One of
The Federalist's leading editors, John Daniel Davidson, has written a very sloppy and concerning take on Donald Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, one that sounds like he doesn't think the USA should promote and demand civilized values in the middle east:
Not only did Trump lambast neocon “nation-building” in the region, he more or less vowed never to pursue the kinds of neocon misadventures that spilt American blood and treasure over the past 25 years in the insane pursuit of creating western liberal democracies in the Middle East.
In stark and unmistakable terms, the president reminded the world of the abject failure of decades of neocon and liberal interventionist U.S. foreign policy under both Democrat and Republican leadership. He specifically called out the trillions of U.S. tax dollars wasted in a totally unsuccessful attempt to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into western-style democracies as part of the global war on terror.
“In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Trump said. “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad.”
Ahem. If we take Afghanistan as an example, they didn't even try to do that, and most importantly,
refused to wean the country off of the Islamic religion. How does Mr. Davidson expect there to be any long range peace and quiet if there's a dominant ideology that leads to a boomerang effect, where years later, they can, much like a "sleeper agent", go right back to old and dirty tricks?
In other words, Trump’s vision of American foreign policy isn’t driven by a zeal to remake the world into some version of a liberal western democracy. In Riyadh, he was saying that Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states can just be Islamic monarchies, and as long as they present no threat to American interests, and as long as they promote peace and stability, then we can do business with them.
Well, this is telling something. So it's okay if Islam continues to govern such countries - and additionally chilling, if it ends up dominating Europe and the USA - so long as it supposedly doesn't affect the USA? Also, what's this about a "liberal" western democracy? Why not a conservative western democracy? This has got to be another chilling flaw in Mr. Davidson's argument. Something only somebody who doesn't value foreign lives as much as local ones could possibly write. He later says, very insultingly:
Critics will simply repeat platitudes like we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, or that a world of liberal democracies is in the American interest. Maybe that’s true in theory, but in practice it amounts to a carte blanche to intervene anywhere in the world for any reason. What’s more, no one seriously believes that America has the ability or competence to plant stable democracies in Africa or Asia — or anywhere, for that matter. The reason for this is simple: stable democracies cannot be planted by any outside power, no matter how rich and powerful. They have to grow organically and domestically from the people themselves. We can applaud emergent democracies, we can do business with them, but there is precious little we can do to guarantee them, much less build them in the first place.
And not every nation has to be a democracy. The great lie of the Bush-era war on terror was that all people yearn for freedom and democracy. No they don’t. Some yearn much more for justice, or righteousness, or simply revenge. Some will be hereditary monarchies, or Islamic caliphates, or any number of other things. That’s fine. We shouldn’t be troubled by our differences with other nations, so long as they don’t threaten us. The idea that we could turn Afghanistan into a modern democratic state was perhaps the greatest delusion of the past quarter-century. As Trump said on Tuesday, “I am willing to end past conflicts and forge new partnerships for a better and more stable world, even if our differences may be very profound.”
Ahem. Maybe democracy isn't what every nation need be, but should any nation be a spot where barbarism, misogyny and racism can reign? Absolutely not. And it's unacceptable that any country have totalitarians savaging their own subjects. Similar points can be made about communism. Davidson's argument is defeatist in that it additionally refuses to recognize that indoctrination to evil is another grave wrong that can't go unopposed. And it goes without saying that said indoctrination is what's led to "
honor murders" by Islamofascists. And it's insulting to Americans' intellects to say the USA doesn't have the ability to establish sturdy democracies on continents like Africa and Asia. By that logic, they didn't have what it took to tame Germany and Japan either.
And
Adam Johnston isn't doing much better with his claim the USA shouldn't go to war with Iran, which has some strange descriptions of certain commentary figures:
Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is under fire from neocons after she recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee “that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized [restarting] the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
This caused neoconservative media personality Mark Levin and 2024 GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley to push back on Gabbard, both sharing an op-ed from former John Bolton Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz, who called the intelligence reports referenced by Gabbard “stupid intelligence.”
I can't currently recall Levin ever being described before as a "neocon". Is this some kind of absurd propaganda to undermine those who believe force is the only true way to defeat savage evil? And are the lives of innocent women in Iran persecuted for not dressing in abayas worthless? Well that's what Johnston runs the gauntlet of implying, and that's no improvement over Davidson's approach. Maybe the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but that's only if you fail to get rid of the Islamist indoctrination that since became more prevalent there. Same can be said about Iran. Are we to assume Johnston and Davidson also believe Lebanon should remain in the clutches of the Islamists too?
Yet under the growing influence of the more nationalist and non-interventionist America First movement, this longstanding alliance is beginning to fracture. A new generation of right-wing leaders — figures who are notably more realist and restraint-oriented, and less reflexively pro-Israel, such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Elbridge Colby, and influential media figures like Tucker Carlson — are questioning endless American interventionism in the Middle East and whether U.S. interests are always best served by unconditional support for Israel.
Wow, with this kind of mentality, we'd never have won WW2, let alone WW1. Interesting Carlson comes up in discussion here, because
he's regrettably proven negative to Israel, and that's not good. Also, what's so wrong with being "hawkish"? Does that mean that when a left-winger is "dovish" that's a great thing? Forget it, these propagandists have gone too far, and the Federalist's just proven a most embarrassingly bad publication with this embarrassment.
Now in more news related to Trump's recent Saudi Arabia conference,
Christine Williams has addressed the issue, and points to serious info on what crimes al-Sharaa's organization has done:
A MEMRI article entitled, “Qatar Continues To Finance Terror With U.S. Consent: Will Fund Syria’s New Regime, Led By HTS Terror Organization, Just As It Funded Hamas,” examined the terrorist history of Syrian leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who reverted to his original name Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, to create a false impression that he had changed, even though he remains dedicated to the jihadist cause, ie. to establish the Sharia.
Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) “was established in 2012 by Al-Sharaa (then known as Al-Joulani) at the behest of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who would soon become the founder of ISIS. In 2013 the group became the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria after Al-Joulani broke with Al-Baghdadi and swore allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”
Al-Sharaa’s followers have slaughtered Christians, Alawites and Druze since toppling Al-Assad.
The MEMRI article also exposes the modus operandi of Qatar, “the world’s greatest financer of extremist Islamist elements such as the Muslims Brotherhood and jihadi terror organizations.”
[...] The fall of the al-Assad Syrian regime was bad news for its staunch ally, Iran, which was good news to America and Israel. But like the mujahideen of Afghanistan, Al-Sharaa is no friend to America and Israel, and neither is Qatar. In December, Qatar “rushed to position itself as a pivotal player in shaping Syria’s future” after the fall of al-Assad. Qatar was hand in hand with “its closest regional partner,” Turkey, which was responsible for facilitating and backing al-Sharaa before and after al-Assad’s fall.
Now al-Sharaa is making significant inroads, as his leadership is legitimized by Muslim Brotherhood-supporting Qatar (and Turkey), with new US support to boot.
Seriously, it's very sad and regrettable it's come to this, because not only does it not help Israel, it also does not help any innocent Druze, Kurds and Yazidis in the area. Williams does note though:
One thing for certain is that Trump inherited Joe Biden’s complete betrayal of American interests, both domestically and abroad. Biden left open borders, poured billions into the coffers of Iran, left billions of dollars worth of state-of-the-art military equipment in Afghanistan for free use by the Taliban, and virtually factored America out of the equation of any global influence. Biden left Trump to contend with a nuclear threshold Iran and a turbulent Middle East that saw America under the declining Biden as nothing more than a joke.
It’s also no secret that Qatar has been buying out American campuses, where pro-Hamas, intimidating protests proliferated, with little to no intervention by the campus administration.
The picture looks grim. But one needs to remember that Trump, not Biden, cracked down on campus antisemitism, which was disguised as “free speech” when it was really a promotion of jihad terror against Israel and Jews.
Yes, but that doesn't mean Trump should allow jihadism to gain footholds even abroad. As some conservatives may realize, the day will come when right-wingers will have no choice but to do battle overseas if that's what it takes to ensure future generations of decent folk everywhere will have a future. Let's also consider that Iran may not be the only Islamic regime with nuclear research in store.
Of course, the cautionary tale of the mujahideen in Afghanistan should be remembered. However, considering Trump’s past policies of protecting American borders from the worst criminals and jihadists, as well as his reinstatement of the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries of concern, it makes little sense to assume without further evidence that he would betray America to the jihadist cause. Let’s hope there is a method (and long-term results) to the madness — as appears to be the case even at this point. In the meantime, expect the inevitable media circus as America continues to emerge from disastrous, nightmarish Democrat rule.
Certainly it's important to protect USA borders, and to back Israel, but that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on any innocent souls in Islamic regimes who should be liberated from the Religion of Peace's tyranny. And even communist regimes are a bad omen. Mainly because of how they're more than perfectly willling to do business with the Religion of Peace, and maybe even sell out their countries to Islam in the end. Interestingly enough, Trump's deal with al-Sharaa in Syria doesn't seem to have met any opposition or complaints from the Democrats. Surely that's not telling something?
Then, here's
some more observations about Trump's gamble on Syria:
“Obviously, it is a bit of a gamble,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, told the DCNF. “If you take a look at historical cases in which an entity has been on a terrorist list and then has transitioned towards becoming more acceptable as they become a political party or take over a country, whether it’s the [African National Congress], the [Irish Republican Army], or the [Palestinian Liberation Organization], it’s nevertheless been a process with specific demands and time in order to make sure that this is not just a temporary change of heart.”
What it really is, is taqqiya (deception). And vehement refusal by the PLO to abandon Islam only worsens the matter.
Al-Sharaa has attempted to distance himself from his jihadist past, but HTS still retains the salafist jihadist interpretation of Islam that al-Qaeda espouses, with the latter viewing HTS as traitorous.
Point: if we take the case of Egypt's past autocrat Anwar Sadat as an example, there are jihadists who won't accept that he pulled an act of deception of his own on Israel, and that's how Sadat was slain a few years after the Camp David accords. So it's no surprise if al-Qaeda doesn't accept al-Sharaa's own acts of deception regardless of his intentions. Either way, both al Qaeda and al-Sharaa are bad news, and nobody should have to make a choice between either.
More important information
comes from Dr. Yehuda Balanga:
Last Wednesday, US President Donald Trump met with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (al-Julani). It appears Trump chose to ignore the fact that until that meeting, al-Sharaa had been a wanted terrorist in the eyes of the Americans. Overnight, he became wanted in Washington under very different circumstances. "A young and attractive guy," Trump said of al-Sharaa. "A tough guy with a strong background. A very strong background. A fighter." Notably, the American president failed to mention that this "fighter" he praised led a Sunni Islamist-jihadist organization that persecuted and killed men, women, and children during the Syrian civil war solely because of their religious beliefs or political affiliations. [...]
To date, no Islamist movement that seized power has ever abandoned its ideology. Quite the contrary - every past success has emboldened a wider Islamist surge. This was true in Iran after the 1979 revolution, and again after the Arab Spring, when Islamist movements, many tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, rose to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and now Syria. Given al-Sharaa's past in al-Qaida and Islamic State, a shift in worldview seems unlikely.
See, this is exactly what may be overlooked in this whole concerning development. Do MAGA supports and America Firsters intend to let this go without public comment?
Anyway, after discovering what the above writers/editors for the Federalist were using for apologia, I decided I'd had enough, and the time had come to remove them from my side menu. Even the Daily Caller so far hasn't written anything that foolish, which is amazing considering Carlson was one of their co-founders. The Federalist had turned out some very tasteless, disturbing and divisive op-eds
before, and these latest are only compounding a very embarrassingly bad situation. We could decidedly do without their shoddy "opinions".
