I've been reading a book about the Israeli Mossad, their version of our CIA, titled Gideon's Spies. It tells the behind-the-scenes stories of some of the exploits of that fabled intelligence service, including many of the details about the numerous assassinations they've carried out. They're pretty brutal, for sure. Which begs the question, do the ends ever justify the means? Is assassination ever right / justified?
Let's be clear here: This isn't something that only the Israelis, with their backs to the sea, do to stay alive. James Bond ^, the legendary British MI6 agent does it all the time....I've seen him! The fact is, the British do it, the French do it, the Russians certainly do it, and so do many, many other countries. Including your good 'ol USA.
Our difference is we are rich enough and powerful enough that we can (usually ?) pay others to do our dirty work, enabling us to maintain "plausible deniability". Just like we don't torture terror suspects....but we do send them to Jordan, or Egypt, or Kazakhstan for a pleasant visit with those nice folks.
I remember my mom telling me "two wrongs don't make a right". True, but if one of those wrongs is so heinous, and the consequences will be so catastrophic, THEN would another "wrong" be justified?
Yes, Israel has whacked scientists from Syria and Pakistan and Iran (and probably elsewhere) who were actively working on perfecting nuclear weapons, weaponized germs, etc, weapons those countries have vowed to use to "wipe Israel off the map". And all indications were they weren't just idle threats. Honestly, I can grudgingly understand the Israeli's actions.
To use that same logic, if the US or the UK or France or Germany knew of a dastardly plot about to come to fruition, and if the country harboring the plotters couldn't be trusted to squash it, should we go in and "neutralize" the threat?
And where is that fine line between "yes", and "let's wait and see"? And if "let's wait and see" prevails, what happens if they're wrong and the result is another 9/11? Do those who erred on the side of restraint deserve responsibility for the catastrophe? Would you have the cojones to "wait and see"? And if you were too quick to say "go for it" (think GW Bush vs Iraq), what then?
Let's face it, making leadership decisions is a tough business! (That's why they all leave office with gray hair.)
To you, is this a black and white issue, or is there a big gray area? (Pun intended.)
S
....the Death of Civilization?
According to the currently popular fountain of knowledge (Wikipedia), "The cradle of civilization is a term referring to locations where, according to current archaeological data, civilization is understood to have emerged." There were actually several "cradles", but the first was generally acknowledged to be in Mesopotamia, which roughly corresponds to modern day Iraq and Syria.
It seems to me this area is today more like the world's hell hole. Is there anything good going on there? I'm not seeing it. Will this be where civilization ends? There is obviously an abundance of oil and gas in the region, but little else that the rest of the world seems to have any use for. If it wasn't for that, I think the rest of the world would just as soon let 'em fight it out among themselves.
I believe it was Donald Trump (OK, one point for The Donald) who recently said the world was better off when Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi ruled Iraq and Libya. The people who live there would probably not agree, or maybe they would, I dunno, but at least there was a regional status quo that contained the dysfunction. Now every little sicko guy with a kufi (beanie) thinks he is some sort of Islamic Grand Poo-Bah. The sad part is the poor ignorant masses there seem to believe in and are willing to die for them.
I've been reading a book titled Gideon's Spies by Gordon Thomas..."The Secret History Of The Mossad" (Israel's version of our CIA, only better). It's a good read, and not terribly biased. I've been amazed to learn how many plots and other evil deeds the Israelis have been able to foil. They are brilliant, and yes, cunning, vicious, and devious, too. They have to be....for them it's "do or die".
Despite Israeli's shortcomings, and I'll admit they are numerous, I still believe they are the closest "friends" we have in the region. Of course they play us when it suits their needs, just like we play everyone else when it is in our interest. But still, if anyone can cut the legs out from under Iran and all the rest of the whack jobs there, IMHO it is Israel.
I hope our next President, whoever he/she is, will support Israel. For if we don't, I see the cancer that is Islamic fundamentalism continuing to spread far and wide. To think we can negotiate with and trust these radicals is absurd.
I know this might sound all doom and gloom, but I don't mean for it to. In fact, I'm optimistic that the good guys, led in the region by Israel, will eventually, somehow, prevail. I think the Europeans are rapidly coming around to seeing the light, too. Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it.
OK, skewer me now if you want.
S
