Conservative Liberal

FDR would have been a Republican today.

Iraq victory plan

Originally posted on

 Thanks to Old War Dogs satellite blog, Bill’s Bites, I found these 2 proposals on how to achieve victory in Iraq.

The first one is by Major Eric England, published in the Weekly Standard:

Failure in Iraq is not an option, because it would spell disaster for U.S. national security and foreign policy credibility, not to mention military morale. Our mission in Iraq continues to move forward, and U.S. forces have successfully defeated the insurgents in several areas, yet the enemy has proven resilient and effective. Thus, we must succeed in Iraq by changing the status quo.

The plans for victory so far have fallen short. They have come, top-down, from the Pentagon or the palaces-turned-coalition headquarters in Baghdad. Now, American leaders, especially the nominee for secretary of defense, should consider a bottom-up plan to win that taps the collective grass-roots wisdom of successful battlefield innovators. In particular, there are six course corrections that can be taken almost immediately.

1. Encourage innovation by emphasizing small-scale technological solutions and rejecting peacetime bureaucracy.


Deploying unit commanders, most of whom have already served at least one tour in Iraq, must have direct input into how supplemental funds are invested in new technologies. Technology providers should conduct road shows to earn at least some funding approval and priority from ground commanders.

In Washington, there remains too much focus on massive technological efforts that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to develop, test, and field. Meanwhile, low-cost programs like remote handheld cameras, biometrically-capable, Wi-Fi enabled PDAs, and tethered blimps with mounted cameras are put on the back burner. To inspect suspicious objects that could be roadside bombs, troops have resorted to spending their own money to buy remote-controlled cars with jerry-rigged mounted cameras because the thousands of remotely controlled robots in Iraq are held by specialized bomb disposal units.


2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.

When troops were first preparing to deploy to Iraq, they followed the same checklists that had been used in the Cold War and Gulf War that focused on the conventional military’s core mission: “high-intensity conflict.” Once the invasion was successful, though, the threat facing our troops changed as the insurgency started using ambush tactics, but the training and preparation that our troops receive has not kept pace.

“Train how we fight” is a mantra in the military, and for good reason. Training intensity and realism is the number one predictor for combat success, especially when facing a thinking, adaptive enemy who observes our patterns and exploits perceived vulnerabilities.


3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.

The troops need more support, from both the military and the American people, and the ground commanders must be empowered to lead our national effort to support them. The localized insurgency, coupled with an adaptive, resilient enemy means the troops on the ground best understand how to win. Our support should fulfill their stated needs, not what Congress, the Pentagon–or even the generals in Baghdad–think they ought to need.

We need to expand “commander discretionary funds” to give each battalion commander a large budget, on the order of $3 million, to spend as they see fit both before they deploy and while in country, with appropriate accountability. This would allow commanders to take action that will help the mission, but which bureaucratic practices currently prevent. For example, they could buy video cameras and phones to give to locals so that they can film and report insurgent activity; or hire military-aged males to clean roads and dig trenches that improve security while providing jobs to men who would otherwise be recruited as insurgents. It would also allow ground forces to reward a neighborhood chief with a few electric generators for his support of our mission, or to hand a $20 bill to a local who identifies a bomb that could have killed several soldiers.


4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.

We must have better intelligence on the enemy, especially human intelligence. Our existing intelligence technologies were designed during the Cold War to spy on conventional armies that use bases, have tanks and aircraft, and communicate on identifiable radio frequencies. In Iraq, however, the enemy lives in civilian neighborhoods, drives civilian cars, uses weapons composed of readily available materials, and communicates via civilian mobile phones and the internet.

In a Cold War scenario, the U.S. intelligence community would collect intelligence about enemy activity that would subsequently filter “down” to the maneuver units. Today, however, the case is often reversed. Ground units get the first information about an enemy, often by going on a raid and learning about the individual’s ties to other insurgents. As that intelligence is sent “up,” the national organizations focus collection efforts accordingly.

