ME Strategy?

[philunderwood]

How the decision was made to press for a No Fly Zone

March 18th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

It was made without the apparent participation of the United States in the early decision making process. From Foreign Policy’s The Cable blog:


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meetings in Paris with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday left her European interlocutors with more questions than answers about the Obama administration’s stance on intervention in Libya.
Inside the foreign ministers’ meeting, a loud and contentious debate erupted about whether to move forward with stronger action to halt Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi’s campaign against the Libyan rebels and the violence being perpetrated against civilians. Britain and France argued for immediate action while Germany and Russia opposed such a move, according to two European diplomats who were briefed on the meeting.

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration’s position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton’s unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

I’m beginning to understand the phrase "above the fray" or "stayed out of the fray" as essentially means refusing to involve or commit to anything much less make a decision. And that’s precisely what happened at the G8 meeting.

What worried diplomats even more was this:

On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy’s request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.

Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "there are difficulties," the source said, explaining that Clinton was referring to China and Russia’s opposition to intervention at the United Nations. Sarkozy replied that the United States should at least try to overcome the difficulties by leading a strong push at the U.N., but Clinton simply repeated, "There are difficulties."

One diplomat, who supports stronger action in Libya, contended that the United States’ lack of clarity on this issue is only strengthening those who oppose action.

That “lack of clarity” can be translated as a lack of leadership on the issue. Casting around in the G8 minister’s meeting for some sort of consensus toward action or inaction, both sides looked to the US to commit. It simply refused to do so. Whether you support or oppose a NFZ, you have to be concerned that we had no strategy or apparent game plan when we entered that meeting.

Hillary Clinton tries to spin it as it being a matter of venue:

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday in Cairo, Clinton pointed to the U.N. Security Council as the proper venue for any decision to be made and she pushed back at the contention by the British and the French that the U.S. was dragging its feet.

"I don’t think that is fair. I think, based on my conversations in Paris with the G-8 ministers, which, of course, included those two countries, I think we all agree that given the Arab League statement, it was time to move to the Security Council to see what was possible," Clinton said. I don’t want to prejudge it because countries are still very concerned about it. And I know how anxious the British and the French and the Lebanese are, and they have taken a big step in presenting something. But we want to get something that will do what needs to be done and can be passed."

"It won’t do us any good to consult, negotiate, and then have something vetoed or not have enough votes to pass it," Clinton added.

But that is patent nonsense. You had most of the movers and shakers there. In fact, it was the prefect venue to get preliminary negotiations underway, make a case one way or the other and then use the UN as the final place to seal the deal. Diplomacy 101.

Now, this is important – note the day the BBC interview was done: Wednesday. Note the day the G8 meeting was: Monday.

So what happened Tuesday?

Ah, glad you asked.

At the start of this week, the consensus around Washington was that military action against Libya was not in the cards. However, in the last several days, the White House completely altered its stance and successfully pushed for the authorization for military intervention against Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. What changed?

The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as "extremely contentious." Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.

You may be saying, “wohoo, he finally made a freakin’ decision”. Well yeah, he could see how it was going and he could see where it would probably end up, so you have to wonder, was it a decision or was it more of a rationalization?

My guess it was the latter. And it is the third “strategy” for the region that the US has displayed in as many months.

But Obama’s stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention – instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."

Bingo – Clemons is dead on the money. There is no well thought out strategy for the Middle East – this is just someone winging it, figuring out where world (or regional opinion lies) and giving himself enough space for deniability should something go wrong. The cool kids in the world want to bomb Libya, so hey, we should probably do it too now that they’re committed – but we shouldn’t be seen as leading it in case it turns out badly”.

The rationalization for backing the action comes from the realization that it is probably going to happen, and unlike the US, France and the UK aren’t going to let Russia and Germany decide it for them without ever engaging in a fight.

So we now trot out our 3rd “realignment” of “our interests and values”? Really? Pray what are they? And what were they?

Clemons point about the fact that this points to a reactive presidency shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s part of leadership, or lack thereof. Leaders have a strategy and a plan. You may not like it, but they have one. And since it has to do with foreign affairs, it should address the best interests of the US. Three different strategies driven by who knows what in a three month period does not argue for a comprehensive or coherent strategy, much less a plan.

This is the ultimate in finger in the wind diplomacy and another in a long line of indicators highlighting the dangerous lack of leadership under which this country is now suffering.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

ShrinkWrapped
A Psychoanalyst Attempts to Understand Our World

shrinkwrapped.blogs.com

March 20, 2011

An Exercise in Incoherence
Does anyone know what our country's foreign policy is based on under President Obama? He can't wait to exit Iraq and Afghanistan and he has now involved us in a war between two or more groups of noxious tibial communities in Libya. It is rarely a good idea to step in between combatants in domestic disputes. Ask any police officer and he will tell you that the most dangerous situations they face are domestic disputes.

Obama apparently believed that because we have cover from the UN and the Arab League, our intervention in Libya would be greeted with plaudits from the Arab world. If he truly believed that delusion, he has already been proved wrong:

Arab League head criticizes airstrikes as Western forces impose no-fly zone

A coordinated attack by Western forces targeting Libyan air capabilities and armor appears to have succeeded in damaging Libyan military installations and armor, but Arab support for the no-fly zone may be waning.

Arab League head Amr Moussa told reporters Sunday that the Arab league thought the use of force was excessive following an overnight bombing campaign that Libya claims killed at least 48 people.

"What we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians," he was quoted saying by the Associated Press.

Any day now our "disproportionate" response, the same delegitimizing tactic used against Israel when they invaded Gaza in response to hundreds of rocket attacks, will be roundly attacked by our various "allies" and enemies in the Muslim World.

This was one of the gravest errors made by the Bush administration when it invaded Iraq. We failed to appreciate that we would be stepping in between combatants in a domestic dispute and that both sides would demonize us one we were involved. Obama does not seem to have learned anything by our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He has also managed to alienate all of our allies (and yes, many of them are unsavory) in the Middle East and emboldened our adversaries. The Saudis are looking toward the East; Egypt, whatever the outcome, is going to be less friendly to us in the future; none of our allies will believe that the US under Obama will be reliable under duress. Meanwhile, the Iranians and their proxies are less intimidated and learning by the day that ferocity and indomitable will are more than adequate to discourage America, while oil and nuclear purchases are more than enough to keep the Europeans quiet.

President Obama clearly has a great deal of sympathy with Muslims; he seems to fully accept the faculty lounge, left wing narrative that the United States, a neo-colonialist power, is the font of all distress in the Middle East and elsewhere. He does not grasp that according to our enemies, there is no differentiation between the evil Bush and the evil Obama, just as they do not differentiate between Israelis in settlements or in Tel Aviv (all are occupiers); nor do they differentiate between secular and religious Jews, or secular and religious Christians; they don't care if you are an atheist or agnostic, an environmentalist or a driver of a hummer; we are all the "Other" as far as they are concerned and they will always close ranks against the invader.

It also doesn't matter that we are letting France take the lead; in the eyes of the Muslim World, the US will remain the Great Satan (and Israel the Little Satan) no matter who is nominally leading the charge. We received no "credit" for saving thousands of Muslims in Kosovo and Indonesia and we will receive no "credit" for intervening in Libya.

If even one American life is lost doing whatever it is we are doing in Libya (are we ensuring regime change? enforcing a cease fire? freezing the current status quo?) their blood will be on Obama's hands. He has brought us into a new conflict, too late to avoid the worst carnage, with limited possibilities for success and with no clear policy, no strategic objectives, no American vital interests at stake, and no definition of success. It is as if he opposed all Bush policies simply because they were Bush's and now, having determined George W. Bush was the real enemy, has done a complete Walt Kelly on us: Obama has met the enemy and it is he.

[philunderwood]

You need to read this:

www.qando.net/?cat=35

[philunderwood]

neoneocon.com/2011/03/26/selling-the-libyan-rebels-the-rope/

Selling the Libyan rebels the rope

There is a famous quote from Lenin that shows a remarkable understanding of the West:

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Lenin was talking about the urge to do business. And of course he was wrong about who would hang whom first—at least, so far. But he was correct about the West’s lack of instinct for shrewd self-preservation, particularly today.

Case in point: Libya. When the uprising first spread to that country, I wondered in my very first post on the subject about the answer to a simple question: who are the rebels? It seemed not tangential to the issue, but basic.

If we as a country are going to put blood and treasure behind a movement in a civil war, we’d best know what that movement represents. In Libya, the fact that our government does not seem to know, and that pundits are answering the question with facts that are very, very troubling, is shocking (even though I thought my capacity to be shocked by what Obama does had been worn out).

In the Telegraph, one can find this description of al Qaeda influence in the movement. Andrew McCarthy takes up the topic in greater detail in National Review (please read the whole thing):

…[T]he rebels are a mixed bag. The strongest faction, particularly in ideological influence, is the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been in Libya for 70 years. There are also militant groups, such as Hasadi’s LIFG, that have ties to al-Qaeda, though they do not necessarily agree with bin Laden’s decision in the 1990s to take the violence global. In addition, there are Islamist organizations (such as the National Front for the Salvation of Libya) that claim to be non-violent and that oppose Qaddafi because they have come to regard him as non-Muslim, an apostate whose eccentric brand of Islam is seen as heterodox, and who persecutes his Muslim people. Moreover, there are undoubtedly al-Qaeda operatives in the mix, because al-Qaeda goes wherever the action is.

To describe these factions is not to discount the existence of some secular opposition to Qaddafi: some leftists who see an opportunity, and even some Western-influenced freedom fighters. Interventionists delude themselves, though, when they portray the latter as predominant, as the face of the rebels…

We’ve seen this show before. The rebels are not rebels — they are the Libyan mujahideen. Like the Afghan mujahideen, including those that became al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the Libyan mujahideen comprise different groups. What overwhelmingly unites them, besides opposition to Qaddafi, is sharia. The Libyan mujahideen will exploit us but never befriend us. If they succeed, so be it. But we have no vital interest in orchestrating that success, even if it would mean a thug like Qaddafi finally gets his just deserts. If we empower them, we will eventually rue the day.

Mark Steyn has a more colorful way of putting it:

Now suddenly [Qaddafi’s] got to go – in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya – which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less-attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.

Steyn also has some more general observations on the new American way of war. I happen to be in agreement; I believe that limited involvement and commitment are inherently problematic:

There are arguments to be made for being on the other side of the world for decades on end if you’re claiming it as sovereign territory and rebuilding it in your image, as the British did in India, Belize, Mauritius, the Solomon Islands, you name it. Likewise, there are arguments to be made for saying, sorry, we’re a constitutional republic, we don’t do empire. But there’s not a lot to be said for forswearing imperialism and even modest cultural assertiveness, and still spending 10 years getting shot up in Afghanistan helping to create, bankroll and protect a so-called justice system that puts a man on death row for converting to Christianity.

Libya, in that sense, is a classic post-nationalist, post-modern military intervention: As in Kosovo, we’re do-gooders in a land with no good guys.

I have never believed that the rebels in Libya (or for that matter, even the protesters in Egypt) are controlled or led by “good guys.” Oh, there may be some in that crowd, but they are probably in the minority (perhaps even the vast minority, for all I know). What’s more, however many they are, they are very likely to be overpowered in the chaos to come by the bad guys. Iran is the template, although the winners in Egypt and Libya will not look exactly like the ayatollahs of Iran.

But we will have sold them the rope with which they will attempt to hang us.

Posted by neo-neocon

[philunderwood]

Dr. Sanity
Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life


Thursday, March 31, 2011

FROM 'SMART' DIPLOMACY TO 'SMART' WAR

We now learn that our "transparency" President signed an order 2-weeks ago to arm the Libyan rebels. Peter Kirsanow wonders if Obama even cares about who he is giving weapons to:
As Dan Foster notes below, we now learn that two to three weeks ago the president signed off on a finding authorizing covert support for the Libyan rebels, potentially including cash and weapons. Yet his Secretary of State concedes that precisely who the rebels are was still a mystery to the administration as late as yesterday.

The president — apparently taking his cue from Nancy Pelosi – believes that we have to arm the rebels so we can find out who they are.

This process clearly shows Obama's transition from "smart" diplomacy (how's that working out for you, Mr. President?) to "smart" war. The "smartness" of this war will become particularly evident if, as several have noted already, we are actually now in the business of arming Al Qaeda.

And, if our CIA on the ground find this to be true, will our "smart" President even care?

What do you suppose the next move from this hapless occupier of the Oval Office will be? "Smart" submission to Islamic jihad and sharia?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=63

10 Rebels killed in coalition air strike

April 2nd, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

So far the “No-Fly Zone” is going swimmingly. Yesterday we had a report of 40 civilians killed in coalition air strikes in Tripoli (remember, the coalition’s mission is to protect civilians) and today we learn that the coalition managed to kill 10 rebels in a strike yesterday (they’re supposedly helping the rebels, remember?).

Fog of war? Eh, yes and no. Mostly just a piss poor war. As I’ve mentioned before, any competent army will learn to adapt and overcome when possible and that’s apparently what pro-Gadhafi forces are doing.

First they went to vehicles similar to the rebels making it very hard to sort out who is who on the ground. Then they took it a step further, according to Reuters:

A Western coalition air strike hit a group of rebels on the eastern outskirts of Brega late on Friday, killing at least 10 of them, rebel fighters at the scene said on Saturday.

A Reuters correspondent saw the burned out husks of at least four vehicles including an ambulance by the side of the road near the eastern entrance to the oil town.

Men prayed at freshly dug graves covered by the rebel red, black and green flag nearby.

"Some of Gaddafi’s forces sneaked in among the rebels and fired anti-aircraft guns in the air," said rebel fighter Mustafa Ali Omar. "After that the NATO forces came and bombed them."

Rebel fighters at the scene said as many as 14 people may have died in the bombing, which they said happened around 10 p.m. local time (2000 GMT)

Wonderful.

Meanwhile it appears the possible, or should I say anticipated end state may be – stalemate? Really? That’s what all this effort is about?

U.S. officials are becoming increasingly resigned to the possibility of a protracted stalemate in Libya, with rebels retaining control of the eastern half of the divided country but lacking the muscle to drive Moammar Gaddafi from power.

Such a deadlock — perhaps backed by a formal cease-fire agreement — could help ensure the safety of Libyan civilians caught in the crossfire between the warring sides. But it could also dramatically expand the financial and military commitments by the United States and allied countries that have intervened in the six-week-old conflict, according to U.S. officials familiar with planning for the Libyan operation.

Ya think? That’s always a sign of a well thought out, well planned strategy, isn’t it?

What you’re talking about then is a semi-permanent NFZ, because immediately upon its withdrawal, Benghazi would be under siege again.

What a great solution, no? Split the country, prop up and support some government in the east (an area that produced 20% of the suicide bombers for Iraq and has admitted jihadis in the governing councils and rebel fighters) and then fly cover for the next, oh, 10 years or so?

Brilliant.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

neoneocon.com/2011/04/16/libya-the-decline-of-nato/

Libya: the decline of NATO

Steven Metz wonders whether Libya marks the end of NATO’s effectiveness. What he describes is a military action by committee, which doesn’t make sense as a way to fight even a limited war.

But what he fails to address is the fact that Libya was an ill-thought-out venture from the start. To enter a war knowing hardly anything about the forces you are supporting seems, to put it bluntly, mad. And yet that appears to be what NATO has done.

When the war began, one of the first question I asked was, “who are the rebels?” This was hardly a mark of some special brilliance of mine, but merely an obvious question—much like “but why is the emperor not wearing clothes?” I have yet to see an answer that reflects well on NATO, or really much of an answer at all.

That a situation such as this one could exist this late in the game is disgraceful:

Too little is known about Libya’s rebels and they remain too fragmented for the United States to get seriously involved in organizing or training them, let alone arming them, U.S. and European officials say…But the more the intelligence agencies learn about rebel forces, the more they appear to be hopelessly disorganized and incapable of coalescing in the foreseeable future…The realistic outlook, U.S. and European officials said, is for an indefinite stalemate between the rebels — supported by NATO air power — and Gaddafi’s forces…Other U.S. officials said the rebels have no sense of a unifying identity or any critical mass beyond Benghazi, lacking an effective structure that would be a prerequisite for providing training, money or sophisticated weapons.

Washington also has been reluctant to side with the rebels due to concerns that Islamic extremists might be among them, although there is debate here about the extent of the militant involvement in the Libyan uprising.

The head of U.S. Africa Command said it was the stated intent of al Qaeda’s affiliate in the area, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), to aid Libya’s opposition.

Harebrained.

It’s even possible that it’s best, in the end, that NATO isn’t being so effective in Libya, with “rebels” like these.

Posted by neo-neocon

[philunderwood]

Egypt, predictably, begins to go the way of radical Islam

April 18th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

Damien McElroy in Cairo, reporting for the UK Telegraph, has the following observations:

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic movement and the founder of Hamas, has set up a network of political parties around the country that eclipse the following of the middle class activists that overthrew the regime. On the extreme fringe of the Brotherhood, Islamic groups linked to al-Qeada are organising from the mosques to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the dictatorship.

The military-led government already faces accusations that it is bowing to the surge in support for the Muslim movements, something that David Cameron warned of in February when he said Egyptian democracy would be strongly Islamic.

{feigned surprise} Oh, my, who’d have thought that could happen? Only the terminally naïve or those with no understanding of the area or human nature would have figured otherwise.

Power vacuums produce opportunities for others to fill them. The US helped create that vacuum by insisting Hosni Mubarak must step down.

Usually, as we’ve mentioned here any number of times, the most organized and ruthless succeed in filling such power vacuums. And that’s precisely the case in Egypt where Islam in general is as pervasive as the air breathed there and the Muslim Brotherhood, while never allowed to be in power previously, was the most organized of the groups with the potential to fill the power vacuum.

