Appeasers hate those who confront evil (Obama's idealism v. Netanyahu's realism)

Dennis Prager has a concise explanation for why the Obama administration is so offended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard line against the Islamists:

Appeasers hate those who confront evil.

Given that this president is the least likely of any president in American history to confront evil — or even identify it — while Benjamin Netanyahu is particularly vocal and eloquent about both identifying and confronting evil, it is inevitable that the former will resent the latter.

The negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program are today’s quintessential example. Those who will not confront a tyranny engaged in terror from Argentina to the Middle East, and which is committed to annihilating another country, will deeply resent Israel and its leader.

Why can't Netanyahu understand that the terrorists don't need to be confronted and defeated; they need jobs?

Our Dangerous Historical Moment?

Historian Victor Davis Hansen, writing in NRO on February 19, notes the geopolitical similarities between the world of the 1930s and the world of today:

Putin, the Islamic State, and Iran at first glance have as little in common as did Germany, Italy, and Japan. But like the old Axis, they are all authoritarians that share a desire to attack their neighbors. And they all hate the West.  

The grandchildren of those who appeased the dictators of the 1930s once again prefer in the short term to turn a blind eye to the current fascists. And the grandchildren of the survivors of the Holocaust once again get blamed.

The 1930s should have taught us that aggressive autocrats do not have to like each other to share hatred of the West.

The 1930s should have demonstrated to us that old-time American isolationism and the same old European appeasement will not prevent but only guarantee a war.

Meanwhile, some of the left's apologists, such as Steven Pinker and Andrew Mack at Slate, paint a rosy picture worthy of Pravda's descriptions of unrelenting Soviet triumph.  As long as the "progressive" tribe is in power, the trend lines are incapable of being anything but positive:

The world is not falling apart. The kinds of violence to which most people are vulnerable—homicide, rape, battering, child abuse—have been in steady decline in most of the world. Autocracy is giving way to democracy. Wars between states—by far the most destructive of all conflicts—are all but obsolete. The increase in the number and deadliness of civil wars since 2010 is circumscribed, puny in comparison with the decline that preceded it, and unlikely to escalate.

We have been told of impending doom before: a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, a line of dominoes in Southeast Asia, revanchism in a reunified Germany, a rising sun in Japan, cities overrun by teenage superpredators, a coming anarchy that would fracture the major nation-states, and weekly 9/11-scale attacks that would pose an existential threat to civilization.

Why is the world always “more dangerous than it has ever been”—even as a greater and greater majority of humanity lives in peace and dies of old age?

Stay classy, Mr. President

All presidents use their influential position as a bully pulpit for advocacy of issues important to them.  But, has any other president in living memory used their office as a platform for mocking and caricaturing his political opponents?

Arizona Daily Star, May 11:

Touting gains on border security and mocking Republicans' insatiable appetite for border enforcement, President Obama said Tuesday it's time for immigration reform.

The administration has gone "above and beyond" what Republicans asked for on border security when the last round of serious immigration reform debate stalled in 2007, Obama said in El Paso on his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border since becoming president.

"All the stuff they've asked for, we've done," Obama said. "But, I suspect there's going to be those who try to move the goal posts on us one more time."

They'll now call for even more Border Patrol agents and a higher fence, he said.

"Maybe they'll say we need a moat? Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat?" Obama said. "They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that; that's politics. But the truth is that the measures we've put in place are getting results."

Way to promote reasoned debate, Mr. President.

Mock all you want, but can you prove that the border is less porous now than it was when you entered office?  I’d love to have some south Texas ranchers in the room with you when you answer.

P.S. A moat with alligators might actually work.

Just one reason why Ron Paul should not be the GOP nominee in 2012

Rep. Ron Paul, libertarian Texas congressman, perennial GOP presidential candidate and opponent of 99.7% of U.S. foreign policy, has finally given his reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden.  As reported May 3 in The Hill:

Paul, a long-time skeptic of American interventionism, said that "like all other Americans, I'm glad he's gone," but raised multiple questions about the costs associated with the 10-year manhunt for the al Qaeda leader behind the 9/11 attacks.

