Mandela, Churchill and the War for the Future

Mandela, Churchill and the War for the Future

By Patrick J. Buchanan

By their heroes shall you know them.

In his eulogy, President Obama put Nelson Mandela in the company of three other heroes: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln.

What did these men have in common? Three were assassinated, and all four are icons of resistance to white rule over peoples of color.

Lincoln waged the bloodiest war in American history that ended slavery. Gandhi advanced the end of British rule in India. King led the civil rights struggle that buried Jim Crow. Mandela was the leader of the revolution that overthrew apartheid.

Obama’s heroes testify to his belief that the great moral struggle of the age is the struggle for racial equality.

For the neocons, the greatest man was Winston Churchill, because he stood up, almost alone, to the great evil of the age — Nazism.

Thus, to neocons, Munich was the great betrayal because it was there that Neville Chamberlain, rather than defy Hitler, agreed to the return of the Sudeten Germans to German rule. [To the Old Right, Yalta, where Churchill and FDR ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin, a monster as evil and more menacing than Hitler, was the greatest betrayal.]

But what did Churchill think of Obama’s hero Gandhi?

“It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace … to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.”

What did Churchill think of ending Western white rule of peoples of color? Here he is in 1937:

“I do not admit … that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia … by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race … has come in and taken its place.”

Here is Churchill during World War II:

“I have not become the King’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”

In short, Dunkirk defiance aside, Churchill’s convictions about the superiority of some races and civilizations, and their inherent right to rule what Kipling called “the lesser breeds without the law,” was and is the antithesis of what Obama believes.

Any wonder Obama shipped that bust of Churchill that “W” kept in the Oval Office back to the British embassy. Any surprise Obama failed to show up at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, a Churchillian who sent the fleet to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina.

The point: Obama’s vision of an ideal world and Churchill’s are irreconcilable.

Second, not only is Churchill dead, his empire is dead, his world is dead, and his ideas on superior races and civilizations would be censured and censored if spoken in any international forum.

We are in Obama’s world now. It is a world where not only are all races, religions and civilizations equal, but within nations the greater the diversity of races, religions, cultures and ethnic groups the better.

And not only should all have equal rights, but more equal rewards.

Inequality equals injustice. Income inequality is the new enemy.

But though Obama’s world is today, it is looking less like tomorrow.

Across the Middle East and Africa, Islamists are murdering and persecuting Christians as they do not regard Christianity as equal.

Ethnonationalism unites Chinese against Tibetans and Uighurs and propels a confrontation with the Japanese who have never been forgiven for the Rape of Nanking.

Vladimir Putin is in the crosshairs of Western secularists for seeking to revive and restore Orthodox Christianity and its moral precepts to primacy in Russian law, which likely means no Gay Pride parades in Red Square any time soon.

In a Christmas card to this writer, the Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson brings up my late father’s support of Spain’s Gen. Francisco Franco — to reveal the son’s suspect motives.

In a civil war from 1936-1939, Franco ran off a Christophobic regime of Socialists, Stalinists and Trotskyists as their comrades of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion got waxed at Jarama River and ended up on the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations.

Sorry about that, Harold.

Across Europe, globalism and transnationalism, as represented by the eurozone and EU, seem in retreat, as nationalism is resurgent. Now it is the UKIP, a new British independence party, which seeks to secede from the EU that is surging — at the expense of the Tories.

Let France be France! Let Britain be Britain! Let Scotland be Scotland! These are the cries coming from the hearts of Europeans rejecting mass immigration and the cacophonous madness of multiculturalism.

All men may be equal in rights. But most prefer their own faith, country, culture, civilization, and kind. They cherish and wish to maintain their own unique and separate identities. They do not want to disappear into some great amalgam of the New World Order.

Whether globalism or nationalism prevails, the big battle is coming.

Is Iran the Fourth Reich?

Is Iran the Fourth Reich?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In the fall of 1956, Nikita Khrushchev threatened to rain rockets down on London for the British invasion of Suez and sent his tanks into Budapest to drown the Hungarian Revolution in blood.

