Why Barack Hussein Obama's Middle Name Matters
By Steve Sailer
No, it's not because he's a secret Muslim. Nobody has ever seen him engage in Islamic rituals since he left Indonesia at age ten. ...
The Republican fear that Obama is a secret Muslim is silly, but so is the Democratic dream that electing a black President will suddenly make America popular in the Middle East. The sad reality is that Middle Easterners treat their black minorities with contempt. (See Robert F. Worth’s New York Times’ Feb. 28, 2008 article Languishing at the Bottom of Yemen's Ladder, about the horrific conditions under which the blacks in that Arab country subsist.)
No, to understand the reason Obama's Muslim middle name matters, it's necessary to first review America's strategic situation.
The good news: over the next decade at least, America faces few, if any, serious foreign military challenges. The only dangers the next President will have to deal with are those, like 9-11, to which we choose to make ourselves vulnerable because of domestic pandering and political correctness.
A quarter of a century ago, we were faced-off against a military superpower that had a fighting chance to drive its vast tank armada through the Fulda Gap and all the way to the Rhine. And if that didn't work, the Soviets could fall back on their countless nuclear ICBMs.
Now, that was dangerous.
Today, in contrast, the rest of the world is demilitarizing. America's military spending is almost equal to that of all other countries on Earth (47 percent or 49 percent of the world's total, by two different estimates).
But what about the ruthless ambitions of Iran, which John McCain wants to bomb-bomb-bomb? According to the CIA World Factbook, Iran spent only 2.5 percent of its paltry GDP on defense in 2006, compared to America's 4.06 percent. In 2003, Iran ranked 25th in absolute military spending, wedged among such imposing military colossi as Singapore, Argentina, Norway, and Belgium.
This doesn't mean we are safe. We lost 3,000 people in a Muslim raid in 2001.
Yet, our military wasn't overpowered. The twin towers weren't knocked down by jet bombers launched from Islamic aircraft carriers. (In fact, the 44 countries of the Muslim world don't have a single carrier amongst them. We have 12, each one larger than any other country's biggest flattop).
No, we lost 3,000 lives because we let 19 terrorists into our country and let them roam around as they pleased. George W. Bush had campaigned in 2000 against the profiling of Muslims by airport security. His Transportation Department was running a program in 2001 to crack down on the "disparate impact" of security procedures on air travelers with Arab names.
[More]
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
28 comments:
Today, in contrast, the rest of the world is demilitarizing.
Who needs military spending? That's last generation's war. This one involves using stupidity, greed, compassion, naivety and corruption to conquer America and the West through an army of irregular soldiers, men, women, and children. You accomplish the same goal, if at a somewhat slower pace, but with no casualties - and you actually get paid (via remittancs) to do it!
Pat Buchanan for President.
Steve, a couple of quibbles though overall I agree with much but not most of what you said.
First, The CIA World Factbook has rank order of GDP military spending. US is spending 4.06 percent GDP, a number of countries including China (4.3) spend as much or higher. We are at historic lows for GDP spending. IMHO it is a huge mistake to assume technology and weapons systems stay static or that US advantage is eternal. Particularly if attacks are not conventional military but surprise terrorist actions.
Coasting on laurels is not smart. Ask the Patriots.
The absolute terms of military spending is more a function of Europe and other places free-riding on our protection. Even Obama has complained about NATO not pulling it's weight in Afghanistan. However rising oil prices have enabled Putin to spend lots more money on military stuff and appeal to anti-Americanism in his populace. Not reasons for complacency.
Secondly, IMHO you missed the wider implications of 9/11. It's very unlikely that another hijacking of passenger aircraft will cause another 9/11. But look at the wider trends.
Ramzi Yusef and the Blind Sheik planned the 1993 WTC bombing to kill 50,000 people, by toppling one tower onto another. Various other groups in the 1990's planned bombings in subway tunnels to kill as many by flooding them, according to NYC prosecutors. The GIA planned to crash an airliner into the Eiffel Tower. Various domestic groups in Britain, Spain, etc. carried out or planned mass-casualty bombings.
You are right that these specific plots could be prevented by ending PC and mass deportation of Muslims from the West (which is not possible without massive Western loss of life, it's so deeply embedded in the culture). But the bigger point is WHY? did these non-state groups carry out or plan mass casualty attacks? What if Yusef (KSM's nephew) had succeeded in his plans? What would he have hoped to have accomplished as a policy objective? For that matter what did Bin Laden hope to accomplish?
