UPDATED: Don't celebrate too soon!

Assad is an evil bastard, to be sure, and richly deserves a fate worse than living in exile in Moscow... in the winter. Hey, it could be Ottawa! 

But what do we know about Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the leaders of the so-called revolution? Only that they are a jihadist group once linked to al-Qaeda, now rebranding themselves as "moderate Muslims" -- an oxymoron if ever there was one.

If you're a Christian or a Jew, or "the wrong kind of Muslim", anywhere in the Middle East, don't just stand by... brace yourself! Worse is yet to come.

UPDATE ADDED @ 1630: No sooner said than done! Breitbart News has a report, quoting the New York Times, that Syrian rebels who overthrew the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad on Sunday are executing their opponents, imposing Islamic sharia law, and threatening non-Muslim minorities, including the Kurdish population in the north. 

Videos are circulating on social media showing Syrian rebels killing people associated with the regime, some of whom may have been part of the state security services, and others who appear to have been ordinary employees.

Islamic State forces on Tuesday killed 54 people in the Homs region in central Syria who had been part of the Syrian government’s military and fled during the collapse of the Assad regime, according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a British-based monitoring group.

The killings highlight the chaos in Syria as various rebel factions operate in different regions. One video also shows thousands of smashed bottles of liquor at the duty free store of the Damascus airport, where Islamist rebels apparently enforced the Islamic ban on alcohol by force, as Islamists did in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Let's not hear "I didn't see that coming" from Western leaders like Senile Joe and the Governor of the Great State of Canada.

VIDEO: Ron Paul comments on long-overdue US withdrawal from Syria

In case no-one noticed, our blog quietly passed its 10th anniversary back in July. [If I'd remembered I'd have baked a cake. Ed.] How time flies when you're having fun! One of the themes that I write about again and again [and again and again. Ed.] is the folly of America being entangled in foreign wars that it can't win, especially the oil wars in the Gulf and Middle East. See, for example, "Will America never learn? The persistence of bad foreign policy" (WWW 2/5/13).

It's not that I'm a pacifist, or anti-Israel, or an apologist for the Islamists. I'm just a realist, like Ron Paul, and think it's stupid to waste tens of thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars meddling in and tens of thousands trying to act as referees in Muslim civil wars. Here's what Dr Paul has to say about Still-President Trump's announcement that US forces will be withdrawn from Syria, starting yesterday!



IMHO the withdrawal is long overdue! We have (dare I say it?) no dog in those fights. The USA will be no better off no matter who wins, and no worse off no matter who loses. The usual suspects say the Bushes, Slick Willy, and the Prez sent American forces to the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan, and kept them there, not just to convert the feudal Arab states to modern Western democracy, but to keep the Saudis and multinational companies in control of the oil that lies beneat the blood-stained desert sands.

I call BS on that. With the development of fracking and shale oil, and the slowly lessening use of plastics and other oil-based products, America is virtually self-sufficient in oil. And if the liberals on both sides of the Canada-US border would smarten up and support the development of Canada's oil sands and the import of Canadian oil through pipelines which the leftists don't want to be built or expanded, oil self-sufficiency would be guaranteed. Who needs Arab oil?!

Mr Trump's announcement late Sunday has set the lefties' hair on fire. Expressions of shock and horror are being heard from all liberal quarters, notably Brussels, the capital of the European Union, and (of course) the commentariat of America, Britain and Canada.
* America is leaving its Kurdish allies in the lurch!
* America is surrendering! Another failure for Trump!
* America is caving to Assad!
* The Turkish invasion of Syria will be disastrous!
* More millions of refugees will be washing up on our shores!
and, inevitably
* We're inviting a resurgence of Al-Qaeda and ISIS!

Walt says, who cares?! Let the Islamists duke it out. And if a humanitarian disaster ensures, let the Europeans and Canucks take care of it, if they're so minded... and can afford it. Getting out of the Middle East is absolutely the right thing to do. As Dr Paul and Dan McAdams say near the end of the video, it's not going to happen overnight, but this week's decision by Still-President Trump is a step in the right direction.

Further reading: "Worried for Kurds in Syria, abandoned by US? Here’s an obvious solution but it will make Washington hawks MAD", by Nebojsa Malic, on the Ron Paul Institute website, 8/10/19.

VIDEOS: UPDATED! Non-gangsta gunman shoots 14 in Toronto

Here's something you don't see every day... and thank God for that! Copied from Canada's Global News, this is a video taken in Toronto's Greektown last night.



The gunman unloaded his firearm into a crowded restaurant, killing two and injuring 12. (This is a developing story. Numbers may change.) The murderer is also dead, whether by his own hand or shot by police is unclear.

Also unclear -- because Toronto's finest won't say -- is the identity of the killer, described as being 29 years old and, errr, that's it. Walt notes that the shooter is not wearing the hoodie which is standard issue for Toronto's legion of gangstas. You can see his face pretty clearly. He is (a) bearded and (b) not black. Is it too soon to jump to a conclusion? Certainly this is not the typical black-on-black shooting which occurs in certain Toronto `hoods (Gooood mornin', Jane-Finch!) with astonishing regularity.

Which brings us to motive. The copz aren't saying anything about that either and the gunman himself isn't talking, by reason of being deceased. Let's be brave -- to hell with M-103 -- and follow my first conclusion to another one. A bearded whitish guy opening fire into a crowd. What was going on there? Could it be what the politically correct politicians call a "terrorist incident"? (It is customary in Canada and western Europe not to preface that phrase with adjectives like "Muslim" or "Islamic".)

So far there are no reports of shouts of "Allahu akbar!" being heard, and in the video you can't hear the murderer yelling anything. An eyewitness told Global News that the gunman shot a woman multiple times as she was trying to run away, killing her. "It was horrible," said the witness. "You don't expect this on Danforth of all places. But the guy...had this look on his face, while I saw his profile, like he was screaming at something and shooting."

"Screaming at something", eh. If I were a betting man, I know which way I'd play this. But here's a clip of the Mayor of Toronto -- Tory by name but liberal by nature -- warning us not to jump to conclusions! LOL



Meanwhile, in other news, the government of Canuckistan announced yesterday that it would welcome another 200 Syrian "refugees" -- Muslims, of course -- who are fleeing the civil war in that shithole, now that Assad has pretty much won. But these are not your average "refugees". These are "White Helmets", who have been "giving humanitarian support" to the anti-Assad rebels. Is there any possibility that they will continue the fight from their sanctuary in Canada? Don't be silly!

