Sean Spicer Reveals That Trump Is Hitler by Denying the Holocaust

Quick! The Alka-Seltzer! 

When Sean Spicer noted that even Hitler had not used chemical weapons against his people, I immediately knew what he was talking about. It is a familiar observation. Poison gas was used by all sides in the First World War. Hitler had stockpiles of it. Yet he allowed Germany to go down to total defeat without ever resorting to using it.

This was probably not for purely humanitarian reasons. The problem might just as well have been that, after the experience of World War 1, England, France, and the US also had their stockpiles of poison gas. Establish the precedent, and it would probably be a wash. Maybe useful once, in one vital, desperate battle, but no more.

There is another theory: that Hitler, having himself been gassed during the First World War, had a visceral aversion to it.

But I am utterly surprised by the public and press reaction to Spicer referring to this: that it was not true, and insensitive, because of the Jews Hitler gassed in the concentration camps.

What Spicer actually said was “We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. Someone as despicable as Hitler ... didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.”

Exactly right. The preceding sentence makes it clear that he was referring to a weapon of war. Even without the specific reference to the war, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or a guillotine may qualify as a weapon, but it is not the sort of thing we usually think of when we use the term. It should not have been necessary to add “in war” in the second sentence to make this clear. If it were, this is a trivial error of clarity in an off-the-cuff spoken statement. We do not normally require precision in such circumstances.

In reaction, the Anne Frank Centre released this statement:








Excuse me, but are they nuts?

 

ISIS Problem Solved

Gurkhas in British service, 1896.

The situation in Iraq and Syria has become a historic humanitarian crisis, on the level of Rwanda or Kampuchea. We must do something. Our posterity will not forgive us if we don't.

Unfortunately, the US is exhausted. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they have no more stomach for war. And the Europeans, after Libya, have lost what little appetite they had.

Once, in the days of empire, such matters were easier. One could send in the colonial troops:

We don't want to fight, but, by jingo, if we do--
We won't go ourselves; we'll send the mild Hindoo.

Indian artillery, Jerusalem, 1917.

Under British or French officers, of course.

This is apparently no longer considered seemly; even though the modern alternative looks much worse.

Still, there is a variant of the old formula that might be called into service.

It may not have escaped notice altogether that the US has an illegal immigration problem. Twelve and a half million, too many, many say, to deport. And Europe is facing a Syrian refugee problem. Germany predicts 850,000 refugees this year alone.

We have our solution, don't we? Give the immigrants in the States a “path to citizenship” by serving a term in the military, and in harm's way, overseas. Give the refugees in Europe rifles, turn them about face, and march them back to Syria in good order under German officers. Since we believe in sexual equality, there is also no reason to limit this requirement to the men.

Yes, it would cost something. But quite possibly less than a continuing and growing flood of refugees, if the present carnage continues.

This is in fact a time-honoured way for immigrant groups to prove their commitment to their new home. The Irish, long mistrusted in Canada (thanks, Fenian raids) proved themselves to their neighbours by enlisting in droves during the First World War, even while their homeland was in revolt. The Japanese of America did the same in the Second, proving their loyalty as their homeland was at war with their adopted home.

In the case of the Syrian refugees, such proof is quite appropriate: we have reason to suspect the presence of Islamist moles. More generally, such required service solves a problem with modern immigration. In the old days, an immigrant had little hope of ever returning home. He lived or died by his own efforts. There was no dual citizenship, and there was no social safety net. He had to commit.

Now, it is too easy for immigrants to be summer patriots, to see Canada, or Germany, as a comfortable hotel. You can milk it, then leave when anything is asked of you.

Requiring national service for immigrating would eliminate this temptation, would it not?

I think I've just killed about three nasty birds with one stone.

Eat depleted uranium, ISIS.

How to Safely Arm the Syrian Rebels

Arab Christians

It now looks as though Obama may lose the vote in Congress authorizing Syrian intervention. If he does, his best option is to arm Syrian rebels.