And that is coming to fruition. Not just in an Islamic sense, but in an Islamist sense as well. The Muslim factions are poised to take over and control any government voted in by the public and do it in a big way:

Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, last week predicted the group’s candidates would win 75 per cent of the seats it contested.

Fundamentalist factions have also emerged as parties. Gamaa al-Islamiya, an al-Qaeda linked group that promotes Salafist traditions has used its mosques as a political base for the first time since the 1970s.

Egypt attempted in the past – however oppressive that effort was – to keep a largely secular government, at least by Middle Eastern standards. And that was to our benefit and certainly to the benefit of the region. It produced the peace treaty with Israel and ushered in a few decades of relatively peaceful times in the Middle East. That’s pretty much likely to go by the wayside soon. This next government will be steeped in Islam if not a good measure of Islamism. That has been ordained by the first “democratic” vote in Egypt:

A scare campaign that a No vote in last months referendum would eliminate Islamic law from the Egyptian constitution ensured a 77 per cent Yes result.

As for those who participated in the April 6th movement and want a more secular and democratic Egypt? Well, again, the best organized is the most likely to succeed, right? And they have little or no organization:

But the April 6th movement that spearheaded protests has no clear plan for party politics. Diplomats have warned the demonstrators are not well prepared for elections.

"The leadership of the protests was so focused on the street-by-street detail of the revolution, they have no clue what to do in a national election," said a US official involved in the demonstrations. "Now at dinner the protesters can tell me every Cairo street that was important in the revolution but not how they will take power in Egypt."

Entirely predictable and clearly not in the best interest of the US – which calls into question the administration’s decision not to back Mubarak but call for his ouster. The result is an unintended consequence one assumes – we backed a faction that we knew little about, which has had little impact since and now we’re going to see results that we don’t want and are not in the best interests of the US or peace in the region. The same could be said about Libya.

Finally, don’t be fooled by the “independent” status of Egyptian political candidates for the Presidency there. Their independence is in name only as they must court the factions that are likely to hold power in any legislature that forms.

Although the leading contenders for Egypt’s presidency are independents, many have begun wooing the Muslim blocs. Front-runner Amr Moussa, the Arab League president, has conceded that its inevitable that Islamic factions will be the bedrock of the political system.

Of course they will and that means, inevitably, that Egypt will eventually revoke its treaty with Israel thereby setting the peace process back to square one.

Yes, this has been beautifully played by the President and the State Department. If naiveté in foreign affairs was ever more evident than now, I’m having difficulty remembering it (Jimmy Carter is as close as it comes, and they’re making even him look competent).

~McQ

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=20

Rubio on Syria and Obama’s lack of leadership

April 29th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

New Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been getting a lot of attention since he took office. He has a piece in Foreign Policy magazine on line arguing that the US has an obligation to at least react to the massacres in Syria in a strong way. He outlines precisely what President Obama should do:

U.S. President Barack Obama needs to make clear whose side America is on, back up our rhetoric with action, and clearly articulate why Syria matters to the United States.

Wow – he means actually lead for a change. Rubio says at a minimum, this should happen:

Clearly, we should be on the side of the Syrian people longing for freedom and challenging the regime’s corrupt and repressive rule. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s hesitancy to weigh in has been mistaken for indecision at best and indifference at worst. The president needs to speak directly to the Syrian people to communicate American support for their legitimate demands, condemn Assad’s murderous campaign against innocent civilians, and sternly warn Assad and his cohorts that they cannot continue grossly violating human rights, supporting terrorism, and sowing instability among Syria’s neighbors.

Of course none of it, to this point, has. Libya, yeah, easy pickin’s, (or so it was thought), but Syria, well, that’s the land of the “reformer”, Assad and they have heavy ties with Iran (another country about which Obama was essentially silent).

Rubio also says even more stern action should happen as well:

But his words must be backed by clear, firm actions. As ill-advised as it was to restore diplomatic relations with Syria by sending an American ambassador to Damascus last year, we should now sever ties and recall the ambassador at once. While Syria is already under heavy U.S. sanctions as a designated state sponsor of terror, we should expand sanctions to include persons identified as authorizing, planning, or participating in deplorable human rights violations against unarmed civilians. Our partners in Europe, Turkey, and the Arab Gulf share many of our interests in Syria and play a large role in that country, and the president must put the full diplomatic weight of the United States behind an effort to convince them to adopt meaningful economic and diplomatic sanctions targeting Assad and his enablers in the regime.

America has an obligation to weigh in strongly about the situation in Syria. For years, its regime has aided the terrorist operations of Hezbollah and Hamas, supported Iran’s destabilizing policies, and helped terrorists kill Americans in Iraq. The regime has not only destabilized the region but also directly acted against the national security interests of the United States. We simply cannot sit silently as innocent people peacefully challenge a regime committed to undermining the United States and its allies.

Notice that Rubio hasn’t rattled a single sabre. He’s talking about very basic first diplomatic steps – both words and action – which don’t involve military action. Side with the oppressed, condemn the regime’s actions, withdraw the ambassador, impose sanctions, etc. It is a regime that supports terrorists and terrorism. How hard is this?

Apparently pretty hard when your modus operandi is to “lead from behind”. This must be the part of that “open hand” Obama claimed he was going to offer regimes like Syria. That’s working out well, isn’t it?

In two short years, foreign policy has gone from bad to worse – despite all the promises of how it would be so much better under the Obama administration. Another example of talking the talk, but not being able to walk the walk.

~McQ

[Ritty77]

In two short years, foreign policy has gone from bad to worse – despite all the promises of how it would be so much better under the Obama administration. Another example of talking the talk, but not being able to walk the walk.

Very well said. That could also apply to the economy, race relations, and many other aspects of Obama's "leadership."

[Ritty77]

The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 28

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the_obama_doctrine_leading_from_behind/2011/04/28/AFBCy18E_story.html?nav=emailpage

From the article:

Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing — as do most Americans — in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on America’s fitness for leadership. I would suggest that “leading from behind” is a verdict on Obama’s fitness for leadership.

Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=20

About Egypt’s “Arab Spring”

May 20th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

It’s not much to look forward too. Tony Blankley makes the pointthat many of us have been making as we’ve watched this little drama unfold in Egypt – it ain’t about “democracy”:

That "democratic revolution," as the administration persistently called it, seems to have settled down into an ugly accord between the Army-run government, the Muslim Brotherhood and the fanatical salafists — which the new regime has been releasing from the prisons into which Mubarak very usefully had sent those dreadful men. Killing Coptic Christians, attacking women on the street for non-Muslim garb and other pre-Mubarak attitudes are thus now back in vogue in "democratic" Egypt.

Whether the administration will admit it or not, the fact remains that democracy isn’t set up to succeed in Egypt. By “democracy” I mean institutions that are structured to both support a democratic nation and ensure the success of such a system. It is simply another in a long line of swapping one oppressor for the other. While Mubarak may not have been anyone’s ideal, what may follow, given the indications, may be worse.

Two weeks ago, the administration was "surprised" at the Egyptian-brokered accord between the terrorist Hamas and the West Bank Fatah Palestinian factions — ending even a theoretical chance of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.

Indeed. And now with Egypt firmly moving to the “other side” after years of peace with Israel, the future looks even more bleak and any peace accord becomes even more unlikely.

And with Obama yesterday essentially demanding the ‘67 borders as a peace concession by Israel any settlement became virtually impossible. No wonder Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell is resigning. He recognizes a dead end when he see’s one.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=20

Obama’s soon-to-be illegal war–where’s the outrage?

May 20th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

I think we all know what would be the number one story today had we been this close to having this happen on the last president’s watch.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which makes Friday the 60-day deadline.

See, here’s how this works … Congress makes the laws and the President signs them into being. Everyone is obliged to follow them. And that includes the President. However, that’s not the case, or so it seems, with Libya. Today is the last day of the 60 grace period for the President to get Congressional authorization and there has been no move to accomplish that. Apparently the administration believes they’re above the law.

The irony, of course, is that it was Mr. Bush who was continually accused of waging an illegal war. Yet it has been the last two Democratic presidents who are guilty of doing so:

But it is virtually unprecedented for a president to continue a mission beyond 60 days without a resolution from Congress.

"Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors," Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway wrote this week in the Washington Post.

The only thing that comes close is President Clinton’s military effort in Kosovo.

He failed to get congressional approval before the 60-day deadline was up. His administration argued that Congress had effectively authorized the mission by approving money for it, and the Kosovo conflict lasted 78 days.

The Obama administration doesn’t have that option with Libya, because the Pentagon is using existing money. Congress never specifically funded the mission.

Now, the administration is trying to figure out what to do.

“Now?” Now the administration is “trying to figure out what to do”? And “what to do” is fairly straight forward – seek congressional approval for the continuation of the “kinetic event” or whatever it is we’re calling it this week, or stop our involvement.

Now.

More irony:

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, tells CNN he believes Obama is trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States."

"He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law," Sherman said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, concurs.

"You could say, ‘Well, we have a good president, he’ll do the right thing.’ Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that’s why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people," Paul told CNN.

Indeed. The process and rules are only there for the little people I guess. The President appears to believe he is above the law.

Finally, where’s the Congressional leadership on this? Why isn’t Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid both banging the drum loudly and persistently while calling the president “incompetent” ? After all, only an incompetent would just now be trying to figure out what to do, no? And tomorrow will they declare the war “illegal” like it actually will be?

And where are McConnell and Boehner?

Time to elevate this and get a little bit of a firestorm going boys. If it were your side, you can trust that Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t be dawdling in their offices, they’d be attacking the lawlessness of the presidency.

Where are you, Congressional “leaders?”

~McQ

[Ritty77]

Obviously there are two different sets of rules for Obama and Bush. This is not surprising.

[philunderwood]

It works for me:


www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=5527&mpid=80

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=20

Poll: US more unpopular now in Middle East than during Bush administration

July 14th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

I wonder if this is “unexpected”:

The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated.

Two and a half years after Obama came to office, raising expectations for change among many in the Arab world, favorable ratings of the United States have plummeted in the Middle East, according to a new poll conducted by IBOPE Zogby International for the Arab American Institute Foundation.

In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration. The killing of Osama bin Laden also worsened attitudes toward the United States.

Apparently “hope” isn’t selling anywhere. And this isn’t a one-off problem either:

The poll was conducted over the course of a month among 4,000 respondents in six countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco. Pollsters began their work shortly after a major speech Obama gave on the Middle East, in which he spoke broadly of his vision in the Middle East and pressed Israel, in unusually frank terms, to reach a final peace agreement with the Palestinians.

The findings are largely in line with those of a poll conducted in the spring of 2010 by the Pew Research Center, which also found favorable views of the United States and Obama slipping. As with the new poll, Obama got his worst ratings for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So two plus years after the introduction of the Obama “unclenched fist”, we’re in worse shape than we were.

It’s also a repudiation of the claim that Obama was the driver of the “Arab Spring”. Most people are unlikely to follow or find inspiration in someone of which they don’t think very highly. And apparently, according to this poll, that’s Barack Obama in the Middle East.

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France — or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed "U.S. interference in the Arab world" as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation. . . . President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

Of course that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have his apologists:

Zogby said that he was surprised that favorable attitudes toward the United States had actually dropped to levels below where they were in 2008. By the same token, he said, Obama has been burdened by the fact that “every one of the issues that he’s inherited has been more difficult than he or anyone else expected.”

Really? Yeah, this couldn’t be Obama’s fault. The man has done nothing in the Israeli/Palestinian situation but beat up Israel and what has it gotten him? Bupkiss. No progress and this nation that is now less popular (and certainly less respected) than it was under the last president who was supposed to be the worst thing since Adolph Hitler if you listened to the left.

Wonder what they’ll say about this?

~McQ

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=20

Libya–Well here’s a surprise … Islamists emerging as dominant force there

Published September 15, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain

It must be true, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have stories on it today. The New York Times:


In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well be Ali Sallabi, who has no formal title but commands broad respect as an Islamic scholar and populist orator who was instrumental in leading the mass uprising.

The most powerful military leader is now Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.

Nice. The Times goes on:


The growing influence of Islamists in Libya raises hard questions about the ultimate character of the government and society that will rise in place of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s autocracy. The United States and Libya’s new leaders say the Islamists, a well-organized group in a mostly moderate country, are sending signals that they are dedicated to democratic pluralism. They say there is no reason to doubt the Islamists’ sincerity.

But as in Egypt and Tunisia, the latest upheaval of the Arab Spring deposed a dictator who had suppressed hard-core Islamists, and there are some worrisome signs about what kind of government will follow. It is far from clear where Libya will end up on a spectrum of possibilities that range from the Turkish model of democratic pluralism to the muddle of Egypt to, in the worst case, the theocracy of Shiite Iran or Sunni models like the Taliban or even Al Qaeda.

And which do you suppose, given no traditional institutions or experience with “democratic pluralism” in Libya, is most likely to emerge?

Oh, gee, I don’t know?

Who are the best organized and the most ruthless?


Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors like Qatar; a Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar, leads the Tripoli Municipal Governing Council, where Islamists are reportedly in the majority; in eastern Libya, there has been no resolution of the assassination in July of the leader of the rebel military, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes, suspected by some to be the work of Islamists.

Yet I’m sure this will all come as a complete surprise to the politicians.

Washington Post:


As Libya’s leader, Moammar Gaddafi regarded Islamists as the greatest threat to his authority, and he ordered thousands of them detained, tortured and, in some cases, killed. The lucky ones fled the country in droves. But with Gaddafi now in hiding, Islamists are vying to have a say in a new Libya, which they say should have a system based on Islamic law.

Although it went largely unnoticed during the uprising that toppled Gaddafi last month, Islamists were at the heart of the fight, many as rebel commanders. Now some are clashing with secularists within the rebels’ Transitional National Council, prompting worries among some liberals that the Islamists — who still command the bulk of fighters and weapons — could use their strength to assert an even more dominant role.

Unnoticed by whom? Oh, those in charge of our State Department, apparently. Organization and ruthlessness? Still no guess?


“Secularists don’t like Islamists,” said Ismail Sallabi, an influential cleric who is among nine leaders commanding rebel forces in eastern Libya. Before the revolution, he said, he had never held a weapon. “They want to use Islamists in the fighting stage and then take control.”

And that’s been successful where so far?

Meanwhile, in the category of “best organized”, we have a winner:


Libya is a conservative Muslim nation, and its future government will probably reflect that; the governments of Egypt and Iraq are among Arab states that base their governance on Islamic law. Although Gaddafi’s government tolerated little in the way of activism, Libya’s Islamist groups appear to have emerged from his reign as the best-organized among political groups, and secularists among the country’s new leaders appear determined not to alienate them.

Sigh … do you suppose one day we’ll learn?

~McQ

[relenemiller]

I'm sure that I am going to sound very UN-American here, but with the attack on the American Embassy in Afghanistan, and the mounting hate of our intervention/meddling (but it wasn't when we wanted to see humanitarian efforts countless times by our country kick in by liberal progressives) get out of the ME, bring our boys home, seal our borders and act like Australia!

[philunderwood]

Nation building in the ME hasn’t worked out so well; proof we should’ve never started it in the first place. We have the technology to take out enemies with drones and missiles. The wars cost us dearly in wealth and lives and we gained little or nothing in return.

[philunderwood]

Democracy Is Impossible

By Walter Williams

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and "experts" in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that "Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy." It's good to see the removal of a tyrant, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little hope for the emergence of what we in the West call a democracy. Let's look at it.

Throughout most of mankind's history, personal liberty, private property rights and rule of law have always won a hostile reception. There's little older in most of human history than: the notion that a few people are to give orders while others obey those orders; the political leadership classes are exempt from laws that the masses are obliged to heed; and the rights of individuals are only secondary to the rights of the state. The exception to this vision feebly emerged in the West, mainly in England, in 1215 with the Magna Carta, a charter that limited the power of the king and required him to proclaim and recognize the liberties of English subjects.

The Magna Carta served as inspiration for other instruments of personal liberty, such as habeas corpus and bills of rights, and five centuries later served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. The ideas of liberty and limited government were cultivated by great British philosophers — such as Francis Bacon, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and David Hume — and on the Continent by the likes of Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through the works of Western philosophers and the politicians influenced by them, including the founders of our nation, the idea emerged that political leaders couldn't run roughshod over the common man.

The key point to recognize is that Western transition from barbarism to civility didn't take place overnight; it took centuries. More importantly, for the most part Western civility and its institutions were not transplanted; they emerged from within Western civilization. Where they were successfully transplanted, it was done through Western colonialism, such as in the cases of the U.S., Canada and Australia.

In Libya and most other countries in the Arab world, what we know as personal liberty is nonexistent. According to Freedom House's 2011 "Freedom in the World" survey, as well as Amnesty International's annual report for 2011, most North African and Middle Eastern countries are ranked either "repressive" or "not free." Moreover, I believe that there's little prospect for Arabs ever being free and that Western encouragement and hopes for democracy are doomed to failure and disappointment. Most nations in the Middle East do not share the philosophical foundations of the West. It's not likely liberty-oriented values will ever emerge in cultures that have disdain for the rule of law and private property rights and that sanction barbaric practices such as the stoning of women for adultery, the severing of hands or beheading as a form of punishment, and imprisonment for criticizing or speaking ill of the government.

What should the West do about the gross violations of human rights so prevalent in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere? My short answer is to mind our own business. The only case in which we should interfere with Middle Eastern affairs is when our national defense or economic interests are directly threatened. That is, for example, if Iran were to meddle with Middle Eastern oil shipments or if we discovered good evidence of its building nuclear weapons, then we should militarily intervene. What they want to do to one another is none of our business.