It’s 9/11 the 13th, and these United States have never been closer to losing the last vestiges of their foundational identity.

Long ago, our first president, George Washington, prophetically warned against “attachments and entanglements in foreign affairs.” In the last century, such sentiments, tragically (as I increasingly believe), fell into disrepute. In our time, Washington’s 21st-century successors, George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, have no such compunction. On the contrary, their response to the Islamic assault of 9/11 and the aftermath of continuing jihad have been to link the fortunes of this great nation with those of warring tribes and factions in the Islamic world. That’s about as attached and entangled in foreign affairs as it is possible to get.

For the past 13 years, it has been the flawed crux of U.S. foreign policy to micromanage “moderates” in the Islamic world by waging “counterinsurgencies” as a means of defusing the “extremism” of Islam. This failed effort has had the disastrous effect of calibrating America’s fate – as well as exhausting our military and emptying our treasury – according to the rise and fall of Islamic strongmen and blocs.

It gets worse. Now, President Obama plans to fight against ISIS in Iraq and to support ISIS-allied forces in Syria. This makes no American sense. Repel ISIS (or al-Qaida, or Hezbollah, etc.) at our borders, but don’t pretend there is an American “side” in Iraq or Syria. The United States’ fate is not Iraq’s fate, not Syria’s fate, not Afghanistan’s fate. Entangled, however, we have grown used to thinking in such terms. Maliki is causing gridlock in Iraq? An American problem. Abdullah is threatening to bug out of elections in Afghanistan? An American problem.

Why? Who cares? Cut the apron strings and the funding streams and learn from our leaders’ mistakes. Acknowledge publicly that “moderates” in the Islamic world are as common and/or as reliable as unicorns, and “extremism” is the basis of Islam, and formulate new policy.

Remember “Islam is peace”? That was George W. Bush reaching out to the Islamic world right after 9/11 rather than sitting back and building a good, high and high-tech border fence to the north and south. It was also Bush, as some people (Fox News, for example) seem to forget, who presided over the redaction of the 9/11 Commission Report, and the stripping away of the language of Islam from government communications, making it impossible for officials to have a sensible discussion about Saudi Arabia or Islam ever since.

Barack Obama has gone further still, for example, nullifying our borders and entering the so-called Istanbul Process with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to penalize criticism of Islam. Which does make me wonder: How can the administration that brought you Fort Hood as “workplace violence” now distinguish between an ISIS terrorist and a “vetted moderate”?

Such hyper-foreign policy, not to mention such hyper-censored policymaking, would surely have stumped the Father of Our County and probably his next 30 or so successors. How, they might have asked, could it have been in the American interest to write Shariah-based constitutions for failed Islamic states across the globe? What, they might have wondered, was there to celebrate in Yourtown, USA, when Iraqis voted for Chalabi, no, Allawi, no, Maliki, no, what’s-his-name? How was our dangerously porous border with Mexico, with Canada, made any more secure if U.S.-protected Sunni sheiks were paid by U.S.-protected Shiite bureaucrats in Baghdad in the name of Iraqi security? How was American liberty safeguarded when U.S. soldiers risked life and limb (and intestinal health) to eat goat, drink tea and give stuff to far-flung Afghan tribal elders?

While any American interest (or business) escapes me, such matters – and so many more – became the obsession of federal officials who really seemed to believe that U.S. security depended on “nation-building” on the other side of the globe. They waged their doomed “counterinsurgencies” by bidding for the favor of alien Islamic peoples with the blood of American soldiers and staggering sums of American money. Remember “courageous restraint” (self-restrictive rules of engagement)? Remember the beaucoup bucks distributed willy-nilly from the CERF (Commanders’ Emergency Relief Fund)? You give (sell) us your “hearts and minds,” your “trust,” the U.S. government told Iraqis and Afghans, and we’ll give you armies, generators, roads, hospitals, dams. We’ll teach our soldiers to handle the “holy Quran” as if it were “a fragile piece of delicate art” (Gitmo directive), and our Marines not to relieve themselves in the direction of Mecca (true story). We’ll soft-pedal the pederasts, “dancing boys,” child rapists and even killers of our own men among you. And don’t worry about bringing in that record Helmand opium harvest.

It’s time to recognize what went wrong so we never commit such irresponsible folly again.

After all, 13 years later, what do we have to show for everything? Was there method to this madness?

Not if protecting individual liberty in the United States was the goal, as any airline flight quickly demonstrates. The not-so-new world interventionist order seems always to have been the priority. Currently in some shambles, it remains politically viable. There is a big winner, though, and that is Islam, whose rule, whose law, whose culture, whose pathologies and whose prejudices have only advanced in the world – since 9/11.

September 12, 2014 | 8 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. ebyjeeby Said:

    @max – I think her points are dependent upon impenetrable borders.

    Yu mean like Masada 74 AD or France 1939? They woudl also have to deport 5-6 million terrorist sympathizers currently living in the USA and even at that nothing could ever be airtight. I heard they only have the resources to actually check “with eyes” the content fo less than 3 percnet of the incoming containers.
    Defense only does not work – they keep getting stronger and keep punching and eventually a punch gets through.
    That whole strategy is unworkable. And that strategy is to let the rest of the world be conquered by Islam – and that makes us safe?

  2. oldjerry Said:

    (remember the military/industrial complex)

    Yeah , it’s a real pity about that military complex, If it wasn’t there Canada could have invaded the USA a long time ago and we’d have y’all eating poutine and sending your oil money to Ottawa and all your beautiful womyn would emigrate to be up here marrying rich Canadians.

  3. @ oldjerry:

    “But a careful review of the attack will reveal that it probably originated in this side of the ocean rather than some flea infested cave in Afganistan.”

    Right, buddy; now it can be told. It was actually the work of the Rotary Club conspiring with the Kiwanis Club to keep the Masons in their place.

    Or was it the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders conspiring w/ the Buffalo Jills to unionize while huddled together on the Buffalo 50-yd line?

    Or maybe it was just a bunch of drunks who got lost on their way home after Last Call, took a wrong turn, and wound up at 30 thousand feet on a flight to NYC on 9-11?

  4. ebyjeeby Said:

    @oldjerry – I sure would like to see sources on that opinion.

    That has a zillion sources and a zillion spokespeople – it’s typical leftist unrealistic self-hating ideology. I rather think the ultimate source can be traced to a room full of unemployed mary-jane smoking middle class kids who grew up undisciplined, indulged and spoiled.

  5. @max – I think her points are dependent upon impenetrable borders. That is the first step.

    @oldjerry – I sure would like to see sources on that opinion.

  6. This so called war on terrorism was prompted by the 9/11 attack on us blamed on Al Quaeda Islamists. But a careful review of the attack will reveal that it probably originated in this side of the ocean rather than some flea infested cave in Afganistan. It was a good excuse to go to war (remember the military/industrial complex) and a source of money and power for a few. But a disaster for the nation.

  7. This makes no American sense. Repel ISIS (or al-Qaida, or Hezbollah, etc.) at our borders, but don’t pretend there is an American “side” in Iraq or Syria. The United States’ fate is not Iraq’s fate, not Syria’s fate, not Afghanistan’s fate

    This is the same as leftist anti-war thinking. We can’t repel ISIS or anyone else at our borders. If they rise to power elsewhere, the attack will be within our borders.
    The US fate is 100 percent linked to the fates of Iraq, Syria Afghanistan etc These are the staging areas against Islamic conquest from Iran Pakistan etc.

    This is another spurious article written just to discredit Obama when in fact the policies it attacks are the legitimate and successful polices of US non-political military strategists. These are the policies that are promoted by the Republicans and to which Obama has been dragging his feet.
    Yes they have been successful – imagine a world in which we had done nothing – our cites would be smoking ruins already.
    Thee people think that success is defined in the short range as if the war should be over – It’s not over til it’s over and it’s not over until militant Islam is finished and it can never be over by withdrawal and waiting for them to come to our borders.
    Get real!