Category Archives: Arab Spring

Is President Obama Right About Putin?

Posted on by

Vladimir Putin delights in outwitting President Obama at every turn. But is the President right when he says the Putin's Syria adventure is "not a smart strategic move?" [Credit: Daily Mail and Getty Images]

Vladimir Putin delights in out­wit­ting Pres­i­dent Oba­ma at every turn. But is the Pres­i­dent right when he says that Putin’s Syr­ia adven­ture is “not a smart, strate­gic move?” [Cred­it: Dai­ly Mail and Get­ty Images]

The U.S. and Rus­sia blun­dered to the brink of nuclear war in 1983 accord­ing to recent­ly declas­si­fied doc­u­ments, a reminder that as frayed as rela­tions between Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma and Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin have become, things could be far worse.

The NATO exer­cise that threat­ened mutu­al­ly assured destruc­tion began with a fic­tion­al sce­nario that today does­n’t seem all that fic­tion­al — Rus­sia deliv­ers arms to Syr­ia and Iran.

Lead­ers of sev­er­al Gulf States, threat­ened by Russ­ian inter­ven­tion, seek U.S. mil­i­tary involve­ment, accord­ing to the sce­nario.  The Pres­i­dent responds by dis­patch­ing mil­i­tary advis­ers to the region and increas­ing our naval pres­ence there.

As the NATO war game played out, ris­ing ten­sions even­tu­al­ly pro­voke Russ­ian mil­i­tary aggres­sion against its neigh­bors.  The U.S. Pres­i­dent, in response to a request from his mil­i­tary com­man­ders, autho­rizes the “lim­it­ed use of nuclear weapons against pre-select­ed fixed targets.”

Russ­ian mil­i­tary lead­ers who observed the NATO exer­cise con­clud­ed that the U.S. was plot­ting a real nuclear strike against the Sovi­et Union.  Amer­i­can intel­li­gence offi­cials had no idea at the time how bad­ly the Sovi­ets were mis­read­ing our inten­tions or how close the world was draw­ing toward nuclear con­fla­gra­tion.  War was avert­ed.  But just bare­ly, if the new­ly declas­si­fied intel­li­gence assess­ments are to be believed.

Today, Rus­sia is doing far more than mere­ly sup­ply­ing arms to Syr­ia and Iran, leav­ing Pres­i­dent Oba­ma frus­trat­ed and flum­moxed, but not fum­bling for the nuclear launch codes.  Instead, the Pres­i­dent watch­es help­less­ly as Vladimir Putin asserts him­self in a region where the U.S. once held sway, vague­ly warn­ing that Russ­ian inter­ven­tion is “not a smart, strate­gic move.”

He may be right. Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Hope And (Regime) Change

Posted on by

Our drive-by intervention accomplished regime change in Libya, but the country has still not recovered from its liberation. [Credit: National Post]

Our dri­ve-by inter­ven­tion accom­plished regime change in Libya, but the coun­try has still not recov­ered from its lib­er­a­tion. [Cred­it: Nation­al Post]

The Con­sti­tu­tion requires Pres­i­dent Oba­ma to leave office in 700 days.  If he has his way, Vladimir Putin and Ben­jamin Netanyahu will pre­cede him into pri­vate life.

It should not be sur­pris­ing that a Pres­i­dent who prides him­self on refus­ing to nego­ti­ate with elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives has so lit­tle patience with some of his fel­low nation­al lead­ers.  Or that regime change has become a lead­ing char­ac­ter­is­tic of the Pres­i­den­t’s for­eign pol­i­cy.   Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Why Are We At War With The Islamic State?

Posted on by

Iraqi security forces and Shiite militia are among the ground troops on whom we rely in our war against the Islamic State. [Credit: Reuters]

Iraqi secu­ri­ty forces and Shi­ite mili­tia are among the ground troops on whom we rely in our war against the Islam­ic State. Their bru­tal­i­ty rivals that of IS. [Cred­it: Reuters]

[The sol­diers] dragged res­i­dents up to age 70 from their homes, beat­ing and curs­ing them with sec­tar­i­an slurs, Abu Omar [one of the sur­vivors] told Reuters by phone.  He said the fight­ers took the men’s mobiles and ID cards, then bound their hands, tying Abu Omar to his 12-year-old men­tal­ly ill son with rope. They did the same with his two old­er sons and three brothers.

The men were led a few hun­dred yards to a field where Abu Omar said more than a hun­dred oth­ers had been gath­ered.  For about two hours, they were forced to kneel and stare at the ground as the fight­ers select­ed their tar­gets and led them to a spot behind a mud wall.

“They took them behind the wall. Less than a minute, then a gun­shot,” said Abu Omar. “All we could hear was the gun­shots. We could­n’t see.”

