I know this is redundant, but Newt Gingrich is an idiot. He probably doesn't even deserve my attention except for the fact that a not-insignificant percentage of the U.S. population will actually take what he has to say seriously. He's now referring the already misnamed "War On Terror" as "World War III."
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34700
Meaningless political taxonomy aside, he's calling for the following:
"NATO to 'clear out any Taliban forces' in Waziristan if Pakistan fails to do so;
Washington to 'take whatever steps are necessary' to force Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of weapons, money and people into Iraq;
To help 'organise every dissident group in Iran' with the goal of replacing the regime, failing which, 'we certainly have to be prepared to use military force...;'
'End' the North Korean regime if it ships nuclear weapons or material anywhere;
Insist that Congress immediately pass legislation 'that recognises that we are entering World War III and serves notice that the U.S. will use all its resources to defeat our enemies -- not accommodate, understand or negotiate with them, but defeat them.'"
First of all, and this is classic conservative rhetorical tactics, notice how, despite his TONE of certainty and hard-lining, every action he demands is either vague, conditional or both. For example, he says NATO should clear Taliban forces from Waziristan IF Pakistan fails to do so. Waziristan is a region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan and is home to a few Taliban leaders. Some believe OBL is hanging out there. In Gingrich's eyes, if you get rid of the Taliban, they'll find OBL. The problem is how the hell do you know who is a Taliban? It's not like they wear uniforms. Sure, you can evict?/kill? the Taliban leaders situated there (on what legal basis, I have no idea), but even if you did, there's no guarantee OBL will lose his hiding place. Waziristan is a very religious and conservative region. If he is in fact there, he probably has tons of sympathizers who will help hide him. You'd have to "force out" the entire population. Besides, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by sending NATO in to conduct a military operation. It will only create more problems than it will solve and there really isn't much evidence that I've seen that OBL is anything but a lame duck right now. Plus, al-Qaeda appears to be a multi-headed beast. Even if OBL is taken care of, there are so many other cels operating on their own that getting him won't make much of a difference at this point.
Next he says Washington should 'take whatever steps are necessary' to force Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of weapons, money and people into Iraq. What the hell does that mean? "Take whatever steps are necessary." His argument also implies these countries are supplying the insurgency with weapons, money and fighters. In the case of Syria and Saudi Arabia, this is not likely. Syria stands to benefit from stability in Iraq. It's already overflowing with refugees and it certainly doesn't want to see fighting spread over the borders into Syria. The problem is more accurately an inability of the Syrian government to patrol its long border with Iraq. We're the richest most heavily armed country in the world and we can't even secure our own borders. Why should we expect a country like Syria to be able to secure theirs, likewise with Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally, albeit a weak ally. Finally, Iran, a Shiite nation has no interest in supporting what is primarily a Sunni-based insurgency.
His next argument: facilitating regime change in Iran. Umm..haven't we learned our lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan? Unfortunately it doesn't go without saying this day and age that just because you don't like a country's government doesn't give you the right to remove it. If that position held any legal or even moral weight, the Bush administration would have been ousted a long time ago. He is apparently assuming, despite the lack of hard evidence, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but once again, did he learn nothing from Iraq?
Finally, he says we should "end" the North Korean regime if it ships nuclear weapons or material anywhere. Huh? First they have to get them to work, if they have them at all. Second, Gingrich forgets that it was the Bush administration's reneging on the treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration in which N. Korea ceased its nuclear program ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework ) that motivated them to give the big "Fuck You" to the non-proliferation treaty. Granted it is mostly posturing on the part of Kim Jong-Il to get some negotiating leverage, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration put us in this predicament. More importantly, what evidence does Gingrich have that N. Korea plans to ship nuclear weapons or material anywhere, assuming they even have it in the first place? This appears to be a lot of fear-mongering on Gingrich's part.
His last little statement is nothing more than rhetorical vomit that doesn't merit a response. Anyway, with the exception of the "World War III" language, it's no different than the Bush administration's policy/posturing.
Hmmm...I'm glad I got that off my chest. Thanks for reading if you made it this far through my rant.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34700
Meaningless political taxonomy aside, he's calling for the following:
"NATO to 'clear out any Taliban forces' in Waziristan if Pakistan fails to do so;
Washington to 'take whatever steps are necessary' to force Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of weapons, money and people into Iraq;
To help 'organise every dissident group in Iran' with the goal of replacing the regime, failing which, 'we certainly have to be prepared to use military force...;'
'End' the North Korean regime if it ships nuclear weapons or material anywhere;
Insist that Congress immediately pass legislation 'that recognises that we are entering World War III and serves notice that the U.S. will use all its resources to defeat our enemies -- not accommodate, understand or negotiate with them, but defeat them.'"
First of all, and this is classic conservative rhetorical tactics, notice how, despite his TONE of certainty and hard-lining, every action he demands is either vague, conditional or both. For example, he says NATO should clear Taliban forces from Waziristan IF Pakistan fails to do so. Waziristan is a region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan and is home to a few Taliban leaders. Some believe OBL is hanging out there. In Gingrich's eyes, if you get rid of the Taliban, they'll find OBL. The problem is how the hell do you know who is a Taliban? It's not like they wear uniforms. Sure, you can evict?/kill? the Taliban leaders situated there (on what legal basis, I have no idea), but even if you did, there's no guarantee OBL will lose his hiding place. Waziristan is a very religious and conservative region. If he is in fact there, he probably has tons of sympathizers who will help hide him. You'd have to "force out" the entire population. Besides, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by sending NATO in to conduct a military operation. It will only create more problems than it will solve and there really isn't much evidence that I've seen that OBL is anything but a lame duck right now. Plus, al-Qaeda appears to be a multi-headed beast. Even if OBL is taken care of, there are so many other cels operating on their own that getting him won't make much of a difference at this point.
Next he says Washington should 'take whatever steps are necessary' to force Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of weapons, money and people into Iraq. What the hell does that mean? "Take whatever steps are necessary." His argument also implies these countries are supplying the insurgency with weapons, money and fighters. In the case of Syria and Saudi Arabia, this is not likely. Syria stands to benefit from stability in Iraq. It's already overflowing with refugees and it certainly doesn't want to see fighting spread over the borders into Syria. The problem is more accurately an inability of the Syrian government to patrol its long border with Iraq. We're the richest most heavily armed country in the world and we can't even secure our own borders. Why should we expect a country like Syria to be able to secure theirs, likewise with Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally, albeit a weak ally. Finally, Iran, a Shiite nation has no interest in supporting what is primarily a Sunni-based insurgency.
His next argument: facilitating regime change in Iran. Umm..haven't we learned our lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan? Unfortunately it doesn't go without saying this day and age that just because you don't like a country's government doesn't give you the right to remove it. If that position held any legal or even moral weight, the Bush administration would have been ousted a long time ago. He is apparently assuming, despite the lack of hard evidence, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but once again, did he learn nothing from Iraq?
Finally, he says we should "end" the North Korean regime if it ships nuclear weapons or material anywhere. Huh? First they have to get them to work, if they have them at all. Second, Gingrich forgets that it was the Bush administration's reneging on the treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration in which N. Korea ceased its nuclear program ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework ) that motivated them to give the big "Fuck You" to the non-proliferation treaty. Granted it is mostly posturing on the part of Kim Jong-Il to get some negotiating leverage, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration put us in this predicament. More importantly, what evidence does Gingrich have that N. Korea plans to ship nuclear weapons or material anywhere, assuming they even have it in the first place? This appears to be a lot of fear-mongering on Gingrich's part.
His last little statement is nothing more than rhetorical vomit that doesn't merit a response. Anyway, with the exception of the "World War III" language, it's no different than the Bush administration's policy/posturing.
Hmmm...I'm glad I got that off my chest. Thanks for reading if you made it this far through my rant.