The point that all the plotters hoped to achieve, according to testimony or statements (such as bin Laden's, Zawahari, KSM, Yusef, etc.) was submission to Islam. They believed -- kill enough Americans and they will submit to Islam.
And without deterrence that will happen. A group like AQ does not need it's own flattops. It can "borrow" several of Pakistan's nukes through it's kin-network among Pakistan's military. Or be given one by Iran when they are nuclear. Or buy one from North Korea. Or use Anthrax. Some lone nutcase had some in his seedy Vegas motel room. Heck Aum Shin Rykio showed how even lunatic Japanese apocalyptic cults can wreak havoc with home-brewed sarin. Trans-Pacific container shipping is their ICBM.
Sensible and sober NATO generals (nearly all of them Europeans) are scared out of their minds at the implications of the Western Military advantage being gone by technology proliferation (and it's not just nuclear, it's bio weapons and chemical). Danish cartoons, a film by Gert Wilders, something the Pope said, have all enraged Muslims worldwide and garnered threats and killings and plots. The NATO paper proposed -- PREEMPTIVE NUKING of proliferators. Because they're scared European cities will go Boom! unless they scare off cooperation with groups like AQ or others.
Looking at Aircraft carriers IMHO is like counting battleships in 1935 and figuring all is well. Globalization means even places like Pakistan has nukes, over 100 and poorly guarded and controlled (and proliferation is a reality, we can't stop it). It also means a container from Karachi can make it's way to Long Beach harbor and from thence anywhere in the US. It means, relatively poor, disorganized, and faction ridden Muslim groups can kill mass quantities of Westerners including Americans if they plan carefully, use imaginative means, and do the unexpected with good execution.
They could do this EVEN if we kicked them all out and never let any back in.
Deterrence and making examples of enemies matters. It would not be a bad idea to bomb Iran and make enemies rationally afraid of playing footsie with groups like AQ. Heck on that alone McCain is a better choice than Barack Hussein Obama and his reflexive anti-American internationalism.
But I agree with you on most of your other arguments.
There is a risk that Obama harbours some sentimental loyalty to Islam which could make him less likely to put his foot down. And even if he doesn't, he might feel that he's expected to act as though he did. (Hardly rational, but not impossible.)
"Anonymous said...
They could do this EVEN if we kicked them all out and never let any back in.
Deterrence and making examples of enemies matters. It would not be a bad idea to bomb Iran and make enemies rationally afraid of playing footsie with groups like AQ."
How come you no longer call yourself "Evil Neocon". It is you, isn't it? Your prolixity gives you away.
Okay, so let's bar any containers from Pakistan too. I don't imagine we import much from them anyway, and certainly nothing that we really need.
And as far as deterrence and Iran goes: by what right can we tell Iran that they can not have an atomic bomb? Having been invaded just a quarter century ago, and having fought a long and destructive war, perhaps they feel that THEY need a deterrent. Iran having a bomb doesn't threaten me. The people who actually run Iran (I'm not convinced that this Admenidjad is anything more than a front) don't want to die. Deterrence will work against them every bit as well as it worked against the Russians.
"A quarter of a century ago, we were faced-off against a military superpower that had a fighting chance to drive its vast tank armada through the Fulda Gap and all the way to the Rhine. And if that didn't work, the Soviets could fall back on their countless nuclear ICBMs. "
Soviet strategy in a war with the USA was to use all their nukes straight away, on the assumption that the USA would use its nukes eventually. This made sense because 30 years ago* Soviet superiority in tank armies was huge and there was no realistic prospect of NATO stopping them in the Fulda Gap - in a purely conventional war West Germany was doomed; France was probably doomed. The UK was probably not invadable although Soviet doctrine called for a mix of nuclear attack and airborne landing. It's all somewhat moot since as Martin Van Creveld points out it proved impossible to develop a nuclear warfighting strategy that did not involve mutual annihilation.
*This changed through the '80s as UK and USA finally got decent MBTs - M1 and Challenger-1 - superior to the Russian models.
Middle Easterners may treat their blacks badly, but they will also know that one of the few Middle Easterners who created a lasting peace was, like Obama, half-black... Sadat
"simon newman said...
This changed through the '80s as UK and USA finally got decent MBTs - M1 and Challenger-1 - superior to the Russian models."
I guess the Germans are just low-life, defeated, occupied. Last time I checked the Bundeswehr had about 3500 Leopard tanks, considered from the outset to be substantially superior to the soviet tanks. The whole Bundeswehr strategy was to knock out the soviet tank army. That's what the Leopard was designed for. That’s why the Leopard was the first tank which could actually shoot whilst driving, unlike the US Abrams which cannot even do that today (barrel is too heavy so it swings wildly when driving fast; Rheinmetall have a special method for making light barrels so the Leopard can handle the barrel inertia). But I guess the Germans don't count in the overriding scheme of the Anglo-Saxon world powers.
Sorry, Steve. Baritone O'Blarney's big idea for dealing with terrorism is for him to personally attend a summit with all the Arab and Persian leaders and try to resolve all our outstanding disputes, no doubt in a 'holistic' manner. Oooh, Matinee Lady.
Did you ever notice that tall guys with very deep voices can get away with uttering absolute bromides, in meetings and behind podiums, and they will be taken seriously, at least for a while? And they get accustomed to this and grow very confident. This must surely be an evolved response. In our old, hunter-gatherer days, the guy with the deepest voice could probably beat the crap out of the tenors gathered around him, so they learned to obey him.
The Arabs are still in touch with this world of powerful voices. An Arab with a deep voice can use it to sonorously persuade his fellows to do the most idiotically suicidal things. And, if his adversary has a deeper voice, he simply has an assistant slit the adversary's throat the night before the big meeting. As the old Arab proverb goes, "No larynx, no problem."
At least McCain is a runt with a weak voice.
Sweet Irony
What could be sweeter than seeing Bill Clinton's Twin Pillars, blacks and jews, abandoning him for Obama? These two groups kept him from being convicted during his impeachment. The 'dirty little secret' in the balck community is they supported him because they would have done the exact same thing with Monica and his other girls. This is the ethos of their community. Infidelity is not a stain. Jews because he gave them power via cabinet and appointment selections, and money, via favoritism in programs (See:Loral). Now they have dumped him for Obama! What sweet irony! How he must wail and pound his fists at the ungratitude! Even Hollywood has largely left him. Oh how he must gnash his teeth! But what can he do? Burkle has all the pics he needs to contain him. How he must feel so double-crossed. What a spectacle, to see Bill Clinton betrayed, and there is not a damn thing he can do about it. There is such fertle ground here for a Sailer column.
braindead:
"I guess the Germans are just low-life, defeated, occupied"
Leopards are good tanks, though lighter than the M1s and Challengers; like the Soviet T-series they're more of a medium tank AIR. But Soviet superiority in tank numbers was huge, and in the '70s they had qualitative tank superiority too - M60s, Chieftains etc just weren't very good. This changed from the end of the '70s.
The Bundeswehr probably was fairly competent, ca 1975 possibly more competent than the US military (although the Brits were benefitting somewhat from Northern Ireland, and mostly did OK in Falklands 1982), but the Bundeswehr was no WW2 Wehrmacht and it wasn't going to win a conventional-war WW3 against the Soviets.
Overall though I have to say that modern western European armies other than the UK, France, and to some extent the Scandinavians, no longer have much of a military ethos. Belgian, Dutch, German etc may have great equipment (I know when I was in the British army reserve we were jealous of the Belgians) but without the right ethos it's of limited use.
braindead:
"That’s why the Leopard was the first tank which could actually shoot whilst driving, unlike the US Abrams"
Enemy shells are more likely to bounce off an Abrams, though.
(re-send, as I was not sure first one got thrugh)
Pray for a Nixon-to-China if you like, but Baritone O'Blarney's big idea for dealing with terrorism is apparently for him to personally attend a summit with all the Arab and Persian leaders and try to resolve all our outstanding disputes, no doubt in a holistic manner. Oooh, Matinee Lady.
Did you ever notice that tall guys with very deep voices sometimes get away with uttering absolute bromides, in meetings and behind podiums, and they are taken seriously, at least for a while? And they get accustomed to this and grow overconfident. This must surely be an evolved response. In our old, hunter-gatherer days the guy with the deepest voice could probably beat the crap out of the tenors gathered around him, so the tenors learned to obey him.
The Arabs are still in touch with this world of powerful voices. An Arab with a deep voice can use it to sonorously persuade his fellows to do the most idiotically suicidal things. And, if his adversary has a deeper voice, he simply has an assistant slit the adversary's throat the night before the big meeting. As the old Arab proverb goes, "No larynx, no problem."
I wanted Romney for the Republican nomination because I thought he was a baritone with a brain. McCain, like Yosemite Sam or John Paul Jones, is a runt with a weak voice. At least runts know that the pre-modern world is an unforgiving place because, in a manner of speaking, their larynxes were trimmed at birth.
Its war nerd time!
"This changed through the '80s as UK and USA finally got decent MBTs - M1 and Challenger-1 - superior to the Russian models."
The Leopard was/is a good tank but only carries the 105mm gun, so comparison with the M1 and its 120mm isnt quite fair.
However the UK had the Chieftain tank 40 years ago. In its day the best tank in the world, very well protected with a lower silhouette than any western tank including the M60 and Leopard and a better gun, 120mm, more powerful than any Soviet tank gun.
Of course there were never going to be enough of them to deter a Soviet attack on their own
"That’s why the Leopard was the first tank which could actually shoot whilst driving, unlike the US Abrams which cannot even do that today (barrel is too heavy so it swings wildly when driving fast; Rheinmetall have a special method for making light barrels so the Leopard can handle the barrel inertia)."
You are incorrect about the Abrams being unable to shoot while moving. It can fire while on the move and does so quite well, at least as far as I can tell. If the barrel swings wildly, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on accuracy. In combat over here, the tankers are able to put shells right where I ask them to. If I get a chance, I'll ask those guys about any of the problems you mentioned.
Has anyone else heard of this?
Military power is not measured by spending but by disciplined forces equipped with first class armament, their experience under fire, and the political will to use them. In all three parameters the USA far outranks everbody around. The UK, Russia and Israel may be classed as second rank powers. France, Australia, Canada, Japan, China, Germany, Italy, etc. may have the potential, but they show no inclination to fight abroad. While this situation persists, we shall have world peace.
... You are right that these specific plots could be prevented by ending PC and mass deportation of Muslims from the West (which is not possible without massive Western loss of life, it's so deeply embedded in the culture).
In other words, invite the world and invade the world at the same time, in an effort to keep all the Muslims living among us and on the borders of Israel intimidated, and to make all of Israel's problems our problems, too.
This the Neonconservative program exactement.
That’s why the Leopard was the first tank which could actually shoot whilst driving, unlike the US Abrams which cannot even do that today (barrel is too heavy so it swings wildly when driving fast; Rheinmetall have a special method for making light barrels so the Leopard can handle the barrel inertia)
That is factually wrong, with regard to both differences in the weight of the barrel and the M1's main gun stabilzation:
M1 ABRAMS ARMAMENT
The main armament is the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH of Germany. The 120mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/
Peecee Deutschlanders don't use the efficacious U238 munition, however. If you want to brag about German military technology, you could point out that the M1 tank's 12.0 cm gun is built in the USA under license from Rheinmetall.
If you go to the ARMY web site, you'll see a photo, third down from top right, showing an M1 firing its main gun while on the move. I'm sure our good friend will ask for evidence that the Ami tank is not firing wildly at nothing in particular off camera.
EvilNeocons might also note that Rheinmetall also provides the Merkeva tank's main gun.
Did Franklin D. ROOSEVELT's name matter when we were at war with Germany?
truth said:
Did Franklin D. ROOSEVELT's name matter when we were at war with Germany?
I dont think it really could have mattered seeing as Roosevelt is a Dutch name =P
First, The CIA World Factbook has rank order of GDP military spending. US is spending 4.06 percent GDP, a number of countries including China (4.3) spend as much or higher.
Including all the Iraq/Afghanistan emergency supplemental spending (which is not included in the base defense budget) and the Department of Energy spending on nuclear weapons, we're on track to spend 5% of GDP on "defense" this year. That's 5 percent of the world's biggest GDP, by far.
Your "defense" needs don't grow with the size of your economy -- we still have the same surface area to defend whether we are rich or poor. So the absolute level of defense spending, not the percentage of the national economy, is the right measure.
What makes anyone think that the CIA Factbook is a fact book?
I recommend 'Our Dumb World' from the editors of 'the Onion'
Just today the Pentagon announced that Chinese Military Spending to increase 17%. Given that real military spending by China is assumed to be three times that of listed spending it's cause for concern.
Very likely 12 carrier groups are not enough, and we don't have enough submarines and anti-sub planes and space defense and offense capabilities. The Chinese showed they can take out US satellites and "blind" the US in a heartbeat with their blowing up of a Chinese Satellite in high orbit.
Obama has said he'll kill Space Defense, leaving us defenseless against a Chinese Pearl Harbor. Politically that's probably remote now but things can change. Obama has said he'll kill the Future Defense Systems designed to give soldiers and marines an edge on the battlefield. If we do commit troops it's my view they ought to have the best. It's not just small arms, it's networked stuff allowing a private to call in close air support or arty if he's in trouble.
"Who needs military spending?"
We do. Youtube has already pulled videos Pakistanis deem offensive for fear of violence. Gert Wilder's film may be blocked by the Hague for fear of violence against the Netherlands from outside and inside. Globalization means that poor (relative to the West) Muslims can kill rich (relative to Muslims) Westerners whenever they're pissed off. It could be nukes, or bioweapons, or chemicals, or explosives or whatever. Already NATO's Secretary General has called for Wilder's film to be censored.
Globalization brings people together, with disastrous results. Unless you want Pakistanis or Afghanis or whatever telling you how to live your life we need Military Spending.
Bonus -- military spending means lots of white nerdy engineers in the US being gainfully employed.
Unless you want Pakistanis or Afghanis or whatever telling you how to live your life we need Military Spending.
Why don't we just eliminate all them Muslims with nuclear weapons? The only alternative would be to invade the 80+ Muslim countries and hold them under armed guard at all times, and that seems too expensive (a lot more than %5 of GDP).
"Has anyone else heard of this?"
I read about this in a German armaments industry magazine. The mag is pretty prominent and the German arms industry is a serious business, so I doubt they were writing rubbish. I guess it refers to firing whilst moving at high speeds which seems to have been the planned strategy with the Leopard vs. the Soviets.
The mag is pretty prominent and the German arms industry is a serious business, so I doubt they were writing rubbish.
It was rubbish. The German reputation for technical impeccability is like the Britsh rep. for keeping stiff upper lips -- outdated hype.
The first electronic systems to aid the gunner were simple aiming aids like improved optics to more accurately point the gun at the target, and laser designators to precisely determine the target range. When electronic turret stabilization was first introduced at the end of the 20th Century (one of the first to have such a system was the M1 Abrams tank), it created a significant operational advantage over every other tank on the field. By using an electronic gyroscope as a stability reference, a computerized system can keep the barrel of the tank's main gun steady and directed at the target, no matter what the tank is doing at the time. This meant for the first time a tank could fire on the move with a reasonable certainty that it could hit its target with the first shot.
Considering that the killing range of an armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot tank round (APFSDS) is over 5,000 meters, this means that a tank on broken terrain with an electronic aiming and stability system (the Abrams increases this accuracy with a little wind sensor on the turret that helps it also calculate the windage) can hit anything it can see all the way to the horizon.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1681833
M1 tank videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLkTNBsfD7g&feature=related
"... On the other hand, they have demonstrated an aptitude for asymmetric warfare and utter ruthlessness. One or two nukes in their hands would pose a far greater threat than all of Russia's nukes, because the terrorists have the will to use them."
Not only that, but the Russians knew we’d use nukes, having just used them in Japan. Today no one believes we could ever use them again, certainly not against covert operatives that have or pretend to have no state allegiance.
Some on the left are even preparing to stop our retaliation.
Today no one believes we could ever use them again, certainly not against covert operatives that have or pretend to have no state allegiance.
If citizens of any nation instigated a nuclear strike against a US city you can be well assured that American support for a full-scale invasion or nuclear retaliation of that country would run in the high 70s or even 80s. It wouldn't even be close. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 19 Muslims killed 3,000 Americans. A nuclear attack is worse by several orders of magnitude.
Actually, there are enough people out there who believe that the world is actually less safe now than during the last Cold War. And the author's statement, "The good news: over the next decade at least, America faces few, if any, serious foreign military challenges" is pretty unaware of the real global threats faced by this country.
When you consider N. Korea, South Asia, the Phillipines, Egypt, Gaza, Israel, North Africa including Morroco and Algieria, the Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, what's going on in the Congo, the Columbian-Ecuadorian-Venezualan conflict, the continuing expansion of the drug wars in Mexico (despite the U.S. funding to help Calderon), the militarization of China, the re-invigoration of Putin in Russia (and the start of the next Cold War) and one or two other hot spots, the World is scary.
The fact that the U.S. is today's only "Superpower" deflects the issue of non-state actors being supplemented by state sponsors.
Post a Comment