This atroc­i­ty, which claimed the lives of 72 unarmed peo­ple in a vil­lage in Iraq’s Diyala Province, was not car­ried out by the Islam­ic State (IS). It was per­pe­trat­ed by our allies in the war against IS — Iraqi secu­ri­ty forces and Shi­ite mili­tia. Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Winning By Not Winning In Iraq and Syria

Posted on by

U.S. airstrikes have slowed the progress of Islamic State fighters, but the war may drag on for years. Why that's good for us. [Credit: Telegraph]

U.S. airstrikes have slowed the progress of Islam­ic State fight­ers, but the war may drag on for years. Why that’s good for us. [Cred­it: Telegraph]

The Pres­i­dent was asked a sim­ple ques­tion a few weeks ago: are we win­ning the war against the Islam­ic State?

He wouldn’t answer the ques­tion direct­ly, so I will.  We’re win­ning in Iraq and Syr­ia by not win­ning.  The net effect of our actions has so far been to keep extrem­ist Mus­lims of var­i­ous eth­nic­i­ties and sec­tar­i­an pas­sions engaged in war against … each oth­er.  And that may be the best pos­si­ble out­come in the cir­cum­stances. Con­tin­ue read­ing →

President’s Iraq Strategy Avoids Doing Nothing … But How Will It End?

Posted on by

A Libyan rebel for whom we provided air support celebrates in 2011. Today those same rebels have reduced the country to bloody chaos. Will our bombing in Iraq and Syria produce a better result? [Credit: The Guardian]

A Libyan rebel for whom we pro­vid­ed air sup­port cel­e­brates in 2011. Today those same rebels have reduced the coun­try to bloody chaos. Will our bomb­ing in Iraq and Syr­ia pro­duce a bet­ter result? [Cred­it: The Guardian]

The black flag of jihad flies over much of the coun­try.  City after city has fall­en to islamist insur­gents.  Mil­i­tants burn hous­es and attack eth­nic minori­ties and jour­nal­ists.   The pop­u­lar­ly elect­ed gov­ern­ment, pow­er­less to stop the onslaught, appeals for out­side help.  Fear­ing that the coun­try is fast becom­ing a “ter­ror­ist hub,” a West­ern gov­ern­ment this week sought to “mobi­lize the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty” to launch a war against the jihadists.

Iraq?  No.  Libya, a coun­try where we con­duct­ed airstrikes in 2011 in sup­port of an odd assort­ment of ground forces that includ­ed more than its share of mis­fits and fanatics.

If that strat­e­gy pro­duced such a mis­er­able result in Libya, can we rea­son­ably expect it to work in Iraq and Syr­ia? Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Hamas And Progressivism

Posted on by

Hamas fighters celebrated the arrival of Islamic law in Gaza in 2007. But the group, a darling of progressives, still has not succeeded in destroying Israel. [Credit: Telegraph.uk]

Hamas fight­ers cel­e­brat­ed the arrival of Islam­ic law in Gaza in 2007. But the group, a dar­ling of pro­gres­sives, still has not suc­ceed­ed in destroy­ing Israel. [Cred­it: Telegraph.uk]

“The time will not come until Mus­lims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Mus­lim! there is a Jew hid­ing behind me, come on and kill him!”  Hamas Char­ter, Arti­cle VII

“Under­stand­ing Hamas [and] Hezbol­lah as social move­ments that are pro­gres­sive, that are on the left, that are part of a glob­al left, is extreme­ly impor­tant.”  Berke­ley Pro­fes­sor Judith But­ler

The war that pits Israel against the pro­gres­sive social move­ment known as Hamas has returned to dor­man­cy.  The most recent out­break of blood­shed did not end with rocks and trees turn­ing Jews over to their Mus­lim pur­suers for exter­mi­na­tion.  The glob­al left will have to wait for his­to­ry to progress to that geno­ci­dal out­come. Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Why We Won’t Destroy The Islamic State

Posted on by

Our Shiite allies in the war against the terrorist Islamic State [IS] also have a taste for terror, which is one reason why we probably won't destroy the IS. [Credit: Getty Images]

Our Shi­ite allies in the war against the ter­ror­ist Islam­ic State [IS] also have a taste for ter­ror, which is one rea­son why we prob­a­bly won’t destroy the IS. [Cred­it: Get­ty Images]

Pres­i­dent Oba­ma seems to have found his inner neocon.

This past week, he called on the world to unite behind a “com­mon effort to extract this can­cer,” as he char­ac­ter­ized the Islam­ic State [IS].  Our ever-bel­li­cose chief diplo­mat shunned metaphors and spoke more direct­ly.  The IS, Ker­ry said, “and the wicked­ness it rep­re­sents must be destroyed.”

Thus did our lat­est incur­sion into Iraq, which began as a mis­sion to res­cue Yazidis trapped on a moun­tain, become some­thing more.  But words are cheap.  War is cost­ly.  The Pres­i­dent lacks the resolve to make good on his threat to extract the can­cer that is the Islam­ic State.

Con­tin­ue read­ing →

President Bush Not To Blame For This Iraq Crisis

Posted on by

 

Iraq appears on the verge of civil war and some blame former President George W. Bush. Here's why they're wrong. [Credit: al Jazeera America]

Iraq appears on the verge of civ­il war and some blame for­mer Pres­i­dent George W. Bush. Here’s why they’re wrong. [Cred­it: al Jazeera America]

The Iraq civ­il war did not start under Oba­ma, it start­ed when Bush, Cheney and the neo­cons pulled the trig­ger to invade Iraq … . It was [the] sta­tus of force agree­ment, signed by Bush, that pledged to with­draw all US forces … Giv­en the stag­ger­ing cost of expense and lives we could not stay there “maybe a hun­dred years” as McCain said. Nor could we bleed hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars there every year. Oba­ma promised to get us out of there, and he right­ly did so … To attempt to blame any­one but Bush, Cheney and the neo­cons for the Iraq dis­as­ter is sim­ply revi­sion­ism at its finest. —  Excerpt­ed from a comment on my recent post on Iraq.

The Oba­ma presidency’s lead­ing malfea­sance lies in its belief that find­ing some­one to blame for a prob­lem is as good as solv­ing it.  So it is lit­tle sur­prise that my recent post on Iraq, in which I argued against US mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion, would spur com­ments that for­mer Pres­i­dent George W. Bush is to blame for the renewed fight­ing. Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Can President Obama See The World As It Is?

Posted on by

President Obama this week urged graduating West Point cadets to "see the world as it is." But does he see it all that clearly? [Credit: NY Daily News]

Pres­i­dent Oba­ma this week urged grad­u­at­ing West Point cadets to “see the world as it is.” But how clear­ly does he see it? [Cred­it: NY Dai­ly News]

Pres­i­dent Obama’s mas­tery of the obvi­ous was on dis­play this week dur­ing his lengthy address at West Point.

“Iso­la­tion­ism,” he declared, “is not an option.” There’s a bold state­ment.  But that’s “not to say that every prob­lem has a mil­i­tary solu­tion.”  Has any­one ever said that?  “War rarely con­forms to slo­gans.”  Rarely?  “U.S. mil­i­tary action can­not be the only — or even pri­ma­ry — com­po­nent of our lead­er­ship in every instance.”  Has that ever been sug­gest­ed?  “Amer­i­ca should nev­er ask per­mis­sion to pro­tect our peo­ple, our home­land, or our way of life.” That’s a relief.  “The most direct threat to Amer­i­ca at home and abroad remains ter­ror­ism.”  Real­ly.  But “a strat­e­gy that involves invad­ing every coun­try that har­bors ter­ror­ist net­works is naïve and unsus­tain­able.” That would require an awful lot of inva­sions.  “We must uphold stan­dards that reflect our val­ues.”  Uphold­ing stan­dards that don’t reflect our val­ues would seem wrong.  “We should not expect change to hap­pen overnight.”

Change, nev­er­the­less, is occur­ring – but not the sort of change the Pres­i­dent has been advo­cat­ing. Con­tin­ue read­ing →

What the President Can Learn From Ukraine

Posted on by

Ukrainian army personnel dispatched to reclaim a city from pro-Russian forces decided instead to defect to the Russian side. [Credit: AFP/Getty]

Ukrain­ian army per­son­nel dis­patched to reclaim a city from pro-Russ­ian forces report­ed­ly defect­ed to the pro-Russ­ian side. Last night’s ten­ta­tive agree­ment will put an inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tion — includ­ing Russ­ian, Amer­i­can and Euro­pean mon­i­tors — at the lead in return­ing the cities to Kiev’s con­trol. [Cred­it: AFP/Getty]

Ear­li­er this week, four armored troop car­ri­ers head­ed toward the east­ern Ukraine city of Slo­vian­sk, which had been occu­pied by pro-Russ­ian forces.  The para­troop­ers from Ukraine’s 25th brigade were dis­patched by the gov­ern­ment in Kiev to spear­head its “anti-ter­ror­ist” offen­sive, designed to reclaim the city for the cen­tral gov­ern­ment.  But after talk­ing with the demon­stra­tors who met them out­side the city, the troops report­ed­ly defect­ed to the pro-Russ­ian side, replaced the Ukraine flag with a Russ­ian one, and drove their vehi­cle into Lenin Square.

Short­ly after Rus­sia invad­ed Crimea, Sec­re­tary of State John Ker­ry said, “The peo­ple of Ukraine will not sit still for this.  They know how to fight.”

Evi­dent­ly not. Con­tin­ue read­ing →