US Foreign Policy

For John, BLUF:  One of the questions that needs to be asked in our Nation's corridors of power is who runs US foreign policy, the President or the Establishment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Criticized For Breaking With Longstanding American Tradition Of Remaining In Middle Eastern Countries Indefinitely

From The Babylon Bee, 19 December 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

After Trump announced that US troops would be pulled out of Syria, the President was quickly criticized by leaders on both the left and the right for breaking with the longstanding American tradition of remaining in Middle Eastern countries indefinitely.

Trump drew ire from both sides of the aisle for his "careless and reckless" disregard for the beloved American custom of meddling overseas without a congressional declaration of war and then hanging around for another few decades.

It is satire.  On the other hand, a year and a half later it still seems real.

While there is talk, from time to time, about President Trump not following the advice of the experts in foreign policy, in fact he is reflecting the beliefs of the voters.  Many Americans, I would think a majority, are against this continuing deployments in foreign lands with risks to our young men and women in the military and the foreign service.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit, for this posting today.

Regards  —  Cliff

What Is The Plan For Iraq?

TRIGGER WARNING:  President Obama's position on Iraq questioned.
For John, BLUF:  "This is a legacy issue for Obama, an actual red line. Iraq is already in the win column and only becomes a loss if he listens to Republican advice and orders combat troops to return, the White House thinking goes."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Defense One we have this cynical point of view on the Iraq situation, "The White House’s Game Plan for Iraq: Run Out the Clock".

The general Republican question for President Obama when it comes to the self-described Islamic State in Iraq is simple:  Where's the strategy?

Obama should have left behind some combat troops rather than bringing them all home.  He should have reacted more aggressively to the extremist group, and much earlier.  He should even—in the view of a few—send thousands of troops back now, or risk "losing" Iraq.

"We need a strategy," former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation.  "We don't have a strategy right now."

But anyone who doesn't understand Obama's Iraq strategy simply hasn't been listening closely.

I think this is a little cynical, but worth considering.  It is fair to say that the President Obama is resisting sending troops overseas to fight the battles the Iraqis are not fighting well.  It is also fair to say that President Obama believes that is the will of the American People, and he would not be wrong in sensing that.♠  The important question, which probably won't come up until the election heats up, is the long term consequences of not getting involved.

There are those who argue that these groups in the Middle East and North Africa are just fighting to get us out of their turf.  There are also those who believe that these groups are interested, long term, in expanding beyond the Middle East and North Africa, bringing their vision of government to us in the West.  The President believes that they don't really want to expand, or if they do, it will be in the long run and only then will the American People react.  If one is charitable, one could liken President Barack H Obama to President Franklin D Roosevelt.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  On the other hand, as a leader he could show the American People that engagement is the right thing to do.

Terrorism Uptick?

For John, BLUF:  Iranian sponsored terrorism could reach the US this year.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

OK, so who knows where militarized political forces will go?  At some point most become part of a peaceful movement or are squashed.  However, for Hezballah and for the Iranian Quds Force, that time of conversion may be a ways off.  In the mean time, they may be becoming a bigger threat to the US.  For sure, as we put pressure on Iran, those two organizations will work to put pressure on the West, and on Israel.  In international affairs there is hardly ever a free lunch.  Pearl Harbor was the result of someone squeezing Japan over scrap metal and oil.

The news report linked to above was based on a Washington Institute Policy Paper, Policy Focus 123, Hizballah and the Qods Force in Iran's Shadow War with the West.  The author of the report is Dr Matthew Levitt, who has worked for both the FBI and the Treasury Department in the anti-terrorism arena.

Regards  —  Cliff

"U.S. Embassy closes amid Egyptian violence"

For John, BLUF:  So, what Youtube video sparked all THIS violence?

From The Washington Times, a report on violence in Egypt.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo shut down Tuesday, as more than 120 were reported injured in the escalating violence that has marked Egypt over the past few days.

United Press International reports that emergency services for U.S. citizens would only be offered “to the extent possible,” according to an embassy statement.

“Due to the security situation in the vicinity of the U.S. Embassy, our public services will be closed, including visa services and the Information Resource Center,” the statement continued, according to UPI.

Egyptian news is reporting that 48 security officers were hurt in the past 24 hours of protests.  More than 50, meanwhile, have been killed in clashes since Friday, according to Health Ministry estimates, UPI said.  The embassy closure comes just hours after the country’s leading general warned of a looming nationwide “collapse,” UPI reported.

But, the question is, which YouTube video was behind this action?  Or was it internal Egyptian politics all along?

Regards  —  Cliff

North African Blame Game

For John, BLUF:  The fall of Muammar Qaddafi was necessary for progress to be made in the Middle East and North Africa.  But, as local girl Bette Davis said, "Buckle up.  It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Ms Ann Marlowe,♠ writing in World Affairs Newsletter today, talks to "The North Africa Blame Game".

There’s a dangerous blame game being played now among the pundits, laying the responsibility for the conflict in northern Mali and the recent terror attack on the In Amenas gas field in Algeria on the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi.

Not so, says Ms Marlowe:

The lesson of these rough times is not that the US was better served by the dictators of Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.  It’s that decades of dictatorship do not create stability, prosperity, or economic growth.  (The only exceptions may be China and Singapore.)  American support for the revolution in Libya was by and large wise and appropriate—stopping well short of boots on the ground, which the Libyans themselves did not want.  Expecting Libya to become a thriving democracy barely a year after the death of Qaddafi is unrealistic.  And blaming any terror attacks in North Africa on the Arab Spring is foolish and likely to lead to more bad policy choices.

That said, while the Arab Spring was necessary for Muslims and Arabs to move on, it doesn't mean that there will not be an Arab Autumn.  But, we have to go through this faze to get to the other side.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Ms Marlowe has written a monograph on the life of French soldier and thinker and author David Galula.  The market is a strange and wonderful place.  For the Kindle edition, 99¢, but it is free from the Army War College Strategic Studies Institute web site.  Hardcover has no Amazon price, but is listed new for $245.06, but used is $8.80.

Hillary Testifies

For John, BLUF:  SecState Clinton's Testimony is probably a waste of time for most of us, but interesting political theater.

I have not been watching Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testify on the Benghazi Imbroglio.  Lets face it, life is short and Congressional Testimony can be almost endless.  The two key issues are (1) did we have a clue what we were doing when we joined others in helping to take down Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and (2) who cooked up that stupid cover story about the video, and why.

Over at Night Watch Analyst John McCreary had this to say about the recent terrorist attack in Algeria:

Algeria-US:  Update.  A senior Algerian official said that one of the terrorists captured at the In Amenas gas plant said under interrogation that some of the dead Egyptian terrorists also participated in the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi last year.  Three terrorists are in custody.

The official said the terrorists staged in southern Libya with arms purchased in Tripoli, Libya.  He also said, "This is the result of the Arab Spring….  I hope the Americans are conscious of this."

Comment:  There is no way to corroborate the detainee's statement.  What is worth noting is that the Algerian official's statements help explain why the Algerians might have had few qualms about assaulting the terrorists, despite the risk to foreigners.  The Algerian government expects more attacks and the outcome will probably not be much different for foreigners.

The government has opposed US policy in the Arab world, especially the overthrow of the Qadhafi government.  Some officials are making it very clear they hold American policy ultimately responsible for the gas plant attack in Algeria, the invasion of northern Mali by Islamist fighters and future attacks to come.

Americans working in Algeria are at increased risk from terrorists.  Moreover, their safety does not appear to be a major factor in government planning for rescue operations.

Yes, with regard to item one, there are some serious foreign policy issues to address.  The fact is, if the Middle East and North Africa are to progress, at some point they need to make the move toward a more representative form of government, in which the People get to make their own mistakes.  This, in turn, could result in a reformation in Islam that drags it out of the 12th Century and allows for reinterpretations that allow for freedom for women and for less drastic punishments for crime.  I am not sure it needs to allow for interest on loans, since Islamic financing seems to being doing fine.  The separation of law into two realms, one secular and one religious, might be a good thing.  The question is, was last year the year for this change?  Remember your school history?  The French Revolution was in 1789, but was terminated at Waterloo in 1815, but may have not yet fully played out.  These "revolutions" go on for some time.  We had a small twinge from 1860 to 1865 here in the US, even though your revolution was over and we had a solid constitution by 1789.

With regard to item two, it seems to me that someone should go to jail for trampling on the Constitution of the United States and someone in a position of authority in the Federal Government should apologize to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, whether he is in jail for parole violation or not.

Qualified For The Job?

For John, BLUF:  Some are trying to make confirmation of US UN Ambassador Susan Rice as Secretary of State appear to be a sure thing and opposition to it racism and sexism (have we forgotten Condi Rice?).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

In Wednesday's edition of The [Lowell] Sun, Ms Faye Morrison excoriated Republicans for picking on US UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

The collective post-election focus of Republicans has been on defaming and smearing the reputation of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  Ms. Rice, a graduate of Stanford University and a Rhodes Scholar, has impeccable credentials and has served our country in an array of positions since 1993, including:  member of the National Security Council; director of International Organizations and Peacekeeping; managing director of Intellibridge; senior fellow at the Brookings Institute; and much more.

I grant the qualifications listed.  And, as I have noted before, on this blog, in the Benghazi situation she was doing what she was told—following orders, if you will.  It that was it, who would be able to complain, the "Gang of 3" Senators aside?  It is the fact that some are troubled by her role in the Genocide in Rwanda, by her role in Sudan and in particular, her support of Mr Richard Clarke regarding not extraditing Osama bin Laden early on and bringing him here for trial.

People I know and respect are troubled by the thought of Ambassador Rice as Secretary of State.  While she is big on Responsibility to Protect (R2P) now, she hasn't always been.  The reports suggest she put politics before the victims in 1994 Rwanda.  But, as Henry Ford might say, "that is a mistake she will never make again".

So, while we Republicans may well be like the "Whig Party of the 1800s—irrelevant, null and void", there are still questions that need to be asked, and answered.

One of those questions has to do with why on earth the President would have allowed two names out there for Secretary of State, Ambassador Rice and Senator John Kerry.  A recent news report asserts that President Obama is "'genuinely conflicted' between Rice and Kerry for Secretary of State".  To bring up Senator Kerry and to then drop him for Ambassador Rice would seem to be an unforced slight to the Senator.  Do Democrats think that Ambassador Rice is a better choice than Senator Kerry?

In the mean time, there is more writing out there suggesting the Intelligence Ambassador Rice relied on was politically cooked.  That is not a good thing.

The strongest indictment comes from Professor Mel Goodman,♠ of the Center for International Policy:

UN Ambassador Susan Rice was too quick to pronounce judgments on the Benghazi attack before the facts were known, which could be attributed to her interest in assuming a public role in order to buttress her case for becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama administration.

The public role belonged to Brennan, but he had previously mishandled duties in the wake of the attempt of a young Nigerian to board a commercial airliner with explosives in December 2009 as well as in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

I will grant you that Professor Goodman is a strong and persistent critic of the CIA, but his article does raise some important questions.

In sum, I believe that Ambassador Rice would do a good job as Secretary of State, although likely not an outstanding job, but confirmation is not the slam-dunk that Ms Morrison suggests it should be.  Further, we still don't know why Senator Kerry's name was allowed to surface, if it really is going to Ambassador Rice.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I know and have worked with Professor Goodman.  He and I were on the Faculty of the National War College at the same time.

Benghazi Won't Go Away

For John, BLUF:  The Benghazi Imbroglio may fade in history, but if it doesn't it will be seen as a time of confusion and partisan bickering.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

At The Huffington Post we have an article about Fox News interviewing "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks". 

A Fox News interview ended rather abruptly on Monday after a guest took not one but two jabs at the network hosting him (see update below).

Co-anchor Jon Scott interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks, who has covered the military for decades, about his new book "The Generals." Scott asked Ricks weigh in on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Sen. John McCain's criticisms of Amb. Susan Rice.

"I think Benghazi was generally hyped by this network especially," Ricks said.  He added that he thought McCain seemed to be "backing off" from criticizing Rice since "the campaign [was] over."

To challenge the views of a "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author" may seem a little forward, but I feel I must.

I agree with Mr Ricks, the death of a US Ambassador notwithstanding, Benghazi was a small fire fight, but I believe the long term consequences of our responses are of importance.

Further, I have maintained that Amb Susan Rice was not lying, but the victim of what the Administration gave her as Talking Points.   (Check this blog for confirmation, if needed.)   That said, several people I respect, and with insight into the issue, have told me that they don't think Amb Rice is suited for SecState.

Yesterday Scott Helfstein (Director of Research at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point) published an article on the 11 September demonstrations across the MENA area that offered some good insights, but started with the meme that what happened in Libya was a riot, as a result of "the video".   This isn't true.   This isn't helpful.   It obscures the role of terrorist groups in North Africa.   It also obscures what the demonstrations across the MENA Area are about.

The use of "the video as cause" meme has resulted in us brushing aside First Amendment guarantees, almost like it was WWI.

And, the apparent confusion about Benghazi, which went on for weeks, suggests that the Administration was fumbling.

The inability of the MSM, with Candy Crowley in the forefront, to comprehend these contradictions is troubling, but not shocking.

