Category Archives: Foreign Policy

UPDATED: And the Anti-War Winner Is …

China, Elections, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Republicans, War

Jon Huntsman. In the CBS/National Journal GOP Debate, the former Utah governor articulated the best foreign-policy vision. “I say this nation’s future is not Afghanistan. This nation’s future is not Iraq. This nation’s future is how prepared we are to meet the 21st century competitive challenges, that’s economic and that’s education and that’s going to play out over the Asia Pacific region, and we’re either prepared for that reality or we’re not. I don’t want to be nation building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built,” Huntsman added.

Huntsman is nothing if not consistent on the foreign-policy front. As I pointed out following the FoxNews/Google debate, Huntsman has “managed to distill a foreign-policy vision better than the rest.” Earlier in September, commenting on the foreign-policy pose Huntsman struck in Florida, I gave the governor points for the libertarian momentum he was gathering by “brilliantly commandeer Ron Paul’s argument for divesting from Afghanistan.”

Huntsman stood out from the crowd in his stark common sense on China too, both because Ron Paul’s positions were not solicited, and because, had they been solicited, Paul would have rambled. Naturally, Huntsman, a former ambassador to China, is not Sinophobic, as all the other candidates are, and grasps that a trade war with China will hurt consumers in the US. No one mentioned the delicate issue of continuously dissing our largest creditor.

National Journal’s correspondents—they provided coverage like the real pros they are—write: Huntsman’s foreign policy experience has largely been overshadowed during the campaign, but he has made his mark for urging the country’s complete withdrawal from the Middle East. It’s a position that’s to the left even of President Obama.

More to follow.

UPDATE: Regarding the Facebook thread. Spare me. Did I say JH was the answer? Ridiculous. I said he articulates very well the American exhaustion with war and intervention abroad. You can’t just expect that, b/c you and I know Paul is better on the issues, everyone else knows the same. Ron Paul has to be able to explain why he is better. Has he done so?

I am not sure why individuals take commentary on a political performance as undying support for a candidate. Sigh. It isn’t; it’s a commentary about a performance.

Dilettantes Diss Netanyhu

Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Etiquette, Europe, Foreign Policy, Israel

His well-used trophy wife is French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s greatest achievement. Sarkozy’s distinction is that he’s married to the loose Italian model, Carla Bruni. Bruni, who yodels at every Nelson Mandela birthday banquet, has been “involved with” Louis Bertignac, Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton, Léos Carax, Charles Berling, Arno Klarsfeld, Vincent Perez, former French Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, and Raphaël Enthoven, the son of Jean-Paul Enthoven, whom she was living with while carrying on with junior. (And these are her publicized conquests.)

The Sarkozy tabula rasa had this to say about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, last week, at the Group of 20 economic summit in the French resort of Cannes:

“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.”

Sarkozy’s equally impressive interlocutor, U.S. President Barack Obama, responded: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day.” The wire service has reported a slight variation:”You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”

A reminder of the measure of the men, here is Bibi vs. “O’sissy,” via Pajama Media.

Bibi vs. "Osissy"

Meantime, Israel is making light of it; acting like, well, “the Jew among nations,” who deserves to be kicked around. It’s interesting that other than the losers of Labor, most leaders of Israel’s multi-party democracy rallied behind their president.

UPDATED: Timing Iran Offensive for Nov. 2012? (FB Cyber-ejaculate)

Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Israel, War

“Four Iranian missiles can destroy tiny Israel,” blared Fars, The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) news agency. DEBKAFile counters as follows:

[these] sources point [to the fact] that the experiences of the Gulf war show that this number of ordinary missiles could not cause anything like the damage calculated by the writer. What Zarey may be referring to are the stubborn rumors going around Western intelligence circles since early 2005 that during the breakup of the Soviet Union, Tehran laid hands on black market nuclear cruise missiles form the Ukraine and 3 to 5 more from Belarus.

THE SAME SOURCE cites “Western intelligence as suspecting that Tehran obtained those warheads from Belarus or from unconventional arms traffickers based in the Muslim Republics which were part of the USSR up until the 1990s. And indeed the Fars report did not specify what warheads the ‘conventional’ missiles would carry.”

Equally disconcerting: War president extraordinaire Barack Hussein Obama knows too well that his waning popularity rises when he kills people abroad. DEBKAFile predicts that “Obama is set to attack Iran’s nuclear sites by the fall of 2012.”

Indeed, Iran apologists have framed Iran’s nuclear belligerence as the “ultimate safeguard against an American attack.” The reference is, presumably, to Iran’s legitimate quest to defend against an American army that advanced on a neighbor—Iraq—and conquered it in the absence of provocation. I agree. But this is not Iran’s sole reason for arming itself with nuclear capability.

Iran’s leaders have made no bones about the need to solve the Jewish Question for once and for all. (In case you’re a public school graduate, this is code for liquidation.)

That Iran fears an out-of-control, aggressive U.S. is likely—and understandable. However, Iran’s madman-in-chief hasn’t threatened the United States; he has threatened Israel. Yet Iranophiles seldom depict Israel’s nuclear program as an equally legitimate, last-ditch defense. Instead, they contort like Cirque du Soleil contortionists to downplay the real threat Iran poses to Israel.

UPDATE: Via PBS’s FrontLine: “At the same time, it is not just Israel that may attack Iran. The Guardian reported on Wednesday that the British military is rapidly developing contingency plans to aid the United States in case it attacks Iran, based on the belief that “the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities.” Efforts are evidently underway to determine the optimal location for deployment of the Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles to participate in such strikes.

Apparently, Iran’s resilience in the face of economic sanctions, as well as the cyberspace attacks on its nuclear facilities last year, has surprised Western observers. They believe that within a year, Iran will be moving all of its nuclear materials and more advanced centrifuges to the Fordow enrichment facility, built under a mountain near Qom. There they will be protected from most missiles and bombs, even though the Obama administration has quietly supplied Israel with bunker-buster bombs, something that even the George W. Bush administration refused to do.”

Read more.: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/11/news-rhetoric-suggesting-potential-israeli-attack-on-iran-escalates.html#ixzz1czfsz4Dp

As I pointed out in 2002/2003, when Bush was circling Saddam Hussein like a shark his prey: bluster has been a large part of the Islamic culture. It is possibly that Iran’s regime is putting on a show. But if Iran doesn’t intend to attack Israel, why does A-Jad (short for Ahmadinejad) not stop the threats? The Iranian leadership has never allayed Israel’s legitimate fears.

UPDATE II (Nov. 7): FACEBOOK CYBER-EJACULATE. I am interrupting this frivolous topic with news of the most “urgent” of facebook posts. I have been forced to post the following in response to “The white noise, the inability and unwillingness of Facebook participants to focus the mind on the topic of a post—their shameless habit of posting about every bowel movement experienced during the day to my Wall; the utter cyber-ejaculate spewed with confidence. I am expected (I have a life) to “moderate” what amounts to a meaningless stream of, “I hate Israel; I love Israel; Israelis should die; Israelis may live.”

What does it say about debate (at least on my FB thread)? I’m clearly permitting the wrong “friends” on the Wall, although FB has now made it near-impossible to be more selective in the posts allowed on a Wall.

I hinted at it before, here, but the more I am forced to interact online in the course of doing my thankless job; the more it repulses me. (And after experiencing this Cesspool of anti-Semitism and irrationality, my “professional” day of reckoning is closer.)

If you have a half a brain, you won’t enjoy this.

Land of Moussaka, Moochers and Looters

Debt, Democracy, Economy, EU, Europe, Foreign Policy

As commentators on MSNBC first pointed out, the leaders of Greece, the cradle of democracy, have sundered direct democracy in their country—a referendum on whether the country ought to leave the eurozone.

For its own good and for the good of the northern European nations funding the ongoing Bacchanalia in the south, Greece should be expelled from the eurozone. (After which the whole EU edifice should be allowed to crumble.)

A world perfected by global central planners is one in which wealth consumers live at the expense of wealth creators; where the rich are coerced into paying for the poor, the North for the South.

If they had a moral and intellectual compass—and were permitted to chart their destinies—the people of Greece would opt to leave the eurozone and the wider European Union (EU). Under that scenario, “loser countries” would be better able to serve as cheap labor and resume exporting goods to their neighbors. Work for a living, if you remember that old-fashioned concept.

It so happens that Greece has become “The Land of Moussaka, Moochers and Looters.” If the polls are correct, the “Greek public has strongly resisted the austerity measures,” yet at the same time, “70% of them want to remain within the eurozone.”

If these polls reflect public opinion, then a referendum would have seen the Greeks decide to continue on the path they are on.