Archive for category Diplomacy
Want a Limited Libyan Engagement? Then Limit the Engagement!
Posted by Tom in Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on March 26, 2011
What’s wrong with targeting Gaddafi? U.S. General Carter Ham leading the Air Force element striking Lybia to enforce the “no fly” zone said on Monday that targeting Gaddafi was not part of the mission. Why not? Gaddafi commands what is left of the Libyan air force. Under a command and control rationale, the commander of all those grounded aircraft should by wiped out!
Is the State Department again in control of the Defense Department? Seems that we were late, perhaps fatally, entering in this relatively simple action. This because Obama has determined to relinquish U.S. leadership in the world, something this country has had since Bretton Woods. Henceforth under Obama’s non-leadership role, all matters of disagreement, violent or otherwise, will be referred to some super-national body, the UN, NATO, the World Court, even the Commission on Human Rights with all its rogue membership! We now stand for nothing and now defer to others who stand for less! If Peral Harbor were to occur today, to which of these international agencies would he refer the matter?
So now we have a State Department that has left no easy exit to what we have termed an illegitimate dictator responsible for terror, indeed terror against the United States. No country will take him or his henchmen. We have left them no out except to fight and slaughter to the bitter end. This is the height of stupidity. To cap that, we have a Defense Department that will not target him, blow the son-of-a-bitch to smithereens. WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Is there a legal problem, or a moral problem with assassination? If war is the violent societal conflict consequent on the breakdown of diplomacy or alternative dispute resolution, then we must assure ourselves that those methods have been exhausted. Seems that’s the case here and the UN has authorized in broad enough terms, enforcement of the no-fly zone.
In truth, targeting Gaddafi is the most humane method to end the engagement. No command and control, no flying tanks! Sir Thomas Moore, patron saint of attorneys, argued as much as illustrated in this OSU synopsis:
“As early as 1516, Thomas More proposed that the assassination of political leaders could be useful both as a tool of statecraft and “as a means of sparing ordinary citizens the hardships of war for which their leaders were responsible.” This proposal of tyrannicide, while perhaps a bit shocking in its boldness, rightfully deserves consideration in an era in which the traditional state expression of power, war, now threatens to be more catastrophic than ever before.”
So I submit, we should target Gaddafi and company as precisely as morally possible and save innumerable human lives and suffering.
NASA’s New Role: Diplomacy
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Terrorism on July 6, 2010
Stretch goals are important, they compel reaching, thinking outside the box, innovation, risk-taking; yes and ultimately excellence. Where better to expand U.S. horizons than at the space agency, NASA? Kennedy challenged a shot for a man moon landing in 1961, a dramatic stretch goal. This to answer the Russians unmanned landing in 1959. The challenged worked: on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon.
What’s Obama’s stretch goal for NASA? Well …, er …., it’s diplomacy. Yes, you heard right, diplomacy. Obama wants better relations. With whom you ask. The Muslims! Not the English, the Poles, the Germans, nor the Israelis; no, the Muslims.
According to this Fox News item, “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.” Bizarre! Mars? No, the Muslim world!
And, note the contrast with Kennedy. JFK was answering the USSR. It was an “in your face” response to an enemy seeking to burry us. Obama confronts Islamists seeking to burry us. What’s he do? Well, he goes about the Middle East bowing, scraping and apologizing for the United States. Oh, and he gives NASA a charge to improve relations with Muslims.
Hussein Obama is well named!
Super Power to Super Wimp
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, National Character on May 20, 2010
How weak can we be? Charles Krauthhammer answers the question in today’s NRO post, The Fruits of Weakness. The Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make the nuclear bomb and continues accelerated enrichment. Even the French say the deal will help Iran continue its nuclear program. The joint hands up photo is the collective finger to the weak Hussein Omama.
“That picture — a defiant, triumphant “take that” to Uncle Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched thisadministration in action, have decided that there’s no cost to lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.”
Iran Obama overtures and appeasements rejected, Obama acquiescence to Russia’s reformation of its USSR sphere of influence, Obama appeasement of Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, are all examples of our weakness, our desire to withdraw and disarm.
“This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying, and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.”
“Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.”
U.S. Foreign Policy: Provocative Weakness
Posted by Tom in Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, National Character, Terrorism on May 19, 2010
Our kudos and thanks go out to Herman Pirchner, Jr. President of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington DC for an excellent presentation and discussion last evening on America’s foreign policy. Herman took us around the world with using radical islam as the unifying link. It was truly enlightening and very sobering to hear his observations. Among them:
- Russia is extending its “sphere of influence” toward former satellites to counter radical islam and re-assert itself by keeping the U.S. off balance in the Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. In some respects our interest are aligned like controlling radical islam, and in others they are opposed like reforming the white USSR.
- China is due for a generational change that leaves a big question-mark. Unlike the current leadership which grew amid the turmoil of the cultural revolution, the next generation is being raised in relative wealth and security and being educated in the best universities around the world. It thus understands world values. China is the only major nation without a significant islamic population.
- Europe will have a majority islamic population within two generations. Already there are community pockets of society governed by Shia law. There is a distinct possibility that Europe will break apart financially.
- Israel is gravely at risk since the U.S. has permitted Iran to go nuclear. The odds are against its survival.
- Arab world nations fear Persian hegemony and will thus arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
U.S. foreign policy under Hussein Obama has been one of being nice rather than right. We have given up numerous positions without getting anything in return. We have shown ourselves to be weak, frustrating our allies and emboldening our enemies. We are inviting trouble in both aspects.
The doctrine of “provocative weakness” enunciated by Fritz Kraemer in the Nixon years is that the only effective foreign policy was one backed by the realistic threat of using military force to achieve its goals; the failure to use this realistic threat was a provocative invitation to our enemies to use aggression against us. This variation of Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” is antithetical to Hussein Obama’s administration. Obama is disarming and withdrawing from defensive alliances. He relies on bowing, scraping, apologizing and addressing dictators like Chavez as “mi amigo.” Here’s a picture to refresh memories:
Yes, provocative weakness is Obama’s order of the day!
One chilling observation brought up during the discussion was that the radical islamic version of Islam was more true to the Koran than the secular, passivists’ version. In either version the goal is to conquer non-believers and convert them either peacefully by out populating them or violently with the sword as Mohamed did from Medina. So we will see more September 11ths. Obama has invited them.
Again we wish to thank Herman Pirchner for the excellent presentation and discussion.
Cover-Up With Diversion
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, Terrorism on March 22, 2010
Why has Hussein Obama single handedly created a crisis with Israel? He has ordered Secretary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a detailed ultimatum! All over some trumped up building plans in East Jerusalem. In effect he’s blaming Israel for all that is wrong in the Middle East.
Caroline Glick in her RCP post, Obama’s War on Israel, speculates on some intriguing answers:
- His assault on Israel is related to the failure of his Iran policy. He has residential construction to blame for Iran’s bad behavior and nuclear nose thumbing!
- He hopes to bring down Netanyahu and replace him with the leftist Tzipi Livni as more of an Obama puppet.
- He prefers dealing with the unelected Arab dictators in Iran and Syria to the democratically elected Israeli government and downgrading relations with the latter is a condition to better dealings with the dictators who want to exterminate Israel.
Since his election Hussein Obama has been on a world-wind tour bowing, scraping and apologizing for America. He denies the country’s greatness and exceptionalism. It was telling that in doing so he equated America to Greece, that bankrupt PIIG and member of “club Med.”
It is obvious that Obama has failed in Iran and failed generally in the region. He has demonstrated his personal weakness to ally and for alike and now seems to prefer kissing up the Arab dictators. I suspect that there is a reason his middle name is Hussein.
It would be one thing if Obama were simply an embarrassment to his countrymen, but his policies in the region have truly put American security at greater risk. 2012 can’t come too soon; we need a strong president who will keep this country safe.