VIDEO: Meanwhile, in the Middle East, something big is on the horizon

Are we witnessing the beginning of a bigger Middle East war? ISIS seems to be just about finished, at least in the sense of occupying a defined territory. The Syrian government of Basher Assad has overrun the last ISIS stronghold and seems likely to turn its attention to putting the Kurds back in their place. The Kurds are also being attacked by the so-called Iraqi National Army. Those conflicts will continue, while the western powers dither about whose side they should be on. See "Gulf Wars drag on: Walt's guide to who's fighting who", WWW 16/10/17 and "Why the Canadian Army is 'suspending' ops in Iraq", WWW 2810/17.

Here's the scary part. The fighting in Syria and Iraq is just a proxy war, a smaller part of the larger Muslim civil war between the Shi'ites (read: Iran) and the Sunnis (read: Saudi Arabia). Recent events suggest that an escalation of that conflict is imminent. This month has seen a huge purge among Saudi royals, accusations of Lebanese aggression, and threats by Hezbollah. Recent semi-secret trips by (((Jared Kushner))), President Trump's son-in-law and advisor to visit with the Saudi crown prince raise questions about the position of the USA. Israeli policy seems to be lining up with Saudi regional policy against Iran and Hezbollah. The Yemen war is at a standstill. Tensions are rising throughout the sandpit.

Is this the start of something big? In the November 7th edition of the Ron Paul Liberty Report (running time 16:50) Dr. Paul and co-host Daniel McAdams analyze the signs and portents, and conclude that we are getting ever closer to a major conflict. Notice that I didn't use the word "Armageddon", but only because they didn't use it!



Walt suggests that you bookmark the Ron Paul Liberty Report. There's a new broadcast every day at noon, Eastern Time.

VIDEO: Was President Trump right to attack Syria?

Let me answer the headline question for you. NO! What President Trump should have done was stick with his position, enunciated long before the election, that the US should stay out of foreign entanglements, of which the Muslim civil war is the chief example. Yet the President Trump sent 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria in retaliation for what he claimed was a chemical attack on civilians by Syrian President Assad. He sought no Congressional authorization and presented no evidence to either Congress or the American people to justify his actions.

Some of President Trump's most dedicated admirers, including Yours Very Truly, were stunned by the news. The missile strike was pretty much what his defeated rival, Hellery Clinton, would have done, had she had her trembling finger on the button. On Thursday she told a women's forum she would "take out" Assad's airfields, and that's what the missile strike launched that same day was supposed to do.

Kevin MacDonald, the editor of The Occidental Observer, called the US attack on Syria "a betrayal". In a phone interview the morning after the missiles were launched, he told the CBC, "I'm concerned now this whole administration is going the way of the neocons. The whole nine yards." Mr MacDonald thought President Trump was supposed to be an "America First" leader focused on a non-interventionist foreign policy. Now, he said, "I'm very disappointed; very agitated."

Richard Spencer, who coined the term "alt-right", expressed his displeasure in a video titled "The Trump Betrayal". Alex Jones, host of InfoWars, said on his show Mr Trump was "disintegrating in my eyes." And former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos wrote on Facebook, "There comes a day in every child's life when his Daddy bitterly disappoints him."

What happens next, as the President opens wider the US military involvement in the Middle East? Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) joins Ron Paul's Liberty Report to discuss "US Bombs Syria - National Security Or Aggression?"



Further reading: "Let’s Allow The Syrian People To Decide For Themselves", by Ron Paul, posted 3/4/17, before the missile strike.

More reading, even better (added 11/4/17): Click here to read "Shocked But Not Awed: An Open Letter to President Trump", by Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara, in Fetzen Fliegen (a Remant newspaper blog), 10/4/17.

Walt's plan for the war in the Middle East

During the US election campaign, Hellery Clinton responded to challenges on what she was going to do to win the war against the Islamic terrorists -- the ones she wouldn't call by name -- by saying that she had a plan, which included the capture of Mosul, which would fall in a matter of days. Donald Trump said that even if the anti-ISIS "coalition" succeeded in liberating Mosul, they'd find the IS leaders long gone, precisely because La Clinton had given them plenty of notice, plus details of President 0's plans to "degrade" the soldiers of the Prophet.

As I pointed out a few days ago, in "Meanwhile, in the Middle East...", predictions of the capture of Mosul turned out to be premature. Latest reports are that the Kurds, advancing from the area they control in northern Iraq, are stalled at the gates of the city. The alleged Iraqi National Army, coming up from the south, has been unable to prevent ISIS fighters from breaking out to the west and south, heading for Syria. Enough of the terrorists remain in Mosul to make its fall uncertain at best.

Meanwhile, the eyes and ears of the world have turned toward Syria, where ISIS has retaken the ancient city of Palmyra, which it lost some nine months ago. Turns out this great victory for the "coalition" was, errr, of a temporary nature. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, "we" learned that occupying and securing a given area is rather more difficult than taking it in the first place. I can almost hear the cries of "They're baaaack!"

If you believe the propaganda dished out every day by the lamestream media, the retaking of Palmyra by ISIS isn't that big a deal. What is a big deal is the fall of Aleppo -- once Syria's biggest city -- not to ISIS but to [SHOCK! HORROR!] the forces of the evil, devilish, inhuman Bashir al-Assad! With more than a little help in the form of airstrikes by the Russians, Syrian government forces have entered and taken control of 99% of the eastern part of Aleppo, which had been held by rebel militias for years. MORE SHOCK! MORE HORROR!

The chattering classes and spokesthingies for liberal democracy are engaging in an orgy of handwringing, pissing and moaning that almost defies description. Here's a sample, written by someone called Terry Glavin [Who he? Ed.] in today's Emotional Post. "J’accuse! May Allah look down in his mercy upon Aleppo — no help is coming from us. This is what we have become. This is the depravity to which we have all sunk. Aleppo has fallen and so has humanity. We are disgraced."

Walt doesn't see it quite that way. There have been some civilian casualties in the battle for Aleppo, to be sure, including women and children. Hundreds, not thousands, have been killed, but those numbers pale in comparison to the numbers executed -- not killed in fighting, but executed -- by ISIS. So why is it the "end of civilization" when Syrian government forces do the killing, but not when atrocities are committed by the Sunni Muslim rebels and the Islamic extremists of ISIS? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please, to the usual address.

