This morning I had the misfortune of stumbling across an television interview with an actor named Kerry Washington. I have no clue who Washington is, although she claims to have worked in the Obama White House. Normally when I determine that an entertainer is lecturing on politics, I switch the station or shut off the television altogether, but in this instance, probably because of her claim to direct access to the White House, I listened in for a minute or two. Washington regurgitated the usual crap that we get from the millionaire elite Hollywood community, including the claim that the American voter did not chose Donald Trump, and that President-Elect Trump only captured twenty-five percent of the vote. These are just two of the bullets from a long list of talking points which is regularly disseminated amongst the Left, who have no interest whatsoever about the damage that this repudiation of our electoral system is causing. You would think that Washington would take a few minutes away from polishing her Oscars to educate herself on the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, during which Barack Obama won less than thirty percent of eligible voters. No doubt she considers those two election results to be legitimate and a reflection of the will of the American people.
A month or so before the November election, I stumbled across an offensive and absurd accusation leveled against then-candidate Donald Trump. While perusing some radical left-wing, seldom-read website, I discovered a story involving Trump which was quite similar to the "Russian prostitutes" story released by Buzzfeed earlier this week. This accusation, that Donald Trump paid two Russian prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed because the bed had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, had been shared with numerous journalists and media organizations previous to Buzzfeed's mainstream dissemination. Why did the mainstream media ignore the story for so long? Because it arrived with absolutely no proof, and contained numerous outright errors and bits of incorrect information. In short, the mainstream media determined that the piece was just another example of "Fake News", which arrived during a presidential election cycle which had become overwhelmed with unverifiable accusations against both candidates.
Roughly one week before the inauguration, the story has resurfaced, and this time around, no one seems to care about validity, source identification, or verification. In fact, it appears that since the Trump victory, both the FBI and the CIA have provided Bona Fides to this unsubstantiated, disgusting story by treating it as some threat to national security. Of course, if a President-Elect had actually engaged in such behavior, that individual would be a prime candidate for extortion, and the FBI and CIA would be obligated to investigate. The problem is, everyone knows that the story is garbage. The U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities must require the existence of some verification or validity in order to conduct full investigations and feel the need to brief President Obama and President-Elect Trump. Now that the issue has hit the headlines and could end up causing the incoming Administration no small amount of headaches, we need to know what about this story reached the threshold that would justify this kind of attention from the FBI and the CIA? Actually, this is second time we find ourselves in this predicament. The Obama Administration showed no hesitation in announcing that the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin in particular, ordered its clandestine cyber operatives to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election in a manner that would benefit GOP nominee Donald Trump. I assume that both the Russians and the Chinese were busy attempting to mess around with our electoral process (its called espionage, folks), but to make this announcement weeks before the inauguration supports the false idea that Donald Trump won the election because of Russian interference. Last week the CIA was front and center with the Russian interference accusation, and now the Agency finds itself back in the headlines, by apparently treated an obviously fake story as a legitimate threat of some sort. Thanks, CIA and FBI- you've given this absurd, false story the validity that had been lacking.
As I sit here at my computer, safe in my Texas Hill Country home, more than a handful of CIA officers are working in denied environments, putting their lives in danger to collect the intelligence needed to win the war on terror. When I think of the CIA, these men and women come to mind, not Russian prostitutes. I can assure you that everyday, FBI Special Agents are out on the streets, putting their lives at risk in support of national security. I can only imagine what the rank-and-file of these two patriotic, indispensable organizations must feel, when they realize just how politicized our government has become.
Showing posts with label President Vladimir Putin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Vladimir Putin. Show all posts
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
If you believe that President-Elect Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election because of hacking on the part of Russia, then I've got some cheap ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.
My intention was to take a bit of a break this past December, clear my head from the nastiness of the 2016 election, and let the Christmas spirit re-energize my batteries. I've slowed the blog to a crawl, with the intention of refocusing in 2017 on the international spread of terrorism. Unfortunately, I've been obliged to occasionally deviate from that plan in order to shed some much-needed light on the actions and intentions of the lame-duck Barack Obama Administration. Proceeding on the idea that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact, the Democrats continue to use different avenues in an attempt to "delegitimize" the incoming Trump Administration. The Democratic Party continues to utilize the mainstream media as its military arm by deluging the public with stories about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the Trump Administration's alleged ties to Russia. Obama, never one to shy away from politicizing the tools of government, used sanctions against Russia and weak investigations by the intelligence community to validate the absurd notion that the Russian government, through the use of computer hacking, impacted the 2016 Presidential Election. Juggling apples and oranges with great nerve, Obama managed to bring together three disparate elements: the WikiLeaks organization, Russia's history of hacking into US computer systems, and Donald Trump's 2016 decisive electoral victory. Explaining the alleged plot takes a bit of effort, but I'm going to give it a try.
As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on. Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials. As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time). The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp. The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation. Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta. The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign. The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails. Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher. By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts? Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election? I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.
Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation. First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart. So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another. The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government. Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second. Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment. Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese. In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions. It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered.
At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question. In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition. Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible. This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst. Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason. Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay. Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency. I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!). Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa. I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target. From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.
As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on. Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials. As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time). The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp. The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation. Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta. The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign. The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails. Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher. By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts? Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election? I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.
Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation. First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart. So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another. The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government. Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second. Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment. Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese. In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions. It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered.
At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question. In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition. Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible. This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst. Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason. Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay. Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency. I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!). Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa. I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target. From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Keeping it short and simple- a post-debate reminder why I'm voting for Donald Trump.
I spent a good part of tonight's Presidntial Debate trying to understand why someone with Donald Trump's public exposure and profile seems to have the communication skills of a High School sophomore. He has real difficulty staying on topic and finishing points. My friend Jennifer refers to it as talking in "verbal circles", and I think that she has found a great description. That being said, I am able to clearly identitfy what Trump supports and what issues will be a priority should he win this election. This debate only served to solidify my support for Trump and my absolute opposition to Hillary Clinton.
Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right. NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers. Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border. Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan? The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well. Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.
Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses. Democrat Administrations love regulation. They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air. Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees. But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners. In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money. They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs. A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.
Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law. Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map. We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws. Americans are only as secure as our international border. We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.
Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago. Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care. Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.
During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation. She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy. Lie is a special word in Clinton's world. She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation. We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder why? And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department. Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran? Where was the benefit in that? What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages? If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars? And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.
I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen. So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016. Fortunately, it didn't take very long.
Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right. NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers. Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border. Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan? The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well. Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.
Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses. Democrat Administrations love regulation. They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air. Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees. But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners. In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money. They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs. A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.
Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law. Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map. We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws. Americans are only as secure as our international border. We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.
Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago. Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care. Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.
During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation. She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy. Lie is a special word in Clinton's world. She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation. We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder why? And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department. Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran? Where was the benefit in that? What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages? If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars? And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.
I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen. So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016. Fortunately, it didn't take very long.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.
I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary. The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016. It hasn't turned out exactly as planned. Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed. I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep. But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth. Lets start from the beginning.
Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia. During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached. This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship. Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST). The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established. In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's. Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty! Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING. This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it. For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride". Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore. I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention. I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.
Let's get the Foundation out of the way. Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department. Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet. Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation. Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors. Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law. By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?
At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing. Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change. As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring. This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News. Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live. It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour. Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed. Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary. The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?
In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq. The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office. These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare. As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded. The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War. Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared. Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army. Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009? Because of politics, folks. The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq. Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't. ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.
What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy. The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment. Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements. There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans. Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people? We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died. Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault. We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya. I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again". Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.
Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State? Get back to me of you come up with something.
Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia. During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached. This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship. Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST). The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established. In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's. Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty! Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING. This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it. For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride". Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore. I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention. I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.
Let's get the Foundation out of the way. Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department. Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet. Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation. Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors. Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law. By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?
At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing. Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change. As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring. This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News. Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live. It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour. Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed. Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary. The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?
In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq. The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office. These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare. As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded. The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War. Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared. Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army. Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009? Because of politics, folks. The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq. Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't. ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.
What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy. The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment. Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements. There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans. Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people? We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died. Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault. We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya. I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again". Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.
Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State? Get back to me of you come up with something.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Dont be surprised if Russia's current strategy in Syria looks familiar.....
Of all the things I can say about Vladimir Putin, you'll never hear me accuse him of abandoning a winning strategy. Russia has no hesitation whatsoever in repeating tactics in Syria that have proven effective elsewhere, as on this occasion, Ukraine. Putin understands his opponent well, and can predict his next move. Unfortunately for us (the good guys/gals), Putin's opponent at present is Barack Obama and his State Department, under Secretary of State John Kerry. During the current conflict in Ukraine, Putin has used the tool of diplomacy to win engagement after engagement, without ever firing a shot. The entire situation in Ukraine would be a farce, if it weren't so tragic. Let's be frank, shall we? Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a province of the Republic of Ukraine. To confuse the issue and distract, Putin created a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine. Even Putin was caught by suprise by how quickly the European powers and the United States (which calls the shots for NATO), immediately backed down to Russian aggression and begged for Russia and the separatists to negotiate. Why did Europe and the West fold so quickly? The answer lies with the Oval Office of the United States of America. After winning the 2008 presidential election, the European leaders fought over who was going to fete the first African-American President of the United States. It was a huge occasion in Paris, Berlin and London. Not only could Obama do no wrong socially, but he was given carte blanche with foreign policy as well. Since his inauguration, Obama has controled the foreign policy decisions of just about every European nation. Under normal circumstances, I would consider this development to be prudent, but not under President Obama, who will negotiate himself out of his own underwear, if he gets a chance. Obama seems to believe that showing any strength and momentum in foreign policy is somehow an embarrassment, or an innapropriate expression of aggression. Today is April 30, 2016- after almost eight years of Obama's foreign policy (including a first-term with the worst Secretary of State in memory, Hillary Clinton), terrorism is present on almost every continent, the number of nations either researching nuclear weapons or actually building them has doubled, and right-wing political movements are threatening to take over European governments in the next elections. The Obama Administration has had no proactive policy regarding ANY foreign policy issue. The war in Syria has been raging for over five years; why wasn't the U.S. State Department advising our allies in Europe (especially Turkey and Greece) about the likelihood of refugees? Not to mention the Arab Spring...why were our diplomats so woefully unprepared for the explosion of this political movement, Madame Secretary of State Clinton?
So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion. Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons. Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality. Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad. In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles. The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS. Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States. Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria. Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad. Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons. Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations. And our enemies have taken full advantage.
Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself. If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind. As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.
So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion. Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons. Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality. Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad. In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles. The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS. Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States. Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria. Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad. Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons. Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations. And our enemies have taken full advantage.
Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself. If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind. As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Mookie Baby's own State of the Union post:
In light of today's auspicious event, the final State of the Union address for President Barack Obama, I decided to save everyone some time, and help a few others from falling asleep as they sit in front of their televisions. I have written my own State of the Union address It is direct, to the point, brutally honest, and written in bullet-fashion to point out that it doesn't take two hours and pages of useless political obfuscation and subterfuge to deliver one of these addresses. Granted, a whole bunch of folks are going to be angry with my conclusions. But I stand by every point I make, and I can back it up with facts, baby. The failures of the Barack Obama Presidency were destined. Obama if anything is a dedicated ideologue whose enmity for our nation's history and traditions was evident from the start. Remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comment, "America's chickens are coming home to roost"? They certainly have, Jeremiah.
State of the Union, 2016:
* In seven years, the National Debt has increased over 100 percent, to at least ten trillion dollars. What exactly have we purchased that came with such a high price tag?
* Persons who have been unemployed for more than two consecutive years and no longer look for work are not included on the monthly labor statistics released by the Obama Administration. Real job creation is anemic. Not once in seven years has this Administration told the American people the truth about our employment situation.
* Race relations in America are the worst that they have been in my lifetime. Our first black president has made no legislative or executive effort to address the problems in the black community, including failing schools, high dropout rates, teenage pregnancies, single parents, rampant crime, proliferation of gangs, etc. Black Americans deserve to live in peaceful communities just as much as the rest of us, but we have seen nothing from this White House in seven years. Interestingly enough, Obama has no trouble finding a cute little black kid to stand nearby while he signs some Executive Action overreach law.
* The Obama Administration has yet to meet a progressive special interest group that it didn't love. The last seven years has seen the authority of the Federal Government used to force Christian bakers to bake for lesbians, not to mention the non-stop attack on anything in school that might make mention of a Creator. Thank goodness Michelle Obama's public school lunch policy is in place, as are those tolerance classes on transgendered folks. By the way, how about the White House bathed in the colors of the Rainbow Flag on the night of the decision by the Supreme Court? That was the day I realized just how much trouble we are in.
* In seven years, we have evolved from the world's only superpower to an emasculated, internally confused, self-loathing mess. It started in 2010, with the disastrous precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin, which, for all practical purposes, eliminated our last ballistic deterrent/advantage against Russia. Since then, we've suffered through (stumbled through) the Arab Spring, Benghazi, the Iranian political takeover of Iraq, Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, North Korea's never-ending nuclear research and provocations, China's ability to take unilateral action internationally with no repercussions, rampant terrorism all over the globe, Russia shoving us aside in Syria, and the sponsorship of the nuclear treaty with Iran, which is arguably the worst treaty this nation has ever signed.
The real problem, my friends, is not the list above. The real problem is, where do we go from here? First and foremost, we have to ensure that a Democrat does not return to the White House. Given the "State of the Union" in 2016, I am ASTOUNDED that a Democratic Administration in 2016 is even a possibility. And if we manage to get a Republican in the White House, who will it be? I would hope that the average American would recognize that the problems we face are much too dire to trust in the hands of a bullying, misogynist bigot like Donald Trump, but he seems determined to hang around for the long haul. I can imagine him deciding on whether or not to use our Armed Forces as if he were negotiating a deal on a block of Condos in West Palm Beach.
Addressing our serious problems will be a monumental task. I find myself wishing that we had Mitt Romney on contract, because his is the kind of honest business mind that we need to find a way out of this unfathomable national debt crisis. Truly, the debt and our need for real job growth and tax reform, have become issues of national security. As for ISIS and our international entanglements, I'm convinced that re-establishing our backbone is the best place to start. Tear-up that useless treaty with Iran (as if they were going to follow-through with their commitments), and welcome Ukraine into NATO. Flatten all North Korean nuclear research installations, and if you can find Kim Jon-un, drop a 500-lb. bomb in his lap as well. Those are just a few suggestions. Let us know how you feel.......
State of the Union, 2016:
* In seven years, the National Debt has increased over 100 percent, to at least ten trillion dollars. What exactly have we purchased that came with such a high price tag?
* Persons who have been unemployed for more than two consecutive years and no longer look for work are not included on the monthly labor statistics released by the Obama Administration. Real job creation is anemic. Not once in seven years has this Administration told the American people the truth about our employment situation.
* Race relations in America are the worst that they have been in my lifetime. Our first black president has made no legislative or executive effort to address the problems in the black community, including failing schools, high dropout rates, teenage pregnancies, single parents, rampant crime, proliferation of gangs, etc. Black Americans deserve to live in peaceful communities just as much as the rest of us, but we have seen nothing from this White House in seven years. Interestingly enough, Obama has no trouble finding a cute little black kid to stand nearby while he signs some Executive Action overreach law.
* The Obama Administration has yet to meet a progressive special interest group that it didn't love. The last seven years has seen the authority of the Federal Government used to force Christian bakers to bake for lesbians, not to mention the non-stop attack on anything in school that might make mention of a Creator. Thank goodness Michelle Obama's public school lunch policy is in place, as are those tolerance classes on transgendered folks. By the way, how about the White House bathed in the colors of the Rainbow Flag on the night of the decision by the Supreme Court? That was the day I realized just how much trouble we are in.
* In seven years, we have evolved from the world's only superpower to an emasculated, internally confused, self-loathing mess. It started in 2010, with the disastrous precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin, which, for all practical purposes, eliminated our last ballistic deterrent/advantage against Russia. Since then, we've suffered through (stumbled through) the Arab Spring, Benghazi, the Iranian political takeover of Iraq, Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, North Korea's never-ending nuclear research and provocations, China's ability to take unilateral action internationally with no repercussions, rampant terrorism all over the globe, Russia shoving us aside in Syria, and the sponsorship of the nuclear treaty with Iran, which is arguably the worst treaty this nation has ever signed.
The real problem, my friends, is not the list above. The real problem is, where do we go from here? First and foremost, we have to ensure that a Democrat does not return to the White House. Given the "State of the Union" in 2016, I am ASTOUNDED that a Democratic Administration in 2016 is even a possibility. And if we manage to get a Republican in the White House, who will it be? I would hope that the average American would recognize that the problems we face are much too dire to trust in the hands of a bullying, misogynist bigot like Donald Trump, but he seems determined to hang around for the long haul. I can imagine him deciding on whether or not to use our Armed Forces as if he were negotiating a deal on a block of Condos in West Palm Beach.
Addressing our serious problems will be a monumental task. I find myself wishing that we had Mitt Romney on contract, because his is the kind of honest business mind that we need to find a way out of this unfathomable national debt crisis. Truly, the debt and our need for real job growth and tax reform, have become issues of national security. As for ISIS and our international entanglements, I'm convinced that re-establishing our backbone is the best place to start. Tear-up that useless treaty with Iran (as if they were going to follow-through with their commitments), and welcome Ukraine into NATO. Flatten all North Korean nuclear research installations, and if you can find Kim Jon-un, drop a 500-lb. bomb in his lap as well. Those are just a few suggestions. Let us know how you feel.......
Monday, January 4, 2016
Five reasons why I'm not voting for Donald Trump.
Links: A. Trump for President Official Site.
B. Real Clear Politics- Presidential Polls, GOP
I admit it- I'm just as surprised as all the media analysts and talking heads regarding Donald Trump's seeming inevitable March to the GOP nomination. Immediately following the latest offensive comment, I always expect to see Trump's numbers take a hit. But if we are to believe the polls, and there are reasons to approach them with a cautious eye, The Donald seems to just build on his advantage. I've heard the whispers in some Republican conspiratory circles, that the media is doctoring the polls, to create an air of invincibility in Trump. Why would the media do something to benefit Donald Trump? Because they realize that when Nov. 2 rolls around, he is the one GOP candidate that Independent voters will have the hardest time supporting over Hillary Clinton. I can't say that I'm anywhere ready to sign on to that theory, but strangely enough, I'm having trouble finding folks down south in Red State Country, who will openly declare their support for Trump. But he is getting tremendous support from somewhere. I don't like Trump, and I'm going to tell you why.
Trump is a "sound bite" candidate if there ever was one. He makes grandiose announcements, with no follow-up. Its not difficult to do...just fill the empty air with another sound bite. Trump will build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it. And just how will this be accomplished? I'm not looking for an answer in two sentences, I'm looking for an actual well-thought piece that takes into account all the factors and variables included in public policy. How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? How long will it take to build? About the mechanics...how will the wall be constructed and with what materials? Will there be breaks in the wall for Ports of Entry? Will it be necessary to build the same wall on the Canadian border? Does Congress need to approve this action? How will it impact our already existing treaties with not only Mexico, but other Latin American countries? How will this wall impact the environment? Will it destabilize the migratory patterns of wildlife? I am using one of Trump's more famous pronouncements as an example of his addiction to sound bites. The questions that I have listed took five minutes to create; I'm sure with a bit of time, experts could come up with quite a few more questions, most with more substance. The reality is, he never has to give an answer. He has his own version of "Trump Answers", which are dismissive at best and insulting at worst. You see, Trump thinks that any idea he has must be genius, and if you can't see it well enough to understand all the answers already, then you are an idiot and a moron. Oh, and you're ugly to boot. And possibly a pedophile.
Trump believes he can develop a foreign policy based on his business experience. Nothing personal, Mr. Trump, but one of the reasons I voted for Mitt Romney was because of his business acumen. But he chose to keep his business credentials where they belonged...in conversations relating to economics. Trump's forty-year record as a businessman is difficult to really grasp. He has had his share of successes, and also a few high-profile train wrecks. But foreign policy must always be more about people than money, more about compromise than victory, and more about friendship than hostile takeovers. Trump compliments Putin, and says that the Russian leader "is a man I can work with". I find Putin to be a 21st century fascist, whose actions in Ukraine and Georgia over the past decade show a complete contempt for international law and the integrity of national borders. Putin is militarizing Russia in the same manner than Hitler did Germany in the 1930s....getting rid of dead-weight, simplification and modernization, and the skirting of international laws and treaties. I don't admire Vladimir Putin, but if Trump thinks Putin is going to fold like the chairman of some company Trump Enterprises has just swallowed, he has a few surprises coming. Trump scares me for a number of reasons, including the vision I have of Trump losing his temper because he can't "swing the deal" he wants, and all of a sudden the U.S. military becomes the wild card.
I don't trust Donald Trump. For some people, maybe that isn't a problem, but it is for me. I'm not so jaded about our political system that I'm ready to vote for someone that I do not trust. My lack of trust stems from a simple examination of history. Just a few years ago, Trump was a Democrat. Probably a decade ago, he was a Republican, who knows. I'm sure it made sense at the time, to be on the same side as the political winning side (of the moment). But Trump professes to be a "life-long Conservative". How can any life-long Conservative admit to donating money to the Clintons? As for his claim to being a Conservative, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is certainly "pro-business" (a bit too pro-business for me), but what are his opinions about the other issues that are important to many Conservatives? Is Trump pro-choice? What is his opinion regarding the Marriage debate? More importantly, how often has his opinion on these issues changed? Personally, I'm not looking for a political ideologue as a candidate. But with Trump, I'm just sure what I'm getting, and just how far I can throw it.
My final reason for not supporting Donald Trump, is that I don't want a bigot and a misogynist for a president. I don't think I will ever get past his comments about Carly Fiorina. What's really sad is that Trump supporters know in their hearts that the only reason he apologized was for political expediency, but yet they don't care....depressing. Donald Trump is also a first-class Ass Hole. Excuse my descent into profanity, but for some reason, that title just seems perfect. He is the perfect example of a school-yard bully, who has spent most of his business career intimidating people with less resources. Actually, its a bit of a play on the Napoleon Syndrome. Trump has always bragged about his ability to outspend people; I've never heard him brag about his ability to impact another person's perspective through honest dialogue, have you? If we are faced with a President Trump, exactly how will he conduct a meeting with a female foreign leader, whose appearance he doesn't appreciate? Watching Trump respond whenever another candidate improves in the polls is like watching a World Champion Prize Fighter who will stop at nothing to keep the title. He threatens (usually by bragging about how much money he is prepared to spend), and then he makes good on his threats. Ben Carson did not lose his momentum because of his lackluster debate performances, he fell victim to nasty accusations regarding the truthfulness of his biography. A few weeks later, when all the dust had settled, Carson had reasonably addressed all the questions, but the damage was done. Trump publicly called Carson a liar and compared him to a pedophile. Of course, it took some time for Carson, a very decent man who lives his life for philanthropy, to come out from under the stench of "liar and pedophile". But being a jerk doesn't disqualify someone from being president.
