The Washington Post reports there is a “consensus” building among the
“Washington establishment” for an escalation of the war in Serbia to
include the introduction of ground troops.

Specifically, the paper cites the agreement between Henry Kissinger,
Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Brent Scowcroft on the need to go beyond

Pardon me, but who elected these severely compromised, professional
globalist busybodies to any position of authority in the United States?
To whom are these so-called “experts” accountable? And, come to think of
it, where is their track record of success in steering American foreign
and military policy?

Al Haig, a disciple of Henry the K, once told a C-SPAN audience that
I should be in jail for challenging the decision to base the China Ocean
Shipping Co., or COSCO, in the former U.S. Navy base in Long Beach,
Calif. It turned out that the U.S. Congress heeded my warnings about the
national security dangers associated with the Chinese military front
company and passed legislation barring the move. But Kissinger and Haig
have good reason for such histrionics. They are both well-paid by the
Chinese for their public relations services.

I’ll tell you who I think should be in jail for selling out American
security interests in favor of their own pocketbooks — Henry the K and
Al Haig. At the very least, they should be required to register as paid
foreign lobbyists and identified as such each and every time they appear
on television and radio as sober and dispassionate commentators on the
world scene.

Brzezinski’s “triumphs” came in the Jimmy Carter administration. Need
I say more.

Scowcroft was one of George Bush’s chief China appeasers.

Though Kissinger was widely hailed for his “shuttle diplomacy” during
the Vietnam War, he should be remembered as one of the architects of our
disgraceful, tail-between-the-legs exit from Southeast Asia and the
betrayal of our friends and allies who faced wholesale massacres on the
ground once U.S. forces and aid were gone.

Are these the kind of “establishment” figures we should turn to now
for advice about military and foreign policy? Only, I would submit, if
our purpose in soliciting advice is to do precisely the opposite of what
they recommend.

Think about it. These are men who think China should get
preferential, kid-glove treatment from the United States, and Serbia
should be the target of our bombs and missiles. I don’t approve of
Serbian human rights policies or its Stalinist leadership, but Belgrade
represents no threat to our country or our way of life. China clearly

Now you can say, “Farah, we can’t go pushing China around.” And
that’s true. But must we coddle the human rights abusers? Must we pay
tribute to the tyrants? Must we compromise ourselves by taking their
money? Must we look the other way as they subject their own citizens to
abominable forms of repression? Must we sell our souls to them because
they are an economic power and possess nuclear weapons?

And, furthermore, just because we might be able to get away with
lobbing cruise missiles at a second-rate country the size of New Jersey,
is it the right thing to do? Should Serbs not have the right to sort out
their own internal affairs?

Interesting, too, is the fact that the Washington establishment,
which increasingly consolidates powers in a central government never
imagined by the framers of the Constitution, objects to another
sovereign nation attempting to do precisely the same thing — namely
exercising authority over a rebellious province.

What’s more distressing, however, than the predictable goofball
opinions of Henry the K and company is the reaction of the average
American to the senseless attacks on Serbia. According to which poll you
believe, somewhere between 41 percent and 54 percent of Americans favor
sending ground troops into the conflict.

Even the lower number is truly frightening. Why would Americans want
to send their sons and daughters to wage war with people not threatening
us or our vital interests in any way, shape or form? Why would
Americans, who once fought their own civil war and revolution for
independence, seek to become involved in another country’s internal

Are Americans simply too afraid to say “no” to their own elected
government officials and the so-called “establishment experts”? And are
intimidation and manipulation legitimate ways to build “consensus”?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.