This article is cross-posted at LisaGraas.com

When Nixon went to China in 1972, I was a very impressionable and inquisitive five-year-old who was captivated by the news reports about the leader of our country visiting this distant and fascinating land. Understanding that America and China had long experienced tension with each other, and alienation, Nixon’s visit had as great an impact on me as the moon landing had for children three years previously. Because the China visit was all I knew of him, Henry Kissinger, the man with the German accent who had facilitated the trip on behalf of our country was, to me, as marvelous as many schoolchildren deemed the astronauts of Apollo 11 to be. So it is that I did feel quite honored to receive an advance copy of Kissinger’s new book “On China“, a thorough overview of China’s relationship with the world from ancient times through today based on Henry Kissinger’s studies of Chinese history and his personal experiences in fifty visits to the country.

Though Kissinger was something of a hero to me all those years ago, that was then. This is now. Today, the world seems smaller geographically, but even larger in its difficulties, some of which may or may not be attributed to the diplomatic mechanisms of Henry Kissinger. Certainly, Kissinger left a large footprint in the area of American foreign policy, particularly in our dealings with China. That is precisely why his book is such an important contribution to the study of history. Certainly, it is a book that should be read by anyone who desires to have a good understanding of China’s place in the world, regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Kissinger.

One of the most important things I learned from the book was the insight given on how the people of China have viewed their nation and its place in the world over the centuries. We are certainly remiss if we do not take into account their points of view as we continue to engage in the important task of contributing to peace and stability in the world. Kissinger, however, is an icon of Realpolitik, and this shows through not only in how he handled relations with China, but also in how he wrote the book. It lacks condemnations of evil, but thankfully, also lacks support for evil. The thoroughly amoral nature of the book left me feeling very uncomfortable at times. Treating things like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion and Mao’s intent to destroy all things Confucian (not to mention his disregard for human life) as mere data for our consideration of how things were, as if they had no moral dimension, was rather shocking to me. An exchange between President Gerald Ford, Chairman Mao, and Henry Kissinger, left me utterly bewildered as it indicated to me that Mao — who ruled by terror and murdered millions — was more interested in God than Kissinger was.

MAO: Your Secretary of State has been interfering in my internal affairs.

FORD: Tell me about it.

MAO: He does not allow me to go and meet God. He even tells me to disobey the order that God has given to me. God has sent me an invitation,yet he [Kissinger] says, don’t go.

KISSINGER: That would be too powerful a combination if he went there.

MAO: He is an atheist [Kissinger]. He is opposed to God. And he is also undermining my relations with God. He is a very ferocious man and I have no other recourse than to obey his orders.

In regard to readibility, the book is a quick read in places and laborious in others. Kissinger does a good job of leaving nothing unsaid when it comes to the cold, hard facts of China’s history of foreign policy, and the book flows easily from topic to topic, with short chapters packed with information. I have no doubt that “On China“ will be widely considered as one of the most important books on foreign policy ever written.

For more reviews of this book, visit TLC Book Tours.

This article is cross-posted at LisaGraas.com

Democrats were understandably thrilled that it was their guy, Barack Obama, who finally nailed Osama bin Laden, who has for the past decade been as elusive as he was hated. But just how much of a political boon is the victory for the president? That’s the question asked today by the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, who sees it as a major shift away from the Democrats’ dovish image:

But now, the killing of Osama bin Laden is changing this equation dramatically. Alleged Muslim Barack Obama did in two and a half years what Bush couldn’t do in seven and a half. It wasn’t just the result. The nature of the operation is still breathtaking, weeks later, and the risk Obama took, which he conveyed with masterful cool in his 60 Minutes interview, is mind-blowing (imagine if bin Laden hadn’t been there!). You can call the president who oversaw the operation many things, but weak isn’t one of them.

To talk as if there were two separate hunts for bin Laden is an astoundingly dishonest oversimplification. The truth is that American intelligence officials spent years following the key intelligence trail:

Some time after Sept. 11, detainees held by the U.S. told interrogators about a man believed to work as a courier for bin Laden, senior administration officials said. The man was described by detainees as a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and “one of the few Al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin laden.”

Initially, intelligence officials only had the man’s nickname, but they discovered his real name four years ago.

Two years ago, intelligence officials began to identify areas of Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated, and the great security precautions the two men took aroused U.S. suspicions.

Last August, intelligence officials tracked the men to their residence in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a relatively wealthy town 35 miles north of Islamabad where many retired military officers live […]

President Obama was made aware of the compound when it was discovered last year. By mid-February, the intelligence was solid and since mid-March, Obama led five meetings with the National Security Council regarding the issue.