The greatest Presidents in the history of our Republic were able to effectively persuade because of the conviction of their beliefs, not because of the size of their pocketbook. I'm worried that Donald Trump believes that the President of the United States carries a wallet with the title, "Armed Forces of the United States of America". And I have no doubt that he would use that wallet unwisely.
B. Real Clear Politics- Presidential Polls, GOP
I admit it- I'm just as surprised as all the media analysts and talking heads regarding Donald Trump's seeming inevitable March to the GOP nomination. Immediately following the latest offensive comment, I always expect to see Trump's numbers take a hit. But if we are to believe the polls, and there are reasons to approach them with a cautious eye, The Donald seems to just build on his advantage. I've heard the whispers in some Republican conspiratory circles, that the media is doctoring the polls, to create an air of invincibility in Trump. Why would the media do something to benefit Donald Trump? Because they realize that when Nov. 2 rolls around, he is the one GOP candidate that Independent voters will have the hardest time supporting over Hillary Clinton. I can't say that I'm anywhere ready to sign on to that theory, but strangely enough, I'm having trouble finding folks down south in Red State Country, who will openly declare their support for Trump. But he is getting tremendous support from somewhere. I don't like Trump, and I'm going to tell you why.
Trump is a "sound bite" candidate if there ever was one. He makes grandiose announcements, with no follow-up. Its not difficult to do...just fill the empty air with another sound bite. Trump will build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it. And just how will this be accomplished? I'm not looking for an answer in two sentences, I'm looking for an actual well-thought piece that takes into account all the factors and variables included in public policy. How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? How long will it take to build? About the mechanics...how will the wall be constructed and with what materials? Will there be breaks in the wall for Ports of Entry? Will it be necessary to build the same wall on the Canadian border? Does Congress need to approve this action? How will it impact our already existing treaties with not only Mexico, but other Latin American countries? How will this wall impact the environment? Will it destabilize the migratory patterns of wildlife? I am using one of Trump's more famous pronouncements as an example of his addiction to sound bites. The questions that I have listed took five minutes to create; I'm sure with a bit of time, experts could come up with quite a few more questions, most with more substance. The reality is, he never has to give an answer. He has his own version of "Trump Answers", which are dismissive at best and insulting at worst. You see, Trump thinks that any idea he has must be genius, and if you can't see it well enough to understand all the answers already, then you are an idiot and a moron. Oh, and you're ugly to boot. And possibly a pedophile.
Trump believes he can develop a foreign policy based on his business experience. Nothing personal, Mr. Trump, but one of the reasons I voted for Mitt Romney was because of his business acumen. But he chose to keep his business credentials where they belonged...in conversations relating to economics. Trump's forty-year record as a businessman is difficult to really grasp. He has had his share of successes, and also a few high-profile train wrecks. But foreign policy must always be more about people than money, more about compromise than victory, and more about friendship than hostile takeovers. Trump compliments Putin, and says that the Russian leader "is a man I can work with". I find Putin to be a 21st century fascist, whose actions in Ukraine and Georgia over the past decade show a complete contempt for international law and the integrity of national borders. Putin is militarizing Russia in the same manner than Hitler did Germany in the 1930s....getting rid of dead-weight, simplification and modernization, and the skirting of international laws and treaties. I don't admire Vladimir Putin, but if Trump thinks Putin is going to fold like the chairman of some company Trump Enterprises has just swallowed, he has a few surprises coming. Trump scares me for a number of reasons, including the vision I have of Trump losing his temper because he can't "swing the deal" he wants, and all of a sudden the U.S. military becomes the wild card.
I don't trust Donald Trump. For some people, maybe that isn't a problem, but it is for me. I'm not so jaded about our political system that I'm ready to vote for someone that I do not trust. My lack of trust stems from a simple examination of history. Just a few years ago, Trump was a Democrat. Probably a decade ago, he was a Republican, who knows. I'm sure it made sense at the time, to be on the same side as the political winning side (of the moment). But Trump professes to be a "life-long Conservative". How can any life-long Conservative admit to donating money to the Clintons? As for his claim to being a Conservative, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is certainly "pro-business" (a bit too pro-business for me), but what are his opinions about the other issues that are important to many Conservatives? Is Trump pro-choice? What is his opinion regarding the Marriage debate? More importantly, how often has his opinion on these issues changed? Personally, I'm not looking for a political ideologue as a candidate. But with Trump, I'm just sure what I'm getting, and just how far I can throw it.
My final reason for not supporting Donald Trump, is that I don't want a bigot and a misogynist for a president. I don't think I will ever get past his comments about Carly Fiorina. What's really sad is that Trump supporters know in their hearts that the only reason he apologized was for political expediency, but yet they don't care....depressing. Donald Trump is also a first-class Ass Hole. Excuse my descent into profanity, but for some reason, that title just seems perfect. He is the perfect example of a school-yard bully, who has spent most of his business career intimidating people with less resources. Actually, its a bit of a play on the Napoleon Syndrome. Trump has always bragged about his ability to outspend people; I've never heard him brag about his ability to impact another person's perspective through honest dialogue, have you? If we are faced with a President Trump, exactly how will he conduct a meeting with a female foreign leader, whose appearance he doesn't appreciate? Watching Trump respond whenever another candidate improves in the polls is like watching a World Champion Prize Fighter who will stop at nothing to keep the title. He threatens (usually by bragging about how much money he is prepared to spend), and then he makes good on his threats. Ben Carson did not lose his momentum because of his lackluster debate performances, he fell victim to nasty accusations regarding the truthfulness of his biography. A few weeks later, when all the dust had settled, Carson had reasonably addressed all the questions, but the damage was done. Trump publicly called Carson a liar and compared him to a pedophile. Of course, it took some time for Carson, a very decent man who lives his life for philanthropy, to come out from under the stench of "liar and pedophile". But being a jerk doesn't disqualify someone from being president.
The greatest Presidents in the history of our Republic were able to effectively persuade because of the conviction of their beliefs, not because of the size of their pocketbook. I'm worried that Donald Trump believes that the President of the United States carries a wallet with the title, "Armed Forces of the United States of America". And I have no doubt that he would use that wallet unwisely.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.
Link: U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.
In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq. Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State. In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS. Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity. Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States. In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property. But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad. No need to ask why. The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.
Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news. Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road. The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions. No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times. At this moment in time, Putin is running the show. The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines. Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower. The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower. Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner. His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart. For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets. In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?
In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq. Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State. In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS. Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity. Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States. In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property. But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad. No need to ask why. The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.
Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news. Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road. The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions. No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times. At this moment in time, Putin is running the show. The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines. Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower. The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower. Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner. His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart. For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets. In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?
Monday, November 16, 2015
The world is in need of leader in the fight to destroy ISIS; is it time to reconsider Vladimir Putin?
Link: Number of victims of Paris terror attack continues to grow.
On, Friday, November 13, in Paris, the terror group ISIS carried out an organized, well-supplied attack outside the Stade de France and also at a handful of restaurants and bars. The first sign of trouble was an explosion that took place outside the Stade de France, during an international "friendly" soccer match between Germany and France. The terrorist attempted to gain entry to the stadium, and after being refused, exploded his suicide vest. This started the contagion of violence that moved to the 11 Arrondissement and a cluster of restaurants and bars. The terrorists also forced their way into a heavy metal concert, shooting people at random. Three of the four who forced their way into the concert also detonated suicide vests; the fourth had a vest as well, but it didn't detonate until after he had been shot by French police. It has been reported by multiple witnesses that the terrorists claimed that the attacks were in response to French policy in Syria. Following the January 7 terrorist attack at the offices of French political magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government instituted measures which were designed to disrupt any further terrorist attacks. The presence of police and the military at French Airports, Ports, and public places was increased, as were efforts to collect human intelligence. Working closely with the United States other European nations, France also keep a close eye on the trafficking of weapons, especially the black market transport network which effectively can deliver automatic weapons from eastern Europe to France in a matter of days. French authorities were also very interested in the number of young Arab-French men and women who had recently travelled to Syria. But the increased law enforcement and intelligence efforts were unable to prevent Friday's tragedy. Its apparent that ISIS has the capacity to plan and carry out relatively simple but well-staged attacks on multiple urban locations. The weapons used were the well-known Kalashnikovs and AK-47s, and the suicide vests did not require a great deal of know-how to make. It likely that at least some of the perpetrators of these attacks had recently visited Syria, and were probably received weapons and explosives instruction at the hands of ISIS.
With this attack, ISIS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to conduct attacks in public places, regardless of the casualties. Every city in Europe is a potential target, and security measures will have to be increased. ISIS has particular goals in mind by conducting these attacks, and will use this event to learn how to be more effective in an urban environment. It is no secret that Islamic extremists are bound and determined to impact the western, "Christian" way of life. The aim is to disrupt the transportation systems that keep our society functioning. Vehicles and planes are necessary for personal and business purposes, and any success in shutting the roads and airports can cause havoc with everyday lives. The bad guys also get a kick out of creating enough fear in the minds of families that children are kept home from schools and streets are deserted by sundown. When we enjoy ourselves publicly, in places like parks, beaches and sporting events, it is a celebration of our freedom, the ability to laugh and share in each other's good company in safety. Scenes such as I have just described can be observed at any time of the year in many different places, from Tokyo to Adelaide to Durban, up to Rome and Paris, and over to the Americas. There are parts of our world where you rarely see moments of public celebration, unless its male-only political rallies.
North America and South America are different in many ways, as are Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. But its time we focused on what we have in common. Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves that all-important question, "just how important is my freedom?" If you turn on the TV or radio, and find a news channel, you will find that everyone seems to agree on the danger posed by ISIS. Is the Islamic State for the Caliphate movement more dangerous that National Socialism (Nazis?). Absolutely; this Islamic extremist organization has created a force which can engage our military in conventional warfare, while at the same time they are refining, improving and engaging in the old, horrendous methods of traditional terrorism. In mid-1941, the entire world except the Americas (excluding Canada, who was already at war, standing side by side with Britain) were engaged in a titanic struggle to overcome expansionist fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Once the United States entered the war, the balance began to tilt in the direction of the righteous. We have this history of coming together, once we recognize the mutual threat. Why is it so difficult for us to come together today? Why hasn't a leader from Europe, Africa, the Americas, or Asia made a speech at the United Nations, calling for a military coalition of all freedom loving nations, to work together and eliminate this evil from the face of the earth? If a united military force, including the armies and air forces of the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, and whoever else was able, surrounded the forces of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and just obliterated them, it would be such a great step forward for the cause of freedom in our culture and society today. Why has it been so difficult to find a leader to take that walk to the podium, and point the world in the right direction? Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been on a bit of a campaign to become just such an international leader, not only rehabilitating Russia's image, but the image of Russia's ally Iran at the same time. I have been very critical of Putin in recent months, holding out hope that maybe Barack Obama would step up to the plate and answer the call of history. That hasn't happened; is it time that I give Putin a chance?
On, Friday, November 13, in Paris, the terror group ISIS carried out an organized, well-supplied attack outside the Stade de France and also at a handful of restaurants and bars. The first sign of trouble was an explosion that took place outside the Stade de France, during an international "friendly" soccer match between Germany and France. The terrorist attempted to gain entry to the stadium, and after being refused, exploded his suicide vest. This started the contagion of violence that moved to the 11 Arrondissement and a cluster of restaurants and bars. The terrorists also forced their way into a heavy metal concert, shooting people at random. Three of the four who forced their way into the concert also detonated suicide vests; the fourth had a vest as well, but it didn't detonate until after he had been shot by French police. It has been reported by multiple witnesses that the terrorists claimed that the attacks were in response to French policy in Syria. Following the January 7 terrorist attack at the offices of French political magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government instituted measures which were designed to disrupt any further terrorist attacks. The presence of police and the military at French Airports, Ports, and public places was increased, as were efforts to collect human intelligence. Working closely with the United States other European nations, France also keep a close eye on the trafficking of weapons, especially the black market transport network which effectively can deliver automatic weapons from eastern Europe to France in a matter of days. French authorities were also very interested in the number of young Arab-French men and women who had recently travelled to Syria. But the increased law enforcement and intelligence efforts were unable to prevent Friday's tragedy. Its apparent that ISIS has the capacity to plan and carry out relatively simple but well-staged attacks on multiple urban locations. The weapons used were the well-known Kalashnikovs and AK-47s, and the suicide vests did not require a great deal of know-how to make. It likely that at least some of the perpetrators of these attacks had recently visited Syria, and were probably received weapons and explosives instruction at the hands of ISIS.
With this attack, ISIS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to conduct attacks in public places, regardless of the casualties. Every city in Europe is a potential target, and security measures will have to be increased. ISIS has particular goals in mind by conducting these attacks, and will use this event to learn how to be more effective in an urban environment. It is no secret that Islamic extremists are bound and determined to impact the western, "Christian" way of life. The aim is to disrupt the transportation systems that keep our society functioning. Vehicles and planes are necessary for personal and business purposes, and any success in shutting the roads and airports can cause havoc with everyday lives. The bad guys also get a kick out of creating enough fear in the minds of families that children are kept home from schools and streets are deserted by sundown. When we enjoy ourselves publicly, in places like parks, beaches and sporting events, it is a celebration of our freedom, the ability to laugh and share in each other's good company in safety. Scenes such as I have just described can be observed at any time of the year in many different places, from Tokyo to Adelaide to Durban, up to Rome and Paris, and over to the Americas. There are parts of our world where you rarely see moments of public celebration, unless its male-only political rallies.
North America and South America are different in many ways, as are Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. But its time we focused on what we have in common. Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves that all-important question, "just how important is my freedom?" If you turn on the TV or radio, and find a news channel, you will find that everyone seems to agree on the danger posed by ISIS. Is the Islamic State for the Caliphate movement more dangerous that National Socialism (Nazis?). Absolutely; this Islamic extremist organization has created a force which can engage our military in conventional warfare, while at the same time they are refining, improving and engaging in the old, horrendous methods of traditional terrorism. In mid-1941, the entire world except the Americas (excluding Canada, who was already at war, standing side by side with Britain) were engaged in a titanic struggle to overcome expansionist fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Once the United States entered the war, the balance began to tilt in the direction of the righteous. We have this history of coming together, once we recognize the mutual threat. Why is it so difficult for us to come together today? Why hasn't a leader from Europe, Africa, the Americas, or Asia made a speech at the United Nations, calling for a military coalition of all freedom loving nations, to work together and eliminate this evil from the face of the earth? If a united military force, including the armies and air forces of the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, and whoever else was able, surrounded the forces of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and just obliterated them, it would be such a great step forward for the cause of freedom in our culture and society today. Why has it been so difficult to find a leader to take that walk to the podium, and point the world in the right direction? Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been on a bit of a campaign to become just such an international leader, not only rehabilitating Russia's image, but the image of Russia's ally Iran at the same time. I have been very critical of Putin in recent months, holding out hope that maybe Barack Obama would step up to the plate and answer the call of history. That hasn't happened; is it time that I give Putin a chance?
