Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who is sincerely embarking on the epic of keeping America safe. He has signed an executive order banning entry of people from seven countries, namely Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. These countries are labeled as terrorist states since their governments have been sponsoring act of terrorism across the globe. If the people of these 7 nations have any objection to an immigration law enforced by any country in the world, they should redirect their protest toward their own terrorist governments, who are the main root cause and responsible for such ban.
The order has been criticized for excluding Saudi Arabia, while wrongly claiming it was participating in 911 attack. The fact of matter is that the 911 act of terrorism was carried out by the citizens of Saudi Arabia and not its state. The immigration order was issued without any warning because it was going to ban the terrorists from entering the country, it was not planned to warn them in advance, which would result in a futile outcome. The new immigration law imposed by anti-establishment president Trump is strongly supported by the Americans who love their country and concern about the future of their next generations. [DID]
Within a day of President Donald Trump signing an executive order banning entry of people from seven countries, protests sprang up at airports across the United States. Demonstrators and activist groups called the ban unconstitutional, and administration officials scrambled to clarify who would be affected by the new rules.
We went through the order to resolve what is clear and what remains murky.
Who is affected?
The order states, “I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” Specifically, the order targets people from countries originally listed by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Read more…
The Obama’s West Point foreign policy confirmed in the end what Iranian mullahs suspected all along that the President was bluffing when he repeatedly stated that all options are on the table to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. In his West Point speech by basing his foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solution he assured the mullahs that his military threats against them have never been credible. Moreover, Obama’s desperate concessions to get the mullahs engaged in the negotiations has given them the impression of having the privilege to achieve their irreversible goal of acquiring a nuclear-armed capability without paying a price as long as they are making the West believe they are truly negotiating.
Obama’s abjection and lack of capability in making the right, bold, and punctual decision in global affairs will be a serious threat to U.S. national security. It is imperative for the U.S. Congress to work closely with the administration on Iran agreement and pursue a direct and constant monitoring of the situation, otherwise the White House and the Congress will be held accountable for a nuclear-armed Iran and the subsequent global chaotic consequences. [DID]
The U.S. already failed to detect nuclear programs on four other occasions: Iraq – 1991, Syria – 2009, North Korea – 2000-1 and Libya – 2005. That is quite a record.
Terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, regularly launch rocket attacks on Israel, but because they are not “recognized state actors” launching rocket attacks on another sovereign state, we do not put the min the same category. All terrorist groups attacking a state therefore get a free pass.
A nuclear device in the hands of such terrorist groups — chosen precisely because they cannot be readily identified as working for, or connected to, a state — can therefore be used in an attack with impunity, totally undermining the assumption that such weapons in the hands of Iran are “only for deterrence.”
Unless we end the Iranian nuclear weapons program now, we will probably only know if a threat is “real” after it is too late.
It’s painful watching the YouTube video of President Obama in Manila last week talking about hitting singles and doubles in foreign policy. Everything he says is measured, and most of it is correct. But he acts as if he’s talking to a rational world, as opposed to one inhabited by leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
In the realm of power politics, American presidents don’t get points for being right but for being (or appearing) strong. Read more…
For most commentators, President Barack Obama’s biggest achievement in his four-nation tour of Asia was the enhanced defense treaty he signed with Philippine President Benigno Aquino. The pact permits US forces to operate on Philippine military bases and sets the conditions for joint training of US and Philippine forces, among other things.
There are two problems with the treaty, however. And they reflect the basic problem with US foreign policy generally, five-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency. First, there is the reason that the treaty became necessary.
U.S. foreign policy is in troubling disarray. The result is unwelcome news for the world, which largely depends upon the United States to promote order in the absence of any other country able and willing to do so. And it is bad for the United States, which cannot insulate itself from developments beyond its borders.
If success has many fathers, it turns out that so, too, does disarray. The Administration of George W. Bush overreached in Iraq and (along with the Federal Reserve Board and Congress) under-regulated the financial sector in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Congress should also be held accountable for the sequester Read more…
In the spring of 2012, The National Interest produced a special issue under the rubric of “The Crisis of the Old Order: The Crumbling Status Quo at Home and Abroad .”The thesis was that the old era of relative global stability, forged through the crucibles of the Great Depression and World War II, was coming unglued. In introducing the broad topic to readers, TNI editors wrote, “Only through a historical perspective can we fully understand the profound developments of our time and glean, perhaps only dimly, where they are taking us. One thing is clear: they are taking us into a new era. The only question is how much disruption, chaos and bloodshed will attend the transition from the Old Order to whatever emerges to replace it.” Read more…
Our allies and our enemies have seriously recalculated where the U.S. stands. It was not difficult to define American geopolitical strategy over the seven decades following World War II — at least until 2009. It was largely bipartisan advocacy, most ambitiously, for nations to have the freedom of adopting constitutional governments that respected human rights, favored free markets, and abided by the rule of law. And at the least, we sought a world in which states could have any odious ideology they wished as long as they kept it within their own borders. There were several general strategic goals as we calculated our specific aims, both utopian and realistic.
(1) The strategic cornerstone was the protection of a small group of allies that, as we did, embraced consensual government and free markets, and were more likely to avoid human-rights abuses. That eventually meant partnerships with Western and later parts of Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and much of its former Empire, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In Asia, the American focus was on Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. military essentially guaranteed the security of these Asian nations, and they developed safely, shielded from Soviet or Chinese Communist aggression, and more recently from Russian or Chinese provocations. Read more…
The Roosevelt administration once talked loudly of pivoting to Asia to thwart a rising Japan. As a token of its seriousness, in May 1940 it moved the home port of the Seventh Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor — but without beefing up the fleet’s strength.
The then-commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral James O. Richardson, an expert on the Japanese Imperial Navy, protested vehemently over such a reckless redeployment. He felt that the move might invite, but could not guard against, surprise attack.
Richardson was eventually relieved of his command and his career was ruined — even as he was later proved right when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Britain at the same time promoted a loud Singapore Strategy, trumpeting its Malaysian base as the “Gibraltar of the Pacific.” But London did not send out up-to-date planes, carriers, or gunnery to the Pacific.
Kiev’s mass anti-government protests are a thing of the past, but the barricades remain, a shrine to the victims. Visitors trickle through the site, paying homage to the Heavenly Hundred, those murdered in the final days of the struggle. The martyrs’ names are taped to the trees, their photographs covered in mounds of flowers. Children holding little Ukrainian flags pose for photographs in front of these monuments. They don’t smile.
They will remember coming here for the rest of their lives, for this is how nations are built: on legends, on emotions, on stories of heroes. Tales of those who stood for months in the square will be told and retold. But that doesn’t mean that the protesters will necessarily have triumphed. On the contrary, Ukrainians are about to learn that the exhilaration of “people power”—mass marches, big demonstrations, songs, and banners—is always an illusion. And sooner or later, the illusion wears off. Read more…