Caroline Glick Kicks Off Scoop Jackson and Jon Kyl Lecture Series


Editor’s note: below is the video from the inaugural Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson and Jon Kyl National Security Lecture Series, which took place July 19th at the U.S. Capitol. Senator Jon Kyl’s introductory remarks are followed by a lecture from keynote speaker, Caroline Glick. 

Introductory Remarks from Sen. Jon Kyl:

Caroline Glick’s Lecture: 

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Schlomotion

    It amuses me that after 5:40, Ms. Glick is still talking, presumably people are eating their Marriott chicken and drinking their Crystal Geyser Natural Water and have not yet noticed that they probably paid $65 dollars to hear the same kind of opinions that a drunk at bar might say: "Obama is stupid," "the US is a hippie," "the President wants to appease a bunch of ra.gheads." But they don't realize, because there are no subtitles, that Ms. Glick is really just thinking inside a box three feet off the ground, frowning and struggling to get her words out in the form of an overlong book introduction, while not saying much more than these guys portrayed by Peter Boyle in the movie Joe, if Joe were wearing a Lane Bryant shirt.

    If she has a tangibly defined opinion at all, it is that Israel is the only foreign "ally" the United States should be concerned about or monogamous with. She portrays Hosni Mubarak as the best guy for the job at the time, meaning, keeping Muslims out of power, borrowing lots of money from the US and helping to knock out Iraq. Alas, Mr. Mubarak got too old and managed to oppress and anger the rest of the population and make them as angry and crazy as the Muslim Brotherhood, while Israel prayed and machinated that the dictator would live to be 150 and pass his dictatorship on to his equally corrupt son. Ms. Glick contends that the United States betrayed Egypt by not supporting their doddering and dying dictator and instead yanking the hand out of that worn out puppet. Ten minutes into the lecture, Ms. Glick is recounting the passion play of Israelis incredulous in front of their television sets that the US finally let Hosni Mubarak croak off the scene. As is the way with most Israeli strategists, she portrays this as a death of the fragile peace in the region, neglecting to really address that the peace was based on maintaining a dictatorship within borders defined by prior invasions by Israel, under the fascist Begin and maintained by political sabotage orchestrated from the Israeli Embassy, now scraped clean.

    At 14:20, Ms. Glick really begins to rant, having left the US to live in Israel, but returning to the US to call its leadership arrogant and accuse it of abandoning its own national security interests and handing modern military platforms to the Muslim Brotherhood. At 16:27, she starts to lose it and says "It is not" in the US interest to allow Egypt to change politically. She says it six times. Thus lathered up, she moves on to the topic of Iran, and how Iran, like Egypt should be frozen in economic, political, and military stasis. This is an Israeli reactionary in fine form, huffing and puffing, clenching and nictitating in exasperation, champing at the bit because Israel has no support for yet another first strike against a neighbor.

    I keep wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, telling myself that this is the modern day Golda Meir. Then she segues into a fait accompli acceptance of the stalemate on global petroleum, with shale oil as the next big bright hope. Shale oil. Then she unravels the specter of nuclear Iran threatening the global supply of cheap colonial oil. Academically, her claim is that the US has abandoned national security in favor of a national posture. As she struggles to make this point, she ends up saying the US should go back to the old way of sticking a gun everyone's face and letting its client states, such as Israel do the same. She is actually convinced that Israel is a separate country from the US, even though she is in the US making her money and defecating at the dinner table and wagging a finger at the other countries that are also client states of the US. It is absurd tragiccomedy.

    • reader

      Tro schlo is treding a nich of being a stalker – in addition to being a troll, a Jew hater and muslim brotherhood shill. Quite a personality.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mike.villano.71 Mike Villano

        Reader,
        You may be right.
        Schlo expresses an attitude and theology and tries to pass them off as a thought process.
        That's why he can't express any concrete ideas even though he wastes air and hundreds of words.
        I just think he doesn't get enough attention in his own life.
        He's probably in his late 20s/early 30s and still lives at home with mom.
        And when he tells the girls he meets that he's "living at home to help his mom" the gals bail out faster than Schlomo can count to 2.
        So he spends a lot of time phishing for attention on here.

  • Edisa

    Very thoughtful speech with many helpful insights. Obviously Schlomotion does not understand Ms. Glick's vocabulary and needs some concepts explained. National interest is an ambiguous term, though, and can be kneaded into whatever the administration in power wants it to mean. I believe the present administration views the spread of democracy as such an interest. A basic difficulty over the past decade–representative governance can ONLY work where violence is NOT a path to power. Applauding democratic reforms where violence is approved as a path to power, such as is represented in Muslim Brotherhood statements–like their request to release such an individual from prison– this is a mistake, and a bad mistake. It confuses the national interest in democratic reforms with the mere possibility of holding elections. THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY found an avid fan in former President George W. Bush, but the book failed to address the path-to-power issue. The old buzzword for this matter was "the rule of law" –as in "democracy cannot work without the rule of law"–but people have forgotten what that means. I want to encourage Ms. Glick to press on! And to define terms in simple ways people like Schlomotion can grasp. Ms. Glick presented some of the underlying mechanisms that connect policy decisions to unwanted outcomes. Mechanisms really matter.

  • Raymond in DC

    When I was studying international politics long ago, the very notion of "national interests" was questioned as a concept, if only because it was so amorphous. Beyond the general pursuit of security, independence, and economic well-being, who is to say what that interest is?

    The more useful concept, I think, is national objectives as expressed by the country's leaders. The case of Iran, discussed by Glick, is a useful example. Were its "national interests" the same in 1978 and 1979? I'd argue that the question is inappropriate and the heart of much of our confusion. For it was the national *objectives* that changed from an Iran ruled by the Shah to one ruled by Khomeni.

    It's only by expressing those objectives and goals that one can then proceed to consider what is required to achieve them. Iran's objectives couldn't be more clear: drive the US out of the region, achieve regional dominance, and promote the Islamic revolution. Everything Iran has done over the last 33 years has been with such goals in mind, the pursuit of nuclear weapons for example, one element of that striving for dominance. Similarly, China has clear objectives: expand Chinese sovereignty, secure its trade routes and access to raw materials needed to support its economy, etc. Those objectives drive the policies developed to achieve them.

    What are the US objectives? Well, they're, umm … something about peace and stability, strengthening international something or other, being seen as the good guys, etc. Obama additionally wants to be seen on the "right side of history", whatever that means, not at war with Islam, etc. Clearly if one side in a contest knows what they want and pursues those objectives, and the other isn't sure what course it should be following, the former has a better chance of being successful.

  • watsa46

    It is naive to believe that Pr. O did not know what he was planning for this country. His deep association with enemies of the US (Said & Khalidi on one hand and Davis on the other hand, we can add Aeyrs, Wright etc) was written all over. Hitler did that more than 70 years ago and Mohamed did that 8 centuries ago! But our politicians on the left want power at any cost even if it destroy this country. Will the US citizen care now? I hope so.
    This being said, the " republicans" will need to find a middle of the road. Extreme capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

  • Edisa

    The US is in no danger at all from extreme capitalism. The first real danger is crony capitalism, where the big companies lobby for rules that exclude their competition or prevent it from forming, or where companies become so important in the eyes of the government that the government purse is open to them at our expense. BOTH parties need to wake up to the danger of crony capitalism. Conservatism is the only hope for improvement in the economy. The Republicans needed to elect conservatives in the primaries so the economy has a hope of improvement. The second real danger is a tilted playing field, whereby goods are allowed across our borders without meeting the quality and purity and pollution control requirements our own companies' goods must meet. If the playing field were level, the cost difference would be a trade-off between higher transportation costs and lower labor costs, and our jobs would not be disappearing to distant realms. Allowing goods into the country produced by slave labor is also hypocritical and morally abhorrent.

  • Edisa

    Back to Ms. Glick's important speech. Israel is a tremendously important ally in every possible way. No other nation is so strategically situated to be an outpost of freedom and an example of representative government in a neighborhood where the concepts are not even understood. The difficulty is that in a neighborhood where the violent path to power is considered acceptable, the rule of law can often only be held in place by authoritarian regimes. So we face a moral dilemma, of supporting an authoritarian regime that is unfair to its people, or supporting the illusion of democratic reform where what our founders called "mob rule" or the violent path to power will almost certainly bring in a worse form of leadership. So the "national interest" is a term for trying to recognize and choose the lesser evil to support. Both the present administration and the former administration have obscured the important data about violence as an acceptable path to power in the region. With that data ruled out of discussion, it becomes impossible to recognize which is the lesser evil. With that data out of discussion, illusion appears more humane than realism–and the results of going with illusion are very dangerous to Israel and to us and to the world–and especially to those very citizens in those nations who so much wish for freedom and representative government. The present administration has done the world a disservice by disallowing EVEN the use of TERMS that would keep the facts in the discussion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.villano.71 Mike Villano

    Israel is THE single most important ally we have in the region and the only NATURAL ally.
    The rest are non-natural allies or societies so fundamentally different than the West they have to be divided into categories either neutral or hostile to US interests and world peace.

    Our "Best and Brightest Minds" assure us if we just throw the Jews under the numerically larger Islamic train then somehow this will transform the jihadi/supremacist mindset into one that loves and adores us.
    It must be so.
    Our "Best and Brightest" keep saying it.
    Unfortunately the Best and Brightest are in bed with the same mindset and culture that flew planes into our buildings on 9/11.
    They have no problem selling out the free world. It only troubles them someone when others point it out.

    • "gunner"

      judging by their dismal record those "best and brightest" are neither "best" nor particularly "bright". i remember a female friend, now deceased, who once told me "only a marxist can be a true intellectual" i just shook my head in sadness that an otherwise intelligent woman, (she held a ph.d. in chemistry) could say something so essentially silly.