Friday, November 13, 2015
Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.
Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.
It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine. The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria. The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count. In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks? Simply put, Ukraine has no choice. President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict. Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies. Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action. Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast. Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis. Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine. During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy. Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.
It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed. Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who can blame Moscow for trying? Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul. Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror. The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty, but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan. The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners. In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action. The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe. At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures. Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies. Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.
It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine. The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria. The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count. In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks? Simply put, Ukraine has no choice. President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict. Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies. Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action. Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast. Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis. Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine. During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy. Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.
It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed. Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who can blame Moscow for trying? Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul. Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror. The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty, but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan. The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners. In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action. The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe. At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures. Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies. Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Russia to host Syrian peace conference; any Assad opposition that the Russian's haven't killed will be invited to attend.
Links: A. ISIS considered strong suspect in downing of Russian passenger jet over Sinai.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Russia steps up air campaign in Syria, increasing sorties against ISIS, but continues to target anti-Assad forces.
Link: Russian forces on-the-ground in Syria increase to over 4000.
In response to ISIS advances in the vicinity of Aleppo City, Russian bombing raids against Islamic State targets have increased. On November 2 and 3, Russian warplanes attacked ISIS positions near Palmyra and Qaraytan in eastern Homs, as well as in ar-Raqqah City. Russia claims to be working with Syrian opposition in its targeting of ISIS units. In reality, Russia has coordinated some of its bombing sorties with Syrian opposition that is the least "at odds" with the Assad regime. Russia claimed to have coordinated with Syrian opposition when utilizing precision weapons to attack ISIS targets near Palmyra and Deir ez-Zour, in an effort to pressure the United States to recognize and support the more "moderate" Syrian opposition. As Russia negotiates with Jordan and Israel regarding the make-up of a post-ISIS Syrian government, Putin wants to isolate the more determined and uncompromising of the Syrian opposition groups. A number of the organizations that Russia considers more moderate have only evolved in the more recent stages of the conflict, which will provide a problem for some of the groups who were present in the beginning of the movement to topple Bashar al-Assad. Its easy for some to forget that this conflict began as an offshoot of the Arab Spring, and was a ground-roots, indigenous effort to remove Assad. ISIS took advantage of the breakdown in authority and civil control to expand its base and create a three-dimensional battleground in Syria. In reality, the foreign elements involved in Syria should be exclusively focused on the defeat of ISIS, which is in itself, foreign to Syria. When attempting to create an anti-ISIS ground force in Syria utilizing mostly former Assad regime officers, great efforts were made to avoid contact with regime forces. Russia does not accept the obligation to avoid internal Syrian problems. In fact, Russia has used the excuse of opposing ISIS as a shield to conduct one bombing raid after another against Syrian opposition. Recent Russian focus on ISIS targets have been in response to ISIS advances near Aleppo City and international criticism of its up-to-now almost exclusive targeting of Assad's Syrian opposition, vice ISIS positions.
The United States and Russia have made some progress in deconflicting military operations in Syria; a successful short-range communications test with a U.S. fighter was conducted on November 3. But Russia seems determined to continue with its strategy to build Iran into a dominant regional power, and to counter U.S. efforts at strengthening its military cooperation with its eastern European allies. This week Russia deconflicted a contract with Iran for S-300 anti-aircraft systems. This agreement had been stalled for some time as Iran focused on developments in Iraq and nuclear treaty negotiations with Europe and the United States. In a typically heavy-handed attempt at intimidation, Russia launched one of its largest missile tests of the year on the day of the meeting in Vienna to discuss the Syrian conflict. Russia is also suspected of supporting the action taken by the Moldovan Parliament on October 29 to remove the current government. As NATO stepped up efforts to strengthen its ties in eastern Europe, Russia launched a snap aviation drill in Kaliningrad. Russia has a habit of occupying its opponents with diplomacy and other distractions, while continuing whatever action has caused disagreement. Expect Russia to continue its efforts to prop up Assad and to build Iran into an international player. Iran has a very important role to play in Vladimir Putin's larger plan to propel Russia into the role of sole world superpower.
In response to ISIS advances in the vicinity of Aleppo City, Russian bombing raids against Islamic State targets have increased. On November 2 and 3, Russian warplanes attacked ISIS positions near Palmyra and Qaraytan in eastern Homs, as well as in ar-Raqqah City. Russia claims to be working with Syrian opposition in its targeting of ISIS units. In reality, Russia has coordinated some of its bombing sorties with Syrian opposition that is the least "at odds" with the Assad regime. Russia claimed to have coordinated with Syrian opposition when utilizing precision weapons to attack ISIS targets near Palmyra and Deir ez-Zour, in an effort to pressure the United States to recognize and support the more "moderate" Syrian opposition. As Russia negotiates with Jordan and Israel regarding the make-up of a post-ISIS Syrian government, Putin wants to isolate the more determined and uncompromising of the Syrian opposition groups. A number of the organizations that Russia considers more moderate have only evolved in the more recent stages of the conflict, which will provide a problem for some of the groups who were present in the beginning of the movement to topple Bashar al-Assad. Its easy for some to forget that this conflict began as an offshoot of the Arab Spring, and was a ground-roots, indigenous effort to remove Assad. ISIS took advantage of the breakdown in authority and civil control to expand its base and create a three-dimensional battleground in Syria. In reality, the foreign elements involved in Syria should be exclusively focused on the defeat of ISIS, which is in itself, foreign to Syria. When attempting to create an anti-ISIS ground force in Syria utilizing mostly former Assad regime officers, great efforts were made to avoid contact with regime forces. Russia does not accept the obligation to avoid internal Syrian problems. In fact, Russia has used the excuse of opposing ISIS as a shield to conduct one bombing raid after another against Syrian opposition. Recent Russian focus on ISIS targets have been in response to ISIS advances near Aleppo City and international criticism of its up-to-now almost exclusive targeting of Assad's Syrian opposition, vice ISIS positions.
The United States and Russia have made some progress in deconflicting military operations in Syria; a successful short-range communications test with a U.S. fighter was conducted on November 3. But Russia seems determined to continue with its strategy to build Iran into a dominant regional power, and to counter U.S. efforts at strengthening its military cooperation with its eastern European allies. This week Russia deconflicted a contract with Iran for S-300 anti-aircraft systems. This agreement had been stalled for some time as Iran focused on developments in Iraq and nuclear treaty negotiations with Europe and the United States. In a typically heavy-handed attempt at intimidation, Russia launched one of its largest missile tests of the year on the day of the meeting in Vienna to discuss the Syrian conflict. Russia is also suspected of supporting the action taken by the Moldovan Parliament on October 29 to remove the current government. As NATO stepped up efforts to strengthen its ties in eastern Europe, Russia launched a snap aviation drill in Kaliningrad. Russia has a habit of occupying its opponents with diplomacy and other distractions, while continuing whatever action has caused disagreement. Expect Russia to continue its efforts to prop up Assad and to build Iran into an international player. Iran has a very important role to play in Vladimir Putin's larger plan to propel Russia into the role of sole world superpower.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Russia and Iran; friends for the moment, or for the distance?