There are success stories in Iraq where units have provided tactical intelligence to a national organization, then national came back with amplified intelligence that led the unit in a successful operation against more insurgents. This model can and should be applied more broadly.


5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.

U.S. forces need to reduce the predictability of their movements. To do this, generals in Baghdad should stop requiring units to report the number of patrols conducted, and instead focus on effective offensive operations. The current emphasis on gauging unit effectiveness by the quantity of patrols conducted keeps the troops too busy to conduct quality operations that offensively hunt the enemy.

Accordingly, the generals should forbid a common practice that needlessly endangers our troops. “Presence patrols” are a legacy from Bosnia, where many of today’s lieutenant colonel battalion commanders conducted peacekeeping operations as junior officers. Presence patrols involve troops simply driving around to show a military presence that ostensibly deters one side from attacking another.

The problem is that Bosnia is not Iraq, where the enemy just wants to attack U.S. forces, so we end up needlessly giving them opportunities to do so. While some units have stopped using the phrase “presence patrol,” the emphasis on quantity of patrols still results in U.S. forces going out on the roads without a meaningful offensive purpose in mind.


6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.

The government and military must better communicate its message–to both Iraqis and the American public. The hurdles posed by political correctness and self-imposed bureaucratic constraints must be cleared in order to balance the insurgents’ current control of the airwaves. Their “flaming car bomb-a-day” television propaganda campaign has dominated the media debate since late 2004, negating or neutralizing any reports of positive news.


Thus, the Pentagon should abandon its reflexive instinct toward control of information that has led it to seek to ban personal cameras and blogs. Instead, a “unit blogger” approach should be applied across Iraq, with appropriate guidance and training to preserve operational security. Tactical units should each have two members who are trained in public relations and equipped with high-quality cameras and laptops with video editing software, and offered incentives and rewards for effective reporting. They should record unit activities in writing and video, and share them with the American people via sites modeled on wildly successful pro-military websites, such as and


THE U.S. MUST win in Iraq. This can be achieved sooner by making these six key course corrections. The top U.S. Army general recently announced plans to have the same number of troops in Iraq until at least 2010, so there is time to change regardless of what happens in the next congress, and change is urgently needed as public figures show October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq.

The second one is some unnamed officer’s proposal, published in Time Magazine:

1) The Jawbone: Convene a meeting with the most senior members of the U.S. and Iraqi governments to explain that the U.S. is prepared to commit greater forces and resources for a period of one year, ONLY if Iraqis commit to decisive action to quell the insurgency and the civil war (which includes immediately starting to disarm the militias). It will be made crystal clear to Baghdad that without the Iraqi commitment — which will be measured monthly to ensure adherence — U.S. forces would immediately begin their withdrawal. Gen. John Abizaid started to do just that during his meetings in Baghdad this week, speaking more directly to the Iraqi government and asking for a timeline.

2) The Strong Arm: In the short term, have the four military services, the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, prepare plans for a one-year surge in Iraq. Commit to destruction of the insurgent forces in Ramadi, Hit and the other Anbar strongholds… whatever it takes. Reinforce key cities like Baghdad and Basra. The best guess is that this will require 20,000 more U.S. troops on the ground. The U.S. military should rapidly increase the number of U.S. advisors for the Iraqi Security Forces — to some 15,000, up from about 7,000. It should also maintain the covert special operations forces to track, capture and kill high value insurgent targets.

3) The Swagger: President Bush should give a speech to the U.N. in which he calls on other nations to either support the new Iraq or stop providing support and weapons to insurgents and militias; declares that most fundamental goals in Iraq were achieved, but the hope of democracy in Iraq is in the balance and only the Iraqis can determine that outcome; reminds the U.N. that lack of support for the peaceful option — smart sanctions — was doomed to failure when they were undermined by many in the audience; implicitly threatens that if nations contribute to instability and violence in Iraq, they would be considered enemies of the U.S.; warns not to mistake U.S. withdrawal for defeat, stating that any nation that exports violence and terrorism from its borders will find an resolute foe in the U.S., and may have to suffer consequences; and asks for separate meetings with Iranian and Syrian leaders. And while making the above points forcefully, the President should also offer a significant carrot like increased diplomatic and economic contacts with countries like Syria.

4) Send In The Striped-Pants-and Money Set: In the short term, flood Iraq with seasoned U.S. diplomats in a new initiative to work with the Iraqi government and various factions to discover ways to ameliorate the dire conditions and heightened tension. The diplomats who refuse to go would be forced to leave government — three years into the war the State Department has managed to staff only 52% of its positions dealing with Iraq. Recruit and deploy economic managerial expertise from the U.S. government and private sector to find ways to employ Iraqis. In the short term, find ways to increase the availability of dependable power, clean water, fuel, etc. Give the tribal leaders cash incentives to protect Iraq’s oil facilities and pipelines or suffer the consequences.

5) The PR Op: In the short term, overwhelm Iraq with an information campaign that declares that the U.S. will establish no permanent bases in Iraq, and will be out in a year. And make clear that the issue of sustained aid to Iraq will be dependent on their willingness to reconcile differences and quell the insurgency.

There are similarities between these two plans.  One thing I disagree with in the second plan is the suggestion not to keep any bases in Iraq.  We still have our bases in Germany and Japan.  Why should Iraq be different?  In fact, in my opinion, one of the unspoken reasons to go to war in Iraq in the first place was the necessity to establish American military presence in a strategic location in the Middle East.  That became necessary after 9/11.  Now there is trouble brewing in Iran.  We absolutely need bases in Iraq in order to deal with Iran.  Perhaps, if we said that we are going to keep our presence in Iraq in order to deal with Iran, and if we would seal the Iraqi borders, we would reduce the danger out of Iran significantly.

Link to Six Steps to Victory and to One Military Officer’s Aggressive New Plan for Iraq

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Man with Sept 11 links set up flight school | Herald Sun

Originally posted on

I was reading an article on the web, and there was a link to this interesting story on the side: 

US authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta.

Since the plot emerged, Kiribati had asked for Australia’s help to fight terrorism, ABC radio reported today.

The US’  Federal Bureau of Investigations said Wolfgang Bohringer was considered a “person of interest”.

It said Bohringer had close connections with a US flight school used by Atta, who masterminded the plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into key targets in the United States five years ago, the ABC said.

The scary part of this story seems to overlooked by the original author.  Judging by the name of the suspect, he is a German national.  And by that I don’t just mean someone with a German passport, although that would be bad enough.  But this guy also ethnically German.  That means that, in addition to having a European passport, he also looks European.  His passport allows him to travel pretty much anywhere in the world without any visas, and he will never arouse any suspicion.  We heard for a while that Al Qaeda was trying to recruit non-Middle Eastern operatives.  It looks like they might be succeeding.  It would not take too many of those guys to do a lot of damage.

Link to Man with Sept 11 links set up flight school | Herald Sun

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Islamo-fascists are using political correctness to their advantage

Originally posted on

Today I found this lovely story through Little Green Footballs:

Bruce Gilmour filed the complaint after a cab driver from North Shore Taxi refused to let his guide dog into the cab in January of this year. Gilmour, who says it’s not the first time he’s been refused service by a taxicab, is complaining that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability.

But the taxi driver, Behzad Saidy, is arguing his Muslim religious beliefs will not allow him to take dogs in his taxi, because Muslims can’t associate with dogs.

There is a chance that in this case political correctness will be used agaimst islamists.

I have cousins in Vancouver.  I am sure they will be “thrilled” to hear about this.


Link to lgf: Vancouver Shari’a Watch

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

We’re Muslim-Americans – kill us, too | Jerusalem Post

Originally posted on

This is one of the few Muslim voices that does not hide behind the usual excuses:

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks “using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require.”

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

I am not alone. There are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas, and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don’t show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.

I think I heard him on Dennis Prager show.

Link to We’re Muslim-Americans – kill us, too | Jerusalem Post

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rocket attack on Israeli city

Originally posted on

Since MSM is very unlikely to show this, I’ll make a meager attempt to compensate:

For many Israeli the words Color Red and Qassam attacks are part of the news. For Sderot residents, including Tal Braunstein, a media student, this is a daily reality.

