Americans Involved in Too Many Foreign Conflicts, New Poll Finds

At The Hill, "The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places." (At Memeorandum.)

And pluralities don't think U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has made us safer. Check the link. For the general public, it's war-weariness that explains this. But on the ideological fringes, the findings will give support to isolationist voices who deplore the forward exercise of American power.

What's interesting about about the survey is there's no mention of President Obama's deployment to Libya. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times had an outstanding piece on outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He's been on record of late saying that the U.S. is a little tired of war, and that the military needs a break. And from the Times' piece:

Gates' concern for the troops is a key part of his legacy as he leaves office.

He has pushed the lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy to turn out new armored vehicles and other equipment to keep soldiers safer in combat and to get them treatment faster when they are wounded.

And he has become a voice of caution and even outright opposition to committing American forces to new wars. Gates publicly questioned the need to join the NATO air war in Libya, arguing that the military already was overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, he has sought to limit the U.S. role.

Gates emphasizes that he would not hesitate to support sending troops to another conflict if national security were threatened, and he favors only "modest" reductions in troop levels in Afghanistan in coming months. That puts him at odds with some in the Obama administration who want to bring U.S. troops out sooner.

But the longer he is in office, Gates said, the "heavier" the burden he bears when he is asked to make decisions that inevitably involve sending more American troops to their deaths.

"I've got a military that's exhausted," he said. "Let's just finish the wars we're in and keep focused on that instead of signing up for other wars of choice."

I think that's a fair statement, and it's especially noteworthy considering President Obama's amateurish and hypocritical rationale for military intervention.

Highlights of F-35 Flight Testing

At NAS Patuxent River, Md., NAS Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, and Edwards AFB, Ca.

Via Theo Spark:

Mavi Marmara Will Not Sail in Second Gaza Flotilla

At Haaretz, "Gaza flotilla organizers disappointed by Turkish group's decision to cancel ship" (via Blazing Cat Fur).

Organizers of the flotilla that is set to sail for the Gaza Strip later this month expressed disappointment over the weekend that the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) will not take an active role in the convoy.

The IHH announced on Friday that the Mavi Marmara ship, on which nine Turkish activists were killed last May when it was intercepted by Israeli commandos on its way to Gaza, will not take part in the upcoming convoy.

RELATED: At Jerusalem Post, "US man seeks to seize flotilla ships using anti-piracy law":

Dr. Alan Bauer, an American- Israeli victim of a Palestinian terrorist attack, on Thursday filed a first of its kind lawsuit in an effort to seize ships to be used by Islamic and anti-Israel organizations to try to breach the blockade of the Gaza Strip later this month.

The suit, Bauer v. The Mavi Marmara, was filed in Manhattan federal court, seeking to confiscate 14 ships, which are scheduled to participate in the upcoming flotilla and which were outfitted with funds Bauer says were unlawfully raised in the United States by anti-Israel groups, including The Free Gaza Movement. Over the weekend, however, the Turkish IHH organization said the Mavi Marmara was still too damaged to sail for Gaza.

The plaintiff, a biologist from the Chicago area, and his son Jonathan, then aged seven, were seriously wounded when Palestinian suicide bomber detonated a bomb, packed with metal spikes and nails, in the center of a crowd of shoppers on King George Street in Jerusalem on March 21, 2002.

Three people were killed and 85 other people were also wounded.

Bauer alleges that The Free Gaza Movement and other American-based anti-Israel organizations have raised funds in the United States to outfit the Gaza flotilla ships. The lawsuit contends that furnishing and outfitting the ships, which are being used for hostilities against a US ally, violates American law.

The plaintiff rests his claim upon the rarely used 18th-century “informant” statute (18 USC Section 962) that allows a plaintiff (called an “informer”) to privately seize ships outfitted in the United States for use against a US ally.

The stature states: “Whoever, within the United States, furnishes, fits out, arms, or attempts to furnish, fit out or arm, any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise, or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace; or Whoever issues or delivers a commission within the United State for any vessel, to the intent that she may be so employed – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

“Every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited, one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States.”

Still more at the link above.

Presidential War Powers

Harry Reid's a blithering idiot. I have no idea how he was ever elected to public office. It's not so much his position on the War Powers Resolution, but that it's at odds with his claim that the public wants the troops home from Afghanistan. Frankly, Americans are weary of overseas commitments altogether, but at least the Afghan deployment enjoyed broad bipartisan support to begin with, back in the day. With Libya, the administration took the easiest route to do something --- anything --- in North Africa and the Middle East amid the wave of revolutions taking place in the "Arab Spring." And there's been little public consensus on major U.S. role in Libya.

This guy sucks:

Unfortunately, a Ron Paul wing in the GOP is joining with the Dennis Kucinich Demo-nuts to push for action on the Resolution. A lot of folks in the right blogosphere have made something out of this as well, and it goes to the lack of vital national interests at stake, and that's understandable. That said, John Yoo's got a new piece up on the Commander-in-Chief's authority on the use of force, "The GOP Plays Politics With the War Powers Resolution," and Yoo's the man:

Congressional Republicans should not try to outdo Mr. Obama in a game of unprincipled one-upmanship. But that's precisely what key GOP leaders have done. Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to the White House accusing Mr. Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution. "The Constitution requires the president to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" he wrote, quoting the president's responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution. "And one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation."

Mr. Boehner's claim ignores the Constitution's fundamental nature as supreme law. As Chief Justice John Marshall declared in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is "a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means," and any act of Congress "contrary to the constitution is not law." If the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to use force abroad, Congress cannot take it away. Surely Mr. Boehner agreed with this proposition before the current president took office. He, for instance, never claimed that President George W. Bush's exercise of broad executive powers in the war on terror violated the Constitution. Nor does he appear to have thought that legislative authorization of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was constitutionally necessary in 2001 and 2002.

Not to be outdone, House Republicans Roscoe Bartlett, Dan Burton, Howard Coble, John Duncan, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones and Ron Paul joined with Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats this week and filed suit in a D.C. federal court seeking to halt U.S. military operations in Libya. They may see themselves as purists, but they are not demonstrating fidelity to the Constitution by launching a legal effort that they know to be utterly futile ....

RTWT.

Added: See Allahpundit's write up on the New York Times' story, "NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers" (via Memeorandum). And check JustOneMinute, "Obama Goes Shopping For Legal Advice." It's the hypocrisy that's stunning.

Suspected Al Qaeda Bomb Package at Pentagon

The threat as been regarded as serious, with some non-explosive materials found.

See John Hayward, "The Pentagon Package Threat." Also, at Gateway Pundit, "Muslim Carrying Bomb Detained Near Pentagon."

Also, at ABC News, "Man With Suspicious Materials Detained Near Pentagon." (At Memeorandum.)

More at CBS News, "Pentagon scare suspect ID'd as Marine reservist."

Candidates Show G.O.P. Less United on Goals of War

At New York Times:

DERRY, N.H. — The hawkish consensus on national security that has dominated Republican foreign policy for the last decade is giving way to a more nuanced view, with some presidential candidates expressing a desire to withdraw from Afghanistan as quickly as possible and suggesting that the United States has overreached in Libya.

The shift, while incremental so far, appears to mark a separation from a post-Sept. 11 posture in which Republicans were largely united in supporting an aggressive use of American power around the world. A new debate over the costs and benefits of deploying the military reflects the length of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difficulty of building functional governments and the financial burden at home in a time of extreme fiscal pressure.

I noticed this, and I wondered a bit about Michele Bachmann on foreign policy. She hardly sounds like a neocon, but I think that's good. We've been in Afghanistan for almost 10 years, and that's hard to sustain politically. Look for a lot of folks to declare victory and advocate a rapid drawdown.

Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants Who Assisted Bin Laden Operation

Via Astute Bloggers, "UNREAL BREAKING NEWS: PAKISTAN ARRESTS CIA'S INFORMANTS WHO AIDED ASSASSINATION OF BINLADEN."

