By Glenn Reynolds | Instapundit
A group of activists gathered at Fountain Square around
noon on Saturday as part of a nationwide protest to rally against a new war in
the Middle East.
Over 70 cities across the country are said to be a part
of the protest, spearheaded by the Answer Coalition. According to their
website, the day of action scheduled for Jan. 4 was in direct response to the
killing of Iranian military leader general Qasem Soleimani.
So massacres by ISIS, or Iranian-backed
militias attacking an American embassy aren’t “violence in
the Middle East,” but the U.S. killing an avowed enemy is. No surprise given
that A.N.S.W.E.R. is, as lefty David Corn reported, a communist front
group.
This was no accident, for the demonstration was
essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that
years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion
of Hungary in 1956.
The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing
private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro‘s regime in Cuba, and it hails
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s ”socialist
system,“ which, according to the party‘s newspaper, has kept North Korea ”from
falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate
to most of the world.“ The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial
declared, ”Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.“
Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration
was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER
is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP
front.
Remember, they’re not “anti-war,” or “anti-violence.” They’re
just on the other side. The Cincinnati Enquirer’s Madeline Mitchell should
have told us a little more about the organizers of this event — I doubt she
would obscure the background of the Ku Klux Klan if it sponsored a rally.
________________
DISPATCHES FROM THE MEMORY HOLE: Iran
proved vital to al Qaeda’s safe passage, according to bin Laden records, 9/11
commission.
By Ed Driscoll | Instapundit
WISE
THOUGHTS FROM A FRIEND ON FACEBOOK, WHO WOULD RATHER NOT BE NAMED HERE:
Following the death of Soleimani, it seems
like nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/forpol commentariat has
penned variations on exactly the same essay: the President has
acted hastily, has no plan, and isn’t capable of envisioning or handling what
happens next. The template was established by Ben Rhodes on Twitter a few hours
after an MQ-9 Reaper shot a Hellfire missile directly into his professional
legacy, and it hasn’t varied much since.
Yet the more we learn — about the deliberations preceding
the strike, about the chain of events leading to it, about the prior and
subsequent moves by CENTCOM to harden the American position in the region — the
more it seems that the President acted with deliberate aforethought, that he
does in fact have a plan, and therefore likely is capable of envisioning and
handling what happens next. That much is only fair, whether or not one agrees
with the decision as such.
What nearly the entire DC / academia / journo
natsec/forpol commentariat actually means by its critique, though, is that they
weren’t included in any of this. Ben Rhodes took the time to rally them
together, get their talking points aligned, illuminate a pathway to social and
professional advancement: that’s their preferred template for Iran-related
policymaking.
Donald Trump’s template for Iran-related
policymaking is the smoking wreckage of a terror mastermind’s vehicle. The
courtiers see it, and want to know what’s in it for them.
Americans see it, and they know.
Indeed they do.
__________________
SEEN ON FACEBOOK
By Glenn Reynolds | Instapundit
DO WE? DO WE REALLY? Byrne
hits Ilhan Omar over Soleimani reaction: ‘We have to wonder what side is she
on?’
ANGELO CODEVILLA: War With Iran? The
United States has preferred toothless sanctions over victory. But sometimes the
right sanctions are deadlier than atom bombs.
Because America is the world’s sine qua non economic
power, U.S. “secondary sanctions”—meaning we will not trade with anyone who
trades with the target country—are potentially deadlier than atom bombs. Trump
added secondary financial sanctions as part of his revocation of Obama’s “Iran
deal,” reducing Iran’s oil sales to a trickle. Compared to that measure of war,
bombing a few ports would have been nothing.
Were the United States to place secondary sanctions on
all manner of goods, especially food, the effect would be far greater than an
invasion by the entire U.S. army. How the Iranian people would deal with the
choice between starving and ending their government’s war on America would be
their business.
I feel sure that Trump has thought this through. Also,
remember: In the old days of pre-fracking, the U.S. Navy had to hold the
Straits of Hormuz open. Now it only has to be able to close them.
SORRY KIDS, DON’T LISTEN TO HIM — YOU’RE GOING TO BE
DRAFTED! Roger
Kimball: An Antidote to the Iran Hysterics. “Trump has always
shown that he prefers diplomacy to military action. At the same time, he
understands, as did Ronald Reagan, that diplomacy only works when it is backed
up by military strength and a willingness to exercise it.”