As of this morning, the Assad government controls most of western Syria, which is the only part of the country worth having. The Kurds have most of their homeland in northern Iraq. ISIS holds their capital, Raqqa, as well as Mosul (still) and Palmyra (again). The alleged Iraqi government has a tenuous hold on Baghdad, but not much else. Their ill-trained and timorous army is (sometimes) fighting it out with ISIS for eastern Syria and south-central Iraq. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that there will be no significant change of any kind in the year to come. Lifetime pct .985.

What, then, should the USA, soon to be under new management, do about the Middle East? I've given it a lot of thought [All this week? Ed.] and can come up with no better plan than to bug out and let the Muslims duke it out amongst themselves. That, in essence, is what Ron Paul has been saying for years. The Syrian armed forces, with the help of the Russians, will keep pushing eastward, while the Kurds, helped by the Iranians, will keep pushing down from the north. Let them destroy the Sunnis (ISIS plus assorted rebel militias) if they can, and good luck to them. We’ve got no skin in that game.

Further reading: "Some Perspectives on the War on Terror: Anyway you look at it, it's a failure", by Philip Giraldi, in The Unz Review, 20/12/16.

Escalating the war in Syria: Has Obama learned nothing?

CNN politics reports today that President 0 is going to send another 250 American special ops forces to Syria in the coming weeks, in an effort to stem the influence and spread of ISIS. "Stem the influence and spread"? What happened to "degrade and destroy"? Even that got downgraded pretty quickly to "degrade and defeat". Now it's just "stem the influence and spread".

Here, according to CNN politics, are POTUS's actual words. "Just as I approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I've decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria, a small number of special operations forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas. So given their success I've approved the deployment of up to 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria including special forces to keep up this momentum."

"Given their success..." Pardon me while I fall down laughing. Whatever success the anti-ISIS forces have had lately has come largely through the efforts of Kurdish fighters and those of our once-but-no-longer enemy Basher Assad, ably assisted by the Russian Air Force. But don't worry. The Paranoid States of America is going to step up the fight against the murderous Muslims. Really. Obama means it, this time.

Yes indeed. If more American boots on the ground don't do the trick, the USAF will win the war from the air. At the end of February, Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of Air Combat Command, announced at the Air Force Association’s annual Air Warfare Symposium that they're going to send in the B52s! And Lt.-Gen. Charles Brown, in charge of the flying branch’s top headquarters for the Middle East, said he would help "bring B-52s to town", according to Air Force Magazine, quoted on The National Interest blogsite.

Send in the B52s to bomb whatever rubble is left. What an amazing idea. But hang on! Haven't we seen this movie before? Back in the early 70s? Didn't USAF B52s engage in carpet-bombing of not just Vietnam but Laos and Cambodia? How did that work out? [That was in a movie -- The Killing Fields. It didn't really happen! Ed.]

Sorry, Ed., but it did happen! It was part of the Johnson-Nixon grand strategy to end the war! Remember? Anyway, here's a quote from Rick Perlstein's Nixonland (Scribner 2008), recommended here a few days ago. "On April 16 [1972], five behemoth B-52s pounded Hanoi and North Vietnam's lifeline port, Haiphong Harbor....

"Then, the night of April 26, [Nixon] went on TV to make his latest Vietnam pitch: "...we have offered the most generous peace terms.... The South Vietnamese are fighting courageously and well in their self-defense.
'...I say to you tonight, let us bring our men home from Vietnam; let us end the war in Vietnam. But let us end it in such a way that the younger brothers and the sons of the brave men who have fought in Vietnam will not have to fight again in some other Vietnam at some time in the future....
'My fellow Americans, let us therefore unite as a nation in a firm and wise policy of real peace -- not the peace of surrender, but peace with honor, not just peace in our time, but peace for generations to come.'"

And how did that work out? Walt asks... again... how it can be that the leaders of the USA have learned nothing, nothing from the American experience in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and (so far) in Syria? How can it be?!

Footnote regarding Nixonland: A reader has confessed to some puzzlement over Walt's recommendation of Nixonland. Isn't that book [he asks] nothing more than a hatchet job on RMN, published to discredit the Republicans ahead of the 2008 presidential election? Well, yes. Mr. Perlstein paints a picture of President Nixon as a scurrilous bounder and then some. But that the picture is unflattering doesn't make it unreal. And Mr. Perlstein shows no love for the Democrats or President Johnson either. About the only pols who come off at all well in the book are Messrs McCarthy and McGovern.

But that's beside the point. The main point of Nixonland, as far as I'm concerned, is that the liberal consensus of the 60s evaporated or was destroyed in 1968, and that the polarization of politics of the Nixon years is even more acute today. To paraphrase Mr. Perlstein, the majority of Americans are embittered, cynical, and resentful of the Establishment. They are ready to vote for anyone who can credibly pledge to tear down the Washington power structure. And that, dear readers, explains the popularity of Messrs Sanders, Cruz, and... of course... Trump.

Further reading:
Can America ever be united again?, WWW 12/4/16.
"Donald Trump taps into anger about U.S. misadventures in the world", CBC News 28/4/16

US invasion of Syria begins; Walt predicts the outcome

So it begins. The White House -- more accurately, Secretary of State John Kerry -- has announced that a "small contingent" of US special forces will be sent to Syria to "advise and assist" the Syrian rebels fighting against Islamic State militants and/or the régime of Syrian President Basher Assad.

The troops will be sent to Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Syria, where there's less chance of being blown to bits by Russian missiles or, errr, "friendly fire" from the USAF. (There's no risk of being hit by a Canadian rocket, since the new Canuck PM has promised to withdraw his country's six (6) CF-18s from the mission.)

Although US troops are not "expected" -- note this weasel word carefully -- to be on the front lines with rebel forces, they will have the right to fight back if attacked. They can also join rebel raids if authorized by Washington. Hands up, those who think that such authorization would ever be denied.

So it begins -- the US invasion of Syria. Until now, the Prez and the Pentagon could say with straight faces that the mission against ISIL [or ISIS or IS -- whichever is the approved acronym of the day. Ed.] wasn't an invasion, because, errr, there were no boots on the ground. On 10 September 2014, Mr. O told a credulous nation: "I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

Earlier in the same speech, the Prez warned against Islamophobia. "ISIL is not 'Islamic'", he said. Oh, hahahahahaha... What a kidder POTUS is!

Dear citizens (and voters) of the Paranoid States of America, it's not a laughing matter. The US has a pretty sorry record when it comes to invasions, beginning with the failed expedition into Canada into 1812. Former President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that "the acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching." Oh, hahahahahahahaha...

Fast forward to the 1960s, and the Bay of Pigs, which didn't really count as a "US invasion" because those guys weren't really US troops, right? In the same decade, really American special forces were sent to Vietnam to "advise and assist" the democratic government fighting against Communist insurgents. Note the similarity between that sentence and the opening sentence of this post. We know how Vietnam turned out, right?

Was any lesson learned from the Vietnam debacle? Errr, apparently not. Since Y2K America has invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan, then Iraq again, and now Syria. A classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result. By that definition, the invasion of Syria is insane.

Walt will now explain why it's crazy to expect a different outcome. In reality, the civil war being fought in Syria is not three-cornered, as The Jaw That Walks Like A Man would have you believe. The Syrian rebels are not fighting the ISIS militants so much as they are fighting the Assad government. You can't tell the difference between the rebels and ISIS without a programme! Their aims are the same -- the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Syria and throughout the Middle East.

It follows, then, that if you -- meaning the USA -- want to take sides in the Muslim civil war, you can choose between (a) the Assad régime and (b) the jihadis -- between (a) bad and (b) worse. There is no (c). Once again, America's rulers, ignorant of the realities of the Middle East and the world of Islam, are making the wrong choice. Walt predicts disaster. (Lifetime pct .975.)

Militant Islamists steal from German churches to fund ISIS

Don't kid yourself that the Muslim invasion of Europe, now in full spate, is peaceful. Nor are all the sons of the Prophet flooding in from the Middle East and Africa "moderate Muslims" -- an oxymoronical phrase in these days. Among the hundreds of thousands of "refugees" being welcomed into Germany (to name just one foolish host) are 1000s of Islamic militants dedicated to waging jihad against all non-believers.

In Koln (Cologne), eight Muslim militants are currently on trial on charges of stealing chalices, crosses, and other items from churches and schools between 2011 and 2014 in order to assist the Islamic State (ISIS) and other Islamist rebel groups in Syria. Three of the eight men are also due to stand trial in nearby Düsseldorf on separate charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization.

At the center of the gang is a Moroccan man who prosecutors say appeared in the German section of a YouTube video, which encourages Muslims to join in the jihad. A court spokesman said that the "Islamic State" flag was visible in the video. According to the charges, the 26-year-old traveled to Syria to take part in training at an IS military camp.

According to a report from the German broadcast agency Deutsche Welle, the gang allegedly stole 19,000 euros worth of goods from across Cologne and Siegen, often leaving a trail of damage behind them. The prosecutor told the jury that on breaking into the churches, the group allegedly stole offertory collection boxes, crosses, chalices and various other objects "dedicated to church services and religious worship." From schools, the Muslims allegedly stole money, laptops and a cash card.

The object of the thefts and was to raise money for ISIS and "other Islamist rebel groups" in Syria. The latter would include the rebels whom the Prez and his allies are arming to fight Basher Assad. Thus the jihadists might well be considered members of the coalition! Keen choice o' friends, Mr. O!

Should we give Obama "a blank check for war worldwide"?

Walt knows full well that Barack Hussesin Obama did not order the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. He inherited those messes from the Bushes, not forgetting the 8-year Clinton interregnum. Blame them! But Mr. Obama did promise to end those wars and bring American troops home. Which he did, more or less.

But now, the President is asking Congress for authority to start a new, boots-on-the ground invasion of "Iraq and the Levant", as the folks at Foggy Bottom keep calling it, to avoid having to mention, errr, Syria, so that the infamous Obama Red Line will not be remembered. Yes, a new war of his very own!

But why??!! Walt will explain. First of all, it's about Mr. Obama's legacy. Being the first and only person ever to have been given the Nobel Peace Prize in advance, the Prez now has to do something to justify the award. Bringing peace to the Middle East by force of arms must seem to him a worthy achievement. If only it could be done!

Then there's the oil. See "The war against ISIS explained... again... seriously, this time". The jihadis are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in oil money from the wells and refineries in the areas they control. This is money which (as they will tell you) rightfully "belongs" to Big Oil -- Exxon and BP and other multinationals. If you don't know why this is a concern to the Prez, check out "The REAL reason Obama opposes Keystone" to learn who funds the Democratic election campaigns.

The official reason for the New Obama War, though, is to degrade "ISIL" and stop the spread of Islamic terror and barbarity "before it reaches our shores". And... oh yeah... to teach the IS terrorists that they'll pay a heavy price for killing Murkins. Walt notes that the Prez wasn't too keen on getting involved as long as the jihadis were only killing Kurds, Yezedis and a few thousand other Muslims. But when they started beheading Westerners, well of course Something Had To Be Done. It all reminds me of the South Park movie, in which the USA attacks Canada in retaliation for the Canadian bombing of one (1) American family.

But OK, let's give him that one. Let's buy into the argument that if we don't fight the jihadis there, we'll have to fight them here. (That ignores the counter-argument that if we'd just leave them alone, they'd leave us alone! But never mind...) Walt's question is, why would we escalate the "war against terror", by sending in the Marines, when the air strikes are already working?!

You don't believe? Walt is referring to The war against Islamic State: It will be a long haul, in this week's Economist. Here's the key part of their analysis.

The coalition can claim to be making slow progress. It is six months since Barack Obama gathered 60-odd countries into a coalition to "degrade and ultimately destroy" IS. Since the first air strike in Iraq on August 8th, the campaign has extended into Syria and widened to include arming and training allies such as Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, and Iraqi government forces.

America’s Central Command claims that about 6,000 IS fighters have been killed, including up to half the group’s "top commanders". Some reckon it has 30,000 fighters in fray. At the end of January Kurdish fighters in Kobane, a Syrian town on the border with Turkey, said that they had expelled IS after four months of grim fighting with help from coalition bombers.

More than 1,000 IS fighters are thought to have been killed in that battle. Syrian Kurds have also extended their control into surrounding villages previously held by IS. Rebels in provinces to the west of Kobane say their front lines with IS have been quiet, suggesting that the jihadists are struggling to fight on multiple fronts.

The biggest setback appears to have been to the aura of invincibility that IS acquired last year when its advance through Iraq and Syria seemed unstoppable. Although IS still controls an area of Syria and Iraq about the size and population of Jordan, it has been unable to expand into areas of Iraq where Shias or Kurds are a majority. Threatening Baghdad or Erbil now appears beyond IS’s capacity.

Got it? The measures undertaken (however half-heartedly) by Mr. Obama (and friends like the Canadians -- the only country to actually have ground troops in combat) are working! Why on earth is it suddenly necessary to put 1000s of American (and coalition) soldiers in harm's way?

The Economist makes another telling point in conclusion. As IS gets squeezed in Iraq, the magazine says, the main action will shift westward, into Syria. If America finally admits that the fight must be taken into Syria (goodbye "Levant"!), it will then have to make common cause with, errr, Basher Assad and... wait for it... Iran. Some coalition that will be!

Strong note from Ed.: I just rewrote the title of this post to quote Ron Paul. Don't miss "Obama's Force Authorization is a Blank Check for War Worldwide"!!!

The war against ISIS explained... again... seriously, this time

It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon... [Hey! That opening is copyrighted! Ed.] OK, it's been a quiet week in Mudge County. [Where dat? Ed.] Walt is following three "situations", as the military calls them -- the Yellow Umbrella protests in Hong Kong, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and the latest phase of the Oil Wars -- waiting for something definitive to happen in any or all of them.

If you read my Remembrance Day piece, "Some wars would be better forgotten", you'll know that I've decided "Oil Wars" is a good catch-all name for the American-led invasions and occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again. "Oil Wars" is my feeble attempt to nutshell the reasons for those "missions".

Explaining why the Prez has led his country and the "coalition of the willing" once more into the sandpit isn't easy. With tongue firmly inserted in cheek, I tried to do so in "Are you confused about the war in the Middle East?". Agent 6 thinks -- and I must admit -- that a more serious analysis is overdue.

So, thanks to Agent 6, I'm going to give you a link to an essay posted on September 8th in The Equedia Letter, "Canada’s fastest growing and largest investment newsletter dedicated to revealing the truths about the stock market".

The writer, Ivan Lo, thinks the War against ISIS -- the self-described Islamic State of Iraq and Syria -- is all about... wait for it... oil (and the gas that goes with it). Refer to the map below as you follow this excerpt from "The Real Reason for War in Syria: Pipeline Control".

Take a look at [the timeline of events listed earlier in the article] and you will see an astoundingly shocking chain of intertwined events all related to currency and energy.

Currency manipulation allows developed countries to print and lend to other developing countries at will.... When the developing nations realize they can’t pay back the loans, they’re at the mercy of the lending nations.

The trick here is that the lending nations can print as much money as they want, and in turn, control the resources of developing nations. In other words, the loans come at a hefty cost to the borrower, but at no cost to the lender.

That is why energy is much more valuable than currency in a fiat system. That’s why many wars have been fought over the control of energy. The current conflict in Syria is no different....

Russia is already the dominant energy powerhouse in Europe, supplying and controlling nearly 40% of total gas imports to Europe. Russia’s energy dominance in the Eastern Hemisphere has allowed the nation to amass fortunes; fortunes used to continue its energy dominance through resource acquisitions and the buying of support from resource-rich allies.

Russia wants this dominance to continue. That’s why it needs to maintain control over Syria.

Syria’s location puts it smack in the middle of Qatar and Turkey; a perfect crossroads for a natural gas pipeline that could make Qatar, the world’s largest exporter of liquid natural gas (LNG), a strong supplier of gas to Europe. A gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey means will Russia lose its dominance and control over energy supplied to Europe; thus Russia will lose lots of money and power.

In order for Qatar gas to reach Turkey, it has two options. One option would lead a pipeline from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and then to Turkey.

Saudi Arabia already said no to the first route because it wants to ensure that it gets a piece of the action and maintain control over the gas that goes through its region. Of course, that means less profits and control for Qatar. So that means option one won’t happen. On to Syria.

Syria’s President Bashar Hafez al-Assad has long been Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ally. At the recent G20 summit, the media was shocked to hear Putin’s direct remarks regarding helping the Assad regime in Syria: “Will we help Syria? Yes, we will. We’re doing it right now, we’re supplying arms.”

It’s no wonder why Assad said no to the second route; he’s obligated to help block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe to ensure that Russia remains in control of European energy. It’s no wonder why Qatar has spent more than $3 billion supporting the rebels in dethroning Assad.

If Assad is forced out, Qatar could put in place a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline into Europe and give Qatar the ability to sell natural gas to Europe, undermining Russia.

Of course, the Saudis have also been helping the rebels because it too wants to control the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf to Europe. There are even rumours that Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be ‘bribing’ US congressmen to approve war on Syria in order to dethrone Assad.

If Qatar or Saudi Arabia gains control of Syria, it would be a major blow to Russia. The U.S. wants to supply Europe with gas; this was made clear when it backed the Nabucco-West pipeline.

America reaffirmed its natural gas stance last year with Exxon and Qatar proposing a $10 billion U.S. energy export project. The U.S. has the world’s largest supply of natural gas and it has boldly made plans to profit from supplying gas to Europe. Combine that with the fact that Washington and Iran are direct enemies, and you can see why it is in America’s best interest to dethrone Assad.

Dethroning Assad will kill two birds with one stone; it will bypass Iran and loosen the control Russian energy has over Europe. All of this means that the U.S. and its energy allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, will do whatever they can to remove Assad and implement their pipeline wishes.

Well, that's one man's opinion of the motive of Armerica and its Arab "friends". Makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps "Oil Wars" is exactly the right name for what we're doing in the Middle East. Certainly it's better than calling what we're doing "the Right Thing".

Harper's Islamic chickens come home to roost

Walt hopes that the Globe and Mail's David Parkin, won't mind our copying his excellent editorial cartoon from a few days back. [Don't sue! We're not making any money on this! Ed.] The point being made is that Canadian Prime Minister Steve Harper and his gay Minister of Foreign Affairs could hardly have expected that their decision to enlist in President Obarmy's coalition against ISIL* would be without consequences.

A young Canuck, fighting on the side of the Islamic terrorists, had posted a video, not long before, warning "we're coming to get you!" -- referring to not just the Great Satan but the British, Canadians, Australians and any others who would dare to wage war on them, or stand in the way of their jihad to establish a New Caliphate in the Middle East.
(The phrase "New Caliphate" was actually used way back in 2011 by Mark Steyn, in After America!)

Ignoring the warning, as well as the protestations of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Mr. Harpoon used his majority in Canada's Parliament to push through approval of his commitment of half a dozen of the Royal Canadian Air Force's aging CF-18 Hornets to the bombing campaign against ISIS* in Iraq. As for boots on the ground, a couple of dozen Canadian soldiers are already in station, although of course they are supposedly just training/advising/consulting/whatever. The commitment is supposedly for a period of six (6) months.

Is Canada in, or just partly in? Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who famously refused to join in the Bush War in Iraq said "Either you're in or you're not," adding that once you sent even one soldier or one airplane, you're in.

Having effectively declared war on the Islamic State*, Mr. Harper should not be surprised that the IS* has now declared war on Canada. In terms of casualties, the score so far is IS 2 - Canada 2. And we're not talking civilians here, but military casualties -- two Canadian soldiers killed by Islamic terrorists (or terrorist wannabes) not in the Middle East, but right in the middle of Canada, at or near the nation's capital.

On Monday, a "radicalized" young convert to Islam, Martin "Ahmad" Rouleau, sat in his car near a Tim Hortons in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu (a Montréal suburb, home to the Collège Militaire Royal), waiting for some soldiers to finish their coffee. When they came out, he punched the gas pedal and ran a couple of them down, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, 53, a 28-year career soldier. Following a car chase, Rouleau was dead by Québec police.

Québec's International Affairs Minister, Christine St-Pierre, said "It’s terrible, it’s very sad, we have to be concerned about that, we have to fight those phenomena." She did not hesitate to call the hit-and-run slaying a terrorist attack.

Turns out that M. Rouleau was known to police, having in fact been arrested by the Mounties a couple of weeks before the incident. He told them something to the effect that he wanted to go to Syria and fight with ISIS*, so they took away his passport. Seems to Walt it would have been better to let him go, so whatever fighting he was going to do would be over there, not in his own back yard!

Now to this morning's shootings in Ottawa. As I write, reports (sometimes conflicting) are still coming in. This much is clear. Parliament Hill came under attack around 10 a.m. today, when a man with a rifle shot and killed a soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial.

He then seized a car and drove right up to the doors of the nearby Centre Block. You could still do that in Ottawa because, hey, these things only happen in Washington. Members of Parliament and other witnesses reported that 30 to 50 shots were fired inside the building, some by the gunman and some by the House of Commons Sergeant at Arms, whose aim was apparently better than that of the gunman, who was confirmed dead in the main hall.

Ottawa police confirmed within the last hour that the soldier died from his injuries. He was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, a reserve unit based in Hamilton, Ontario, which was doing guard duty at the War Memorial this week.

The identity or nationality of the gunman has not been revealed, but Walt is assuming -- along with 99% of the media and everyone else -- that he was yet another Islamic terrorist, whether homegrown or imported, perhaps as a refugee or asylum-seeker under Canada's notoriously lax immigration laws. Any connection with Monday's killing will probably be denied or downplayed, for fear of provoking a backlash against Muslims...and against Mr. Harper's ill-considered decision to be part of a fight in which Canada has no dog.

* Note on nomenclature: The Prez and his camp followers (Messrs Harper et al.) insist on calling the Islamic terrorists "ISIL", standing for "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". The media and everybody else calls them "ISIS", for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria", which is what they call themselves. Or just "IS" for "Islamic State". Why does the Great Leader of the Coalition keep saying "ISIL"? Because to say "ISIS" would imply that we are going to be fighting (or bombing, at least) in Syria, which would be the same as supporting the Syrian government of Basher Assad, and of course we wouldn't want to do that.

Further reading on WWW: "Are you confused about the war in the Middle East?"

Are you confused about the war in the Middle East?

Walt has been preoccupied this week with the queer vibrations emanating from the Vatican, and didn't get around to saying something about the war "we" -- Obama's coalition -- are already losing. Agent 6 has come to the rescue, sending along the following explanation.

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS.
We don't like ISIS, but ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia who we do like.
We don't like Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but ISIS is also fighting against him.
We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIS.

So some of our friends support our enemies, some enemies are now our friends,
And some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, who we want to lose,
But we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they could be replaced by people we like even less.

And all this was started by US invading a country to drive out terrorists
who were not actually there until we went in to drive them out.

3 portents of the coming Armageddon

Walt has written several times about Armageddon -- not the movie but the place in present-day Israel which the Bible tells us will be the site of the final battle between good and evil, between God and Satan. See the 16th chapter of the Apocalypse (or Revelation). See "The coffin of civilization", posted here almost two years ago.

Yes, there is such a place -- Tel Megiddo. Since it's more of a plain than a mountain, the prophetic vision of Apoc. 16:16 should not be taken too literally. The traditional view is that "Armageddon" symbolizes the progression of the world toward the "great day of God, the Almighty" in which the great looming mountain of God's just and holy wrath is poured out against unrepentant sinners, led by Satan, in a final confrontation which results in the literal end of the world.

Yet it seems not unlikely (to Walt, at least) that the Armageddon could take place at Megiddo. Look at the map. Even if you believe, as many do, that the actual battle will be at Jerusalem, Apoc. 16:16 tells us the armies will gather at Armageddon... not so far away.

When is this going to happen? Walt suggests that you not make any plans for Thanksgiving! Well, OK, maybe that's a bit extreme, but when you look at current events you have to wonder just how much longer God is going to hold His hand. Here are three items from this week's news which, individually, don't look like much, but added together make me think we're now playing in "extra time".

Item 1: USAF U-2 spy planes and drones have been flying over eastern Syria, most of which is held by the ISIS jihadists. It is thought the Prez may call in an air strike or two, to go with the attacks on ISIS in Iraq. This will be more than a bit embarrassing for Mr. Obama, as he will be obliged to ask permission from Basher Assad, whose regime he (Obama) was talking about overthrowing less than a year ago. Making common cause with the Syrian government will put an exclamation point on the failure of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Item 2: Last week "unknown" military aircraft made a strike [or a spare, at least. Ed.] against Islamic extremists who were attacking the Tripoli (Libya) airport. The terrorists took the airport anyway, but the news here is that the air strike came as a complete surprise to to the USA and other western nations who, it seems, were not consulted or even notified in advance. Whodunnit? Today we learn it was jets of the United Arab Emirates, operating out of a base in Egypt. The threat here is that if these fractious Middle Eastern states start attacking each other without the involvement of the West, war could spread across the entire region like wildfire.

Item 3: Some would say that war has already started, referring to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. It seems only a matter of time before some other power jumps in -- overtly or covertly -- on the side of the Palestinians. Like who? Like Iran, that's who. Just yesterday the Iranian National Guard announced that it had shot down an Israeli drone which was intercepted flying over an Iranian nuclear facility. The other shoe could drop anytime... with a bomb attached.

