Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

http://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

07/10/2008

The War on Terror...update

Flying back from Oregon the other day (I was out at the U.S.
Olympic Track and Field Trials a great event if you have the
opportunity to catch it in four years or further down the road), I
read a June 30, 2008 article from The Weekly Standard that I had
put aside by Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise
Institute.

Mr. Gerecht asked the question, ‘Are we safer?’ post-9/11.

“Safer than before we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam
Hussein?”

Gerecht argues we are.

“Post 9/11, under President Bush, the situation changed
drastically, as it certainly would have changed also under a
President Gore. What is striking about (Barack) Obama’s Iraq-
obsessed critique of the Bush presidency is his unwillingness to
give any credit where credit is obviously due. Today in the
mainstream press, with its pronounced anti-Bush reflexes, we are
more likely to see articles and op-eds about America’s unfair and
labyrinthine visa system than about its effectiveness in our
counterterrorism campaign. (And yes, the system is offensive,
inflexible, and denies entry to many innocent, talented, and
potentially pro-American Arabs, Pakistanis, and Iranians.) But if
Obama wins in November, we can be assured that he will leave it
in place. It is just too effective in complicating the operational
planning of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

“As president, Obama would also likely leave untouched the
intelligence and security liaison relationships energetically
developed by the Bush administration. Listening to the Illinois
senator’s speeches about America’s current place in the world,
one would think because of our many transgressions, we no
longer have helpful friends.”

Gerecht points out that cooperation on the intelligence front
between the United States and Europe, for example, has
blossomed; with both recognizing Europe is actually the key
battleground, especially in Britain with its large Pakistani
immigrant community. Here and in France and Germany, Iraq
isn’t where European jihadists place their emphasis, but rather
the war in Afghanistan

Gerecht:

“It is impossible to overstate the importance of Britain’s
domestic intelligence service, MI5, and France’s internal security
service, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, to our
fight against al Qaeda and its allied groups. If European-passport
holding jihadists get past the European services, the odds are not
great that the FBI is going to catch them on this side of the
Atlantic.” Gerecht adds “Obama could fairly criticize the Bush
administration and the Republican-controlled Congress for its
post-9/11 handling of the FBI.”

Yet Obama has said zero about “Europe’s essential role in
America’s defense against Islamic radicalism,” as Gerecht
observes. Then adds:

“Obama is not alone in under-appreciating what the Europeans
are doing for the United States. Focused on the failure of the
continental Europeans to fight well – or often at all – in
Afghanistan, the American Right tends to overlook their
contribution to the larger battle against Islamic extremism.”

And, “does Obama really think al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts are
‘stronger’ now after the world’s principal security services have
been focusing on the organization for seven years, and when
well-known Islamists and the Arab media are seriously debating
the ethics that allow young men and women to slaughter civilians
in the name of Allah?”

---

Re Pakistan, Gerecht comments:

“The increase in violence in Pakistan does not mean we are less
safe; it means the Pakistanis are beginning to tackle the
excruciatingly difficult problem of extirpating bin Ladenism
from regions of the country where it put down deep roots.
Jihadist sentiments are now widespread in Pakistan’s Federally
Administered Tribal areas, the North-West Frontier Province,
and even the Punjab, the critical geographic and cultural bridge
to India. Reversing this growth will likely be an erratic, ugly
process as Pakistan’s reborn democracy responds to the
widespread anger about the American presence in Afghanistan.”

But while this may produce “small waves of jihadists trying to
gain access to the West and attack Americans and Europeans,” it
is progress nonetheless

---

Back to Iraq, Gerecht asks:

“When do we get to start asking whether the Iraq war, with its
hard-won-however-imperfect democracy, might actually be a
good thing, worth the American blood and treasure? If 85
percent of the Iraqis say it was worth the hellacious voyage, and
the unelected Sunni Arab rulers of the region say it was not,
might we not think with the former? If millions of Sunni, Shiite,
and Kurdish Iraqis vote in the provincial elections, will Obama
really want to say, one month before the U.S. presidential
elections, that America’s sojourn in Iraq has failed? If Iraq
contributes to the current intellectual debates in the Muslim
Middle East that seem to be diminishing the ideological appeal
of bin Ladenism in Arab lands, might that mean that the
bloodshed in Mesopotamia hasn’t been a waste?”

---

Hot Spots returns next week.

Brian Trumbore


AddThis Feed Button

 

-07/10/2008-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

07/10/2008

The War on Terror...update

Flying back from Oregon the other day (I was out at the U.S.
Olympic Track and Field Trials a great event if you have the
opportunity to catch it in four years or further down the road), I
read a June 30, 2008 article from The Weekly Standard that I had
put aside by Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise
Institute.

Mr. Gerecht asked the question, ‘Are we safer?’ post-9/11.

“Safer than before we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam
Hussein?”

Gerecht argues we are.

“Post 9/11, under President Bush, the situation changed
drastically, as it certainly would have changed also under a
President Gore. What is striking about (Barack) Obama’s Iraq-
obsessed critique of the Bush presidency is his unwillingness to
give any credit where credit is obviously due. Today in the
mainstream press, with its pronounced anti-Bush reflexes, we are
more likely to see articles and op-eds about America’s unfair and
labyrinthine visa system than about its effectiveness in our
counterterrorism campaign. (And yes, the system is offensive,
inflexible, and denies entry to many innocent, talented, and
potentially pro-American Arabs, Pakistanis, and Iranians.) But if
Obama wins in November, we can be assured that he will leave it
in place. It is just too effective in complicating the operational
planning of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

“As president, Obama would also likely leave untouched the
intelligence and security liaison relationships energetically
developed by the Bush administration. Listening to the Illinois
senator’s speeches about America’s current place in the world,
one would think because of our many transgressions, we no
longer have helpful friends.”

Gerecht points out that cooperation on the intelligence front
between the United States and Europe, for example, has
blossomed; with both recognizing Europe is actually the key
battleground, especially in Britain with its large Pakistani
immigrant community. Here and in France and Germany, Iraq
isn’t where European jihadists place their emphasis, but rather
the war in Afghanistan

Gerecht:

“It is impossible to overstate the importance of Britain’s
domestic intelligence service, MI5, and France’s internal security
service, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, to our
fight against al Qaeda and its allied groups. If European-passport
holding jihadists get past the European services, the odds are not
great that the FBI is going to catch them on this side of the
Atlantic.” Gerecht adds “Obama could fairly criticize the Bush
administration and the Republican-controlled Congress for its
post-9/11 handling of the FBI.”

Yet Obama has said zero about “Europe’s essential role in
America’s defense against Islamic radicalism,” as Gerecht
observes. Then adds:

“Obama is not alone in under-appreciating what the Europeans
are doing for the United States. Focused on the failure of the
continental Europeans to fight well – or often at all – in
Afghanistan, the American Right tends to overlook their
contribution to the larger battle against Islamic extremism.”

And, “does Obama really think al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts are
‘stronger’ now after the world’s principal security services have
been focusing on the organization for seven years, and when
well-known Islamists and the Arab media are seriously debating
the ethics that allow young men and women to slaughter civilians
in the name of Allah?”

---

Re Pakistan, Gerecht comments:

“The increase in violence in Pakistan does not mean we are less
safe; it means the Pakistanis are beginning to tackle the
excruciatingly difficult problem of extirpating bin Ladenism
from regions of the country where it put down deep roots.
Jihadist sentiments are now widespread in Pakistan’s Federally
Administered Tribal areas, the North-West Frontier Province,
and even the Punjab, the critical geographic and cultural bridge
to India. Reversing this growth will likely be an erratic, ugly
process as Pakistan’s reborn democracy responds to the
widespread anger about the American presence in Afghanistan.”

But while this may produce “small waves of jihadists trying to
gain access to the West and attack Americans and Europeans,” it
is progress nonetheless

---

Back to Iraq, Gerecht asks:

“When do we get to start asking whether the Iraq war, with its
hard-won-however-imperfect democracy, might actually be a
good thing, worth the American blood and treasure? If 85
percent of the Iraqis say it was worth the hellacious voyage, and
the unelected Sunni Arab rulers of the region say it was not,
might we not think with the former? If millions of Sunni, Shiite,
and Kurdish Iraqis vote in the provincial elections, will Obama
really want to say, one month before the U.S. presidential
elections, that America’s sojourn in Iraq has failed? If Iraq
contributes to the current intellectual debates in the Muslim
Middle East that seem to be diminishing the ideological appeal
of bin Ladenism in Arab lands, might that mean that the
bloodshed in Mesopotamia hasn’t been a waste?”

---

Hot Spots returns next week.

Brian Trumbore