Intelligence officials worked with the U.S. military to plan the operation and a small team accepted the risk and began to train for it.

On April 29, this past Friday, Obama gave the final go ahead.

The extent of Obama’s role in the operation was essentially allowing the work that began under Bush to continue, and giving the final OK once we were ready to move in. Granted, that final decision was an important one for which Obama deserves credit, but let’s not pretend he masterminded the whole thing, or that the choice was anything other than a political no-brainer—considering how much heat Bill Clinton took for letting bin Laden get away before September 11, it’s hard to imagine that most presidents would dare risk going down in history as the one who let him get away after 9/11.

Watching some Republicans’ first stabs at responding to the event was both sad and hilarious. Some were gracious (even Dick Cheney), but the propaganda machine and its envoys cranked out the usual bluster. They tried the this-proves-that-torture-works argument, pinned to a slender reed involving a man named Abu Faraj al-Libi, but the known facts don’t support the contention that torture played a major role. Then Bush administration torture-policy architect John Yoo played against type by asserting that it was cowardly to kill bin Laden rather than taking him alive. Things finally reached self-parody when Andrew Card of the Bush White House (the one that declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq roughly 4,200 fatalities ago) snarked that Obama was pounding his chest too much.

No doubt there are some Republican partisans who’ve been nitpicking for political expediency, but Tomasky also belittles serious points, particularly regarding the effectiveness of harsh interrogation tactics. As former attorney general Michael Mukasey writes, waterboarding helped break Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

KSM disclosed the nickname — al Kuwaiti — along with a wealth of other information, some of which was used to stop terror plots then in progress.  He did so after refusing to answer questions and, when asked if further plots were afoot, said that his interrogators would eventually find out. Another detainee, captured in Iraq, disclosed that al Kuwaiti was a trusted operative of KSM’s successor, abu Faraj al-Libbi. When al-Libbi went so far as to deny even knowing the man, his importance became obvious.

The substance of Obama’s role in the Abbottabad raid aside, the politics aren’t such a slam-dunk either. A fair amount of voters were swayed at first, and Obama will be able to carry this superficially appealing talking point with him into the election, but whatever bounce he got in the polls seems to have disappeared. And as Tomasky notes, Obama is still vulnerable on other aspects of foreign policy, including his handling of our relationship with Israel, our continued presence in Libya, and the prospect of cutting defense spending.

Unlike the relatively easy call of ordering Osama bin Laden’s death, there is no bipartisan consensus on any of these issues, and they all require the president to make far more complex—and more consequential—value judgments. If the American people recognize the difference, Obama will still have a fight on his hands next year.

Ron Paul’s descent into self-parody continues. Earlier this week, the newly official presidential candidate offered his unique take on the mission that killed Osama bin Laden:

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

Asked by WHO Radio’s Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it “absolutely was not necessary.”

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters in to London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

Actually, there are conflicting reports about the possibility that the United States did have Pakistan’s permission to get bin Laden on our own if we got a bead on him. Now, your guess is as good as mine as to who’s telling the truth, but something tells me that getting the details straight wouldn’t change Paul’s opinion. Either way, one wonders if Paul has ever stopped to consider the fact that bin Laden spent six years in a sizeable compound built in a town dominated by the Pakistani Army, and wonder how that little detail could have possibly escaped the Pakistanis’ notice.

Ed Morrissey succinctly explains what should be obvious to a veteran congressman who’s been active in foreign policy debates for years:

For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate.  MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India.  Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound.  The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.

Paul also implies that it would have been preferable to take bin Laden alive. While a live bin Laden could conceivably have been a valuable intelligence source, our experience with how to prosecute Zacarias Moussaoui and Khalid Sheik Mohammed suggest that the question of how to try the terror kingpin would have been an even bigger circus. Nor is the fact that we killed him worth losing sleep over morally—serving lethal justice to the planet’s worst evildoers sends a message to the world about what we will and won’t tolerate. And whether or not he was armed when the SEALs took him down is irrelevant; would we really want our soldiers to have risked the possibility that bin Laden had been wearing a bomb vest, or had booby-trapped the room?

Lastly, I’d like to draw Paulestinians’ attention to the bit about respect for “world law and international law” (we can skip the “rule of law” at home for now, since we already know he doesn’t respect that). I’ll be the first to agree that America shouldn’t simply disregard foreign laws whenever we’d like, but the extreme degree to which Paul takes it here goes way beyond responsible caution and into blind, unconditional deference, without regard for practical necessity or whether or not a particular nation is a good-faith actor. This brand of “non-interventionism” is hardly the sort of prudence championed by true conservatives and libertarians; it’s an internationalist submission of the United States’ interests and foreign policy to the interests of friend and foe alike, and as such is much more at home on the Left.

If that’s what you’re looking for in a presidential candidate, that’s one thing. But can we please dispense with the nonsense that Ron Paul is some sort of infallible arbiter of “true” conservatism?

Most of the nation is still celebrating the elimination of Osama bin Laden, the monster behind one of the worst days in American history. Some are relieved bin Laden can no longer aid the jihadist cause; others take pleasure in knowing the suffering he caused us has been partially repaid.

But at least one voice is having none of it. At the Huffington Post, “specialist in transformational change” (whatever that means) Dr. Pamela Gerloff writes that celebrating bin Laden’s death is mentally unhealthy and geopolitically dangerous:

“Celebrating” the killing of any member of our species–for example, by chanting USA! USA! and singing The Star Spangled Banner outside the White House or jubilantly demonstrating in the streets–is a violation of human dignity. Regardless of the perceived degree of “good” or “evil” in any of us, we are all, each of us, human. To celebrate the killing of a life, any life, is a failure to honor life’s inherent sanctity.

Plenty of people will argue that Osama Bin Laden did not respect the sanctity of others’ lives. To that I would ask, “What relevance does that have to our own actions?” One aspect of being human is our ability to choose our own behavior; more specifically, our capacity to return good for evil, love for hate, dignity for indignity. While Osama Bin Laden was widely considered to be the personification of evil, he was nonetheless a human being. A more peaceable response to his killing would be to mourn the many tragedies that led up to his violent death and the thousands of violent deaths that occurred in the attempt to eliminate him from the face of the Earth; and to feel compassion for anyone who, because of their role in the military or government, American or otherwise, has had to play a role in killing another. This kind of compassion can be cultivated, as practitioners of many different spiritual traditions will attest […]

It is hard not to think that some of the impulse to celebrate “justice being done” may also contain a certain pleasure in revenge–not just “closure” but “getting even.” The world is not safer with Osama Bin Laden’s violent demise (threat levels are going up, not down); evil has not been finally removed from the Earth; the War on Terror goes on–so any celebration must be tempered with the sobering fact that much work still needs to be done to establish peace.

There’s a lot to unpack here, most of it awful. But first, for the sake of fairness and decency one fair point must be acknowledged: If we truly recognize the intrinsic worth of all human life, we have to recognize that even the worst among us have souls, warped and polluted though they may be, and be careful not to think casually of any killing—even just and necessary killing, as bin Laden’s death clearly was. Now, I’d be lying if I told you I haven’t found some satisfaction in the confidence that Osama now knows the afterlife isn’t quite what he expected, but I also have to admit those thoughts don’t live up to the standard my Savior has set for me.

So we shouldn’t take pleasure in exacting bloody vengeance, but there is another aspect to the celebration that is entirely appropriate. As I survey the reactions of friends, acquaintances, and pundits, it seems to me bloodlust is not the primary animating force of their celebration. Justice is. People are celebrating the fact that an act of tremendous evil has been punished, ensuring that bin Laden will never again threaten the United States and sending a clear message to our surviving enemies: hurt us, and we’ll find you, no matter where on earth you go, no matter how long it takes. And when we do, you won’t like what comes next.

Celebrating the destruction and punishment of evil is not only a proper impulse in a free society it’s a necessary one. Quite simply, a society that does not strongly embrace and venerate the punishment of evil is a society that is incapable of survival.

Gerloff’s failure to understand this is bad, but it’s not what makes her piece one of the most disgustingly immoral things I’ve read in recent memory. No, that would be the moral equivalence between America and the jihadists who want us dead. “Good” and “evil” are placed in scare quotes. We’re told a better response would be to “feel compassion” for anyone involved in any military or government who “has had to play a role in killing another,” as if a drone strike on a terrorist hideout and detonating yourself in a crowded subway are equally tragic. And then there’s this:

The truth is that “celebrating justice” when one person is killed–as happens regularly in the gang wars of American cities–only incites further desire for revenge, which, from “the other side’s” viewpoint, is usually called “justice.”

Consider this: If a leader in our country were killed in the manner in which Osama Bin Laden was killed, as “justice” for his acts of aggression in the War on Terror–and supporters of that act were shown proudly chanting their country’s name, singing their national anthem, and demonstrating in the streets–Americans would likely feel more sickened than joyful, wouldn’t you think? The impulse to celebrate a death depends on what side you’re on.