And the link to the New York Times, "Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid."

Over the past several weeks the Pakistani military has been distancing itself from American intelligence and counterterrorism operations against militant groups in Pakistan. This has angered many in Washington who believe that Bin Laden’s death has shaken Al Qaeda and that there is now an opportunity to further weaken the terrorist organization with more raids and armed drone strikes.

But in recent months, dating approximately to when a C.I.A. contractor killed two Pakistanis on a street in the eastern city of Lahore in January, American officials said that Pakistani spies from the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, have been generally unwilling to carry out surveillance operations for the C.I.A. The Pakistanis have also resisted granting visas allowing American intelligence officers to operate in Pakistan, and have threatened to put greater restrictions on the drone flights.

And follow the links for the whole thing.

Canada's Hamas Flotilla

Called the Tahrir, the Canadian Boat to Gaza, of the Freedom Flotilla II.

Also known as the "Sea Hitler" by another name.

Background from Matt Gurney, at National Post, "The return of the NDP's anti-Israel fringe":

It was just over a year ago that Israeli forces went aboard the Mavi Marmara and six other ships that had set sail from Turkey. The vessels were filled with anti-Israel activists and aimed to deliver supplies to Gaza in defiance of Israel's arms blockade of the Hamas-controlled territory. Those aboard the ships were hoping to provoke an Israeli response and, unfortunately, they succeeded. While most of the ships were boarded peacefully, Israeli troops -armed only with light weapons, as they expected no resistance -were attacked when they boarded the Mavi Marmara. The situation escalated rapidly and, having failed to use the appropriate degree of force at the outset, Israeli troops had to use too much at the end. Nine activists were killed and Israel and its blockade were roundly criticized.

A year later, Canadian anti-Israel activists are hoping lightning strikes twice and are planning to sail a vessel from our shores to the Gaza Strip, despite the continuing Israeli military embargo. By forcing a confrontation with the Israelis, they hope to bring yet more international scorn down upon the Jewish state. They have a long list of supporters, including the usual suspects -but also one name that is a bit surprising: Alex Atamanenko, the freshly re-elected NDP MP for B.C. Southern Interior.

Mr. Atamanenko, first elected in 2006, has been quite public with his support of the Gazan cause before. He was quick to condemn Israel for the original flotilla incident. He also criticized its military operations against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip in 2008 and 2009. His endorsement of the Canadian Boat to Gaza is therefore logically consistent, if nothing else.

More at that link above. The NDP is the New Democratic Party, a national socialist party that is currently the official opposition party in the Canadian House of Commnons.

See also Gurney at FrontPage Magazine, "The Canadian Left Backs Upcoming Gaza Flotilla."

Al-Qaeda Still World's Greatest Threat

Political instability bolsters Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, via AEI:

And at Reuters, "Interpol says al Qaeda remains biggest global threat":

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Al Qaeda and groups linked to it remain the world's biggest security threat despite the killing of Osama bin Laden, the head of Interpol said on Tuesday.

Airlines and other forms of public transport are most at risk, with terrorists using fraudulent passports to travel undetected an area of particular concern, Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble told reporters on the sidelines of an aviation meeting in Singapore.

"Even before bin Laden was captured and killed, the biggest threat was not only al Qaeda but al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups around the world," he said "I think that remains the biggest threat now as it was before his death.

"The airline and air industry continues to be a prime target for terrorists, but we've seen from recovered intelligence etc that they are also focusing a lot on mass transit. But airlines continue to be a special target."

More at the link above.

Also, at National Journal, "The Latest in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia."

RELATED: At Telegraph UK, "Online preachers of hate: Anwar al-Awlaki, ‘bin Laden of the internet’."

Protesters Killed at Israeli Border

At New York Times, "Israeli Soldiers Shoot at Protesters on Syrian Border":

JERUSALEM — Israeli forces fired at pro-Palestinian protesters on the Syrian frontier on Sunday as they tried to breach the border for the second time in three weeks, reflecting a new mode of popular struggle and deadly confrontation fueled by turmoil in the Arab world and the vacuum of stalled peace talks.

Wave after wave of protesters, mainly Palestinians from refugee camps in Syria, approached the frontier with the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. Israeli soldiers opened fire on those who crossed a new trench and tried to attack the border fence near the towns of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights and Quneitra in Syria.

By nightfall, the Syrian news agency SANA reported that 22 protesters had been killed and more than 350 had been wounded. Israeli officials said that they had no information on casualties but suggested that the Syrian figures were exaggerated.

Even so, it was the worst bloodshed in the Golan Heights since Israel and Syria fought a war there in 1973.

RTWT.

This is a Damascus production. See, Ynet, "Syrian opposition: Anti-Israel rioters paid $1,000." And Gateway Pundit, "Anti-Israel Protesters Reportedly Paid $1000 to Storm Across Israel Border."

Also, from Rick Moran, at FrontPage Magazine, "Besieging the Israeli Border: A Syrian Production."

Yigal Allon — 'Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders'

The Los Angeles Times has a new essay from Dore Gold, "The long view in Israel against the 1967 line." Recall that Gold is a former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations. I cited his recent commentary piece at Wall Street Journal, "Israel's 1967 Borders Aren't Defensible." At the Times he discusses Yigal Allon's 1976 essay at Foreign Affairs, "Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders." I'm reading it. Here's this from the introduction:

It is impossible to plumb the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to speak of formulating proposals for its solution, if no true understanding exists of the full significance of its cardinal characteristic-the extreme asymmetry of its two sides. This asymmetry is manifest not merely in one or two, but in all, of its aspects. It is obvious in such objective data as the comparison between Arab and Israeli territories (of the Arab League states 8,500,000 square miles; of Israel, including presently administered areas, about 28,500); or of the relative population statistics (of the Arab League states 134,000,000; of Israel 3,500,000 citizens); not to mention their contrasting actual and potential wealth.

But of primary importance are the subjective asymmetric factors affecting relations between the two sides. In this respect, there is absolute polarization. Whereas the Arab states seek to isolate, strangle and erase Israel from the world's map, Israel's aim is simply to live in peace and good relations with all its neighbors.

These diverse objectives have determined the war aims of both sides. It is within this context that we should mention the chain of terrorist acts that was designed not merely to sow death and destruction in Israel but also to extend the conflict, and thus embroil the Arab states in full-scale wars. It is almost superfluous, and certainly tiresome, to quote the legion of statements of Arab leaders that represent this aim, ranging from the "Palestine Covenant" to current governmental declarations.

As opposed to this total Arab goal, Israel's war aims have been confined to repelling the offensives of the Arab armies as determined by strategic and political circumstances, whether by reactive counter-offensives such as those of 1948 and 1973 or by preemptive counter-offensives as those of 1956 and 1967. Military defeats, indeed, cost the Arab states losses in lives, destruction of equipment, political setbacks, and damage to national prestige-and perhaps even danger to their regimes. However, such defeats have never been, nor ever will be, a threat to their very existence as sovereign states or to the lives of their civilian populations. In contrast, a military defeat of Israel would mean the physical extinction of a large part of its population and the political elimination of the Jewish state. In highly realistic and clear terms, therefore, the Arab states can permit themselves a series of military defeats while Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. Nor does this reflect a historical trauma in any sense. To lose a single war is to lose everything, and this is a most real and stark fact.

And about the 1967 borders:

One does not have to be a military expert to easily identify the critical defects of the armistice lines that existed until June 4, 1967. A considerable part of these lines is without any topographical security value; and, of no less importance, the lines fail to provide Israel with the essential minimum of strategic depth. The gravest problem is on the eastern boundary, where the entire width of the coastal plain varies between 10 and 15 miles, where the main centers of Israel's population, including Tel Aviv and its suburbs, are situated, and where the situation of Jerusalem is especially perilous. Within these lines a single successful first strike by the Arab armies would be sufficient to dissect Israel at more than one point, to sever its essential living arteries, and to confront it with dangers that no other state would be prepared to face. The purpose of defensible borders is thus to correct this weakness, to provide Israel with the requisite minimal strategic depth, as well as lines which have topographical strategic significance.

And not quoted is the key issue raised by Dore Gold at the Los Angeles Times: There's never been a final recognition of boundaries. Israel is not now nor has it ever been required to withdraw behind the 1967 armistice lines.

Anyway, check the discussion at LAT. It's perfectly sound, but detailed arguments like this have little effect on those determined to drive the Jews to the sea.

Dozens Killed as Syrian Security Forces Open Fire on Protesters

At Los Angeles Times, "Dozens reported killed as Syrians continue protests":

Thousands of antigovernment protesters marched in Damascus, Homs and other Syrian cities Friday in opposition to President Bashar Assad, chanting, "These are the last days of your season."

Security forces responded by firing on protesters in several cities. Dozens of people were killed, with the toll particularly high in Hama, Syria's fourth-largest city and the site of a bloody crackdown ordered by Assad's father nearly 30 years ago. Snipers reportedly fired from rooftops at thousands of protesters. The reports could not be independently verified because Western journalists are barred from entering the country.

Months after pro-democracy protesters unseated repressive regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, the so-called Arab Spring appears to have turned into a brutal stalemate in Syria. Assad has not been able to crush the protests; demonstrators take to the streets daily but have failed to gain enough popular support to topple him.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed alarm Friday over the violence in Syria, which has reportedly claimed at least 70 lives in the last week, and called for independent and transparent investigations of all the killings. Human rights groups say 1,000 people have been killed in the 11-week uprising.

Analysts say that Syria will play an important role in shaping the legacy of the regional reform movement, and that the opposition has the potential to influence other countries where uprisings also have stalled, such as Bahrain and Yemen.

"Many other countries are watching to see if they achieve regime change," said Mohammed Masri, a researcher at Jordan University's Center for Strategic Studies in Amman. "If they are successful, it could bring new momentum to the Arab Spring."

"There are now two roads," Masri said, "The road of Egypt and Tunisia, and the other, which is a brutal and bloody one."

Also at Instapundit, "SYRIA UPDATE: Tanks Move in on City as Thousands Mourn Protesters’ Deaths."

Britain and France to Share Aircraft Carriers

I think every American should read Tom Clancy's, Carrier: A Guided Tour of an Aircraft Carrier. The ships are the sine qua non of global power projection, and a key indicator of great power status. CSM just reported last month on the increasing prestige of carriers among nations, amid heightened international security demands requiring that kind of operational mobility. See, "Aircraft Carriers Gain Naval Clout." At the clip below is the USS Abraham Lincoln, which I visited in 1999. It's a Nimitz-class carrier. The last carrier from the group is the USS George H.W. Bush, commissioned in 2009. The Navy is moving to the Gerald R. Ford class carrier program, with the first two ships expected to be commissioned in 2015 and 2019. Ten carriers from that groups are expected to be deployed, guaranteeing a global U.S. ocean-going preponderance throughout most of the 21st-century.

I mention this just as news reports indicate that Britain and France are set to share aircraft carriers. See Telegraph UK, "We should share aircraft carrier, say French." I wasn't quite sure what to think of this, so checking around I found this at Reuters, "INTERVIEW-French navy boss sees Libyan military humanitarian aid":

ENTENTE CORDIALE

One area earmarked for cooperation is the use of aircraft carriers. In a sweeping review last year, Britain cut its defence budget of 36.9 billion pounds by 8 percent in real terms up to 2015, scrapping its only aircraft carrier.

While the short distance between coalition bases and Libya means an aircraft carrier is not essential, Forissier said a British carrier would have been useful to reduce air time, boost attacks and relieve the Charles de Gaulle.

Forissier would like the French flagship to return to base to replace older Super Etendard jet fighters with the latest Rafales. If it were forced to continue its operations "it would only begin to have serious problems in the autumn," he said.

A new British carrier, the Queen Elizabeth, due by 2020 will be designed so each country could fly its planes off the other's ship. The aim is to have one carrier at sea at all times.

British crew will learn on the Charles de Gaulle so that the Queen Elizabeth can enter operation once finished. One British watch officer is currently operating on the French vessel.

While similar foreign policy aims made a Franco-British alliance inevitable, national sovereignty remained, he said.

"France needs its aircraft carrier and Britain needs one to carry out its sovereignty as it wishes, but what is important is to make the planes inter-operable so that we can train on either one in periods of maintenance."

Forissier believes the two governments should consider building together a cheaper carrier to be used for training.

"If we both want to have a permanent operating presence then we'll both need two aircraft carriers and I don't think given the financial situation our governments have the means."

While Paris has hardly touched its military budget, Forissier said he was "stunned" by the Royal Navy cuts, at a time when it has had costly operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The Royal Navy, which was always an example for us, is in a tough situation," he said. "It makes me wonder whether we'll also have to go through this in the future."

Part of avoiding that has been the closer cooperation.

"I know in Great Britain you pay tribute to Nelson and here we pay tribute to Napoleon, but really we have good reasons to work together," he said, looking at a painting celebrating a French naval victory over the Royal Navy in 1781.

Now, go check out James Fallows, who suggests we not belittle China's efforts to deploy an aircraft carrier fleet, "Please Read This Article About the Chinese Navy." And whether one agrees with Fallows or not, the key to remember is that at one point Britain's navy was the unrivaled master of the seas. Today the U.S. fills that role. Britain and France are now both struggling to maintain a single operational aircraft carrier, while in the U.S. our outgoing secretary of defense has recommended military downsizing. It all relates in the rise and fall of nations. Quite an interesting set of interrelated developments.

Congressman Allen West: Political Correctness Biggest Threat Facing America Today

At the Heritage Foundation:

Palestinians Ready Major Action Against Israel

Big news from the Middle East.

At Haaretz, "Dress rehearsal: The Palestinians are gearing up for more protests in the wake of their Nakba Day successes."

June is shaping up to be one big dress rehearsal for the tsunami in September. On Sunday, Palestinians will mark the anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War with processions and demonstrations in the territories and along Israel's borders. Toward the end of the month, a new flotilla to Gaza is planned, with the declared aim of breaching the blockade - which in practice has long since been lifted. In the meantime, the Palestinians will continue pressing their initiative for a unilateral declaration of a state come September.

From the Golan Heights to the West Bank, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's suggestion to the Palestinians will continue to resonate: to march en masse to Jerusalem. The idea is to create a popular, nonviolent demonstration along the lines of Tahrir Square, which would leave Israel unable to mount an effective response.

More details, and then:

Without ignoring the plans for Naksa Day, the country's leaders are now primarily concerned with blocking the Gaza flotilla, which is scheduled to depart on June 20. Currently, the plan is to have 15 boats carry about 1,500 Islamic and European left-wing activists who are seeking a bloody clash with the IDF. So far, only four boats have been recruited. Gantz promised the MKs that the IDF would block all attempts to breach the maritime blockade of Gaza, and added the self-evident: that the flotilla is a provocation, not an actual attempt to assist Gaza's residents.

Maj. Gen. (res. ) Giora Eiland, who headed the internal IDF inquiry into last year's flotilla episode, offered an interesting hypothetical proposition this week. If it were possible to get the Turkish government (as opposed to the organizers, who are from the extremist Islamic organization IHH ) to promise to examine the boats in advance, and ensure that they are not carrying weapons, he said, then Israel should consider letting the vessels into Gaza.

Yeah. Weapons.

See Ynet, "IDF has photos of armed flotilla activists" (via Memeorandum) Also at Israel Matzav, "IDF has photos of armed Mavi Marmara terrorists... but won't release them?!?"

RELATED: At CSM, "Israel's navy trains for second major Gaza flotilla."

Obama Challenged on War Powers

He's getting hammered on this, and folks are talking about the introduction of ground troops. And Congress hasn't authorized the deployment? Obama's lame...

See Business Week, "Boehner Offers Libya Resolution Demanding Details on Objectives.." And New York Times, "House Sets Votes on Two Resolutions Critical of U.S. Role in Libyan Conflict":

WASHINGTON — The House will vote Friday on two measures that are strongly critical of President Obama’s decision to maintain an American role in NATO operations in Libya, reflecting increasing disenchantment among elements of both parties about the United States’ involvement in the conflict.

The decision to put the resolutions to a vote came after Republican leaders earlier this week postponed consideration of one of them, which would direct the president to end American’s military involvement in the operations. It was sponsored by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who is one of the most liberal members of the House.

The leadership feared that the Kucinich measure would pass with backing from an unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives, a step they contended would send the wrong message to allies engaged in other conflicts with the United States.

On Thursday, Speaker John A. Boehner took the unusual step of presenting his own resolution to his caucus to be voted on by the full House on Friday, along with the Kucinich measure.

If either or both were to pass, it would represent the most assertive stance by Congress to date on the Libya conflict and highlight the chronic tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the president’s ability to wage war without Congress’s express approval.

Amazing. The deadline for congressional authorization was May 20th. This is an illegal war without legislative action. Even President Bush got approval for Iraq. Boy, that's some change.

Children Are Among Casualties of Syrian Military Raids After Demonstrations

At New York Times.

Also, at Globe and Mail, "How a 13-year-old became a symbol of Syrian revolution."

RELATED: At CNN, "Report: Syrian abuses could be 'crimes against humanity'."

David Horowitz: 'The Totalitarians Within'

At FrontPage Magazine:

On May 11, 2011, I spoke to a student audience at UCLA for about an hour. My speech was video-taped and recorded on audio. Frontpage Magazine posted the video and an edited transcript of the speech. We are now posting an unedited transcript (accessible here) for reasons I will make clear in a moment.

On May 24, the Undergraduate Students Association at UCLA, by a 10-0 vote passed a resolution proposed by the Muslim Students Association declaring that “UCLA is a UC Campus Against Islamophobia.” I don’t mean to suggest that my appearance was the sole trigger of this resolution but it didn’t surprise me to find that among the numerous “Whereas” clauses in which the reasons for the resolution are stated, I am the only individual mentioned, or that it just came two weeks after the “controversy” surrounding my appearance which was really not so much a controversy as a series of one-sided assaults on myself and the College Republicans who invited me. “Islamophobes! Racists!” Call it an opportunity that I presented for the MSA and its supporters to extract concessions from the broader student population and to attempt to reach into their pockets in the process. Since student governments are proving grounds for future politicians, it is also a moment for the rest of us to reflect on what is in store for the country if these university elites can repeat their gains in the world beyond the campus.

Here is how the Muslim Students Association formulated the concept “Islamophobia:”

Islamophobia is defined as ideologies, beliefs, and actions that perpetuate inaccurate and xenophobic views toward the culture and practice of Islam and the personification of its followers, such as being seen as monolithic, seen as a separate and ‘other’ culture that does not share common values, seen as inferior to the West, seen as violent, aggressive, and supportive of terrorism, seen as sexist and oppressive of women, seen as a political ideology used for political advantage, anti Muslim hostility, and exclusionary or discriminatory practices against Muslims from mainstream society;

Please note, “Islamophobia” is manifest in statements about Islam that are “innaccurate” (and by whose standard you might ask); by statements that reflect the view that Islam “does not share common values” (as for example, a belief in the separation of church and state?); by attitudes that regard Islam as “inferorior to the West” “as sexist and oppressive of women” (in other words no more noticing that in sharia-governed countries women are consigned to a second class status that renders them the virtual chattel of males); nor can one entertain the opinion that Islam is a political ideology (as it indubitably is in Iran, Saudia Arabia, Lebanon and Gaza, just to name a few zones where the lines between politics and religion are invisible). In other words no noticing that the “Party of God” (Hezbollah) or the Muslim Brotherhood which is now the most powerful political party in Egypt are actually political. Nor can you link the Islamic beliefs, codified by a warrior named Mohammed who urged his followers to slay infidels and cut off their heads with terrorists who invoke those beliefs when slaying infidels by cutting off their heads.

My recent speech at UCLA is adduced as evidence of the Islamophobia directed against Muslims in this clause:

Whereas, On Wednesday May 11th controversial speaker David Horowitz made false allegations on campus against the Muslim Students Association and the Afrikan Student Union, and further instilled hate against Muslims by stating that “Islam is a sick, sick culture” (5)(6);

Two footnotes are attached to this clause as if there were some actual connection to facts of my appearance at UCLA on May 11. One of the footnotes links to a column by a UCLA Muslim, Asra Ziauddin, which seizes on the “Wall of Lies” that I had written and that College Republicans had erected to counter the slanders of Palestinian Awareness Week at UCLA. Palestine Awareness Week claimed among many similar blatant falsehoods designed to demonize Jews and the Jewish homeland, that Israel is an “apartheid state.” Our response: Israel is not only not an apartheid state, it is the only real democracy in the Middle East. To this Ziauddin countered — “Myth: Israel it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Fact: This democracy only works for Jewish citizens.”

Actual Fact: Israel’s democracy works for 1.4 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens as well. To prove his fallacious point Ziauddin writes: “Six million Palestinian refugees have not been granted the right of return.” I don’t for a moment believe that Ziauddin’s invented figure “six million” is a coincidence, but there is no such right of return except in the minds of Palestinian revanchists.

RTWT at the link.

It's a tough battle, but truth prevails.

Samantha Power: 'Interventionista!'

The woman is repulsive.

The National Interest piece, by Jacob Heilbrunn, is here: "Samantha and Her Subjects."

And Peter Berger has a critical review at The American Interest: "Samantha and the Lone Sheriff."

Heilbrunn criticizes Power on a number of counts—for being selective in her choices of outrageous atrocities (no mention in the book of the genocidal actions of Stalin and Mao), for giving undue respect to endorsement of interventions by the United Nations, for painting too rosy a picture of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Brazilian diplomat murdered while on a UN mission in Iraq (he is the subject of another book by Power, Chasing the Flame, 2008). But he criticizes her mainly for “providing an ideological smokescreen for the use of American military power in dubious circumstances”. Heilbrunn savors the irony of Power having opposed George W. Bush’s intervention in Iraq and now justifying Obama’s in Libya. In defending the latter action, she (as well as Obama himself) sounds very much like Bush defending the invasion of Iraq. She insists on an important difference: Bush, though he tried, failed to get a UN endorsement; Obama acted with such an endorsement, thus seemingly in accord with the liberal creed of “multilateralism”.

RELATED: See a more friendly albeit obstreperous interventionista: GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD.

Henry Kissinger Interview at Time

An extremely interesting discussion. Kissinger's in the news for his new book on China, but the interview is wide ranging. And there's video. Time's Belinda Luscombe asks Kissinger, "Is the U.S. not a member of the International Criminal Court because former Secretaries of State like yourself might face prosecution?", and the transcript is strangely truncated:

The reason we are not a member of the international court is that the work is left to prosecutors who are drawn from a variety of countries who very often cannot understand what the issues are. I do not favor the International Criminal Court, but not even remotely out of fear for myself.

At the video clip, Kissinger indicates that the ICC has "started a process where some American officials are reluctant to travel abroad for fear that somebody will launch some sort of indictment against them ..." Yeah, and Israeli officials as well. In 2009 a British court issued an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, former Israeli foreign minister, to stand trial on war crimes charges. It's "lawfare" against the international systems' great power and their allies.