The Church tells us to "despise not prophecy". Time to start "cramming for the finals"! If you haven't got time for the entire Bible, just read the Gospel of St. John, to which you may profitably add Crucial Truths to Save Your Soul, reviewed here earlier this month. The time is coming!

"I told you so" - Former British PM says Islamic extremists are dangerous

British readers may remember the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, the UK's first "New Labour" prime minister. Other things "new" about Mr. Blair were "new age" and -- believe it or not -- "new bullshit". For it was he, aided and abetted by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, who led Notsogreat Britain into the Iraq debacle.

How did they persuade the British people and parliament to support the American invasion of Saddam Hussein's sandpit? Why, by declaring Saddam a dangerous Islamic extremist -- EXTRA-dangerous, in fact, because he possessed "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) which could hit Britain 45 seconds, turning it from a stinking pile of rubbish into a flaming pile of rubbish.

"45 seconds"... turned out to be a wee bit of an exaggeration. In fact Saddam was as bereft of WMDs as the Americans were of any strategy to exit the Iraq quagmire, and you know the rest of the story. People started calling the British PM "Tony Bliar", and he had the smarts to hand over to poor old Gordon Brown, who was in due course turfed out.

No matter. The terrible trio -- Blair, Mandelson and Campbell -- have all gone on to bigger and better (?) things. Yesterday, Britain. Today, Europe. Tomorrow, the world ??? See "Are Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson edging towards world domination?" in the online edition of today's Grauniad.

As part of Mr. Bliar's grand strategy of self-promotion -- that's where Campbell comes in, as the PR advisor -- Tony got himself appointed "special ambassador" to the Middle East. His self-proclaimed goal was to Draw All Faiths Together (DAFT), getting Jews, Christians and Muslims to bury the hatchet... in the ground rather than others' heads. So far he has accomplished, errr, nothing.

Why is it that? Well, in a speech given in London yesterday, Mr. Bliar said the problem is "the threat of Islamic extremism". He didn't say anything about WMDs or "45 seconds", but warned Western leaders they must "take sides" in places like Syria and back "open-minded" groups. Hmmm. Open-minded Muslims. Open-minded Jews. Perhaps Tony can tell us where to find such people? "Moderate Islamists" and "moderate Zionists" are oxymorons!

A further problem is that before you can have a "conversation" with the "moderates", you have to deal with the extremists. How to do that? You won't be surprised to learn that the prime minister who led Britain into Iraq is recommending military intervention in Syria!According to Mr. Bliar, the West will pay a "very heavy price" for not doing so.

The former PM told the BBC that the opportunity to create "an optimistic solution" is being missed. He argued the West had a "responsibility but also an interest" in making sure the "huge struggle" was "resolved in the right way.... Above all, we have to commit. We have to engage." [Sounds like making wedding plans, doesn't it? Ed.]

Mr. Bliar said he understood the UK's reluctance not to take military action, but would have pushed for the imposition of no-fly zones had he still been in office two years ago. "I know what the difficult consequences are of intervention, but if you look at Syria you see the consequences of non-intervention, and non-intervention there is something for which we will pay a very heavy price."

Walt has obtained a copy of Mr. Bliar's speaking notes, which appeared to be a photocopy of a speech he gave in March of 2003, with "Iraq" and "Saddam Hussein" crossed out and "Syria" and "Basher [sic] Assad" substituted.

Perhaps the agent who sent us the material was just pulling Walt's leg. What is certain is that we've seen this movie before. And we know how it ends. Lifetime pct .983.

Pray for Syria?

Pope Francis has asked us -- Catholics and non-Catholics alike [What about the atheists? Ed.] -- to pray on Saturday for an end to the war in Syria. That's the flavour of the month, it seems. There will be talk of little else behind the scenes at the G20 summit, which by happenstance is about to get under way in Moscow.

Amongst the world "leaders" present at the G20 will be Hussein Obama, the alleged president of the US of A. Perhaps we should pray that the Prez will be unwilling or unable to make good on his sabre-rattling, or airstrike-rattling if you will. He has just been authorized so to do by a vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But that won't mean anything if the full Senate votes otherwise next week. And then there's the House. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to happen.

But even if America hits Assad hard, as this week's Economist recommends, will that end the civil war? Does peace come out of the barrel of a gun or a rocket launcher? Did intervention work in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Libya? The Pope's day (or moment) of prayer might prove more efficacious... not that I'd bet on it.

[Ed. here. Len is not a betting man, but I am. In addition to praying for peace in Syria, I'm going to pray that I hit the trifecta three races in a row. I figure that prayer has a better chance of being answered.]

OK, that's quite enough. Let's not make light of this. According to the UN, 2 million refugees have been displaced by the war in Syria. 1000s of innocent people have died. It won't hurt for us to pray for peace, and it might help.

Mind you, it would help even more if the Pope would do what Our Lady of Fatima requested, and consecrate Russia (by name) to Her Immaculate Heart. After all, there are those, including Obama, who see Russia as the stumbling block to making peace in the Middle East. Perhaps the Consecration of Russia really is Heaven's key to peace, as the "Fatimists" keep telling us.

And it's not just Syria that stands in the need of prayer. Spare a thought for the Central African Republic. "Wat's dat?", I hear you ask. Behold the map.

It's a dungheap, not long ago called the Central African "Empire", more or less in the middle of Africa, just north of the Heart of Darkness that is the Congo.

There's a civil war going on there too. A million refugees are fleeing into the neighbouring dungheaps or other parts of their own country, running from mostly Muslim insurgents who are looting, pillaging and raping as they descend on the more-or-less Christian south.

The war in the CAR has been little noted and less discussed or prayed about. French Président François Hollande said the country is facing "Somalisation", by which he means it is becoming yet another African failed state.

But are the French about to intervene? Non! They just got through cleaning up a similar mess in Mali and have had enough of the Dark Continent. They would rather bask in the reflected glory that will accrue to the USA when Assad is toppled and peace returns to Syria. Just as happened when Gaddafi was toppled and peace and democracy were restored in Libya.

Well... Len is certainly not going to be the one to disparage the Pope's call for prayers for peace. The Holy Father's intentions are good, I'm sure. The intentions of Messrs Obama, Putin and the rest are another matter. God only knows.

Syria: intervention delayed is intervention denied

Well, that didn't take very long, did it. Just yesterday, Len predicted that the Excited States of America would take no immediate action to "punish" Basher Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people. What was needed, though, was a way for Hussein Obama to remove his foot from his mouth without losing face, of which he has very little left.

Et voilà! British PM David Cameron shows the Prez how to do it, by making an impassioned speech to the House of Commons, after which MPs vote to, errr, not intervene. And so, yesterday afternoon Obama makes another forceful and leaderlike speech saying how strongly he feels that some kind of military action -- albeit "limited", "surgical" and other weasel words -- must be taken. But... Congress must give its approval before anything is actually done, because that's the democratic American way.

Wow. Talk about kicking the ball into the long grass! The Prez is referring the matter to Congress for due deliberation and diligence. How long will that take? Congress is due to reconvene on September 9th, which means no military operation could commence until then... if then. We know, too, that Obama's record of getting Congress to act on his requests has been something short of stellar.

We predict that two weeks from now the world will still be waiting for America to do something beyond increasing the stridency of its tut-tutting. And Assad? He will be barely able to smother his laughter.

A long time ago in a land far away

Walt has a not inconsiderable collection of old editorial cartoons. Here's one drawn some time ago by Geoff Olson, for the old Vancouver Courier. It shows an American president getting all palsy-walsy with the president of Syria.

Of course that was a very long time ago. [1991, actually. Ed.] And it has nothing to do with the situation which obtains in Syria today. Nothing whatever.

Afghans show their appreciation of NATO troop presence

We don't hear much about the US-led occupation of Afghanistan these days, but Walt can assure you the status of the operation is SSDD: Same Shit Different Day. The BBC reports that concern is mounting over attacks on NATO troops by their Afghan "allies" ["coat-holders", surely. Ed.]

Major Lori Hodge, a spokesthingy for the US military, told the BBC that so far this year, members of the Afghan "security forces" have killed 34 international coalition soldiers in 26 incidents. That's "incidents", not "accidents".

Yesterday, two separate gun attacks on NATO troops in south Armpitistan left a total of six soldiers dead. In Helmand, an Afghan civilian employee killed three soldiers, whose nationalities were not given. At about the same time and place, an Afghan police officer shot three US marines after inviting them to dinner.

The earlier killing of two British soldiers in Helmand was also announced on Friday. One of the worst curses you can hurl at a NATO soldier these days is "Go to Helmand!"

Does anyone care? At the moment the West -- led as usual by the Excited States of America -- is preoccupied with Syria. US military strategists are conducting their usual rigorous analysis of the pros and cons of an invasion.

The big question is, can Basher Assad be overthrown (and preferably shot) in time to win re-election for Al O'Bama? Walt says not. (Lifetime pct .986.) But the waste of lives and money in Afghanistan will go on... and on... and on...

Syria: "it's a show about nothing!"

There's a scene near the end of Lawrence of Arabia in which British General Allenby (played by Jack Hawkins) and a British diplomat by the name of Dryden (Claude Rains) looking out a window at the commotion in a city which has just been liberated from the Turks by the Lawrence-led "Arab revolution". Fires are raging, there is no water, and as the characters speak, the lights go out. The city is Damascus, today the capital of Syria.

Although the British are nominally in charge, Allenby explains, the Arabs are running the show, and the city is rapidly descending into chaos.
"What do you propose to do?" asks Dryden.
"Nothing," replies Allenby. "Sometimes in a crisis, nothing is the best thing to do."

Nothing is exactly what the West is doing about what has been described for months now as the "civil war" in Syria. Once again Damascus is being shelled, fires are raging, refugees are streaming out -- the same scene only 94 years later.

The liberals, "progressive thinkers" and believers in the Useless Nations (and the Tooth Fairy) are screaming that Something Must Be Done about that awful Assad. "We" -- meaning the USA -- should attack Syria immediately, they cry, to make Syria and the Middle East safe for democracy, advance the human rights of the oppressed people, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Yes, "everyone" agrees. The leaders of the free world -- President O'Bama, Hellery Clinton, and, errr, others -- make solemn pronouncements and angry denunciations every day, and say that they'd do Something right sharpish, if it weren't for those damned Russkis and Chinks who won't let them do Anything. So, Nothing is what gets done.

Walt is beginning to suspect that inaction is the Prez's secret plan for dealing with the Syrian "crisis". Think about it! This is an election year. In his quest for a totally undeserved second term, President O doesn't want another unpopular and unwinnable war on his record.

On his watch, so far, the US has given up on the Bush war (Iraq), and is backing out of the Obama war (Afghanistan) with indecent haste. As for Libya, America pretty much sat out that little show, and let the Brits and French and Canucks struggle for 90 days to oust a madman who had no air force, and tanks with one speed forward and five in reverse.

Trouble is, all this fighting for democracy, freedom and civilization is costing a fortune! A good chunk of Obama's extraordinary budget deficit is attributable to the cost -- millions of dollars per hour -- of sustaining invasions of sand traps in the Middle East. And let's not forget about the cost in blood and lives.

The Prez and his handlers are anything but dumb. They can see that to embark on a fourth invasion of a Middle Eastern state -- one that would surely put up a better fight than Libya -- would pretty much write finis to the Democrats' campaign.

So... the smart thing to do would seem to be to sit back and wait. This time, let the Arabs sort each other out. Besides, who knows which is the right horse to back? There's a major problem with faulty intelligence about the Syrian government and the rebels. [You might call our intelligence half-Assad. Ed.]

The State Department, if it were capable of telling the truth, would admit that, despite their vast [or half-vast. Ed.] infrastructure of spies and satellites, they really don’t know very much about what goes on in the Middle East or anywhere else. For example, the American invasion of Iraq was based on the belief it had the capacity to unleash chemical and biological terror on the world with its so-called "weapons of mass destruction".

That turned out to be either a mistaken belief or a deliberate deception -- you choose -- yet many countries supported the invasion was based on that belief. So did the majority of the American people... at one time. But that was then and that was Iraq.

This is now, and this is Syria. It seems probable that Syria does have huge stores of poison gas and other deadly chemicals, not to mention fleets of aircraft, tanks and so on supplied by our friends the Russians. It would be insane to expect Assad not to throw everything he's got at any invading forces. So who wants to lead the attack this time?

Walt can almost hear Obama saying discretion is the better part of valour. Better to watch, wait to see how long Assad can hold out, and hope someone or something better will replace him. If that doesn't work, well, the election will be over by the time we find out.