Archive for the ‘U.S Foreign Policy’ Category
by Erik Rush
The law of the jungle is so hard to break, When death walks behind you with each step you take…
- Gary Moore, guitarist and songwriter of Thin Lizzy fame
Some readers may remember that during the 'Seventies and 'Eighties it was a fairly regular occurrence to hear media reports of Israeli intelligence (Mossad) agents kicking in the doors of a fleabag flat, hotel room or safe house in some obscure (or sometimes not-so-obscure) European city and introducing the head of a known terrorist hiding there to around half a dozen or so large-caliber lead projectiles.
Israel's government never offered any denials nor apologies about doing so. They located a threat to their national security, so their operatives clandestinely gained entry to the necessary country, made contact, and terminated the target with extreme prejudice. Of course there was also their awesome attack on Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactors when he attempted to do what we've blithely let Iran get away with.
By Alan Caruba
There’s a reason why political power was taken from the Republicans and given to the Democrat Party. Voters in the political center had concluded that the Iraq invasion has been a failure. They may be wrong, but the Middle East has a long history of befuddling the best efforts to reform it.
At the heart of the election was the conclusion that, given America’s famed managerial and military skills, what had occurred in Iraq was a failure of competency at the highest levels of government. The blame cannot be placed on our soldiers, airmen, and Marines. It was not a failure of the valor of our fighting forces.
It is now widely understood that the White House and Pentagon failed to provide either sufficient manpower or planning for the postwar period.
By Alan Caruba
Lyndon Johnson would tell anyone who would listen that he did not know how to get out of Vietnam. The result is a memorial wall in Washington, D.C. with the names of some 50,000 or more servicemen and women who died in a war this nation unequivocally lost. Four Presidents wrestled with the questions of whether to get into that civil war and then how to get out.
In the end, having failed to leave years earlier, our departure was ignominious. In failing to leave for political reasons, Richard Nixon compounded that ignominy in blood.
I wonder how many more of our soldiers will die in Iraq while President George W. Bush tries to find a way to leave as events in that nation and the Middle East conspire against him. There is no good way. There is only leaving.
By “leaving” I mean withdrawing our troops to a level that will vastly reduce the day-by-day loss to improvised explosive devices, snipers, and suicide bombers. That’s not the way our military is constituted to fight a war. That’s an internal guerrilla action intended to determine control of Iraq while ridding it of the American military presence. It is the needless sacrifice of young men and women in uniform for the notion that America cannot recover from leaving.
By Thomas E. Brewton
It is said that diplomats must be prepared to negotiate with the Devil, which raises the question whether anything can be gained by negotiating with pure evil. Is it realism to assume that the Devil can be made less than evil?
Release of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report puts the doctrine of foreign policy realism in the middle of the table. One implication of that doctrine is that values should play no role in foreign policy; only material national interests deserve consideration.
Yet liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats have been touting the forthcoming report (predictably leaked and already widely discussed by the New York Times) as a counter to the administration's policy.
How does diplomatic realism square with the endless barrages of criticism from liberals that the Bush doctrine of preemptive action has squandered the United States's moral capital with the rest of the world?
How does diplomatic realism square with liberals attacking all forms of clandestine surveillance of enemy activity? with demands that terrorists be treated like prisoners of war under the Geneva convention?
Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Levin, and Dodd apparently regard "sensitivity" and popularity as values that trump other national interests, ergo the UN and not US military action: ingratiation, not defense. Where does the expected diplomatic realism of the Baker- Hamilton Iraq Study Group report fit into that picture? Are "sensitivity" and popularity moral values?
by Jeff Lukens
Elections have consequences. And for our recent election, the consequences have been a major setback in the war on terror and a greater threat to terrorist attack at home. This is so because a public with an attention deficit disorder has elected a liberal congress that wants pull the plug on Iraq at the first face-saving chance they get.