But here we have a problem: the main Syrian opposition is reputedly closely allied with al Qaeda. How can the US, and other Western countries, ensure that their aid does not end up in the hands of their worst enemies?

The answer is perfectly simple. Arm only the Syrian Christians. Here we have an easily identified group that is guaranteed to be anti-jihadist and pro-Western. They are two million strong—enough to make a difference. And they are currently at greatest risk.

Obama and Syria

It's just hard to take someone seriously as a villain who looks so much like a turtle.

I believe Obama is absolutely right to ask Congress for permission before taking action on Syria. It is the legal requirement, and he needs this kind of political backing in order to take the action that is really needed. He needs to do more than just lob a few missiles. He also needs the backing of the Arab League—which he does not yet have.

If he gets this support, however, he needs to take advantage of this formal mandate to do something substantive. Unless there is a clearly-defined and meaningful military target, firing missiles at Assad while leaving him in power is only likely to enhance his prestige and his position. And the debate has given him ample time to protect any meaningful military targets from such a strike. So this approach seems worse than useless—really an admission of American weakness. Sanctions invariably hurt the poor, not the regime. Even doing something that would topple the Assad regime might be counterproductive from the American perspective: the strongest element of the opposition is Islamist.

Accordingly, if Obama is going to do anything, he has to do the full monty. The only useful alternative is a full-scale invasion to overthrow the government.

No doubt this sounds crazy. The US is stretched financially and militarily and in recession. There is no stomach for more Middle Eastern adventures. Interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged them down for years.

This is one reason why a full invasion is necessary: to prove American resolve. To prove that America cannot be scared off, as the Japanese hoped Pearl Harbor would.

Invading Syria need not be the expensive proposition Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be. Iraq and Afghanistan involved one fundamental and obvious mistake, that need not be repeated: there need be no nation-building. Go in, take out the regime, get out. If you recall, the matter of overthrowing the regime was, in both prior cases, extremely easy. Syria would be easier. It is a smaller piece of land, more accessible from the sea, and it has almost no natural defenses. It is ideal tank country. Moreover, the Syrian military is already fully engaged in fighting the rebels; the use of chemical weapons suggests that their position is desperate already. The US has a strong ally in Turkey, with a long border to the north; and another ally in Jordan, to the south, close to the Syrian capital. One fast pincer movement.

Boots. Ground. Deal with it.

If the US then just pulls out, I see no problem. By going in and taking out a regime easily and efficiently, it automatically ensures that any succeeding regime will be sensitive to US pressures. What it did easily once, it can do easily again.

But if it really must mess around with democratizing and all that, there is a simple solution available here that was not available in Iraq or Afghanistan: let Turkey do it. Turkey is interested these days in extending its influence in the Arab world. Syria was, not so long ago, Turkish/Ottoman territory, so it is a natural sphere of influence. Turkey has the manpower to do it, and the supply problems would be minimal. Turkey is a fellow Muslim country, so it would look less like “western interference.” And Turkey is a functioning democracy.

Can the US afford it? Maybe they don't have to. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have declared against Assad; they are concerned with the fate of the Sunni majority in Syria. Very well—their own militaries are not large, but their contribution can be to help fund the invasion.

Absolutely. No. Natural. Borders.

The result: the Syrian people would be free of a dictator; the next dictator would think long and hard before using chemical weapons; American prestige in the Middle East would be restored, and US concerns would be heeded; Turkish prestige in the Middle East, as a functioning democracy, would be enhanced; Syria would have a decent chance at democracy; and Iran would lose its only ally in the region.

Of course, if Obama loses the vote in Congress, as he is likely to, it’s all off. For now. But he can still do two things. First, arm any factions he can identify in Syria who are genuinely pro-Western, if any. Second, start beating the war drums. It took a long time to build up a coalition and popular opinion against Saddam. This administration has barely begun to do the same against Assad. It was not long ago that Hillary Clinton was characterizing him as “a reformer.”