It doesn’t matter how little you think of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or any American leader. It doesn’t matter how much you disagree with US military operations in Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, or Afghanistan. There is no comparison between any of our leaders or actions and those of al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah. “The other side” might say their cause is justice and ours is revenge, and some might even believe it. But reality is what it is regardless of “viewpoints.” Those who seek to kill and dominate infidels are the bad guys, and the ones trying to stop them are the good guys.

Period.

If the rest of the country were so foolish as to believe that the key to peace with monsters is quashing the celebration of monsters’ deaths, the ensuing suffering would be staggering. However unhealthy the “psychology of revenge” may be, it pales in comparison to the poison that is the neurosis of moral equivalency.

We knew this was coming. No American victory in this day and age, not even the long-overdue death of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, is safe from political hijacking by the useful idiots of the Left.  Within hours of hearing the good news, left-wing Daily Beast flunky Peter Beinart took to the keyboard to declare that the War on Terror is finally over.

Wow, what a relief! So that means Iran’s nuclear program is kaput? Er, no. Well, maybe it means the UN Security Council has stopped playing nice with Middle Eastern thug regimes. Wait, that didn’t happen, either. I know – peace between Israel and the Palestinians is finally in sight! Nope, try again. Um, then maybe anti-American sentiment among Muslim populations is waning? Uh-uh.

If none of that’s the case, then what does Beinart mean?

I don’t mean that there is no threat of further jihadist attack. In the short term, the threat may even rise. I don’t mean that we should abandon all efforts at tracking terrorist cells. Of course not. But the war on terror was a way of seeing the world, explicitly modeled on World War II and the Cold War. It suggested that the struggle against “radical Islam” or “Islamofascism” or “Islamic terrorism” should be the overarching goal of American foreign policy, the prism through which we see the world […] It made East Asia an afterthought during a critical period in China’s rise; it allowed all manner of dictators to sell their repression in Washington, just as they had during the Cold War; it facilitated America’s descent into torture; it wildly exaggerated the ideological appeal of a jihadist-Salafist movement whose vision of society most Muslims find revolting.

Bin Laden’s death is an opportunity to lay the war on terror to rest as well. Although President Obama avoids the phrase, its assumptions still drive our war in Afghanistan, a crushingly expensive adventure in nation building in a desperately poor country whose powerful neighbor wants us to fail. Those assumptions fuel anti-Muslim racism in the United States, where large swaths of the Republican Party have decided they are at risk of living under Sharia law. And they blind us to the differences among Islamist movements, allowing Glenn Beck and company to depict Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as al Qaeda’s farm team.

Instead, we can now take on real problems, like debt and China. Because Barack Obama has been such a crusader on those issues so far.

I’m struggling to decide what the most contemptible part of this screed is. Is it the insane implication that Obama taking one problem less seriously will lead to him taking the others more seriously, despite his manifest unseriousness towards both? The way he relies on his own past smears of conservatives as Islamophobes to prop up his latest thesis? Where he casually says, oh by the way, the Cold War was no big deal either?

I don’t know what the sleaziest element is, but it’s easy to see which one is the most dangerous:

The war on terror is over; Al Qaeda lost.

This has perhaps been no greater point of contention between hawks and doves since the September 11 attacks: is the War on Terror simply an effort to destroy the terrorist organization under whose banner 9/11 was carried out, or is it a larger struggle against the broader ideological movement of which al Qaeda was but one part?

I hate to break it to you, but despite the loss of their leader, al Qaeda has by no means been neutered, and either way, they’re far from the only Islamofascist game in town. Extremists have won a string of governments throughout the Middle East, and in particular, NRB’s Moshe Phillips notes that Hamas is still kicking. Indeed, learning where bin Laden was hiding—right under the noses of our Pakistani “allies”—should be enough to illustrate why it’s a bit early to herald a new era of U.S.-Mideast relations.

Then again, it’s not as if any of the above would change Peter Beinart’s mind—recall that according to him, the War on Terror has never been a war. Whether Osama bin Laden’s relaxing in a compound or sleeping with the fishes means nothing to him; he’d be saying it’s time to pack up regardless. In that sense, his entire column is a farce—bin Laden’s death is just the latest pretext of seriousness he’s using to whine, “are we there yet?”

Editor’s Note: Diane Schrader attended the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s West Coast retreat earlier this month and will be filing several reports on the various speakers and panels. This is the fourth; the third, on stealth jihad, can be read here; the second, Separation of Mosque and State, is here; the first, Dennis Prager’s comments on how God’s doing, is here.

My first post from the David Horowitz retreat poked a little fun at Obama thinking he’s God. Nah, he (probably) doesn’t think he’s God. He does, however, seem to think that America is his personal empire. This approach to government was of course a hot topic at the retreat, as speaker after speaker unpacked the dismal failures of the Obama administration. At the top of everyone’s agenda? How to end his “reign.”

There was plenty of disagreement – not as much about particular candidates as about overall strategy. Author Ralph Peters offered the most divergent viewpoints – for instance, opining that President Obama’s Libya strategy should be given a chance and is not all bad. Nevertheless, calling Obama a second rate man of first rate charisma, he offered advice about nominating a candidate – urging conservatives to stop administering “litmus tests” and to purge the phrase “RINO” from their vocabulary. This advice stood in sharp contrast to that offered by Congressman Tom McClintock, who reminded conservatives of the dangers of RINOs and said “we win when we act like us.”

Author Mickey Kaus counseled a populist approach for Republicans, marrying the fight against public unions with a fight against “Wall Street interests.” Mr. Kaus is wrong on that one – the Wall Street issue is complex and not currently in the public eye. Republicans do need to frame the debate on public sector unions to highlight how it’s a battle for the (true) working man – the one who has to work till he’s 70 to support his government worker neighbor who gets a bigger paycheck and retires at 50.

Another perspective was offered by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who, while disavowing the corruption of his own party, cautioned Republicans against acting stupid. Referring to the 2010 elections and recent events, he said he’s “never seen a party win so big and cave so fast.” Caddell reminded GOP strategists that they should hit Obama where he is vulnerable – the incompetence of his explanation for Libya, for example (Victor Davis Hanson, in referring to the Obama Doctrine, said “there is none!”).

While confessing a fondness for the straight talk of a Chris Christie, Caddell emphasized that at this point Republicans should be standing firm on the issues they consider important, and letting the potential candidates emerge from that process. Caddell also issued a pointed warning to the GOP: “The American people and the Tea Party are not to be mocked.” I agree – and point out that if Tea Partiers feel mocked, things are going to get ugly for many Republicans (as rhetoric surrounding this week’s budget deal made crystal clear).

Virtually everyone agreed throughout the weekend that “it’s the economy, stupid”… but that terror concerns are also growing. Potential presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann told attendees that President Reagan’s success stemmed from his emphasis on these twin pillars of prosperity and national security.

Speaking of national security, pollster John McLaughlin noted that concern over external threats is bigger now that at any time since the Cold War. These concerns were vividly brought to life by James Carafano of the Heritage Institute, who screened the movie “33 Minutes” – which refers to the time it would take a ballistic missile to reach our shores from any number of hostile nations currently attempting to build nuclear weapons. The movie is a powerful argument in favor of a solid missile defense program – something Obama has allowed to lapse.

On another front, law professor John Eastman discussed the President’s unconstitutional penchant for ignoring the legislative process and forcing his agenda via executive order, creating more and more unaccountable government bureaucracies. Eastman also noted that Obama is ignoring the non-delegation doctrine in allowing, in some cases, private agencies (of a leftist bent) to in effect run federal agencies.

Obama’s insane job-killing agenda was unpacked in detail. Finance experts David Newton and Ben Horowitz (yes, that’s David’s son) outlined the oh-so-simple path to economic recovery: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations, and expand domestic oil. In other words, pretty much the polar opposite of everything Obama stands for.

As for the 2012 race, there was some discussion among attendees as to whether Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain would be an attractive choice – a black Republican vs. a (half) black Democrat. Racial issues were not, however, much of a factor in weekend discussions – although well-known investment strategist Charles Payne did note that Obama has certainly failed to bring us together. He pointed to “serious divisions fanned by the highest office in the country,” the politics of envy, and the misplaced sense of entitlement engendered in young people, particularly those in recognized victim groups. As a black child, he was involved in programs, ostensibly aimed at reducing poverty, that “tell you every day that ‘they’ don’t like you, that you’re a victim.”

Again, while most speakers were taking a wait-and-see approach about specific Republican candidates (many names were not mentioned at all over the weekend’s many panels) – the discussion of disastrous Obama policy, including incoherent approaches to China and Israel, underscored why he’s “got to go.” Making that a reality will take courage – something shown by Paul Ryan when he unveiled his budget plan that of course took on the “sacred cow” of entitlements. Although some conference attendees expressed concern over alienating voters with this type of action, Congressman Ed Royce said that’s exactly why GOP legislators were elected – and they can’t wait till 2012 to take action. That principled approach should help Republicans, not hurt them, if conservatives can get out the message that they’re helping all working people by ensuring the entire system doesn’t collapse under its own weight.

On the Daily Beast, Leslie Gelb, Assistant Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, has an analysis of the situation which liberals eager to give Obama cover might find useful: the neocons made him do it!

Neocons and liberal interventionists stampeded Obama into imposing a no-fly zone against Libya—despite the absence of vital U.S. interests there […]

The manufactured crisis in Libya is a prime case in point. No foreign states have vital interests at stake in Libya. Events in this rather odd and isolated land have little bearing on the rest of the tumultuous Mideast region. Also not to be dismissed, there are far, far worse humanitarian horrors elsewhere. Yet, U.S. neoconservatives and liberal humanitarian interventionists have trapped another U.S. president into acting as if the opposite were true.

Obama’s been “trapped” into ordering airstrikes? How?

Once this terrible duo starts tossing out words like “slaughter” and “genocide,” the media goes crazy. Then, the chorus begins to sing of heartless inaction by the U.S. president, blaming him for the deaths. White House common sense crumbles into insanity. The reason why neither President Obama nor his coalition partners in Britain and France can state a coherent goal for Libya is that none of them have any central interest in the outcome there. It is only when a nation has a clear vital interest that it can state a clear objective for war. They’ve all simply been carried away by their own rhetoric.

The drama usually starts when leaders and thinkers are seduced by the feeling they must do good. Sometimes, they essentially ignore the killings, even as deaths climb into the hundreds of thousands, as in Rwanda and millions as in Congo. Other times, the deaths number in the hundreds or so, as in Libya—and the guy doing the killing is someone they have good reason to dislike, and so they want to do good and stop him. It was just so with the irresistible trio of Senators—John McCain, John Kerry, and Lindsey Graham—and with their counterparts in foreign-policy land.

And just like that, interventionists insist there’s “no time to deliberate,” and the president helplessly complies with their calls to arms.

There are a couple problems with this theory, though. First, polls show that, on the whole, Americans approve of the action now that we’re in it, but their support is far from overwhelming. On Capitol Hill and among the Tea Party, the battle lines are similarly muddied, with politicians of Obama’s own party blasting him for intervening while his sworn enemies in the Tea Party are more open to the idea. So if Obama really thought getting involved was a bad move for the United States, there’s certainly enough political cover for him to withstand interventionist condemnation for staying out.

Second, and more importantly, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. The Commander in Chief. It’s ultimately his decision whether or not to commit the US military to action, not the talking heads. It doesn’t matter how many people are screaming for action; if you don’t think it’s in the nation’s best interests, you don’t do it. President George W. Bush caught a lot of flak for calling himself “the decider,” but he was right: if a president lacks the fortitude to make tough decisions based on his own best judgment, then he’s unfit for the office.

Though there’s much to condemn in Barack Obama’s handling our role in Libya so far, there are credible defenses of his core policy. What Leslie Gelb proposes is not one of them. You simply cannot suggest that a president has sent American servicemen into battle against his wishes while maintaining that he deserves to stay in the White House.

President Obama’s actions involving Libya have been baffling at best. He did nothing for days. He talked about waiting to build a coalition for multilateral action. He downplayed the concept of regime change, yet one of the main objectives for engaging has been to get rid of Colonel Qaddafi. It’s been a strange couple of weeks for Obama in terms of his foreign policy, and there still hasn’t been a clear explanation for what we’re doing in Libya and why we’re doing it.

Much of the motivation behind Obama’s Libya policy stems from from the ideology of Samantha Power, the Irish-American, hard-Left humanitarian activist who has been the president’s Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council since 2009 (and, incidentally, the wife of Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein). Power is the woman behind the curtain in terms of Obama’s policy on Libya, but a look at what she advocates reveals a troubling agenda.

Power has advocated a foreign policy that can easily be described as what Stanley Kurtz calls “humanitarian interventionist.” Power and other activists like her seek to build American foreign policy around merely stepping into situations in the name of preventing genocide and other humanitarian aims. This type of foreign policy relies heavily on international law and multilateralism. It is also the reason behind Obama’s actions in Libya and the timing of them. As Kurtz states:

Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displace Qaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it. But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that’s staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law. That requires a “pure” case of intervention on humanitarian grounds. Power’s agenda would explain why Obama acted when he acted, and why the public rationale for action has not included regime change.

Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted. If Obama were a different sort of president, we would have all heard about “responsibility to protect” long ago. The country would have thoroughly debated Power’s ideas, and the public would have quickly recognized the core motives of the president’s actions in Libya.

While this type of foreign policy agenda might in some small way make sense to some people in a situation like the one in Libya, it is absolutely dangerous as the basis for an entire foreign policy. You see, Samantha Power and her supporters have Israel in their sights as a target for American military intervention on humanitarian grounds. Witness this exchange in an interview Power gave with Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 2002:

In another interview five years later, Power stated that we in the United States brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because of our relationship with Israel, and she noted that that relationship:

…has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics…

In the eyes of activists like Power, we are chained to a genocidal power by aligning with Israel.

Next: Why is this woman advising the president?…

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is in Israel right now, which for some reason is perplexing to some in the chattering class back home. Taking the most cynical approach, Newsweek Jerusalem bureau chief Dan Ephron takes to the Daily Beast to explore what Palin might stand to gain politically from the visit:

For the former Alaska governor, the trip offers a chance to distinguish herself as more pro-Israel than other American politicians and, perhaps, to make amends for her “blood libel” gaffe in January that angered many Jews. Palin has already pointed out that President Obama has yet to visit Israel during more than two years in office. At a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she was expected to distance herself from the position of some fellow Tea Partiers—chiefly Congressman Rand Paul—in favor of cutting aid to Israel.

Leftists and left-wing groups which claim to speak for Jews complained about the “blood libel” nonsense at the time, but a.) that doesn’t necessarily translate to “many Jews,” and b.) I doubt Palin took that line of attack too seriously, considering the frequency with which both sides have used the term in the past. Attempting to compare favorably to Obama’s inattentiveness (and worse) to Israel is more likely, as is the idea that she’s distancing herself from Paul’s stances on that front, especially considering that she supported him.

After pointing out that left-wing tendencies among American Jews make Palin’s trip unlikely to win over many Jewish voters, Ephron suggests that Palin is really targeting a different constituency:

The evangelical community in America numbers tens of millions and votes overwhelmingly Republican. One of its arms, a John Hagee group called Christians United for Israel (also known by its acronym CUFI), now claims to be the biggest pro-Israel organization in America, larger even than AIPAC.

Ephron also speculates that Palin may be attempting to “burnish her famously weak foreign policy credentials,” or to attract donations from wealthy Jewish conservatives. None of this can be discounted, of course—all politicians are self-interested actors to some degree, of course. But allow me to suggest that a less cynical alternative.

Palin has reportedly told her guides that Israel tends to be too apologetic in the face of international criticism, and will dine tonight with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Supporters have previously noted that signs of her pro-Israel sentiments, such as a small Israeli flag in her gubernatorial office, predate her entry into national politics.

It may be that the primary message of Palin’s trip isn’t for anyone in this country at all, and that its goal is something more than political gain—that she wants to reassure the people of Israel that, in a world which has largely abandoned their nation to the wolves, there remain Americans who still value the friendship between our nations and understand that we must stand together against our common foe. That may not change “her 2012 game,” but doing the right thing does do wonders for the conscience.

I think the Right is at a crucial crossroads. If we have too many more moments like these, conservatives will be known for what we can’t agree on more than what we can. I believe it’s time for the Right to rally around certain issues and unite. There’s too much that true conservatives can unite around, and that’s what this list is about.

I’d like to make one note here: in this post I’m avoiding certain social issues for one particular reason. While there are plenty of conservatives who are passionate about abortion, traditional marriage, and several other issues, we often have to walk on eggshells when dealing with such issues. My intention is for this post to be a rallying cry, rather than a flashpoint for further debate, so I’m staying clear of some of these potentially more contentious issues. With that said, here we go.

We’ll start with one of the more timely issues…

I think the Right is at a crucial crossroads. If we have too many more moments like these, conservatives will be known for what we can’t agree on more than what we can. I believe it’s time for the Right to rally around certain issues and unite. There’s too much that true conservatives can unite around, and that’s what this list is about.

I’d like to make one note here: in this post I’m avoiding certain social issues for one particular reason. While there are plenty of conservatives who are passionate about abortion, traditional marriage, and several other issues, we often have to walk on eggshells when dealing with such issues. My intention is for this post to be a rallying cry, rather than a flashpoint for further debate, so I’m staying clear of some of these potentially more contentious issues. With that said, here we go.

We’ll start with one of the more timely issues…

The Web site of Foreign Policy magazine is one of the more outstanding clearinghouses for all things foreign affairs. But their attraction to counterintuitive articles and dedication to offering a fresh perspective on issues occasionally results in the publication of an outlandish piece of journalism.

It’s not subversive to be subversive for the sake of being subversive.

Patrick Seale, the British writer, takes to ForeignPolicy.com to offer the loony theory that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is responsible for the lack of peace, and what’s needed is more Arab war against Israel.

An honest reading of Middle East history shows that peace with Egypt only came when the Egyptian leadership accepted that they could not use force to dislodge the Jews from their midst. When Israel demonstrated that it could not be wiped off the map by Egypt, a peace deal became not only possible, but the logical next step. When war failed, good sense prevailed.

Indeed, the same could be said of Israel’s peace with Jordan—significantly warmer, actually, than its peace with Egypt. And while Syria certainly has allied itself with the advocates of war and destruction in the Middle East, once Israel took away Egypt and Jordan as Syria’s war patrons, and prevented Syria from taking the high ground of the Golan Heights from which to shell Israeli civilians, there has been at the very least a lack of open ground war between the two.

In fact, in 2004, Ariel Sharon opened up trade between the Druze of the Golan and Syria. Israelis there were now not only allowed to export their apples to Damascus, but the Israeli government gave them an export subsidy for each ton sent to Syria. That season is here again, and for the next few weeks, 12,000 tons of apples per day will be trucked into Syria.

And the elements in Lebanon that are hostile to Israel are those controlled by Iran—Hezbollah.

In other words, Israel’s comparative military strength has encouraged peace with its neighbors. It’s been decades since the Arabs and Jews of the Middle East were subjected to the misery of all-out war, thanks to those peace treaties.

Seale takes the opposite approach, arguing that the peace treaty with Egypt has not brought stability:

“Instead, the treaty opened the way for Israeli invasions, occupations and massacres in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, for strikes against Iraqi and Syrian nuclear sites, for brazen threats against Iran, for the 44-year occupation of the West Bank and the cruel blockade of Gaza, and for the pursuit of a ‘Greater Israel’ agenda by fanatical Jewish settlers and religious nationalists.”

Yes, he really wrote that.

So let’s help him, point by point. His claim about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to root out terrorism emanating from the PLO’s base there in the early 1980s assumes that without the peace treaty, Egypt would have stepped in and started another regional war to defend the PLO in southern Lebanon. This is bunk. As noted by scholars of the PLO and its history, outside of Egypt, such as in the Gaza Strip, “Palestinian organizing efforts had from the outset been closely monitored by Egyptian intelligence and sharply curtailed.” Egypt would never have defended the expansion of the organization’s power and influence. What’s more, Hezbollah’s participation in the anti-Israel war in southern Lebanon at the time would have sealed the deal; Egypt considers the Iranian client a threat, and would never have joined forces with it against Israel.

This also answers his claim that the peace treaty allowed Israel to “make brazen threats against Iran.” As we learned from WikiLeaks (though we knew long before that) the Arab states—including Egypt—have been pleading for American involvement to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and have even agreed to let Israel use their airspace in order to launch an attack on the Iranian sites. Seale’s claim is what—that Egypt would go to war with Israel to defend Iran’s honor? Quite clearly among the more preposterous claims made about the Middle East since the peace treaty.

Has the peace treaty with Egypt, as Seale claims, allowed Israel to “occupy” the West Bank and blockade the Gaza Strip? If the answer is yes, that means he believes Egypt would go to war with Israel over the West Bank. Since Egypt has never done so—despite the several wars it has initiated with Israel over the years before the treaty—we can safely bet Egypt would not start now. And the suggestion that it’s the peace treaty that enables Israel to blockade Gaza is risible, since Egypt also blockades Gaza—and in fact the blockade couldn’t possibly be effective without Egypt. (Seale has access to maps, right?)

Seale then says that the peace treaty with Egypt encourages Israel’s settlement expansion. That’s an interesting theory—but unfortunately for Seale the peace treaty with Egypt actually came after Israel agreed to uproot its Jews from the entire Sinai Peninsula and give the whole thing back to Egypt. That is, I believe, the opposite of settlement expansion. (Speaking of which, if Seale proposes to end the peace treaty, does he support going back to those borders and giving Israel back the Sinai Peninsula? Let’s ask him.)

But the point of the article still eludes us. What is Seale trying to get at? It turns out, Seale’s conclusion is a plot twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan. This is, in all seriousness, Seale’s concluding sentence:

“Only peace, not arms, can guarantee Israel’s long-term security.”

Seale’s thesis is then as follows: peace treaties with Israel are causing instability in the region, and that instability can only be solved by peace treaties with Israel.

I suppose Seale’s strategy is that if he’s on both sides of an issue, he can’t be wrong. And if you’re a writer like Patrick Seale, you need that kind of insurance.