Stanley, I Love You, But ...

Stanley wrote:

I still find Obama’s instincts on domestic policy too leftish for me (there is something to Republican complaints that he is a “class warrior”), but he seems generally thoughtful and cautious, especially on foreign policy,

Thoughtful and cautious? How about naive and clueless. Thoughtful and cautious men who are the President of the United States, do not pronounce judgments on foreign affairs like: Assad must go, Using chemical weapons would be crossing a red-line, and Russia has no right to occupy Crimea; and follow those statements up with nothing burgers. That squanders the credibility of the United States, discourages its allies and friends, and emboldens its enemies. Teddy Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far".

Stanley also wrote:

The 9/11 attacks were just collateral damage of a struggle tearing the Arab world apart—a struggle that can have only one outcome. The Arab world of the future will not be just like America or Western Europe, but it will be closer to them than to the Arab world of the past. 

Only one outcome? Pray tell, what would that be? I have spent much time studying history. I am particularly fascinated by the history of ancient civilizations such as Rome, Byzantium, and Meso-America. What they all have in come is the brilliant heights that they reached, and that they are gone. David P. Goldman, one of my favorite writers has written an excellent book: "How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)"


Right now my own theory is that the Arab world's most likely future involves endemic civil war, famine, pestilence, and mass death. But that may just be my optimism talking.

I should further note that history provides no solace for those who think that the terrorist groups are tiny factions that have no chance of taking power. The Bolsheviks were a tiny faction on the order of 20,000 members in early 1917.