Tony Blair wimps out; history flashback?

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and disturbing links HERE. Tony Blair caves in... as a result of American elections? This cartoon is called "Flashback", as we seem to be repeating events of the 1930's very closely. It's worth checking out Cox & Forkums links. The following was not among their links, but is related.

From Amir Teheri:
OUR ENEMIES' GLEE
Islamists Dream Big after U.S. Elex

[...] Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats' victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. "It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran," says Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief negotiator on the nuclear issue.

His view is echoed by academics with ties to "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. "The Democrats will do their best to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through negotiations, rather than resorting to threats," says Yadallah Islami, who teaches politics at Tehran University. "Bush will be forced to behave the way all U.S. presidents have behaved since Richard Nixon - that is to say, get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight."

Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. "With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play," he says. "There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue."

Arab radical circles are even more hopeful that Bush's defeat will mark the start of an historic U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. They draw parallels between the American election and Spain's 2004 vote, days after the Madrid terrorist attacks, which led to an unexpected change of government.

The radicals expect U.S. policies to change on three issues: [...]

(bold emphasis mine) There were many issues affecting the U.S. elections, but the Jihadists and the Middle Eastern Media focus on those aspects which support their contention that we are too weak to resist their rising onslaught, and our actions are unfortunately only seen in that light.

The three issues the radicals now expect we will weaken on are: Iraq, Iran and Israel. Teheri offers chilling details on how radicals hope these issues will be affected, but he also affers some alternative variations and power shift ploys that could also come into play. There are competing forces at work in each situation, and it's not easy to know which ones will dominate, and much depends on the actions of other involved parties.


Related Links:

From James McConalogue at the Brussels Journal:
Iraq: The Lemmings Want to Get Out

[...] Following the dishonourable politics plighting the Democratic agenda in the US, it should remain clear that no counterpart critique or inquiry should arise in Britain. The reason why the US Democrats do not need to think twice about the Iraq turnaround is that they have no intrinsic sense of honour – for them, transparency and accountability is enough. Turncoats! They offer, as the basis of their agenda and goldfish-minded approach, a very different history on the origins of the Iraq war – openly swearing that the US and Britain went to war precisely and only because of the presence of WMD. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) McConalogue had serious doubts about our ability to establish a Democratic government in Iraq right from the start, but was always for removing Saddam. He resents the way the media keeps trying to make the war only about the issue of WMDs, when there were clearly so many other factors involved.


From Ralph Peters at the NY Post:
ARABIAN NIGHTMARES
Iraq's Butchers Exploit Our Morality

[...] With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance.

What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.

That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I fear that this is what has been wrong all along. We went into this with one arm tied behind our backs. What good is our military force, if we can't USE it?


From Charles Krauthammer at Real Clear Politics:
Can the Iraqis Keep Their Republic?

[...] Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists'' imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the last several decades. But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Saddam's totalitarianism.

What was left in its wake was a social desert, a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance. All that was left for the individual Iraqi to attach himself to was the mosque or clan or militia. At this earliest stage of democratic development, Iraqi national consciousness is as yet too weak and the culture of compromise too undeveloped to produce an effective government enjoying broad allegiance. [...]

If we can't use our military force to maintain law and order, then there is no hope for a democratic government.