place we have no business being.

Somewhere, however, LBJ is smiling.  But not nearly as broadly as John McCain, the War Party’s leader, and the arms merchants who support the lifelong ego trip he and his fellow War Party members call careers.

SYRIA: HOW LONG BEFORE WE’RE CALLING OUR STOOGES “BRUTAL DICTATORS”?

6/15/15

British Prime Minister David Cameron, a normally sensible fellow, in attempting to justify western aid to the group of thugs he favors in Syria in their fight against the group of thugs he doesn’t favor, argued yesterday that Syrian President Bashar Assad is

“…a brutal dictator who is using chemical weapons under our nose.”

Mr. Cameron, his French counterpart, and, presumably, our formerly cautious President Barack Obama prefer General Salim Idris, the latest third world fraud parading around calling himself a “moderate” in order to access western cash and a place to defect to if things don’t go his way.

Let’s assume for a moment that General Idris wins this conflict with generous help, including who knows what at this stage, from the west and becomes the latest western stooge to occupy the seat of power in a Middle Eastern ethnic jigsaw puzzle of a “country.”  Should that be the outcome in Syria, one wonders how long it will take Messrs. Cameron, Obama, Hollande and others who are seemingly so anxious to create another dystopic terrorist breeding ground in Syria to call General Idris

“…a brutal dictator who is using chemical weapons under our nose.”

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past (Only my latest post on Syria is 5/29/13’s RUSSIAN ARMS TO SYRIA:   THANK YOU, COMRADE?; please read it and the posts to which it will direct you.), we have no friends in Syria and there are no moderates, whatever that means, in Syria.   We are left with a choice between the devil we know and the devil we don’t.   We do, however, have a promising course of action, to wit, stay the hell out and tell the winner we are willing to do business with him to the extent it is in our interest to do so.  Mr. Obama, though, has just announced his intention to back, with American arms, trainers, and air cover (but only for a “no fly zone” over the areas in Jordan in which we will “train” the Al Qaeda members and wannabes we will be backing), the devil we don’t.  Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Mr. Obama apparently shares the George Bush view that we indeed can and should save the world and make it over in our image.  Terrific.

We never do learn anything in this country, do we?

THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR: A FRIGHTENING HISTORICAL ANALOGY

5/24/13

How about a scary historical analogy to put the Syrian Civil War in perspective?

 (See my many posts on that conflict, mostly written from the perspective of U.S. policy, the most recent of which is WHAT IF BASHAR ASSAD WINS IN SYRIA?, 5/21/13)

The Assad family is of the Alawite branch of Islam, which is closely related to the Shiite branch of Islam.   One might go so far as to say that the Alawites are a branch of the Shiites, but experts in these matters might consider that too simplistic.  The Assads are backed in this civil war by Shiite led Iran and it clients in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, and its clients in Iraq, a majority Shiite country once run by the Sunni Saddam Hussein until the American occupation, which at least temporarily resulted in the Shiites regaining shaky control of that country which itself is riven by what is not yet, but soon will be, called a civil war.

The opposition to Mr. Assad is composed of Sunnis, largely Al Qaeda related groups and Al Qaeda wannabes, and is backed by Sunni dominated regimes, primarily in the Persian Gulf, the most salient of which in the Syrian endeavor is Qatar.  

So what we have in Syria is a civil war, but also much more.   Syria appears to be a smaller theater in which the larger, cooler Sunni-Shiite conflict, which spans at least the greater Middle East, is manifesting itself in much hotter form.

Think back to the late 1930s and the Spanish Civil War.  In that conflict, the Nationalists, most of whom were genuine nationalists but many of whom, including their leader, Francisco Franco, also had Fascist tendencies, were backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.  The Republicans, many of whom were genuine republicans but many of whom had Communist tendencies, were backed by the Soviet Union.   The Nationalists eventually prevailed and Franco remained in power until his death in 1975.

The Spanish Civil War is largely seen by historians as something of a trial run, or a dress rehearsal, if you will, for the larger European conflict to follow, or perhaps even a first round in the fighting on the eastern front of the European theater in World War II.  The Fascists and the Communists, it is speculated, were just readying their weaponry for the big one to follow.

Could we be seeing the same thing in Syria?   Could we be seeing the Shiite powers, led by Iran, and the Sunni powers, led by the Gulf States, just testing their weaponry, their influence, and their wealth for the big one to follow?

To say we hope not is to understate the case.