Many people draw comparisons between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. Since the election I've had the nagging feeling we are in about the 1973 phase of the Vietnam War. That year the power shift in Washington away from a conservative president toward a liberal congress doomed the war effort and in effect condemned millions of our Vietnamese allies to death and reeducation camps. A similar scenario may now be unfolding regarding Iraq.
The effort to preserve our interests in the region just got a lot more difficult as antiwar Democrats take over Congress backed by a sympathetic press. Together they have convinced the public that Iraq is a costly misstep, and Republicans have failed to convince them otherwise.
Much of President Bush's strategy has been based on Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy. In it, Sharansky stresses that freedom abroad and security at home are linked, and that there can be no peace without democracy. His book has become the basis of the post-9/11 strategic thinking.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
One of the obvious shortcomings of the blue-ribbon panel, Iraq Study Group, is the reliance on politicians and the absence of military command officers who've actually led troops on the fields of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In reaction to this politically-motivated study group, General Peter Pace, USMC, the Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assembled his own panel of commanding officers from all branches of the US Armed Forces. The goal is to not only to achieve victory in Iraq, but to define the elusive term "winning."
The team involved in this military review panel includes Col. H. R. McMaster, an Army officer whose 2005 operation in Tal Afar has been cited as a textbook case in how to wage counterinsurgency in Iraq, as well as Col. Peter Mansoor, commander of the United States Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who commanded an Army brigade that fought the Mahdi Army militia in 2004 at Karbala.
Also on the panel is Col. Thomas Greenwood, the director of the Marine Command and Staff College who oversaw efforts to train Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all, more than a dozen military officers are on the team, which is overseen by Capt. Michael Rogers of the Navy, a special assistant to Pace.
The review, which includes the participation of Gen. George Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, and General John Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, is slated to be completed in early December
The war on terror is not going to end as World War II did — with an instrument of surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Gen. Peter Pace said winning in this war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a piece of paper.
"Winning is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function," he said.
By Alan Caruba
When the President decided to bring about regime change in Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Saddam Hussein was among one of the world’s worst dictators, widely credited with slaughtering large numbers of Iraqis and using chemical warfare against both the Kurds of northern Iraq and during his eight-year war in the 1980s against Iran.
However, I couldn’t shake the notion that his animus toward Saddam was personal. His father, Bush41, had been the object of a thwarted assassination attempt attributed to Saddam, and had lost his bid for a second term despite the successful execution of the first war to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Bush came into office with a promise to cut taxes and then 9/11 completely altered whatever other plans he had. What followed was a brief, successful incursion into Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban, but it was a war largely fought by local warlords whose assistance was purchased with gobs of money and by the application of American air warfare. The result, however, is that the Taliban are back. I doubt anyone wants to take any bets on how long the Bush-backed government in Kabul will last.
In retrospect, one is forced to ask if democracy, American-style, can be implemented in places where there never has been any true democracy? It’s a question I should have asked myself back then.
Within a year of the Iraq war’s inception, some warnings regarding its prosecution were being issued, but few were listening. In January 2004 the Army War College issued a report that criticized the Bush administration’s global war on terrorism as “unfocused.” Its author, Jeffrey Record, said that the war in Iraq was “unnecessary” and “a detour” that diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by al Qaeda.
by Thomas E. Brewton
Just as he now works to undermine our resistance to Islamic Jihad, Teddy Kennedy arrogated to himself the role of secret negotiator with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If it wasn't treason, it was very close to being so. His actions clearly were intended to thwart the foreign policy of our elected government and thereby to give aid and comfort to our enemies.
A Washington Times article reports:
In his new book, "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism," Grove City College professor Paul Kengor sheds light on a letter written by KGB head Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. The letter is dated May 14, 1983, right as the debate was heating up over Mr. Reagan's proposed deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviets' medium-range rockets in Eastern Europe.
Most Democrats and much of the left were universally opposed to Mr. Reagan's plan, which they argued would lead to nuclear war. Heading the list of critics was Mr. Kennedy, who had, according to the Soviet letter, sent former Sen. John V. Tunney to meet with Kremlin leaders. Chebrikov writes that Mr. Kennedy "charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to… Andropov."
……The letter goes on to say how Mr. Kennedy felt that the Soviets' peaceful intentions were being "quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted." Conversely, Mr. Reagan "has the capabilities to counter any propaganda." In other words, if the letter is to be believed, Mr. Kennedy felt his own president was the real aggressor.
Mr. Kennedy had two proposals for Andropov, according to Chebrikov. First, he asked for a meeting later that summer in order "to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Second, that "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize…. televised interviews with [Andropov] in the USA."
Ironically, even Senator Kennedy now acknowledges that President Reagan's policy was not only correct, but also was responsible for ending the Cold War.
by Thomas Lindaman
With the recent news that North Korea tested a nuclear weapon, the world is left asking one question: Will Samuel L. Jackson sign on for a sequel to "Snakes on a Plane"? Yes, our mindset towards North Korea’s nuclear program has been…well, lacking. We’ve paid more attention to Anna Nicole Smith than to Kim Jong Il. And judging from the size of Smith’s…talent, I can see why.
As the situation in North Korea starts getting more tense, we look to our political leaders for answers. President George W. Bush has started talking tough, pushing for sanctions against the country and saying the international community will react. How? By letting us do everything and then complaining about what we’re doing? Yeah, that’ll work, just like it’s worked for the UN all these years.
Since Bush doesn’t have a good idea, what about the Democrats? They’ve come out and blamed the President for his bad policy towards North Korea, so naturally you’d think they have a better plan. Given that both Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright were tricked by Kim Jong Il into thinking the little guy was cooperating, I’m not sure I can take the Democrats that seriously. It’s like getting scammed in a game of One Card Monty.
So, who do we turn to for answers? Since you’re reading my column, I guess I should come across with some. Fortunately, I do have a few.
1) Let him try to launch a nuke. Without a doubt, Kim Jong Il is the most delusional leader this side of Howard Dean. He’s what would happen if Mao Tse Tung and Ross Perot had a kid. (Okay, I’m going to need therapy after that analogy.) He has a Napoleon complex to beat the band, so what does he do? He’s trying to turn North Korea into a superpower. However, there is one slight problem. Seems his missile technology is derived from the same aerodynamic engineering that you can find in a balsa wood toy airplane with a wind-up propeller and a rubber band. If Kim Jong Il keeps that up, he’ll take himself out of the picture.
By Thomas E. Brewton
In the political sphere, Progressivism is a synonym for socialism, and for our sect called liberalism. Socialism necessitates collectivized power at the highest levels of the political state, leaving open a pathway to totalitarianism. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to march along that pathway.
The founding generation were essentially unanimous in their understanding that humans are almost ungovernable, that human nature is far from the imagined perfection of the state of nature theorized in the 18th and 19th centuries by French predecessors of today's liberal-socialists.
As James Madison famously expressed it in Federalist No. 51:
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, and almost all the other founders, understood that the Constitution would be effective only in a society ordered by morality. Just as governments were subject to the higher law of nature, individuals were subject to the higher law of morality. Free political societies require the cosmic authority of religion to keep the people at least headed in the direction of virtue.
Socialism, in contrast, is an atheistic, materialistic religion that denies the existence of natural law and inalienable individual rights. Not the individual, but an abstraction called humanity is the unit of focus under socialism.
As we saw under socialism in Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's National Socialism, when there is no overarching restraint imposed by belief in God, the dignity of individuals, and the sanctity of life, there can be no limit on the class-based, arbitrary cruelty of political leaders. When a popular majority supports the political leaders, as in Russia of the 1920s and Germany of the 1930s, whole segments of the population may be liquidated for the "greater good."
Read the rest of this entry »