He blew up the Paris summit in 1960, banged his shoe at the U.N., and warned Americans, “We will bury you!”

He insulted John F. Kennedy in Vienna, built the Berlin Wall, and began secretly to place missiles in Cuba capable of annihilating every city in the Southeast, including Washington.

Those were sobering times and serious enemies.

Yet in the Eisenhower-Kennedy years, living under a nuclear Sword of Damocles unlike any the world had ever known, we Americans were on balance a cool, calm and collected crowd.

How then explain the semi-hysteria and near panic in circles of this city over the possibility President Obama might meet with President Hassan Rouhani and hold negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program?

We hear talk of Hitler in the Rhineland, of a new Munich, of America failing to act as Britain failed to act, until, back to the wall, it had no choice but to fight. The old Churchill quotes are heard once again.

But is the Ayatollah Hitler? Is Rouhani von Ribbentrop? Is Iran the Fourth Reich? Should we be very very afraid?

Iran, we are told, is the most dangerous enemy America faces.

But is this true?

Depending on one’s source, Iran’s economy is 2 to 4 percent of ours. After oil and gas, its big exports appear to be caviar, carpets and pistachio nuts. Inflation is unbridled and Iran’s currency is plummeting.

Here is the New York Times last month:

“Rouhani’s aides describe Iran’s economic situation as the worst in decades. … The signs of woe abound.

“Lacking money, Iran’s national soccer team scrapped a training trip to Portugal. Teachers in Tehran nervously awaited their wages, which were inexplicably delayed by more than a week. Officials warned recently that food and medicine imports have stalled for three weeks because of a lack of foreign currency.”

Should Iran start a war, the sinking of its coastal navy would be a few days’ work for the Fifth Fleet. Its air force of U.S. Phantoms dating to the Shah and few dozen MiGs dating to the early 1990s would provide a turkey shoot for Top Gun applicants.

In 30 days, the United States could destroy its airfields, missile sites and nuclear facilities, and impose an air and naval blockade that would reduce Iran to destitution.

And Iran is not only isolated economically.

She is a Shia nation in a Muslim world 90 percent Sunni, a Persian nation on the edge of a sea of 320 million Arabs. Kurds, Azeris, Arabs and Baluch make up close to half of Iran’s population. War with America could tear Iran apart.

Why then would Tehran want a war — and with a superpower?

Answer: It doesn’t. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has attacked no nation and gone to war once — to defend herself against Saddam Hussein’s aggression that had the backing of the United States.

In that war, the Iranians suffered the worst poison gas attacks since Gamal Abdel Nasser used gas in Yemen and Benito Mussolini used it in Abyssinia. Iran has thus condemned the use of gas in Syria and offered to help get rid of it.

Last year, Iran’s departing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frightened so many, made a simple logical point about Iran’s supposed bomb program:

“Let’s even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?”

Yet, still, the beat goes on. “There is no more time to hold negotiations,” says Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, Iran is only six months from developing an atom bomb.

Yet the New York Times reports Monday, “American intelligence experts believe Iran is still many months if not years away from having such a weapon.” Time to clear this up.

Congress should call James Clapper, head of national intelligence, and pin him down publicly on these questions:

— Has Iran made the decision to build an atom bomb?

— Does Iran even have all the ingredients for a bomb?

— If Iran made a decision to build a bomb would we know about it?

— And how long would it take for Iran to build and test a nuclear device?

Americans were misled, deceived and lied into one war. Let’s not follow the same crowd into another.

Obama is being urged not to meet with Rouhani, as the man has a checkered past. Yet U.S. presidents met three times with Stalin, three with the Butcher of Budapest, once with Chairman Mao.

Compared to these fellows, Hussein Rouhani looks like Ramsey Clark.

Query: If Iran has the scientific and industrial capacity to build a bomb — and all agree it has — what could conceivably be the reason Iran has not yet done so?

Perhaps, just perhaps, Iran doesn’t want the bomb.

Talk to the man, Mr. President.

What 9/11 Wrought: The Bush Legacy

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In Cairo in 1943, when the tide had turned in the war on Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, who had embraced Joseph Stalin as an ally and acceded to his every demand, had a premonition.

Conversing with Harold Macmillan, Churchill blurted:

“Cromwell was a great man, wasn’t he?”

“Yes, sir, a very great man,” Macmillan replied.

“Ah, but he made one terrible mistake,” Churchill continued. “Obsessed in his youth by fear of the power of Spain, he failed to observe the rise of France. Will that be said of me?”

Yes, history will say that of Churchill, who in 1946 delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Mo., to decry Stalin’s persecution of that half of Europe into which Churchill had welcomed the monster.

Of George W. Bush, it will be said that, after 9/11, he led his country on a utopian crusade for democracy in the Muslim world — and all but ignored the rise of a rival with a potential that Stalin never had to surpass and eclipse the United States as first power on earth.

Ten years after, what has 9/11 wrought?

Initially, Bush handled it masterfully. With his nation behind him, in three months, he effected the overthrow of the Taliban who had given sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and had al-Qaida on the run.

Then, full of hubris, the conquering hero went before the Congress to all but declare war on three “axis of evil” nations — Iran, Iraq, North Korea — not one of which had had anything to do with 9/11.

Instantly, Bush split his international and national coalitions. NATO allies Germany and France, who had followed us into Afghanistan, were now “an axis of weasels” to the blustering neoconservatives in Bush’s court.

“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,” brayed Bush — with the terrorist sympathizers presumably including Pope John Paul II, who opposed an American war on Iraq.

And what was Bush’s rationale for war?

Though Iraq had not attacked us and did not threaten us, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could not be trusted not to use them in an attack on an America that could incinerate his family and country in an afternoon.

The U.S. arsenal had deterred Stalin and Mao Zedong, but apparently it could not deter such a monster as Saddam. A second 9/11 with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons was something we had to go to war to prevent.

So, with the indispensable support of a Democratic Senate including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry and Harry Reid, we went to war against Iraq.

After eight years, what are the costs and what are the rewards?

Some 4,400 U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded, a trillion dollars sunk.

Iraqi dead, soldiers and civilians alike in the near-decade of war, must number 100,000, with half a million widows and orphans. Iraqi wounded surely number in the hundreds of thousands.

The Christian community has been destroyed. Half the Iraqi Christians have been uprooted. Half of these have fled into exile, though Christians have lived in Iraq almost since the time of Christ.

Shia Iran, that other axis-of-evil nation, cheered on the U.S. invasion, the dethroning of the Sunni despot Saddam and the rise to power of the repressed Shia. Tehran, against whom Saddam had waged a long war, is now America’s rival for influence over Baghdad.

In the other theater, after 10 years in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have virtually decapitated the al-Qaida leadership.

Downside: It has cost us almost 2,000 dead and thousands more wounded. And as we have decimated al-Qaida, the collateral damage we have done has recruited thousands of fighters for a Taliban that now awaits America’s impending departure to reassume power and do to Afghan collaborators of America what the North Vietnamese and Pol Pot did to collaborators in 1975.

And before we cauterized and cut it out in the subcontinent, the al-Qaida cancer metastasized. It is now in the Arabian Peninsula, Somalia, the Maghreb and “liberated” Libya. And across the Arab and Muslim world, America has never been more detested and reviled.

Politically, early battlefield victories in Afghanistan and Iraq gave Bush’s GOP victories in 2002 and 2004. But the turning of the tide cost the party both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. For the first time, an opponent of an ongoing war, Barack Obama, won the presidency, and over an uber-hawk, John McCain.

Economically, the U.S. share of world gross domestic product has shrunk dramatically in a decade, while China’s share has soared.

We won World War II and the Cold War. We did not win the post-Cold War era now ending. Looking back on the decade since 9/11, one appreciates Edmund Burke’s summary judgment of that generation of British leaders who lost the North American colonies.

“A great empire and little minds go ill together.”

Obama’s Dilemma — and Ours

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Seventy-one years ago this spring, after the German army had broken through the French lines, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill flew to France to consult his embattled allies on how to stop the advance.

“Where is the strategic reserve?” Churchill urgently asked the French commander in chief, Gen. Maurice Gamelin, and then he repeated himself in French: “Ou est la masse de manoeuvre?”

“Aucune,” came Gamelin’s reply. “There is none.”

The French had no reserves to stop the Germans from overrunning their country. The Battle of France was lost.

The Obama administration, in its grand strategy to generate a rapid and strong recovery from the Great Recession, is at a similar pass. It has drawn and played all its cards: the $800 billion stimulus bill, three straight deficits averaging $1.4 trillion, the Federal Reserve‘s mass purchases of bad paper from the world’s banks, and QE2, the monthly purchase of $100 billion in Treasury bills that ends June 30.

Yet, from the numbers that came in from May, Obama looks to be holding a losing hand. The anemic growth of the first quarter of 2011 seems to have stalled, and the prospect of a double-dip recession looms.

Though the administration anticipated perhaps a quarter-million new jobs in May, as April produced, May generated only 55,000. The unemployment rate ticked back up to 9.1 percent.

The rise in manufacturing employment went into reverse. Five thousand manufacturing jobs were lost. Consumer confidence sank.

Today 2 million homes remain vacant in the USA, putting immense downward pressure on housing prices. A fourth of U.S. homes are not worth the mortgages being paid upon them.

Says Federal Reserve Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, “Looking forward, I unfortunately can envision no quick or easy solutions for the problems still afflicting the housing market.” Recovery is going to be a “long, drawn-out process.”

A further decline in housing prices of 10 to 25 percent over the next five years, says Robert Shiller, the economist who invented the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values, “wouldn’t surprise me at all.”

The economic malaise has now begun to affect the mood of the nation and its attitude toward the president.

Almost 90 percent of Americans think the U.S. economy is terrible or poor. Sixty percent think the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Forty-eight percent expect a second Great Depression next year. Fewer than 40 percent approve of Obama’s handling of the U.S. economy.

In one new poll, Mitt Romney leads the president 49-46 in a matchup in 2012.

The question Obama faces and, indeed, Congress and the nation face is: What do we do now?

Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve has signaled that there will be no QE3, no more Fed purchases of $100 billion a month in U.S. government paper. Buyers for that $1.2 trillion a year of U.S. debt will have to be found elsewhere.

And with the economy stagnant or sinking, the Democrats on Capitol Hill are starting to back away from any deep budget cuts, even as Republicans are now even less likely to sign on to any tax increases to reduce the $1.5 billion deficit.

Indeed, if the economy is stalled or sinking into recession, what economic theory is it that argues for austerity and tax hikes?

And the perceived economic stagnation not only diminishes the chance of a bipartisan budget deal but also points to deadlock on the debt ceiling.

Republicans are already holding out for $1 in spending cuts for every dollar increase in the debt ceiling. And the country seems to be behind the GOP position: If the Senate and White House don’t agree to $2 trillion in spending cuts, we don’t raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion.

The U.S. government does not run out of money to pay its bills until August. But markets probably will be making judgments upon the likelihood of a U.S. default well before then.

How did we get here? How did the richest and strongest country in history, triumphant in World War II and the Cold War, approach so soon the condition of the late Spanish and British empires as they began their precipitous declines?

Answer: We overextended ourselves. We bankrupted ourselves.

We undertook the defense of nations all over the world having little to do with our vital national interests. We fought unnecessary wars. We doled out trillions in foreign aid to ingrates, incompetents, opportunists and thieves.

We promised all our seniors Social Security and subsidized medical care for the rest of their lives and failed to put the money away to pay for it. We dropped half of U.S. wage earners off the tax rolls while creating a mammoth welfare state to dwarf anything Norman Thomas and his Socialists dreamed of in the 1930s.

Not only for the United States but also for the West, the days of wine and roses are over.

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 — the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia, India or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world’s war. This is Obama’s war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.

“To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,” said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.

In his Friday ultimatum, he said, “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.”

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi’s compound?

So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out. League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians.” We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the “bombardment of civilians.”

What caused Obama’s about-face from the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya was an unwise act of war?

According to The New York Times, National Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome. No question who wears the pants here.

As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.

The Arab League and African Union are denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For eastern Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S. intervention to prevent “unspeakable atrocities,” security police of Yemen’s President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain’s Shia has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, “If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?”

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans — a few more than have died in Gadhafi’s four-week war.

Good thing we didn’t have an “international community” back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln’s America.

It’s Their War, Not Ours

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Before the United States plunges into a third war in the Middle East, let us think this one through, as we did not the last two.

What would be the purpose of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya? According to advocates, to keep Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to attack civilians.

But if Gadhafi uses tanks to crush the rebellion, as Nikita Khrushchev did in Hungary and the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, would that be OK?

What is the moral distinction between using planes to kill rebels and running over them with tanks? Do we Americans just want to see a fair fight?

To establish a secure no-fly zone, we would have to bomb radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites and airfields, and destroy the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for U.S. pilots.

These would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us.

Where do we get the legal and moral right to do this? Has Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, authorized Barack Obama to attack Libya?

The president may respond to an attack on American territory or U.S. citizens, but Libya has not done that since Lockerbie, more than two decades ago.

Since that atrocity, George W. Bush and Condi Rice welcomed Gadhafi in from the cold, after he paid $10 million in blood money to the families of each of the Lockerbie victims.

What, then, is our present justification for attacking Libya?

The U.N. Security Council has not authorized military action against Libya. No NATO ally has been attacked. Why is Libya not a problem for the Arab League and the African Union, rather than the United States, 5,000 miles away?

Last week, the Senate whistled through a nonbinding resolution urging the creation of a no-fly zone. Call it the Sidra Gulf resolution.

But what are U.S. senators doing issuing blank checks for war eight years after George W. Bush cashed the last one to commit the historic blunder of invading Iraq? Do these people learn at all from history?

That war cost the Republican Party the Congress in 2006 and presidency in 2008. Far worse, it cost the country 40,000 dead and wounded, a trillion dollars, and the respect of hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims who saw the war as an imperial attempt to crush a nation that had done nothing to the United States.

Assume we attack Gadhafi’s air defenses, and in the collateral damage are a dozen children — like those kids collecting sticks on that hillside in Afghanistan — and Al-Jazeera spreads footage of their dismembered bodies across the Middle East, as commentators rail, “The Americans are killing Muslims again, this time for Libya’s oil.” The pro-democracy demonstrations across the Middle East would instantly become anti-American riots.

If we destroy Gadhafi’s air defenses, could we simply let the rebels and regime fight it out? If Libyans, seeing us intervene, rose up against Gadhafi, could we let them be massacred as Bush I let the tens of thousands of Shiites be massacred who rose up in 1991 against Saddam after Bush urged them to do so?

If we attack Libya, we could not let Gadhafi prevail and plot revenge attacks on U.S. airliners. Having wounded the snake, we would have to go in and kill it. And the interventionists know this, and this is what they are all about.

Never strike a king unless you kill him. In for a dime, in for a dollar. If we declare a no-fly zone, we have to attack Libya. And if we attack Libya, an act of war, we have to see that the war is won.

And after that victory, we could not wash our hands and walk away. We would have to ensure the new government was democratic and a model to the Muslim world, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do we really want to adopt another Muslim country?

Don’t start down a road the end of which you cannot see or do not know. There is no vital U.S. interest in whether Gadhafi wins or is deposed. We ought to stay out. This is their war, not ours.

Churchill once said: Take away this pudding, it has no theme.

What is the theme, where is the consistency in U.S. policy?

We backed the dictators Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who were as autocratic as Gadhafi, whom we demand be deposed.

We support the dictator in Yemen, the absolute monarch in Saudi Arabia, the king in Bahrain, the sultan in Oman and the emir in Kuwait, but back pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, though there have been more elections in Iran than in all those other nations put together.

America has taken a terrible beating for what she has done and tried and failed to do in that region for a decade.

Let the “world community” take the lead on this one.

Tell them, this time, the Yanks are not coming.