"If we got him, I guess it's time to come home as far as I'm concerned," he said during an interview with Fox Business network.

Engaging straw men is easier than engaging the truth, I suppose.  Does he think the War on Terror was merely a global manhunt for OBL?  No, of course not, but Paul will latch on to any reason he can find, rational or not, to bring the troops home.

Al Qaeda will continue to function without its symbolic leader.  So will terror organizations not related to Al Qaeda.  Most if not all of them remain committed to our destruction.

Paul is ideologically antiwar, so no logic will persuade him that it makes sense to continue our campaign to destroy our enemies’ ability (or will) to make war against us.

The world is a very dangerous place.  It would be immeasurably more dangerous with Ron Paul in the White House.

Do boycotters secretly hate Arizona hispanics?

With the announcement of each new boycott of Arizona companies (such as the one just approved by L.A. County), I wonder if the Legion of the Outraged has thought this through completely.

If, somehow, these boycotts manage to have an actual economic impact on Arizona businesses, just who do they think will lose their jobs first?  Wouldn't it be the lower-income employees?

Even if the middle- and upper-class somehow got hit first, their ensuing decrease in economic activity would affect... who?

I cannot escape the conclusion that those who purport to champion the cause of Hispanics in Arizona secretly hate them.

Allied forces gear up for defeat in Afghanistan

Sorry about the provocative title, but there’s no other way to interpret the new rules of engagement for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.  AP, June 22:

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.
The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.

Is it really that hard to understand that the militants are going to seize this irresistible opportunity to start using civilians as human shields as they continue their offensives?
What are we going to do?  Beg them to come out in the open so we can fight them?
This new policy is insane.
I truly feel sorry for soldiers who are having to serve in Obama’s Army.

Yes, there have been four more hijackings, but...

The Associated Press overlooked one important fact in this morning's report about four new hijackings by Somali pirates:

Undeterred by U.S. and French hostage rescues that killed five bandits, Somali pirates brazenly hijacked four more ships in the Gulf of Aden, the waterway at the center of the world's fight against piracy.

Pirates have vowed to retaliate for deaths of their colleagues-- and the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday he takes those comments seriously. But Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told ABC's "Good Morning America" that "we're very well prepared to deal with anything like that."

Still, despite Mullen's confident statement and President Barack Obama's warning Monday, pirates captured two more nautical trophies Tuesday to match the two ships they seized a day or two earlier.

NATO spokeswoman Shona Lowe said the MV Sea Horse, a Lebanese-owned cargo ship, was attacked and captured Tuesday by pirates in three or four speedboats. She had no further information.

That hijacking came only hours after the Greek-managed MV Irene E.M. was seized in a rare overnight attack by pirates.

AP says the pirates were "undeterred" by the French and American actions, but consider this: the number of French and American ships seized since this past weekend's rescues is.... ZERO.

As I predicted Sunday, the Somali "businessmen" are focusing their efforts on activities that show the greatest promise of earning them money rather than on activities that will earn them an early death.

For the moment at least, the pirates have indeed been deterred from attacking French and American interests.

France and the US have shown the rest of the world how to deal with the pirate menace. If they choose to continue to capitulate, that's their problem.

Mr. President, I hope you're paying attention

In all of the years of the Bush administration, I don't recall hearing of an American ship being seized by Somali pirates. Less than three months into the Obama administration, however, folks in one of the numerous pirate villages on the coast figured that the new US government, seeking to become European in every meaningful way, would also capitulate to pirate demands like the Europeans typically do.

It's an age-old principle of child-rearing: you get more of the behaviors you reward. Somali piracy has increased significantly in the last two or three years because the ships and/or crews always end up getting ransomed. But somehow, all of the American ships sailing past were ignored. Could it have been because President Bush had demonstrated his resolve not to allow such outrages against Americans to go unpunished?

For a while, it was looking like the current incident would end up with the pirates going free (with or without the ransom). The bad guys were certainly not impressed when a navy ship showed up, only to stand by quietly while hostage negotiation teams swung into action.

It was with grim satisfaction that I saw today that the standoff was resolved in a swift firefight -- three of the four pirates dead, and the American captain unharmed.

This is justice. If other Somali pirates have any wisdom, they will know to let American ships pass unmolested from now on. There are still plenty of European ships out there to provide a handsome income.

President Obama, I don't know what role you played in setting the rules of engagement in this standoff, but I sincerely hope you will take to heart the lesson that -- just like with strong-willed youngsters -- we must make bad behavior so unprofitable that the bad behavior will decrease or be abandoned.


UPDATE: Credit where credit is due: the president did authorize force as early as Saturday, but it might be better to make it a standing order rather than having to react to every incident after it is underway.


UPDATE #2: It seems that the pirates are very put out over the deaths of what AP calls their "colleagues".

Somali pirates on Monday vowed to retaliate for the deaths of three colleagues who were shot dead by U.S. Navy snipers hours before in a daring nighttime assault that freed a 53-year-old American captain.
The Navy Seals late Sunday rescued freighter Capt. Richard Phillips, who had been held by pirates on a lifeboat that drifted in the Indian Ocean for five days.
"Every country will be treated the way it treats us," said Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the pirate den of Gaan, a central Somali town.
"In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," he told The Associated Press by telephone. "We will retaliate for the killings of our men."
He gave no details and it was not clear in what way the pirates could retaliate, though some fear they could take their revenge on the hundreds of other foreign nationals they hold on seized ships.

This is a standoff of another kind. Who will blink first: Obama or the pirates?

By the way, the AP article reveals something that I missed before. I was overly harsh in characterizing all of the Europeans as appeasers. The French, apparently, have had enough:

The American rescue followed a similar operation Friday carried out by French navy commandos, who stormed a pirate-held sailboat, the Tanit, in a shootout at sea that killed two pirates and freed four French hostages. The French owner of the vessel was also killed in the assault.

Good on them. Let's hope that more countries follow their example. The only negotiations the pirates will submit to are ones that result in money being paid to them. Some may think that paying ransoms are an acceptable cost of doing business, but they have no right to make that decision for the rest of us.


UPDATE #3: Man, this is getting confusing. The Obama administration is claiming that it authorized the military action that freed Captain Phillips, but as Blackfive notes, in reality the on-scene commander took action under standing rules of engagement that would have applied with or without the president's input:

I just finished listening to the press conference w/ ADM Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips. At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating. One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip's release continued. The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. Iti is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

(Via Gateway Pundit)

Obama administration surprised, dismayed at its own immigration enforcement action

You can't make this stuff up. Washington Times, February 26:

Immigrant rights groups blasted President Obama on Wednesday for breaking what they called his "personal commitment" to change Bush-era immigration raids after U.S. authorities raided an engine machine shop in Washington state and detained illegal immigrants.
The Obama administration itself seemed taken aback by the raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowing to Congress that she would "get to the bottom of this."

ICE agents enforce the law, and their boss vows she'll "get to the bottom of this".

And that phrase "Bush-era immigration raids" is a work of art.

If we're nice to the bully, maybe he'll be nicer to us

So. If we go easy on the enemy combatants currently residing at Gitmo, their brethren planning their next operation against Americans will let up on the carnage a little bit? Did I understand that correctly?

Fox News, January 22:

The closing of Guantanamo Bay detention center and using the Army Field Manual as the basis for all interrogation is aimed at protecting Americans, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday.

In his first press conference since President Obama was inaugurated, Gibbs said the orders "made America safer, made America stronger."

"The president believes that there's no more important job that he has than to keep the American people safe," Gibbs said at the White House press briefing room.

"The president believes that what he did today will enhance the security of the American people, that it lives up to our values as Americans, and that it will protect the men and women that we have in uniform," he said.