On Wednesday she depicted the moment after a Qassam landed in Sderot meters from her room in the student’s dormitories at the Saphir College in the city center.

A 17-year-old boy was seriously injured in the attack. “I heard Color Red and I took the camera instantly. Suddenly I heard a whistle getting louder, and I didn’t imagine that a Qassam would fall so close to me,” he says.

There is a video there.  The sound is in Hebrew, but it is pretty self-explanatory anyway.

Link to Qassam terror on tape – News from Israel, Ynetnews

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WorldNetDaily: War opponents too smug for their own good

Originally posted on

 Here is another great article by Dennis Prager:

In this week’s New York Times Book Review, a historian reviewing a major new work of 20th-century history, Oxford and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson’s “The War of the World,” notes that “Ferguson argues that the Western powers should have gone to war in 1938, which would most likely have avoided much of the horror of World War II. …”

Imagine that. The New York Times publishes a favorable book review of a book arguing that a pre-emptive war in 1938 would have saved tens of millions of lives aside from preventing the Holocaust, “without parallel … the most wicked act in all history.”

You have to wonder if the Times’ editors and all their allies on the left, who have spent the last four years mocking the very notion of pre-emptive war, read this review.

I often make the same argument when I debate the leftists.  They usually don’t have a good answer.

Link to WorldNetDaily: War opponents too smug for their own good

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Netanyahu: It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust – Haaretz – Israel News

Originally posted on

 I found this interesting article through World Net Daily:

“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,” Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. “Believe him and stop him,” the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this.”


Criticizing the international community in his GA speech for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power – “No one cared then and no one seems to care now,” he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel – Netanyahu warned that Tehran’s nuclear and missile program “goes way beyond the destruction of Israel – it is directed to achieve world-wide range. It’s a global program in the service of a mad ideology.”

I am in the good company.  Here is what I wrote for another blog a couple of months ago:

…I think it is … September of 1938. With that cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, a. k. a. “peace in our time”, we have just given away Sudetenland.

I think I’ll just go ahead and post the whole article here:

What year is it?

My calendar shows “2006”, but is it? A month ago I thought that it was September of 1939, and Poland (i. e. Israel) was already in the fight for her life, while England (i. e. USA) was engaging in the Phony War. Back in 1939 the British did not bomb the German factories because they were private property. Isn’t it similar to the way we are trying to avoid civilian casualties now? For that matter, Israelis engage in the Phony War of their own, dropping leaflets before dropping bombs. If they are trying to destroy mobile rocket launchers, doesn’t dropping of leaflets defeat the purpose?

Some people would say that the combat our troops engaged in over in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly phony. The same was true for the combat of the Israeli troops in Lebanon a month ago. Indeed, the combat is very real, but the indecisiveness of both our and Israeli leadership creates a phony war situation.

Now I no longer think that we are in September of 1939. Instead, I think it is one year earlier, September of 1938. With that cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, a. k. a. “peace in our time”, we have just given away Sudetenland.

I finally understand why appeasement and the Phony War happened in the first place. I see it happening right before my eyes. Back in 1938 and 1939 the Western democracies simply did not have a stomach for a fight. They were hoping against all evidence to the contrary that they somehow will avoid the war. The British intellectuals did not see any reason to fight the Nazis. The Left in Britain and France conducted propaganda for the Nazis, even after the war was declared. And in this country there were and still are people who accused the Roosevelt administration in allowing the attack on Pearl-Harbor to happen in order to get America into the war. How eerily similar to the current situation! Many people now refuse to acknowledge the “gathering storm”, as Winston Churchill used to put it, and instead call those who see this gathering storm “war mongers”. Winston Churchill was called that too. Yet few now question his foresight. So, why can’t people see it now? Is it the lack of knowledge and understanding of history? It’s been said that “those who don’t learn from their history are doomed to repeat it”. Certainly with the way history is taught in American public schools, there is a little wonder that we seem to repeat history. My friend’s son told me when he was attending high school that the entire World War 2 period was skipped in their course. Their teacher said that World War 2 did not influence life in America enough to study it. Can you believe that!? Needless to say, that high school was in the ultra-leftist Santa Monica School District that is not in the teaching, but rather in the brain-washing, business.