Fox is not my ideal, but others are wanting as well.

Regards  —  Cliff

In the Slammer

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

My wife forwarded to me this AP article about the sentencing of Mr Mark Bassely Youssef for parole violation.  I don't quibble with the sentence, but I do object to the characterization of Mr Youssef's film, Innocence of Muslims.

However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale argued Youssef's lies about his identity have caused harm to others, including the film's cast and crew. Deadly violence related to the film broke out Sept. 11 and spread to many parts of the Middle East.

And, I thought that the inital Administration intervention in this case kicked up the issue which resulted in this current situation.  I deplore the casual way (or was it a thoughtless way) the Adminstration dealt with the First Amendment rights of Mr Youssef.  And under the false flag of excusing MENA bad behavior based on a 15 minute YouTube video.  We should be clear with ourselves.  We would be intolerant of some Christian group rioting over the "Piss Christ".  We should avoid the soft prejudice of excusing bad behavior because we think Arabs (or is it Muslims?) are not at our level of political sophistication.

And, we should avoid allowing this false view to adversely influence our foreign policy.

The situation in the MENA area is far from resolved, as noted in this article in a recent edition of The New York Review of Books.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hillary Takes the Fall

For John, BLUF:  Hillary taking the fall doesn't answer the deeper questions about where we need to go from here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

I admit to being a bit confused by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying she was the one responsible regarding the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of four Americans, including our Ambassador, Chris Stevens.

Something just doesn't feel right about this.

I applaud her for it, but is just seems a little odd.  If she had resigned, it might have felt more real, but she didn't.  Strange.

Further, this doesn't get to the most fundamental question, which is how we should view the demonstrations on 11 September.

• Where they about that video?—not likely.
• Where they general anti-Americanism?—there is that out there, and it was the anniversary of 9/11, back in 2001, but it would not be the key point.
• Where they about economic problems in various places?—now we are getting warm.
• Where they about who will run Egypt and other MENA nations?—I think we are on to something.

There are serious issues in the Middle East and North Africa and blaming some 13 minute amateur video isn't going to solve them.  Further, the unrest in the MENA area could boil over into scapegoating, ethnic cleansing and worse.  What does the current Administration have in mind for dealing with adverse outcomes?  Will it involve US forces, either alone or in conjunction with UN, NATO or Arab forces?  And what do the challengers have in mind.  And, finally, what are we going to be expected to give up to fight this sort of thing?  Will it include some of our Civil Rights?

Regards  —  Cliff

For the Encouragement of the Others

For John, BLUF:  Either our Intel Agencies are clueless or Ambassador Rice is not telling the American Public, through our Senators and news outlets, the truth.  Either way, someone should go.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

The question of who knew what and when regarding the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four of our citizens, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, is back in the news, in this case at the on-line version of the magazine Foreign Policy.  The report linked says US UN Ambassador Susan Rice wrote to key Senators and said she was following the intelligence.  If she was, the Intelligence Community needs to be hung out to dry.  If she wasn't, she should be given a chance to shine in Academia or some Think Tank, immediately.  I realize some might wish to wait until 7 November, so it doesn't appear the White House had lost control of the narrative.

NB:  Ignore the comments.  Too many are partisan and not insightful.

Back to the issue, it is not clear to me who is in the right here.  The UN Ambassador tends to be at the far end of a long line and is often not in the loop.  That said, Ambassador Susan Rice is reputed to be one of the President's policy/political intimates.  Whatever, someone needs to go—Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.

Imagine if the initial conclusion of the American Intelligence Community on 7 December 1941 was that the Japanese could not possibly have bombed Pearl Harbor and had maintained that view for several days.  Don't you think FDR would have been furious?

Regards  —  Cliff

Arrests in Murder of Amb Chris Stevens

For John, BLUF:  Turkish police detain two of the possible killers of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, 11 Sept of this year.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Regarding the murder (assassination) of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the word out of Turkey is that two people have been detained by Turkish police at Istanbul Atatürk Airport.  Progress is being made in the investigation.

As a caution, I think the article's paragraph that talks about a demonstration at the Consulate over the video trailer Innocence of Muslims is bogus.

If these are part of the team that killed our four citizens it will lead away from my solution to this, which is to identify the murders and to capture them and their families and to move them all to Detroit, put ankle bracelets on them and turn the families loose and put the killers in jail, awaiting trial.

But, a good first step.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  I added a new tag (label), MENA, for Middle East/North Africa.