Joe Biden Strikes Again

I have avoided listening to or reading about what Joe Biden has had to say on foreign policy as much as possible. The guy who was against the 91 Gulf War and for the 2003 Iraq War, and changed his mind afterward on both occasions is known for incoherence. Somehow, a guy that nobody in the country takes seriously on foreign policy has sat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee for years -and we wonder how our foreign policy gets so screwed up…

Biden’s latest speech in Israel could not be ignored, because I was sent a copy of it. Quite apart from the fact that we do not have the right to tell any other country whether or not they can build buildings in their own territory, whatever the “legal” status of that territory (I put legal in quotation marks, since we’re talking about that nebulous thing called international “law” which includes spectacles like Iran chairing a human rights commission), Biden made some comments that are worth highlighting. 

“In Cairo last June, he (Obama) launched a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim communities around the world. Later this month, the president will continue this engagement by visiting Indonesia, home of the world’s largest Muslim population where he lived as a boy. We are absolutely convinced that this approach will improve not only our security, but as a consequence, your security. 
Israeli security is not a consequence of American security. America can be totally secure and Israel be extremely insecure. In fact, the connection tends to go the other way, Israeli security tends to spill over toward American security since they are the local free, democratic, pro-American state, and a focus of anti-Americanism in the region. Allowing local terror groups to continue to grow and attack them tends to let them feed into global Jihadist interests and organizations. We have a similar relationship with other “virtual surrogates” in other regions, like Japan, where our ignoring North Korean missiles flying over Japan erodes our own credibility and enhances the aggressiveness of our enemies.
“A new generation of Muslims is coming to age, more numerous than its predecessors, more dispersed geographically, and because of technology, more closely connected with each other and with the forces and events that shape the world we share. If we can roll back recent tensions and redirect crude stereotypes – theirs and our own – it will make America safer and our closest allies, like Israel, safer as well in our view.”


Islamist terrorists do not attack because of “crude stereotypes”. They attack because of the fundamental principles of their religion and civilization. If we do not address their call to Jihad against non believers, the need to set up a universal caliphate, or some Muslim’s belief in a messianic age of the Mahdi inaugurated by allah’s vengeance against the infidels, we cannot hope to stop the tides of what is really a holy war. We have to argue on an ideological basis, as with Communism, not a basis of cultural understanding. Muslim nations see a policy of pandering as weakness, and rightly so.
In addition, his statement leads to the conclusion that our and their “crude stereotypes” are equivalent. There is nothing equivalent in the West to the bile and hatred regularly served up in the Arabic press. Jews are called sons of dogs and pigs, christians are said to drink the blood of Muslim children, the USA is called the “great satan”, and the very existence of non muslim states is seen as an insult. Our press doesn’t begin to propagate crude stereotypes of the order seen in Egyptian newspapers for example. You don’t even have to read Arabic, just look at the despicable cartoons -the meaning is obvious.


 “We are returning an ambassador to Damascus and elevating our diplomatic contacts. We do so with our eyes wide open both to our deep concerns with Syrian actions that has threatened your security and the stability of the region, and also to the hope of a better relationship and peace between Israel and Syria.”
Once again, this is seen as weakness by Syria. After our invasion of Iraq, Syria made concessions to the USA; after Bush tried to be conciliatory, Syria aligned itself with Iran, allowed Iran to pay off its multi-billion dollar weapons debt to Russia (which enabled them to immediately borrow money for billions of more dollars in Russian weapons), allowed Iran’s proxy Hizbullah to function free of hindrance in Lebanon, and backed up Iran’s positions within the Arab nations. On the other hand, Israel’s attack against the Syrian nuclear reactor project was met with silence and no retaliation on Syria’s part. In fact, they lowered their international profile for several months afterward. Our moving to appease Syria will probably lead to similar (pro-Iran) behavior in the future. (Syria is now arming at a scale not seen since before the 1973 war.) 
“And many other countries in this region and around the world strongly oppose a nuclear-armed Iran. It would threaten them, trigger an arms race in this region, and undermine the efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, which would be a sorry outcome for such a promising beginning of the 21st century. For all those reasons, confronting this challenge is and must be a top national priority for the United States of America. We are determined to keep the pressure on Iran so that it will change its course. 


Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would not be a “sorry outcome for such a promising beginning of the 21st century” -it would be an apocalypse. Any deterrent paradigm requires that the nuclear armed states possess the will to act, the capability to act, and a clear ability to communicate their intention to the other nuclear armed power. This is necessary to ensure deterrent stability. A misunderstanding between two leaders, each armed with nuclear weapons is clearly a disaster. This is why we had a special telephone system installed in the White House and in the Kremlin. A team of over 30 staff constantly maintained the White House hotline, testing it multiple times each day to be sure it worked properly, while a similar Russian team did the same on the other end. Multiple redundancies were kept in case something went wrong, and instant translation capability was available 24/7 no matter what -in the days before microcomputers, when this was a real challenge. This was done because of the problem of clear communication to deter a nuclear incident. Ok; what if you have more than two powers with the bomb? Say three? It gets geometrically more difficult to clearly communicate, after four, it is virtually impossible, since communicating resolve to one player can mean communicating rabid blood lust to another. Add to this the mindset of Arab leaders and their willingness to gamble with wars, add to this the messianic ideas of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, add to this the niggling thought in the back of every Israeli leader’s head that they will NOT be the Israeli leader who allows another Holocaust. Add to this the fact that Arab countries are shot through with Al Qaida, Tanzim, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizbullah sympathizers even at high levels, that they do not control physical access to their top governmental sites very well, that they are noted for the unprofessionalism of their security forces, that their officials are notoriously bribable… I can continue, but I think you get the point.
If Iran has a bomb, Saudi Arabia needs one to maintain it’s sovereignty since they cannot rely on the USA as a nuclear umbrella; it’s cold logic. We will not trade any US city for Riyadh; they therefore cannot rely on us to get into a nuclear exchange over them. They can and WILL have a bomb soon after Iran does (If nothing else by just asking Pakistan for a return favor for all their past help). If they do, Egypt must have one, if Egypt has one, Syria must also. These countries are constantly going to war with one another in addition to Israel, and have to worry about one another. Basically this can blow up so many ways at such awful scale that it is a national security nightmare to even think of a nuclear armed Iran (one more thing; Iran has SAID OPENLY -in Farsi- they do consider their global terror networks to be a “second strike” capability for them, like our submarines, which means they explicitly would arm terror cells with nukes).
He assumes that “pressure” will stop Iran from developing nuclear arms. This seems to have actually been counter productive so far; accelerating Iran’s program under international condemnation and hardening their resistance. We’ve seen plenty of “pressure” for nine and more years. By saying “we will continue” we can assume he will continue to do what has been done up till now… talk at them a lot. Make clear that there is no way we will bomb them and no way we’ll allow Israel to do so either. This administration has actually said they would shoot down an Israeli jet over Iraq if they try.


 And as we do, we will also be seeking to improve relations between the Israelis and Palestinians. They are connected indirectly, but there is a relationship. We call on Arab states who share a mutual concern about Iran to support the effort to bring peace between Palestinians and the Israelis, and to take their own steps forward for peace with Israel.
These are critical goals in their own rights. Their pursuit also denies Teheran the opportunity to exploit the differences between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and the Arab world, and to distract the many countries that stand united against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the support of terrorism. Building peace and security between a Jewish democratic state of Israel and a viable, independent Palestinian state is profoundly in Israel’s interest, if you will forgive me for suggesting that. (Applause.)

I’ve learned never tell another man or another country what’s in their own interest, but it seems so – it’s also profoundly in the interest of Palestinians. And it’s fundamentally in the national security interest of the United States of America.”

The only thing worth noting here is his clear linkage between the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” and Iran’s nuclear armament. He obviously believes Israel to be the central problem in the Middle east from which all others stem, as if Azerbaijan and Armenia went to war, or Iran and Iraq, or Iraq and Kuwait, or Egypt and Saudi Arabia (through proxies in Yemen -1960s to 70s), or Iran and Saudi Arabia (through proxies in Yemen 2004-present), or any number of other examples went to war, all because of Israel’s problem with the Palestinians. In addition, he is blackmailing Israel here; “make concessions with the Palestinians if you don’t want to see a nuclear Iran”. It’s sort of like saying “stick yourself with the HIV positive needle if you dont want to be shot in the head”. It’s really a choice of how you go, not whether you go. Slowly, picked to pieces by endlessly emboldened local terrorism, or quickly, in one big bright light. Either way, Biden seems to see Israel as our enemy, not the guys calling for our deaths. Local terrorists have always conducted greater terror after an attempt at appeasement by Israel. Every single instance of an Israeli peace initiative has led to greater violence and every single instance of Israel cracking down has led to periods of peace and quiet. This must be kept in mind as you consider the choice Biden offers the Israeli leaders. It isn’t even a choice they are morally empowered to make; leaders of any state cannot simply sacrifice the lives of their own citizens to pursue some “national end” because the protection of those very citizens is the only reason the state exists.
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ’67 lines with agreed swaps and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.” 
Talking about the 1967 lines means that they are talking about the lines Israel had after the war of independence in 1948. These were once called by Ben Gurion “suicide lines” since militarily, Israel was surrounded and had fronts literally a couple miles apart, all the way around the state. There was no area of the country out of range of modern artillery even in the 1950s, much less today. Of course, Israelis have accepted the fact of having rockets lobbed into their cities from Gaza, since they don’t seem to mind the fact that they are currently being shelled, maybe Biden figures they won’t mind being in a completely untenable position militarily either. Considering the Israeli willingness to follow peace proposals from people 2000 miles away who know as much about the Middle East as they had time to read in the Economist that morning on the toilet, like a bunch of lemmings, maybe he’s actually on to something here.
“Back home, I am sometimes called an optimist, but I am an optimist about the prospects for peace because I am a realist. And to paraphrase Golda Meir, there is nowhere else to go.”  


He’d have to be an optimist to believe that his being nice to Muslims everywhere and Israel being nice to Palestinians will lead to anything but emboldenment of those we are trying to appease and to more death. Actually, I take it back, he’d have to be insane. Then again, we are talking about Joe Biden here…

~ by Jubal Biggs on March 12, 2010.

One Response to “Joe Biden Strikes Again”

  1. It’s almost unbelievable how incredibly imbecilic our vice president is. I’m amazed and appalled. God help us. Biggs, thank you for your insight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: