Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Stupid, Stumble-Bumble Superpower

Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, libertarianism, Media

What would happen in the miasma that is the Middle East if a silly, if well-intentioned, superpower—profoundly ignorant of history, in general, and the region, in particular—quit enabling one side or the other; stopped lurching maniacally (a la “McMussolini”) from supporting one bloodletting entity or another?

What would transpire if, as I wrote in “Leave ISIS To The Homies,” the US left “ISIS to Syria, Tehran and Tel Aviv”; “let the locals take out their trash”?

Today I heard one of the interchangeable bimbos on CNN pondering—oh the sacrilege!—whether the US should talk to Iran.

However, were we to leave things be, the feuding parties might cease vying for American money and materiel and begin hammering out a strategy among themselves that would ensure longevity—an uneasy balance of power, if you will—in the region.

The Israeli government, as was noted, is already endeavoring to “radically change its tack on Syria, reversing a policy and military strategy that were long geared to opposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

By the way, how stupid is the American state? Look no further than that Marie Barf, that sibilant tart at State. Go Foggy Bottom …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Leave ISIS To The Homies

Barack Obama, Bush, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Middle East

“Leave ISIS To The Homies” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

… Despotism and populism finally coalesced. Driven by polls and craving plaudits from the pundits, the president cobbled together a strategy. Within hours, love was in the air again. Members of a lovelorn liberal media scurried about like teens on prom night. It had been a long time since they felt the same rush about Obama. In his televised address to the nation, the president committed to increasing the ongoing airstrikes in Iraq; said he would take the fight to ISIL in Syria, too. The hormonal monitors at CNN spiked with each paternal promise of protection. “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven,” roared Big Daddy. …

… Easily the most ludicrous aspect of Dr. Feelgood’s “plan” is the promise of “military assistance to the Syrian opposition”: “I again call on Congress, again, to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.”

There is no telling the good Syrian opposition from the bad. If anything, there is a “growing preponderance of radical Islamists in the Syrian rebel force fighting Assad’s army,” seconds the outstanding intelligence provider DEBKAfile. Currently fighting ISIS is Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s embattled leader, whom Hussein, McCain and Clinton wanted to unseat.

The unseating of yet another extremely effective law-and-order leader, Saddam Hussein, is what unleashed ISIS. Despite what Delphic Oracle Dana Perino says in praise of her “prescient” boss’s “strategizing”; Bush 43 owns ISIS. Fidelity to historical fact demands that Bush get Brownie points for turning Iraq from a rogue state to a failed state, where mad dogs thrive. …

Read the complete column. “Leave ISIS To The Homies” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Hos @ State On Outsourcing Safety To The Enemy

Foreign Policy, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Military, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The State

To counter other grand theories about Benghazi, I have always contended that, to quote, “Hillary Clinton, the woman who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom at the time, had clearly resolved to run the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, as one would an open community center. This was meant to signal that her war on Libya had been a success, when in fact Hillary’s adventure there had as much ‘host-nation support’ as George Bush’s faith-based forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The next tidbit is by no means news, yet it always disgusts me afresh on a number of levels: What it says about the submissiveness of soldiers who serve Uncle Sam. Its confirmation of the state’s eagerness to sacrifice those who serve it for the tyranny of ideology—in this case the idea that one can safely outsource the safety of Americans to the enemy: Muslim militia.

Over to Marie Barf, Whore at State (do you have an audial recollection of the grating tart tones the woman emits from her mouth?):

QUESTION: On Libya?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Marie, in Friday’s briefing where you addressed the stand-down controversy, you repeatedly said that there was “a short delay” that was ordered by the chief of base that night was smart and prudent because it was designed to help the CIA security contractors obtain, as you put it, additional backup and additional weapons. From whom and where did the chief of base expect to procure this additional backup of weapons?

MS. HARF: I don’t have details for you on that, but again, he thought it was prudent to take a short time to see if they could get additional weapons and backup, given they did not know the severity of the security situation they were sending their men into. Of course, wanted to avoid additional loss of life, but again, as I said on Friday, there was no stand-down order. There’s a fundamental difference between a short delay for these kind of security considerations and a stand-down order, which implies some effort to prevent people from aiding those under attack. As we know, these gentlemen eventually did go and assist, so disproving the theory that there was a stand-down order.

QUESTION: But you can’t say who they were requesting –

MS. HARF: I can check and see if there are details on that.

QUESTION: It wasn’t the February 17th Brigade?

MS. HARF: I can check and see what the details are on that.

QUESTION: Okay. As we look back on Benghazi with almost two years from now, can we say with certainty – just given how the events unfolded that night – that it was indeed a mistake to invest such confidence in local militias there to help these U.S. diplomats?

MS. HARF: Well, I think that’s, quite frankly, grossly simplifying what was a very sad and tragic day, where we know more could’ve been done with security. We knew the situation in Benghazi and in the rest of Libya was a dangerous one, but State Department employees and our counterparts from other agencies serve in dangerous places because we believe it’s important for America to lead and to be engaged and to help promote freedom and democracy and help people who are working towards those ends.

So obviously, we’ve said that more could have been done with security. We’ve spent these last two years doing more: implementing the ARB’s recommendations, making our people safer overseas. That’s been the focus of what we’ve done. But broadly speaking, of course, we believed it was important to engage there, and we still believe it’s important, even given today’s, quite frankly, tough security environment in Libya.

QUESTION: Which is so tough that you’ve closed your Embassy and they’re now operating out of Malta.

MS. HARF: That our – we haven’t closed our Embassy, but –

QUESTION: Well, you –

MS. HARF: Right, exactly.

Yes, in the back. And then I’ll come up to you, Leslie.

*****

Does the gentle reader, perhaps, have an apt description for a whiny, insubstantial, empty-headed ho like Harf? State with the likes of Harf at the helm is a real community center for cretins.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Rand Paul Blows With The Politcal Winds

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Middle East

The media-military-industrial-congressional complex has won. Non-stop propaganda from this monolithic lot has convinced Americans of the necessity of another offensive in Iraq. According to a NBC/WSJ poll:

… 61% of American voters believe that the United States taking military action against ISIS is in United States’ interest, versus 13% who don’t. (Another 24% said they don’t know enough to have an opinion.) That’s a significant change when a similar question was asked last year about the U.S. taking possible action against Syria’s government after its reported use of chemical weapons. Back then, only 21% said action was in the nation’s interest, while 33% said it wasn’t.

As the political winds blow so does Rand Paul. Rand has now reversed course to please the opinion-shaping Idiocracy—Republicans, Democrats, and their attendant enablers in media, having previously exhibited some insights as to the US’s “unhinged” foreign policy:

… We aided those who’ve contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda. …
… A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.
The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don’t make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.

Since August 27, a mere days, Rand has change course, “announcing that he supports military action to eliminate the Islamist group”:

“The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria,” the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 presidential hopeful wrote in an op-ed in TIME. “Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.”
Paul’s hawkish turn comes after months of hedging and skeptical comments regarding U.S. involvement in Iraq and Syria. Yet Paul boasted on Thursday that as president he would have committed to a grand plan to eliminate ISIS earlier and more effectively than President Obama.
“If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS,” Paul said. “I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.”
Paul’s new position challenges his longtime reputation as a champion of non-interventionism

Meantime, RT reports that Steven Sotloff, beheaded by ISIS, “was sold to ISIS by ‘moderate’ Syrian rebel group.” The ones we are assisting, presumably. We “don’t know Shiite from Shinola.” We’re dangerous at foreign policy.

Better that the US stops degrading the Syrian Army; leaves the Islamic State In the Levant to Syria and Iran and the Arab League. If the players in the region are unconcerned about curtailing this ghastly gang, it is probably because the US keeps enabling their inertia with futile interventions.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

He Doesn’t Have a Strategy. OMG!

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Middle East, Neoconservatism, War

Hussein doesn’t have a strategy to police the world. Good. I have one for him: First do no harm. The chicken hawks at Fox News, however, are hot for war. The headlines there practically scream:

Obama on Syria: ‘We don’t have a strategy yet’
Krauthammer: Obama’s strategy ‘is to do absolutely nothing’

What precisely did Obama say that has chicken hawk Chucky so cross with the president: He “told reporters Thursday that ‘we don’t have a strategy yet’ for confronting ISIS on a regional level.”

Megyn Kelly, whose show has degenerated into a rah-rah, flag-waving, hour-long session, bemoaning outrages over diminished US world hegemony, shook her head in dismay at Mike Huckabee’s excellent suggestion: Let the Arab League deal with ISIS.

Yeah, the neighborhood, Israel included, doesn’t seem particularly concerned about ISIS. Or perhaps the US has enabled inertia and apathy with its interventions.

The illogic I don’t get is this: How can media members worry about ISIS in the Levant, when America’s southern border is utterly open? Can they be that stupid? Why not challenge the president about the real danger of failing to defend the homeland’s borders?

Related: “How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Standing By As East Ukrainians Die

Foreign Policy, libertarianism, Russia, UN

Western countries approved sending aid to Syria without obtaining the approval of the Syrian government. Why can’t the hypocrites of the UN and the international community allow Russia’s delivery of humanitarian aid to Ukraine?

Lugansk and neighboring areas have been repeatedly shelled lately, which resulted in casualties among civilians. Because of damaged infrastructure in Lugansk, there is no water and electricity supply, and phone and internet lines are also down.

We can argue as to who exactly has paid for this aid to east Ukraine, and whether Russia has acquired it at the point of a gun from its taxpayers; a no-no in libertarian law. It is, however, a mistake for libertarians to conflate the act of helping dying people with the act of policing a region. Non-interventionism need not mean standing by as people die. You don’t have to go to war to help people.

RT: According to the Red Cross, there is an “urgent need for essentials like food and medical supplies” in Lugansk, east Ukraine.

You won’t hear this account in the American media, but Nebojsa Malic has provided the “Russian Statement on the Aid Convoy”:

The endless delays hampering the initial deliveries of the Russian humanitarian relief aid to southeastern Ukraine have become intolerable.

A lorry convoy with many hundreds of tonnes of humanitarian relief aid, urgently needed by the people in these regions, has been standing idle for a week now on the Russian-Ukrainian border. Over this period, the Russian side has made unprecedented efforts in all areas and at all levels in order to complete the required formalities. We have met all conceivable and inconceivable demands of the Ukrainian side and have submitted to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) exhaustive lists of food, drinking water, medications, essential items and diesel generators due to be delivered to Lugansk, where they are urgently needed by women, children and the elderly. These people are experiencing the horrors of daily artillery attacks and air strikes that have resulted in an increasing number of killed and wounded and destroyed the entire vital infrastructure in the area.

Time and again, we met requests to check and recheck the shipment route, to coordinate procedures for the shipment’s delivery, and have signed the required documents with the ICRC. We have provided all essential security guarantees and have ensured similar guarantees on the part of the self-defense forces. These guarantees apply to the Russian convoy as well as other humanitarian relief aid being sent to Lugansk by the Kiev authorities. …

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint