Archive for Foreign Policy

Forty Acres and a Camel

Not that we want it, but after the investment of blood and money, every American has a right to claim any acreage in Afghanistan, including Rodeo Drive, Kabul:

If Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, an influential member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is looking for a country to visit as a member of a congressional delegation, he can cross Afghanistan off his list.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Rohrabacher have been at loggerheads over the congressman’s push for a more decentralized Afghan government. Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the disagreement, Karzai said he is against letting Rohrabacher into the country.

“Until he changes his tongue, until he shows respect to the Afghan people, to our way of life and to our constitution … No foreigner has a place asking another people, another country to change their constitution. Have we ever asked the United States to change its constitution?”

Well, there have been some issues around who declares war and how, but we’ll let that pass for now. What’s the problem with Rep. Rohrbacher?

Rohrabacher went on to call the mercurial Afghan leader a “corrupt prima donna” in the same interview.

Rohrabacher later released a statement through his office saying he would not “apologize to Karzai or any other corrupt leader.

“Afghanistan is failing because Karzai and his corrupt clique are incompetent leaders, not because the U.S. hasn’t pumped enough money or blood to help the brave people of Afghanistan … Right now, I’m more concerned with getting American troops out of that country so they won’t continue to needlessly die than I am getting myself into Afghanistan to meet with officials like Karzai,” Rohrabacher said in the statement.

Hmm, he’s not wrong. Let the record show that his contempt is not for the people of Afghanistan, as Karzai alleges, but for Karzai himself. That makes Rep. Rohrbacher more generous than I, but who isn’t?

Comments

Without Double Standards, the UN Would Have no Standards at All

I welcome this and all—but where you been?

One of President Obama’s top human rights officials has accused the UN Human Rights Council of anti-Semitism.

Citing Natan Sharansky’s 3-D test to identify where sharp but legitimate criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism — namely, where there is demonization, delegitimization or double standards — Rosenthal provided examples of such anti-Semitism occurring at the United Nations:

In the recently concluded UN Human Rights Council session, once again a grossly disproportionate number of the resolutions targeted Israel. Clearly, this is holding Israel to a different standard. No less, when the United Nations first passed its “Zionism is Racism” Resolution that singled out Israel as the world’s only racist country, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was committing genocide and receiving little or no attention for their crimes against humanity.

Rosenthal added that it was important for the US to be present at such bodies in order to fight from within.

No, it’s not. I could be a member of the Aryan Nation to fight it from within, but I’d rather not be associated with it at all. If the US really wanted to fight the UN’s institutionalized antisemitism, it would divorce itself from all manifestations: the Human Rights Council, UNRWA, UNIFIL, UNESCO—the entire UN-iverse of global Jew hatred.

Right position, wrong response, Ms. Rosenthal. Very wrong.

Comments

Mother May I?

On the other hand, maybe Obama is a metrosexual. He likes the UN, after all, which is about as emasculated and effeminate a position as you can take. (I know. I’ve been there.)

Turmoil in the Middle East has exposed the vulnerabilities of President Barack Obama’s listless foreign policy. As Iran closes in on its nuclear prize and props up Assad’s bloody regime in Syria, the United States has the opportunity to deal a crippling blow to its oldest, most dangerous enemy in the region. U.S. military strikes could topple Tehran’s close allies in Damascus and destroy the mullahs’ nuclear infrastructure, potentially ushering in more democratic regimes that would be at peace with their neighbors.

But instead of seizing the initiative, the White House has wrapped itself in a web of international law and institutions that have brought only paralysis and indecision. From the top down, administration officials have suggested that they need the blessing of the U.N. before they can use force to advance American interests in the Middle East. “For us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake,” Obama recently said about Syria. “What happened in Libya was we mobilized the international community, had a U.N. Security Council mandate, had the full cooperation of the region, Arab states, and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time. This is a much more complicated situation.”

Libya taught the administration the wrong lessons. What the White House sees as a successful strategy of acting as part of a United Nations coalition was in fact a near-disaster. Waiting on the U.N. Security Council for approval of airstrikes allowed Muammar Qaddafi’s regime to come within a day or two of wiping out the Libyan resistance. The delay reduced our ability to exert influence on the new regime that has emerged since. The Obama administration hopes to reassure those who distrust American unilateralism by submerging our national interests into those of an undefined world community. The result is that America still carries the main burden of maintaining international peace and stability, but with a loss of speed, flexibility, and decisiveness.

Other than that, it’s aces.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with a president who bends over backwards to appease the nattering nabobs of do-nothing-ism at the UN, while flipping the bird to Congress?

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

He didn’t bother with Congressional permission to send forces into harm’s way against Qaddafi—he said he didn’t need to. But he won’t wipe his behind without Security Council say-so. I’m sorry, but that’s just weird.

Comments (1)

Talking Turkey

“Bite-me” sticks his foot in his mouth again!

Vice President Biden ordered supporters to “pretend you like me” after mocking them as “dull as hell” at a campaign fundraiser in Washington on Friday.

The vice president was speaking to Turkish and Azerbaijani donors about the potential of the region as a democratic and economic force when he noticed he wasn’t getting much of a reception.

“I guess what I’m trying to say without boring you too long at breakfast – and you all look dull as hell, I might add. The dullest audience I have ever spoken to. Just sitting there, staring at me. Pretend you like me!” Biden said.

The joke “drew big laughs from the crowd,” according to the press pool report.
Biden went on to extoll “Azerbaijan as country with tremendous potential.

Yes, but does it “punch above its weight”?

“I’m boring you as much as I’m boring myself,” Biden joked while exiting the stage.

You can always talk about the president’s “big stick”, Joe. They love it, none more than Chris Matthews.

Comments

¡Que Idiota!

Sorry, but George W. Bush would need a double-lobotomy to be this stupid:

And in terms of the Maldives [sic] or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral. We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue. But this is not something that we typically intervene in.

Maldives? First of all, it’s called the Endives, an archipelago near Arugula. But he meant the Malvinas, which is also incorrect. It’s called the Falkland Islands by the country that owns them and by the people who live there. Malvinas was a term for the islands 300 miles off-shore employed by the fascist government of Argentina back in the day. But they threw people out of airplanes and tortured people in dungeons, and I don’t see Obama waxing poetic about that (yet).

Anyway, we did intervene a bit back when Argentina and Britain fought over the place. You may have read about it.

Comments (1)

Outreach Outgunned

A blog I read from time to time, Arlene [Kushner] in Israel, twigged me to this story:

The United States ambassador to Spain recently met with a group of Muslim immigrants in one of the most Islamized neighborhoods of Barcelona to apologize for American foreign policymaking in the Middle East.

U.S. Ambassador Alan Solomont told Muslims assembled at the town hall-like meeting in the heart of Barcelona’s old city that the United States is not an “enemy of Islam” and that U.S. President Barack Obama wants to improve America’s image in the Middle East as quickly as possible by closing the “dark chapters” of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

“There are things that the United States has done badly,” Solomont said at the February 28 gathering organized by a non-profit organization called the Cultural, Educational and Social Association of Pakistani Women. “But now the Obama government wants to improve relations with Muslims,” he promised.

The U.S. State Department — working through American embassies and consulates in Europe — has been stepping-up its efforts to establish direct contacts with largely unassimilated Muslim immigrant communities in towns and cities across Europe.

Proponents of Obama’s approach to public diplomacy — some elements of which originated with his immediate predecessor — say it is part of a “counter-radicalization” strategy which aims to prevent radical Muslims with European passports from carrying out terrorist attacks against the United States.

A key component of the strategy is to “empower” Muslims who can help build a “counter-narrative” to that of terrorists. In practice, however, Obama ideologues are crisscrossing Europe on U.S. taxpayer funded trips to “export” failed American approaches to multiculturalism, affirmative action, cultural diversity and special rights for minorities.

Further, American diplomats are repeatedly apologizing to Muslims in Europe for a multitude of real or imagined slights against Islam, and the U.S. State Department is now spending millions of dollars each year actively promoting Islam — including Islamic Sharia law — on the continent.

There’s one main problem with this approach: it’s hard to convince Moslems we’re their friends when we’re killing them. We may be justified in killing them (we are); we may observe that the Moslems we’re killing are the biggest killers of other Moslems (they are); but as the recent killings in Toulouse have reaffirmed, apologies and self-recrimination, let alone reason, do not make you popular among a radicalized ideology with which you are at war.

You may be surprised to learn that the European nations where Obama is doing this outreaching do not appreciate his meddling:

Ambassador William Eacho, an Obama campaign fundraiser turned political appointee, awarded the first prize to a group of students in the northern Austrian town of Steyr who produced a one-minute silent film promoting tolerance for Muslim women who wear Islamic face-covering veils such as burkas in public spaces.

Obama and his team may think they know what is best for Europeans, but according to recent polls, more than 70% of Austrians are in favor of a law that would ban the burka.

In Belgium, U.S. Ambassador Howard Gutman, another Obama fundraiser turned diplomat, told lawyers attending a conference in Brussels in November 2011 that Israel is to blame for Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.

According to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronot, Gutman, who is Jewish, showed conference attendees a video of himself receiving a warm welcome at a Muslim school in Brussels, which he said proved that Muslims are not anti-Semitic. Following a barrage of criticism for rationalizing the growing problem of anti-Semitism in Europe, the U.S. Embassy in Belgium removed the evidence by uploading an amended transcript of Gutman’s remarks on its website.

In France, the U.S. Embassy in Paris co-sponsored a seminar to teach Muslims in France how they can politically organize themselves. Operatives from the Democratic Party coached 70 Muslim “diversity leaders” from disaffected Muslim-majority suburban slums known as banlieues on how to develop a communications strategy, raise funds and build a political base.

The French government — which has been trying to reverse the pernicious effects of decades of state-sponsored multiculturalism — expressed dismay at what it called “meddling.”

I’ll bet they did—especially after Toulouse.

Europeans dismissed Bush as a “cowboy”. What is Obama, but a boy? (We pause here for the requisite outrage at using a racially tinged word. I use it not in that context—obviously—but to seize the theme of his naiveté, his cluelessness.)

As Aggie reports below, we had this maggot in our custody in Afghanistan—where we were killing one brand of Moslem to save another—but handed him over to the French. Okay.

PS: The Toulouse killings were no different from the slaughter in Itamar of the Fogel family—children massacred in the name of Arab nationalism—but who besides the Israelis mourns them?

PPS: Oh, this is Smart Power! Why didn’t you say so?

Comments (1)

Whose Fault Are The Terror Attacks In France?

The terrorist, of course. But the United States of America aided and abetted in all seven of these murders.

Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old man described by French authorities as a self-styled al Qaeda jihadist, has been named as the chief suspect in a series of shootings that have left seven people dead.

A picture is emerging of a man who was already known to the police and had apparently sought out Islamist jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“He claims to be a jihadist and says he belongs to al Qaeda,” Interior Minister Claude Gueant told reporters in Toulouse. “He wanted to avenge the Palestinian children and take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions.”

A French national of Algerian origin, he had been under surveillance by French intelligence for a couple of years, having “already committed certain infractions, some with violence,” Gueant told CNN affiliate BFM-TV.

Merah has spent considerable time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Gueant said. Merah was sent back from Afghanistan to France by the U.S. Army, Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said in Toulouse Wednesday. He said Afghan police had checked Merah’s identification during a traffic stop, and as a result he was handed over to the U.S. Army, which then put him on board the first plane heading to France.

But a senior U.S. military official gave a different version from the French prosecutor about what happened to the suspect in Afghanistan.

The senior U.S. military official told the CNN contributor Fran Townsend that the French shooting suspect was stopped by Afghan forces who tried to turn him over to the U.S. military. The U.S. directed them to hand Merah to French forces since he was a citizen of their country. He was given over the French military by the Afghans and the French military decided to return him to France, according to the source.

And that last bit, gentle readers, is what you call A Distinction Without A Difference. Thanks, US. Heckuva job, Barry.

- Aggie

Comments

Foreign Policy Really Isn’t His Thing

Iran threatens US interests with 11,000 missiles.

The Iranian newspaper Kayhan reported Thursday that in the first minutes of any American conflict with Iran, “Israel and all U.S. interests around the world will be targeted.”

The newspaper, which is under the supervision of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ran the story under the headline “11,000 Missiles Ready to Launch.”

And on Saturday, Tehran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, confirmed during a public roundtable event that the Islamic regime is prepared to attack both Israel and U.S. bases in the region if its nuclear facilities are attacked.

Citing comments from Gen. Zakaraia Hossein, the former head of the superior academy of Egypt, the Kayhan report added that “America fully knows that Iran is not Iraq” and that “a war with Iran would jeopardize all its interests in the region.”

The Kayhan report emphasized that the leaders of the Islamic regime have successfully thwarted American and Israeli threats over its illicit nuclear program. But given Iran’s missile capabilities, it said, any aggression on its soil will be met with the launch of 11,000 missiles against Israel and U.S. interests in the region.

I think they’re really starting to like us, right Barry?

- Aggie

Comments

A Question

Two American officers shot and killed in Asstan by a Taliban operative; NATO forces retreat in response.

Syria’s “reformer” (according to Hillary Clinton) massacres citizens to such a point, Obama may finally be mobilized to respond.

Iran threatening Israel, acting belligerent, dissing nuke investigators, sowing violence and dissent around the region.

Corrupt, illegitimate Palestinian Arab group (Fatah) seeks unity with corrupt, illegitimate, Islamist Palestinian Arab group (Hamas), rejecting any chance of negotiations with Israel.

Russia threatening to restart arms race, while we plan to cut back our arsenal to starting pistols.

China… don’t get me started.

Is this Smart Power?

Comments (1)

An Administration Of Incompetent Boobs

Panetta declares that Israel will attack Iran this spring.

Let’s assume that’s true. How is it a good thing to put Iran on notice?

Now, let’s assume it’s not true. Doesn’t it increase paranoia towards Israel, and hatred towards Jewish people worldwide?

United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes that Israel will attack Iran in April, May or June, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

According to the report, written by the paper’s senior opinion writer David Ignatius, Panetta is concerned that Israel will launch an attack before Iran enters the so-called “immunity zone” when its nuclear facilities will be heavily fortified and a military strike will no longer succeed

Ignatius does not quote Panetta in the article but he is currently traveling with the secretary of defense in Brussels.

According to the article, Israel might decide to strike before Iran completes the fortification since afterward only America will be capable of stopping Iran militarily.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action,” Ignatius wrote. According to the report, Israel’s strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities could last five days which would be followed by a United Nations-brokered ceasefire.

Seriously, is this the clumsiest foreign policy evah? What is the purpose of this statement? Who does it help and who does it hurt?

- Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »