What is it specifically, Tibor, you would have done by our government in the way of being more vigilant about domestic Jihadists?

Where are specific words by Barack Obama that America is responsible for the “problems in the Middle East”? Is our help in creating and sustaining the state of Israel something for which he has blamed America?

The ideas that President Obama is not “exercised” about the vicious conduct of Jihadists and that they occupy the moral high ground in his view are belied by his continual actions and words. Pres. Obama does not see or express that America is basically good? Really?

President Obama – 10 November 2009

“For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that's been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: Your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we all too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness---that is their legacy.

Neither this country---nor the values upon which we were founded---could exist without men and women like these 13 Americans.

. . .

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know---no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice---in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we're working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are the tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call---the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We're a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That's who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It's a chance to pause, and to pay tribute---for students to learn the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us---every single American---must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who've come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in the time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and all stations---all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today’s wars, there's not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops’ success---no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of the impact of these young men and women is no less great---in a world of threats that know no borders, their legacy will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that's extended abroad. It will serve as testimony to the character of those who served, and the example that all of you in uniform set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest---when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown---it will be said that this generation believed under the most trying of tests; believed in perseverance---not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those that we have lost. And may God bless the United States of America.”

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 9/22, 6:49am)

The jihadists represent all Islam or ought to represent all Islam? Most Muslims live in Indonesia, and overwhelmingly neither they nor American Muslims buy the jihadist version of their faith in their own modern, peaceful lives. They and the last two Administrations (and the Pope) have been fighting for their peaceful ideals in the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. Those two American Presidents have also had the concern of encouraging tolerance and respect of rights of Muslims here. (In Oklahoma after the 9/11 atrocity, a man wearing a turban was murdered by a fellow American due to stereotype thinking; in Chicago on that day, the police set up reinforcements to protect a heavily Muslim community [no, not black] against possible revenge attack for the atrocity.) Both Bush and Obama are religious fellows, of a modern, educated sort, and it is understandable if they do not hope for a future in which power passes to those say unkind things about top holy personages of history and legend.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 9/25, 8:45am)

Thanks for the correction on Indonesia. Yes, we each have our own priorities.

If our government stuck to its proper purpose or job, it would have plenty of resources and personnel available to discover and contain Jihadists.  It is the enormous expanse of it that renders it incapable of doing its job properly.

I mention Jihadists because they are very explicit about wanting to murder Americans not because containing and resisting them is the major problem for Americans.  If you follow the theory of government sketched in the Declaration of Independence, what government is for, the only thing, is the securing of the protection of individual rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). This is all and if it were adhered to there would be plenty of resources available to do the job.  Cut out all the expensive tasks government has assumed as its business and the job of rights protection could be achieved even without taxation (via contract fees and such, as AR proposed).

Nice post, Steve (referring to #6)! 

I'd say that we're already at war with Iran. The initial shot was fired in 1979 when Islamic militants stormed the U.S. Embassy compound and took American diplomats and guards hostage. How did we respond? By resorting to diplomacy, otherwise known as appeasement.  After enduring imprisonment and torment for 444 days, the hostages were finally released as part of a diplomatic bargain. In return for Iran's freeing the hostages, we unfroze $7 billion of its assets held in U.S. banks, along with a promise to revoke American economic sanctions and to drop legal action against Iran and the hostage takers.

Just two years later in April of 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon was bombed. Sixty three people died including 17 Americans. Six months after that, a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was besieged with a cataclysmic bombing in which 241 U.S. servicemen were killed, many dying a slow and agonizing death. Hundreds more were injured and maimed. The bombing was clearly orchestrated by Iran, but again we refrained from responding with military force. The Islamists In Lebanon were encouraged, continuing the violence by launching a spree of abduction and murders of Westerners.

Ron Paul calls the Islamic Jihad against the West "blowback" for our prior involvement in Middle East politics (e.g., the coup against Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadeq in 1953).  However, if there is any blowback from U.S. policy, it could just as well have resulted from a failure to defend ourselves against Islamic terrorism.  It could just as well be due to our reputation as a paper tiger.

Let's also not forget the fatwa against Salmon Rushdie issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, chilling free speech in the West? How would Ron Paul explain this act of terrorism in terms of his blowback theory?

Then in 1993, there was the bombing of the World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring more than 1000. We got off lucky on that one. The bomb was intended to inflict much greater damage.

In 1996, there was the bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The building housed U.S. forces involved in protecting that country from Iraq. The blast killed 19 Americans. Investigations revealed that the bombers had been trained by Iran. No action was taken against Iran, as Clinton had called for a genuine reconciliation between the U.S. and Iran.

In August 1998, massive bombs were set off by Islamists outside the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania with hundreds killed and thousands injured. Then there was the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen killing 17 servicemen, and severely damaging the ship. And most recently, 9/11 in which more than 3,000 people were killed on American soil, an event that is forever etched in our memories.

Those who think that a major attack on American soil is behind us and who doubt that Iran or its proxies would dare launch a nuclear warhead against the United States should heed the words of Che Guevara: "If the missiles had remained (in Cuba) we would have used them against the very heart of the United States, including New York," he told the London Daily Worker in November of 1962. "We must never establish peaceful co-existence. We must walk the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims."

Do the jihadists, who are willing to die in suicide bombings, see it any differently?  What do you think Osama bin Laden and his soldiers would have done on that fateful day if they had had nuclear weapons?

In a talk on February 11, 2015 at the Adm. James Lyons Center for Security Policy Defeat Jihad Summit4 in Washington, DC, U.S. Admiral (Ret) James "Ace" Lyons summed up our foreign policy failures nicely.  You can listen to him here:  (http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=51fe948515b4)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/26, 12:03am)

Last seven posts: hear,  hear! But especially #8.

Concerning the Iran nuclear deal, however, the deal does not change the perpetual circumstance that the US always has military options on the table however much we may nod and smile to overtures of cooperation from adversaries. We look at capabilities and manuevers, and Defense is always in the business of drafting contingency plans. That includes not only scenarios for nukes in Iran (which require tests, of course), but for jihadists taking control of Pakistan's nukes. Those US responses would likely not require US ground assault, only naval and air. Unfortunately, it appears at this time in Syria and Iraq, that our present military campaign (air) is not enough to destroy the terrorists' military forces and reverse their success in taking territory. Like Tibor (if I recall him correctly), I was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq (and I supported our invasion in Afghanistan). But once we had toppled the government in Iraq, I accepted that we had a responsibility to try to help them to a new one and to peace. But how long should that go on? As long and as much as needed for our own defense, to be sure, but much of the foreign military burdens our country takes on is sold to our citizens as defense of our own country, when really it is mainly humanitarian and that can be boundless, surely beyond our means.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

My sister had shown me those remarks by Adm. Lyons a few days ago, and it struck me that one really needs to know also what were the downside potentials for how things could develop were we to have taken various actions that we did not take. All along the way, State and Defense and the White Houese had to think about and weigh those downside potentials for all the choices. Also, I thought it likely the Admiral was missing information in his picture of Reagan/Weinberger.

I certainly agree that radical Islam is a political movement masquerading as religion. They are the one's blowing up mosque after mosque.

One more thing about Iran. Although I'm fine with trying the nuclear deal for now, I certainly do presume that any efforts towards electricity from nuclear power made so far by Iran have been for cover of developing nuclear (or atomic) weapons. There is no excuse for trying to master nuclear electrical generation when all of their electricity could be produced on and on from the enormous reservoir of natural gas beneath their feet. 

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 9/26, 3:28am)

Right on!

Somehow Christians were influenced by classical liberals and thus they were more willing to embraced peaceful co-existence and live and let live politics.

It is an interesting dynamic... this relationship between religion and politics.  Islam is clearly a driving force demanding its fundamentalist followers to convert or kill the non-believers.  Christian fundalmentalists go door to door with pamphlets, or try to get laws passed for this or that, or - mostly - see religion as a private matter.

I've been studying Progressivism and in the course of that have seen some of the evolution of religion as it appears in our political arena:

Those church burners Professor Machan mentioned were white Democrats who may have claimed that God stood behind them, but their real motives were a mixture the ugly psychology of racism and the lingering resentment of loosing the Civil War and suffering Reconstruction.  The churches belonged to black Christians.  Neither the black nor the white christians were attempting to do battle to spread their view of Christianity. 

Back then, religion, politics, and attitudes were much more likely to be common to a region than to anything else.

The white activists that came down from the North to fight against the Jim Crow laws had many North-Eastern Presbyterian-Protestants who were following in the footsteps of their grandparents and great grandparents who spearheaded Women's Sufferage, Prohibition and much of the activism of the Progressive era.  Religion stood as a part of a justification, but wasn't being pushed as the end in itself, and it wasn't the primary reason for the activism.

The Social Conservatives of today seem to have their political roots in the anti-communist movement.  Here it became much more of a movement of religious views driving political goals ("A Judeo-Christian Nation Fighting against Godless Communism").  Then with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, it evolved to what we see today in the opposition to abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc.  The specific religious goals can change, but they retain their sense of an emotional, holy crusade to be accomplished by enlisting government.

Throne and Altar are in symbiotic relations. In the case of present-day Iran and in the case of the Pilgrims in America, it looks as if religion is the driver and the centralized violence power the follower. But I am with Rand when she gives her Galt character the line “Do not remind me that it [suffering and sacrifice] pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.”

Power on earth is the point of both the Attila and the Witch Doctor. The Al-Qaeda group in Iraq showed all the thinness of their professions of religion that was shown by Bin Laden. They used mayhem and murder and blowing up mosques to try to foment an all-out civil war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq. There was indeed retaliation by mass shootings from the Shiite quarter. But (to my surprise) that attempt by the terrorists to get the all-out religious war going failed. I’d be wary of seeing religious differences and other-worldliness as the most profound forms of irrationality driving terrorist attacks on mosques and their congregations. At the leadership level, religion is a tool for power on earth, and that, I think, is the deeper irrational driver.

The beliefs of the religious in a cosmic god with whom they are kin and in a next, better life is a tool offsetting loss of one’s life for the earthly prize of a society tightly geared to reinforce their religious psychosis. The beliefs and their sacrifices for them, I think, are rooted in their reaction to plain human (animal) mortality, in their psychological defense and defiance of that horrific obvious fact. So all works together for the psychosis and for seekers of earthly power.