Links: A. Russia making military commitment in Syria.
B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.
Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue. Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia? It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!". No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow. He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.
Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia. The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan. Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS. But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload. Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront. In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary. Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq. The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets. Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail. Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful. This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians. Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel. He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.
Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally. Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people. Putin has changed the topic of international conversation. Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria. Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who? The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties. Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested. Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.
B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.
Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue. Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia? It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!". No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow. He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.
Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia. The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan. Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS. But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload. Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront. In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary. Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq. The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets. Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail. Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful. This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians. Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel. He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.
Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally. Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people. Putin has changed the topic of international conversation. Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria. Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who? The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties. Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested. Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Russia masquerades a moderate international powerbroker, while the Obama Administration belatedly attempts to protect U.S. interests.
Links: U.S. troops "on the ground" have usual rules of engagement.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image. For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict. When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent? Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret. How far would Russia go to prop up Assad? When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place. In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions. First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-à-vis some of the bit players in this drama.
Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past. This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria. But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary. Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea. Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region. Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations. In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis. The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria. The comparison makes itself. In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity. The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.
In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories. A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned. The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire. If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results. Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran. Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria. This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance. The question is, why was Iran invited? They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad. An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?
Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image. For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict. When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent? Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret. How far would Russia go to prop up Assad? When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place. In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions. First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-à-vis some of the bit players in this drama.
Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past. This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria. But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary. Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea. Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region. Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations. In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis. The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria. The comparison makes itself. In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity. The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.
In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories. A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned. The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire. If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results. Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran. Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria. This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance. The question is, why was Iran invited? They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad. An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?
Saturday, October 31, 2015
ISIS bares its teeth in Syria, as Obama authorizes "boots on the ground" for U.S. troops.
Links: Obama authorizes use of U.S. troops in Syria.
On Friday, President Obama authorized the use of U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. Not surprisingly, Obama waited until Friday to make the announcement, limiting the media response. The Administration made it clear that the use of U.S. troops would be limited to special forces action, and the decision comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to expand Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict. It was not immediately apparent what impact limited action by U.S. special forces would have, or if Russian and U.S. forces might come into contact. Russia has not shied away from aggressive military action against U.S.-supported Syrian opposition. If the United States decides to deploy U.S. troops, even in non-operational roles, a random Russian bombing raid could cause American casualties. So even though "troops on the ground" have been authorized, don't expect to see it anytime soon, at least not in support of any of our so-called allies.
Until now, the Obama Administration had responded to increased Russian action in Syria with diplomatic commentary. The decision to allow the use of U.S. ground troops is nothing more than an extension of that policy. The Obama Administration has no intention of allowing U.S. troops to be directly involved in military action, especially following the death of a U.S. soldier in last week's successful joint operation with Kurdish forces to rescue a group of Kurdish prisoners.
On October 23, ISIS launched a major counteroffensive around the city of Aleppo. In recent weeks, the Syrian regime, with support from Russian air elements, had retaken large areas in northeast Syria. With a few exceptions, Russian bombing sorties focused on Syrian opposition positions. While the world was focused on Russian and Syrian regime forces decimating the Syrian opposition, ISIS was preparing to take advantage of the new situation. The ISIS attack put pressure on the main road which the regime uses to re-enforce Aleppo City from Homs and Hama Provinces. ISIS also initiated attacks on Safira, a strategic town which is suspected of hiding some of the Assad regime's chemical weapons development. The ease with which ISIS forces dispatched regime units in this week's attacks around Aleppo diminishes the impact of recent regime advances. Since most of the groups opposed to the Assad regime are also opposed to ISIS, the Russian bombing sorties did much to aid the Islamic State. As long as the Russian Air Force and regime forces limit their offensive efforts to attacking the Syrian opposition, ISIS will profit. The current military situation in Aleppo provides a good example.
On Friday, President Obama authorized the use of U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. Not surprisingly, Obama waited until Friday to make the announcement, limiting the media response. The Administration made it clear that the use of U.S. troops would be limited to special forces action, and the decision comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to expand Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict. It was not immediately apparent what impact limited action by U.S. special forces would have, or if Russian and U.S. forces might come into contact. Russia has not shied away from aggressive military action against U.S.-supported Syrian opposition. If the United States decides to deploy U.S. troops, even in non-operational roles, a random Russian bombing raid could cause American casualties. So even though "troops on the ground" have been authorized, don't expect to see it anytime soon, at least not in support of any of our so-called allies.
Until now, the Obama Administration had responded to increased Russian action in Syria with diplomatic commentary. The decision to allow the use of U.S. ground troops is nothing more than an extension of that policy. The Obama Administration has no intention of allowing U.S. troops to be directly involved in military action, especially following the death of a U.S. soldier in last week's successful joint operation with Kurdish forces to rescue a group of Kurdish prisoners.
On October 23, ISIS launched a major counteroffensive around the city of Aleppo. In recent weeks, the Syrian regime, with support from Russian air elements, had retaken large areas in northeast Syria. With a few exceptions, Russian bombing sorties focused on Syrian opposition positions. While the world was focused on Russian and Syrian regime forces decimating the Syrian opposition, ISIS was preparing to take advantage of the new situation. The ISIS attack put pressure on the main road which the regime uses to re-enforce Aleppo City from Homs and Hama Provinces. ISIS also initiated attacks on Safira, a strategic town which is suspected of hiding some of the Assad regime's chemical weapons development. The ease with which ISIS forces dispatched regime units in this week's attacks around Aleppo diminishes the impact of recent regime advances. Since most of the groups opposed to the Assad regime are also opposed to ISIS, the Russian bombing sorties did much to aid the Islamic State. As long as the Russian Air Force and regime forces limit their offensive efforts to attacking the Syrian opposition, ISIS will profit. The current military situation in Aleppo provides a good example.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Russia taking advantage of disinterested Obama Administration to project military strength internationally.
In the last few months, Russia has aggressively extended its military footprint around the globe. While most eyes are focused on Russian military action in Syria, Moscow has completed construction on a military facility in the Arctic, and stepped up diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Baghdad, Cuba, and the United Nations. Everytime that Russia succeeds in extending its military influence, the United States suffers accordingly. Russia's move to establish s military base in the Arctic comes on the heels of discoveries that the vast frozen areas north of the Arctic Circle hold great potential for mineral and fossil fuel exploration. Researchers and businesses in the United States have also expressed interest in Arctic resource exploration, but the Obama Administration has responded to such entreaties with suspicion and concern regarding the potential ecological impact. Also, the recent rapprochement between the United States and Cuba has apparently not dimmed the close relationship between Moscow and Havana. Many expect Cuba to lead the proposed Russian military "coalition" in Syria. Presently, this coalition can count Iran, pro-regime Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Belarus as members; many consider this grouping of Russian allies to be a counter to the U.S. coalition already in place in Syria.
A number of U.S. allies are beginning to discreetly express concern over the apparent apathy that appears to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the later period of the Obama Presidency. Since the election of 2008, most European leaders have been quick to support the Obama Aministration's policies, with the crises in Ukraine and Syria being two prime examples. But as the failure of these policies become more apparent, and Obama seems unwilling to stand up and confront increased Russian global activity, certain European leaders are reviewing what options might be available that do not require the presence of the United States government in a leadership role. No doubt our allies outside of Europe are also concerned about the lack of movement on the part of the United States. China must also recognize that an opportunity currently exists, and will assuredly take advantage as well, while Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Australia wonder if the status quo can hold until a new administration takes over in Washington DC.
At present, more so than at any point in the last seven years, the United States needs to be an international leader. This administration was quick to mobilize its diplomatic resources to conclude terrible treaties with both Russia (2010 New Start disarmament treaty with Russia), and Iran (2015 agreement on Iranian nuclear research). Given that our allies are simply waiting for some sign of strength and consistency, it's not too late to check Vladimit Putin's strategy to create in Russia the world's sole super-power. A fascinating aspect of these developments is that Russia's aggressive military and diplomatic moves have come while the Obama Administration continues to characterize Russia's economy as being close to collapse. It seems as is if we've been waiting for that collapse ever since the beginning of the sanctions regime that was imposed on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. I'm glad we weren't holding our breath.....
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Washington Post lest-than thoughtful editorial on Russia's interest in Syria.
Link: Washington Post article on Russian involvement in Syria.
I haven't read the New York times in years. I'm not alone in my disdain for politically motivated interpretation of national and international events; the Gray Lady ain't what she used to be. But I do still take a look at the Washington Post on occasion. Today's editorial by Samuel Ramani isn't terrible, but it is selectively dismissive of certain facts that really shouldn't be left out of this discussion. As his first point of conversation, Ramani introduces the issue of Putin's motivation for military involvement in Syria. Basically, he gets this one right. Putin has a handful of reasons to be interested in the Syrian conflict. As we've discussed on this blog previously, Putin really wants that Mediterranean Sea Naval Base at Tartus. Historically, Russia has always craved access to the Mediterranean. Moscow's interest in the Mediterranean caused the Ottoman Empire centuries of concern. Presently, the U.S. has naval facilities in the Mediterranean, and also in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf. Putin must frequently ask himself why Russia, as an "equal" superpower, doesn't have the same access. If Assad stays in power in Syria, and ISIS is defeated, you can bet that Russia will get that Naval Base at Tartus. I'm not sure about Putin interest in billion-dollar arms deals. I have no idea how Assad is accessing money these days, but I would be very surprised to learn that he's paying for all of the recent Russian largesse regarding military equipment and supplies. Ramani is right-on about the importance of Syria as an opportunity for Putin to demonstrate his abilities as the supreme leader of a world's superpower.
Ramani makes great import of Russia's interest in "the legitimacy of the Assad regime" as the government and authority in Damascus. I don't believe that Russia give's a rat's ass about the legitimacy of any government. Its all about Russia's interests, not Assad's legitimacy. The opposition that Putin's jets are currently blasting to bits in northeast Syria are arguably more legitimate than Assad ever was. Don't you think that if Assad could have won a free and fair election, he would have called for one before we reached this stage? Before Putin's arrival, Assad and his Ba'ath Party cronies had become so marginalized that they were close to losing the support of even the Alawite community. If Assad were in any way a legitimate ruler, he wouldn't have been facing a rebellion that almost swept aside the Levant's largest army and air force. Ramani comments about Putin's fear of the U.S. is trying to reshape the world in its own image. Right after Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Syria, and laid out a plan to do the same in Afghanistan? Actually, if we turn the clock back just a bit, we see Russian interference in Georgia, and more recently, the outright invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So who is trying to reshape the world here, Putin or the United States? Putin may publicly accuse the United States of imperialist intentions, but its nothing more than typical Russian obfuscation. In the last seven years, the United States has been about as expansionist as Botswana.
I agree with Ramani that Putin is determined to spread the message loud and clear that Russia will not be ignored. But Russia's intervention in Syria, with its proxy Iran alongside, is really about regional power and damaging U.S. influence in the Middle East. Putin is a megalomaniac and he does want to be acknowledged as the world leader who vanquished ISIS. I do not envision a Russian "bloc of allies" in the Middle East, the likes of which we saw in the days of Gamal Abdel Nassar and Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez. Putin is definitely living in the moment, and recognizes that the leadership vacuum that currently exists vis-à-vis the international community and ISIS, may not last past 2016 and the next U.S. presidential election. Also, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran, who leaders have a habit of spitting in every direction, and Tehran may not always agree with Russian strategy. Iran has serious ideas about its own regional position, and Iraq may end up causing disagreements between the two "new friends". Putin is aware that he has limited time to accomplish his goals. Expect to see more aggressive action by Russia against ISIS.
I haven't read the New York times in years. I'm not alone in my disdain for politically motivated interpretation of national and international events; the Gray Lady ain't what she used to be. But I do still take a look at the Washington Post on occasion. Today's editorial by Samuel Ramani isn't terrible, but it is selectively dismissive of certain facts that really shouldn't be left out of this discussion. As his first point of conversation, Ramani introduces the issue of Putin's motivation for military involvement in Syria. Basically, he gets this one right. Putin has a handful of reasons to be interested in the Syrian conflict. As we've discussed on this blog previously, Putin really wants that Mediterranean Sea Naval Base at Tartus. Historically, Russia has always craved access to the Mediterranean. Moscow's interest in the Mediterranean caused the Ottoman Empire centuries of concern. Presently, the U.S. has naval facilities in the Mediterranean, and also in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf. Putin must frequently ask himself why Russia, as an "equal" superpower, doesn't have the same access. If Assad stays in power in Syria, and ISIS is defeated, you can bet that Russia will get that Naval Base at Tartus. I'm not sure about Putin interest in billion-dollar arms deals. I have no idea how Assad is accessing money these days, but I would be very surprised to learn that he's paying for all of the recent Russian largesse regarding military equipment and supplies. Ramani is right-on about the importance of Syria as an opportunity for Putin to demonstrate his abilities as the supreme leader of a world's superpower.
Ramani makes great import of Russia's interest in "the legitimacy of the Assad regime" as the government and authority in Damascus. I don't believe that Russia give's a rat's ass about the legitimacy of any government. Its all about Russia's interests, not Assad's legitimacy. The opposition that Putin's jets are currently blasting to bits in northeast Syria are arguably more legitimate than Assad ever was. Don't you think that if Assad could have won a free and fair election, he would have called for one before we reached this stage? Before Putin's arrival, Assad and his Ba'ath Party cronies had become so marginalized that they were close to losing the support of even the Alawite community. If Assad were in any way a legitimate ruler, he wouldn't have been facing a rebellion that almost swept aside the Levant's largest army and air force. Ramani comments about Putin's fear of the U.S. is trying to reshape the world in its own image. Right after Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Syria, and laid out a plan to do the same in Afghanistan? Actually, if we turn the clock back just a bit, we see Russian interference in Georgia, and more recently, the outright invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So who is trying to reshape the world here, Putin or the United States? Putin may publicly accuse the United States of imperialist intentions, but its nothing more than typical Russian obfuscation. In the last seven years, the United States has been about as expansionist as Botswana.
I agree with Ramani that Putin is determined to spread the message loud and clear that Russia will not be ignored. But Russia's intervention in Syria, with its proxy Iran alongside, is really about regional power and damaging U.S. influence in the Middle East. Putin is a megalomaniac and he does want to be acknowledged as the world leader who vanquished ISIS. I do not envision a Russian "bloc of allies" in the Middle East, the likes of which we saw in the days of Gamal Abdel Nassar and Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez. Putin is definitely living in the moment, and recognizes that the leadership vacuum that currently exists vis-à-vis the international community and ISIS, may not last past 2016 and the next U.S. presidential election. Also, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran, who leaders have a habit of spitting in every direction, and Tehran may not always agree with Russian strategy. Iran has serious ideas about its own regional position, and Iraq may end up causing disagreements between the two "new friends". Putin is aware that he has limited time to accomplish his goals. Expect to see more aggressive action by Russia against ISIS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)