What happened in Syria is horrible, but it’s not unique. The world sat idly by when it happened in Syria before – as the bodies piled up in there. Why should this time be any different?
The bombs just flew, so we have politicians and journalists mounting their high horses and patting themselves on their backs for caring and others condemning the action as unlawful. Everyone falls in line behind whatever suits their political needs, and nothing changes.
The world likes to be seen denouncing monsters and their inhuman actions, but it doesn’t like actually doing anything essential about it. President Donald Trump’s “targeted” bombing of the airfield from which the latest chemical attack was launched might stop chemical weapons from being used for a while, but it won’t stop the slaughter in Syria. Does it make any difference to be killed by chemical weapons or by conventional ones?
It makes more sense to say that Trump’s airstrike was merely a politically motivated reaction rather than an act in a meaningful way on matters of the actions of monsters. The target of air strike was Syria & its sponsor terrorist states of IRI and Hezbollah (killing the “chickens”), but the message was intended for China & its client state, North Korea, and the Russia as well (scaring the “Monkeys”).
My hope is that the airstrike would be part of a long-term military strategy for a complete crack down on evil actors in Syria and the rest of the Middle East region including Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and in particular Iran, where the head of the snake (Mullahs) has nested.
President Donald Trump has signaled confidence in his ability to handle foreign policy, promising that the world would be in much better shape in his administration. I trust the new administration to stand firm on his resolution. [DID]
“To kill a chicken to scare monkeys” is a famous Chinese military strategy, and is often attributed to one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived, Sun Tzu, author of the famous treatise, The Art of War. This particular strategy is designed to send a message (often a warning) to powerful enemies by attacking a smaller, weaker power first. I don’t know if Trump, the author of The Art of The Deal, ever read The Art of War, but his surprising air strike on Syria on April 6th, 2017, clearly achieved a similar effect to this ancient strategy.
Many political pundits worried that the air strike is a prelude to the U.S. deepening its involvement in the war with the Assad regime. I think they miss the point. If Trump’s intention is to go to war with Assad, he could have waited until Chinese president Xi left Mar-a-Lago. Instead, he chose to strike Assad on the eve of the much hyped summit with Xi. The timing of the strike didn’t seem like a coincidence. Read more…
Iran deal is a virtual contract under which US is hiring mullahs to plow the whole Middle East, a geopolitical task to redraw the regional map that Uncle Sam couldn’t pursue on its own for three reasons: first, lack of public support for war; second, economic downturn, and finally deficit of effective leadership in the White House. [DID]
‘We couldn’t have negotiated a better deal.” That is one of the two pillars of the Obama administration’s argument in favor of its nuclear arrangement with Iran, the other being, “there’s no alternative but war.” Those two propositions appear to have won the day—at least with enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a vote disapproving of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Iran deal remains deeply unpopular with the American public and with the Republican majority in Congress.
Over the past few months, the two propositions regarding the deal left opponents sputtering a catalog of its numerous defects. But it must be admitted that the first proposition—“we couldn’t have negotiated a better deal”—is contextually true.
Consider who the “we” are. President Obama, the deal’s principal proponent, has repeatedly refused to recognize the existence of Islamist radicalism and failed to enforce even his own red line against Bashar Assad’s use of poison gas in Syria. Read more…
Speech by Bill Clinton 0n 21 October 1994 on how the world is a safer place based on the “good deal” with North Korea, preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons. On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test. Barack Obama has just made the same speech regarding Iran.
The planet earth and its citizens are living in hell due the lack of effective and capable world leaders, what we have instead are bunch of political dwarfs who are nothing more than elected mercenaries and puppets of the rich sectors, whose only purpose are to preserve their empires of wealth with the cost of pain and suffering burdened on shoulders of the world grassroots.
About two decades ago Bill Clinton’s imprudence paved the way for N Korea to become an atomic power; today we are witnessing the Obama’s naivety and incompetence is setting the stepping stones for the Iranian mullahs to get access to nuclear weapon. History is doomed to repeat itself. Obama says that our deal with Iranian regime will conclude not based on trust but on evidence and verification. Obama’s remark is obviously absurd when at the same time the IAEA agency asserts that as long as the Iranian regime is not ready to voluntarily declare its clandestine atomic activities and sites we have no other way to be able to announce the peaceful purpose of Iran’s nuclear program. Go figure. [DID]
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.
“Obama is simply less personally engaged in foreign policy matters than any of his predecessors reaching as far back as Herbert Hoover.”
As he enters the Back Nine of his second term in office, President Barack Obama is clearly looking to establish his historical legacy. No doubt, his highest priority is the preservation of the Affordable Care Act, which his Administration views as no less important than Medicare and Social Security. Whether Obamacare will survive in its present form, or even survive at all, of course, remains an open question that will be determined both by the future composition of Congress and by the policy preferences of the next White House occupant.
In addition, it is clear that he wishes to be remembered as the president who defeated Al Qaeda by authorizing the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. This legacy, too, is uncertain. It is not merely the host of unanswered questions about the Benghazi fiasco. More to the point is the fact that Islamic extremists, who are at the center of both the Syrian and renewed Iraqi civil wars, are increasingly assertive and violent in Africa and are far from dormant in Southeast Asia as well.
Finally, and most critically, Read more…
Christians are under siege in the Middle East, and the Obama administration is not doing enough to stop religious persecution by its allies, according to a new report from a bipartisan federal commission.
The report, from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, faulted usual suspects Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as well as North Korea. The number of Christians in the Middle East has plunged to just 10 percent of the overall population from more than 25 percent in 2011. Read more…
In the Philippines this week, President Obama took a cheap shot at critics of his foreign policy.
“Why is it,” the president pondered at a news conference, “that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?”
But who is banging the shield, demanding war? Critics of the president’s foreign policy have ranged from human rights activists on the political left to congressional Republicans on the right. 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…