Kevin Rudd Escalating his Political Dilettantism

By Con George-Kotzabasis

In our times when rogue states bristling in their apocalyptic beards, like Iran, could produce stealthily nuclear weapons, to set up an International Commission for nuclear disarmament, as Prime Minister Rudd proposes to do, is the ultimate stupidity that any one could suggest. And in the aftermath of 9/11, the magnitude of such stupidity takes astronomical dimensions. Just imagine that countries such as America, Britain, France, and especially, Israel, which could be the targets of a nuclear attack by an Islamist state or by proxies of the latter, would even consider their nuclear disarmament.

Rudd’s proposal limpidly illustrates that Australia does not have a statesman at the helm but a political dilettante and a populist to boot who is more concerned to ingratiate himself with the celestial wishes of its liberal minded constituency than to deal with geopolitical realities.

Moreover, what is rather surprising and amusing is to see that Gareth Evans is willing to underwrite such political buffoonery by accepting the chair of the International Commission for nuclear disarmament. It seems that his Tasmanian “Biggles” days are not over.

Your opinion…

Obama’s Plan for Withdrawal Replaces Living Victorious Strategy with Dead Strategy

By Con George-Kotzabasis

 Obama is no leader but a pretender! The sentence in the first paragraph of his Op-Ed in the NT on July 14, 2008, says it all. “The phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated,” which he trumpeted before the surge, he continues to consider as being wise in conditions when the surge has been successful in subduing the insurgency and decisively defeating al Qaeda in Iraq (his goal), and the Iraqi government meeting 15 out of the 18 benchmarks set up by Congress.

Further, he fabricates a grand fiction when he states that “nearly every threat we face-has grown.” If this was true one would have expected that America would have been attacked at least once since 9/11. And he distorts the real goal of the surge which was to win the war, and inevitably that would involve some strain in the overall number of U.S. military forces, and not because, the reason why he opposed the surge, it would not ease “the strain on our military.” Did Obama expect to win a war without perforce some strain on the military?

Obama’s op-ed is redolent with hypocrisy and cant to justify his pro-surge position, and to transpose this position in the new situation of a victorious war in Iraq as continuing to be politically and strategically viable is laughable. It is no less than the attempt of someone to resuscitate a dead carcass which unceremoniously is fit for burial and to give it a ‘second life’ in the overwhelming liveliness of victory.

Obama’s plan for withdrawal rides on the ignorant and obtuse brain-wave of populism that is against the war justified to an extent by the initial mistakes of its strategists in the conduct of the war. But now that these mistakes have been addressed and corrected by the new strategy of the surge which is defeating the insurgency, for Obama to stick to his populist promise to pull out U.S. troops from Iraq within two years in this new situation, is to lead from the tail and not from the front the American people.

And in American history Obama, if he ever became president,  will be everlastingly cursed for being the only Commander-in-Chief who ignominiously and doltishly withdrew his magnificent brave soldiers from a war at the threshold of its victory. Can you imagine President Lincoln after the Battle of Gettysburg ordering General Ulysses Grant to withdraw his troops from the field of battle and stop pursuing the army of Robert Lee whose ultimate defeat, at astronomical cost of men and materiel on both sides, led to the end of the civil war? Obama is making a mockery of the great tradition of wise, intrepid American presidents. He was wrong in his prediction that the surge would fail, wrong in his assessment that Iraq is not presently the frontline of global terror and al Qaeda, and wrong in his strategy to pull out U.S. troops from a war that the latter are winning. On this score alone, he does not deserve to be the Commander-in-Chief of a Great Nation.

Over to you


A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

Defusing the fear of terror

By Dan Gardner

The Age May 3, 2008

The Canadian journalist and author Dan Gardner amasses a truckload of statistics to make his case that the “fear of terror” cannot be grounded on reality. He uses accidentally caused fatalities such as people suffocated in bed, electrocuted, drowned in swimming pools, and killed by the police, all of them in bigger numbers than those killed by terrorists per annum, to “trump” the deliberate fatalities caused by terror. Further, in a farcical twist to boost his argument, Gardner provides statistics that show that by most accounts a nuclear detonation in an urban area would kill up to 100,000 people and says that this “death toll … is not much more than the number of Americans killed each year by diabetes”. He ends his article by saying that “in terms of numbers of lives lost, a nuclear terrorist attack would hardly be the apocalypse”.

Gardner completely disregards the distinction between fatalities caused by accident or by disease that are relative to the size of populations and their movements and can be scientifically measured and calculated, and of fatalities arising from the deliberate actions of terrorists that are absolute and are related only to the malice and fanaticism, which are immeasurable and unfathomable, of the holy warriors of Islam. Hence the only thing that obviates the surpassing of the numbers of people killed by accident by those killed by terrorists is the up till now inability of the latter to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and nuclear ones. Once however they acquire them they will use them with glee against the infidels of the West and the Great Satan America in an everlasting serial apocalyptic mode and hence fulfill the orders of their God.

Our author further claims that “building a nuclear device…presents Herculean challenges for terrorists and indeed even for states”. But this claim might be tenable only in the present state of technological development and the contemporaneous possibilities that run parallel to such development. But with the ever accelerating technology of our times new possibilities are unleashed at an exponential rate. What is a challenge today becomes a fulfilled goal tomorrow. And since Gardner correctly states that “probability is always important in dealing with risks”, a responsible government has to calculate the probability of how close the terrorist are to this “tomorrow”.

Western governments with historical insight, depth in sagacity, and unshakable resolution have to prevent by all means at their disposal the fanatical suicidal warriors of Islam to let fly a “confetti” of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear bombs over the metropolises of the civilized world. No “diabetic” bombs can even approach, least of all surpass, the magnitude of such confetti of destruction. But Dan Gardner does not “know thy enemy”.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now