Shaking The Decison Tree

One of the tools used by political analysts to help navigate and chart the course of political clarity is a device known as ‘Decision Tree.’

There are certain rules for using a Decision Tree, but rather than go into them, we will illustrate how the DT works, using the events of the day as an example.

Do we wish to see an Iran armed with nuclear weapons? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, we do nothing, and move on.

If the answer is no, we do not wish to see Iran with nuclear weapons, we have to ask ourselves another question.

Do we act after Iran has acquired those weapons, or do act prior to Iran acquiring those weapons?

If we decide to wait until Iran has nuclear weapons, we are under no pressure to act.

If we decide that it is better to to act before Iran has nuclear weapons, our time to act is limited. If we decide that it is indeed better to act before Iran acquires nuclear weapons, there are more questions.

How should we deal with Iran- diplomatically or militarily?

European and US diplomatic efforts have a well documented record of failure going back to 1979. For over two decades, diplomats have failed to reach a rapprochement with the Iranian mullahs. There is no reason to believe that will dramatically change in the immediate or even foreseeable future. In fact, diplomacy is becoming less of an option for the Europeans as well.

Given that diplomatic efforts are unlikely to produce results, we have to look at military options- and that means more questions.

Do we need to invade Iran, or will missiles intended to destroy the Iranian weapons program and facilities be enough?

We have no need to invade Iran. Indeed, there is no need to for any American soldier to set foot in that country. Between bunker buster bombs and submarine fired missiles, we can more than make our point. Action against Iran will not resemble the Iran-Iraq war. That of course, brings up another question.

What if the Iranians retaliate?

Of course, that is a real option. In the event the Iranians retaliate, that leadership must understand that we will return with more bunker buster bombs and more missiles- this time, not necessarily targeting nuclear sites. Intelligence can identify and locate where the Iranian leadership might be at any give time. That invites another question.

What if the Iranians retaliate by attacking Israel or American interests?

Chances are, Israel will be attacked by Iran, sooner or later. Under the circumstances, sooner might be better. The Hamas election win has opened up a new door of terror. Hamas and Hizbollah have close ties to Tehran and Damascus. The possibility of Hamas acquiring a WMD is very real. Given the announced threats of Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas- each seeking the destruction of Israel- we have no reason to disbelieve their intentions.

We noted

There is no single example of a leader, anywhere, that threatened Jews or Israel, that did not go out and attempt to implement that evil when given the chance.

 

Further, responsible nations and leaders cannot fall back and claim ‘bluster’ every time they are called on uttering racist, bigoted and hateful remarks. When leaders and nations espouse views that are clearly dysfunctional and out of the normal parameters of civilized behavior, when they use their own government controlled media to propagate hate and other outrages, they must be marginalized. There are consequences for inappropriate behavior, not the least of which is the forfeiture of a seat at the table of civilized nations. Just as Iran and other nations in the region would be outraged at media, school curriculum’s and ‘official’ religious doctrine that repudiated and excoriated their own religious and ethnic identities, so too must they understand they get no free pass if they choose to exercise their hatred and bigotry.

That of course, invites more questions- lots more questions, all which bring us back to the same point: When do we act and how do we act?

Of course, you see where this is going. Vanderluen, of The American Digest is clear and sanguine- his words are a metaphor and lesson for the bigger realities, as he speaks of Hamas and Israel:

This will only be settled, and can only be settled, by war. There’s just too much blood on the ground. The Arab/Israeli conflict isn’t a political or geographical or economic or religious “dispute.” This is a blood feud, pure and simple and brutal. It will end in simple brutality. The side that can be the most brutal the quickest will win.

If the Israelis win, the Palestinians and every Arab state that comes to their aid will have to be reduced to an utter and crushing defeat. If the Palestinians win, the Israelis will simply be slaughtered wherever they can be found. One side is crushed or the other side is annihilated. It is a simple choice, but it is clear we are dealing — as today’s election results underscore — with a simple people.

What will happen here will not look like peace. It will look like, for one side or the other, victory.

We either deal with this or we don’t. We will vanquish or we will be vanquished. If you aren’t sure about that truth, use a Decision Tree of your own.

Many might question the nature of the threat posed by Iran and believe our own intelligence capabilities are compromised. Given that there have been no large caches of WMD’s found in Iraq (which only goes to prove they have not yet been found or have been moved to Syria and/or the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, does not mean those WMD’s do not exist). In fact, the WMD’s estimate was provided by the previous administration and by intelligence communities from around the world.

Does that mean we should ignore global warming because your weather forecaster isn’t always spot on?

 

It Is A Simple Question, Really

What exactly will leftists like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Atrios, Yglesias, et al, fight for? What exactly do leftists believe is worth defending?

After savaging Glenn Reynolds for formulating what is a logical and appropriate response to the beasts in Tehran, these questions become relevant.

We know the left does not believe the Darfurese are worthy enough. We know it wasn’t the millions that were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leonne or East Timor, either, just to name a few places.

The left do not seem to believe Bahai, Copts, Kurds or minorities in China, Russia or Arab nations are worth defending, either. They has stood by for decades as millions upon millions were butchered by one dysfunctional tyrant after another.

The governing regimes in Tehran and Ramallah are no different than the Nazi regime upon which their ideologies and stated intentions are based. They make no secret of their admiration of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, nor do they make secret of their desire to ‘finish what Hitler started.’

The world watched as Mein Kampf became a reality. Had a concerted European effort been made to kill Hitler and the leading members of the Nazi party, 50 million lives would have been spared.

The question remains: With the benefit of hindsight, would the left fight Nazi ideolgies? Or do the policies of the German National Socialist Party trump their evil?

What will the left fight for?

In much of the Muslim world, Iran included, Mein Kampf and Holocaust denial serve as the foundation for the most heinous and ugly of ideologies. It is always interesting to note that those who insist the Holocaust is a lie, are the same people that believe it was a good idea to begin with.

We wrote,

If there were more hate and less love, there would not be the rapes and slaughter in Darfur.

If there were more hate and less love, there would be no real insurgency in Iraq.

If there were more hate and less love, there would be a functioning, peaceful Palestinian state.

Instead, we have none of those things, and in it’s place, we have more death, destruction and heartbreak.

We don’t hate the rapes and slaughter in Darfur enough, and we don’t hate the terrorists who claim they are fighting the ‘occupation’ in Iraq by slaughtering their own (explain that, please). We don’t hate the culture of violence and adoration of butchery in much of the Middle East enough, and as a result, we see the joy and celebration when innocents are killed and whole armies of apologists are quick to blame others for the barbaric and animal-like behavior so evident for us to see…

The fact is, we need more hatred of evil. We need to be outraged at Darfur and the other places like it. We must be so outraged that we must be ready to inflict a pain so great and a punishment so profound, that the evil doers will take note and cease their brutality. There is nothing to discuss about Darfur. There is nothing to discuss about terrorism perpetrated against civilians. If that is a hard concept to accept, close your eyes and imagine it was your wife or daughter in Darfur. Imagine it was your son or husband riding a bus or eating lunch in a restaurant that was to be blown up. There is nothing to discuss about the case for the insurgency in Iraq. That argument was lost when the insurgents started blowing civilians and other innocents, on the streets or at prayer.

The evil doers must tremble in fear from the thought of our hate for them, and at the thought of retribution…

The silence and ugliness on much of the left is thunderous and revolting, indeed.

Levers, Curtains And Chads

The latest Sanity Squad podcast is up.

Yup, we’re talking about Obama, Hillary, Mitt and Rudy, for starters.
Depressing, isn’t it? There are two years to go before Floridians get even more confused (exactly how ‘with it’ are you if you can’t tell the difference between grouper and catfish?). If the GOP wins the election, it will have been ‘stolen,‘ and if the Dems win, it will the ‘voice of the people.‘

American elections really have become that predictable.

So why should you bother to listen to the Sanity Squad podcast?

Simply put, you won’t find a smarter group of bloggers anywhere, that’s why. We make the election goulash and process palatable and decipherable, We give you insight into the players and those being played, the process, the system and the media. We make you smarter.

When it comes to reading the political tea leaves and reading between the (dysfunctional) political lines, no one does it better than Shrinkwrapped, Neo, Dr Sanity and ourselves.

And we’re good looking, too.