Profiles in Cowardice

Just in case you want to know why the United States seems to get bogged down in protracted conflicts, all you need do is listen to the dread issuing from the Democratic Party, from former Obama administration officials and from many leaders of America’s foreign policy establishment. 

You would think that President Trump had declared war on Iran. You would think that America was moving millions of troops into the Middle East. You would think that a proportionate American response, after months of provocations, has lit a fuse that is about to blow up the world.

To the girly men and the girly girls of the American left, such is the case. Considering that psycho theorists claim that women are more risk averse than men, it makes sense to see the girl party consumed by terror… about the awesome power of the Iranian military. How did it happen that the girl party, that would be the Democrats, is so frightened of Iran that they direct all of their ire at the president of the United States? It's as though they think that we are sure to lose against the awesome power of the ayatollahs. 

And we are not surprised to discover that the weak sisters of Western Europe are quivering in their pumps. They have allowed large numbers of Muslim migrants into their countries. These migrants and their children will or do vote. The weak sisters of Western Europe are responding to a significant voting bloc. In France, for example, more than 10% of voters are Muslim.

When the Iranian government threatens American interests, the girl party says nothing. When the president of the United States attempts to deter said Iranian bluster by listing dozens of Iranian targets, the girl party accuses him of war crimes. And you were wondering why we can't win a war in Afghanistan.

So, America holds back while fighting wars… out of fear. Are we really so weak that we cannot dispatch the Iranian military within a few days? Are we really so weak that we refuse to take the gloves off, lest we be accused of war crimes.

Iranian and other Muslim terrorists can do anything they want. The girly left will defend them. American cannot do anything, lest it be accused of being evil. 

As for Suleimani himself, we should respect the word of retired general David Petraeus:

Well, he was our most significant Iranian adversary during my four years in Iraq, [and] certainly when I was the Central Command commander, and very much so when I was the director of the CIA. He is unquestionably the most significant and important — or was the most significant and important — Iranian figure in the region, the most important architect of the effort by Iran to solidify control of the Shia crescent, and the operational commander of the various initiatives that were part of that effort.

Petraeus continued:

Again, it is impossible to overstate the significance of this action. This is much more substantial than the killing of Osama bin Laden. It’s even more substantial than the killing of Baghdadi.

Normally, politics stops at the water’s edge. And yet, the American left hates Trump more than it loves America. And it hates war more than it loves national honor.

Among those who should have shut up is one of the principal architects of the Obama craven surrender to the Iran. Susan Rice jumped out of her retirement yesterday to declare that President Trump had declared war on Iran. Coming from a senior official in an administration that empowered Qasem Soleimani in its nuclear deal, that is rich indeed. (via Maggie's Farm.)

Before examining Rice’s current analysis, we offer up Angelo Codevilla’s synopsis of the Obama Iran policy. He describes it in terms of appeasement and surrender:

President Obama tried to transcend it by surrender. Choosing peace largely on Iran’s terms, he gave up U.S. claims on Iran, dropped economic sanctions, released some $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets, and paid nearly $1.4 billion in U.S. hundred dollar bills. He hoped that Iran, appeased and strengthened, would balance other forces in the Middle East and allow America to “pivot” away. It was a coherent approach. But it did not secure peace because Iran, for its own reasons, judged it an insufficiently total surrender. We do not even know what the Islamic Republic’s notion of peace might be. In fact, it has chosen to continue, and even to increase its war on America—confident that America would keep it sub-critical.

As for Susan Rice’s response to the Trump policy, here is what she wrote in the New York Times:

Americans would be wise to brace for war with Iran.

Full-scale conflict is not a certainty, but the probability is higher than at any point in decades. Despite President Trump’s oft-professed desire to avoid war with Iran and withdraw from military entanglements in the Middle East, his decision to order the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s second most important official, as well as Iraqi leaders of an Iranian-backed militia, now locks our two countries in a dangerous escalatory cycle that will likely lead to wider warfare.

If you were wondering about the mindset that negotiated the sellout nuclear deal with Iran, deal that provided Iran with a mountain of cash, the better to advance its terrorist program and that also gave Iran a legitimate path to nuclear weapons, just weigh the pathetic response by Susan Rice.

And, let’s not forget, that when American troops and an American ambassador were under attack from terrorists, the Susan Rice/Barack Obama foreign policy team did nothing. Could there be a more apt profile in cowardice than the Obama administration. 

As for Rice’s contention that the Trump administration did not war game the consequences, why does she think that the administration ordered Americans out of Iraq? And why does she think that American troops are moving toward the Middle East? And why does she think that America has targeted dozens of Iranian sites, in case the Islamic Republic attacks America?

Of course, Rice believes that the Trump maximum pressure policy toward Iran provoked the recent rash of Iranian attacks, on tankers, on Saudi oil facilities, on an American embassy. She does not, in her pinheaded mind, consider that maximum pressure has also damaged the credibility of the Iranian regime, produced massive protests in the country, and has undermined said regime? Why is Rice and why are her cohorts so hellbent on maintaining the most disruptive force in the region? And why should she and her cohorts on the girly left want to submit to the awesome power of Iranian terrorism?

Rather than work to undermine radical Islam, the Obama presidency and its girly defenders treated radical Islam as a powerful force to be feared, as a near omnipotent force, one whose name Obama never dared pronounce? They were acting as though radical Islam was the future and that we could never do more than submit.

Rice is simply afraid. She has war gamed the consequences, but has not war gamed the possible gains for America. And she has not even considered that Iran is a malevolent actor, one whose influence will be countered by the gulf Arab states and by Israel. But she also has a vested interest in seeing something bad come out of Trump's action. She and her other weak sisters are now rooting against America, in order to save their own reputations.

When Iran does respond, its response will likely be multifaceted and occur at unpredictable times and in multiple places. President Trump will then face what may yet be the most consequential national security decision of his presidency. If he reacts with additional force, the risk is great that the confrontation will spiral into a wider military conflict. If he fails to react in kind, he will likely invite escalating Iranian aggression.

It’s hard to envision how this ends short of war.

If you are a functioning coward you fear war more than anything else. You will happily submit and surrender, as long as you can get away from fighting. The fact that you have compromised national pride and national honor does not register. Nor does it register with all of those pundits, on the left and the right, who believe that walking away from the Middle East, our tails  between our legs, will lead to anything other than more attacks.

The Western world is currently engaged in a two front war. It is competing with China for international economic pre-eminence. At the same time, within its borders radical Islam is threatening the basis of Western culture. That, dare I say, is the issue in the Middle East.

Do we want to be conquered by Islam or do we want to allow Muslims to assimilate into our culture? If we act like weak sisters we will be telling Muslims that their culture is the best and strongest, especially when compared with the decadent West. We will find ourselves awash in people who refuse to assimilate, but who act like a conquering army, looting, pillaging, murdering and raping. And that has made it acceptable to be anti-Semitic. Does this sound like Western Europe and large segments of America today? It certainly should. 

When we bow submissively to the awesome power of Iran we compromise our own position, our own status, our own self-respect and our own honor.

Codevilla explains the true issue:

But as America adopts the establishment’s nonchalance in the face of attacks on its honor, it inures itself to outrage without evident end.

Nations, after all, exist only to the extent that they are respected and honored, first by their own citizens or subjects. If flags are not honored, if they elicit other than respect, they are meaningless, or worse.