I keep finding parallels in everything that is happening now to World War 2 and the time immediately prior to it. Truth be told, it is hard to say what role Israel would play. Would it be the role of Poland, taking the first blow, but going down with a hell of a fight? Or would it be the role of Czechoslovakia, the country that was given up and has given up without a fight? It seems that Israel will be a little bit of both. It is the indecisiveness of the Israeli leadership that forced this crazy cease-fire. Similarly, if the Czechoslovakian government had a will to fight in 1938, they would not have given away their territory. What would have happen if they would have told Chamberlain and Daladier: “No, we are going to defend our Sudetenland territory.” What would the Brits and the French do? It is very unlikely that they would have joined the Germans and attacked Czechoslovakia. In the worst case they would just do nothing. So, we always blame Chamberlain for Munich agreement, but somehow forget Czechoslovakian government itself. And what the Czechs did in the spring of 1939 was even worse. They surrendered just because Hitler threatened to bomb Prague. But they did have a pretty good air force for that time. What if Emil Hácha, who succeeded Beneš as the Czechoslovakian President after Munich, told Hitler: “OK, if you bomb Prague, we will bomb Berlin”? Similarly now Israel did not have to accept this cease-fire. Even after they screwed up initially, once they started fighting, they could continue. The world opinion should not have any bearing on their actions: most of the world is anti-Semitic and hates them anyway. As for America, the Left hates them anyway, and among the rest of the country they would gain more support if they would show the willingness to fight and win.

So, if the government of Czechoslovakia did not have enough will to defend their country back in 1938, do Chamberlain and Daladier deserve any blame for what happened? The answer is definitely yes. They, along with the rest of the Western world took seriously Hitler’s claims about abuse of Sudeten Germans by Czechoslovakian authorities. By the way, isn’t it amazing how similar it is to the Western media and many governments taking seriously all the fake allegations about Israeli abuses? The Brits and the French back in 1938 discouraged the Czechs from fighting and encouraged them to give up. The democratically elected Czechoslovakian government was trying to maintain peace and good relationship with their allies – other democracies. They did not want help from the Soviets, who did offer it: there was no telling where the help from Stalin might lead to. So, responsibility of the British and the French governments lies in their influence over the Czechs. Similarly, our government should not discourage the Israelis from fighting. We should be honest and open about our support for Israel, world opinion be damned. We are not gaining any sympathies in “Arab Street” by giving in and getting the Israelis to give in. They just see it as a weakness and use it against us. Why isn’t it obvious to people that negotiating with terrorists creates more terrorism? And now Israelis agreed to Kofi Annan mediating the release of their soldiers. This is obviously a terrible mistake, but we bear partial responsibility for it because we did not openly tell the Olmert’s government: “Look, you do what you have to do, and we’ll back you diplomatically”. Olmert did botch the war by his indecisiveness, but our discouragement did not help either.

So, what does it leave us with? What year is it? 1938 or 1939? I can’t say with certainty. What I can say is that Churchill’s “gathering storm” is upon us once again. It’s impossible to predict where the first blow will strike. Will it be an attack on Israel? Or will they go straight for us? Or, perhaps, will they strike both Israel and us simultaneously? Just like almost 70 years ago, Russia is playing both sides, but this time motivated not by any particular ideology, but strictly by economic interests. Will the Russians be, ironically, “the capitalists that will sell the rope on which they will hang”? Will the Islamo-fascists make a mistake of attacking Russia, pushing it toward our side? There have been enough attacks on Russia by Islamo-fascists, including the Beslan massacre of children, that should have brought the Russians to our side already. But apparently that was not enough. It will probably take a nuke in Moscow or St. Petersburg for the Russian politicians to wake up and realize that their allies are still the same people who were their allies 65 years ago.

What can I do in order to help people wake up? What can I do in order to contribute to victory? I am older now than my grandpa was in 1941. The US military will probably have no use for an out-of-shape 42 year old guy. I hope that whatever I do as an engineer, as well as writing these articles and participating in demonstrations in support of our troops, helps. I hope I can contribute to victory even just a little bit. But now it is still a waiting game. So, I am sitting in front of my computer, surfing the web and asking: “What year is it?”

I am still trying to figure out how to do this bloging thing.  I wanted to post this article somewhere and link to it.  But it does not seem to be possible.  I’ll just create “Articles” category, so all the articles will be there.

Link to Netanyahu: It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust – Haaretz – Israel News

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Articles | Leave a comment

Message to my fellow Jews: Stop looking for enemies among friends.

Originally posted on


I was listening to Dennis Prager, and he mentioned this article in New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.

At a dinner addressed by the Israeli ambassador, a handful of Republican senators and the chairman of the Republican Party, Mr. Hagee read greetings from President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and dispatched the crowd with a message for their representatives in Congress. Tell them “to let Israel do their job” of destroying the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said.

He called the conflict “a battle between good and evil” and said support for Israel was “God’s foreign policy.”

The next day he took the same message to the White House.

Many conservative Christians say they believe that the president’s support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state, which some of them think will play a pivotal role in the second coming. Many on the left, in turn, fear that such theology may influence decisions the administration makes toward Israel and the Middle East.


[Rabbi Yechiel] Eckstein said he had discovered the depth of that [Evangelical] support when he ran television commercials on the Fox News Channel seeking donations. The response, mainly from evangelicals, “burned out the call centers,” Mr. Eckstein said. During the five-week war, his group added 30,000 new donors. Thanks to the influx of money, he said his organization has exceeded its income from the first 10 months of last year by 60 percent, putting it on track to pull in $80 million this year. “The war really generated a momentum,” Mr. Eckstein said.

Evangelicals’ support for Israel, of course, is far from uniform. Mr. Hagee is an author of several books about the interpretation of biblical prophecies. He says he believes the Bible assigns Israel a pivotal role as a harbinger of the second coming. Citing passages from Revelation and Ezekiel, he argues that conflict between Israel and Iran may be a sign that that time is approaching.

Others say they believe more generally that God maintains his Old Testament covenant with the Jewish people and thus commands Christian believers to help protect their “older brothers.”

“My theology indicates that Israel is covenant land,” Dr. Dobson said in an interview.

The lefty New York Times shows its bias even here, talking how “Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon”, but forgetting to mention Hezbollah Katyusha rockets falling on Israeli population centers.  So, in order to fix their bias a little bit, I replaced their link to Hezbollah stories with the one to the Time Magazine photo essay, featuring this lovely photograph:


I call these kids “Hezbo-Jugend”, similarly to Hitler-Jugend.

But back to the Evangelicals.  Let me share a personal story with you.  I have a very good friend whom I met through work.  He happens to be an American of Filipino descent and a very devout Christian.  You might call him an Evangelical.  When we first met, he had in his office a portrait of some Orthodox rabbi on one wall and a clipping of 1948 Los Angeles Times on another.  The LA Times article described how fighter aircraft of newly formed Israeli Air Force chased away Egyptian bombers who were bombing Tel Aviv.  I looked at this obviously oriental-looking guy and asked why he had all that.  He replied that the fact that Israel was restored in 1948 proves to him the existence of G-d, because the Bible predicted it.  He also said that his G-d is the G-d of the Jews and that his Messiah is a Jew.  All these years that I know him he never ever expressed any idea that I should convert, even though I know he would like that.  Jokes like “You don’t keep Kosher anyway, so you might as well become Christian” don’t count.

Thus, here is the message to my fellow Jews in America: Stop looking for anti-Semites on the Right.  There are very few of them left.  Nowadays the anti-Semites are found mostly on the Left.

Link to For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’ – New York Times

December 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment